2MuchMark

Where's the fucking maga, redhats?

As air pollution increases in some US cities, the Trump administration is weakening clean air regulations

https://theconversation.com/as-air-p...lations-115975

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net

Busty2

Chump docent care, a few more Kentucky Fried Chickens and he will be dead anyway. He is too dumb to believe what dozens of real geniuses are saying about our dying planet !

RedFred

They believe pollution isn't a bad thing and half of them actually believe the more CO2 the better.

Could you imagine if these dumbasses had a voice when the hole in the ozone was growing?

crockett

Red Hats are stupid.. they drink toilet water

__________________
In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

Paul Markham

Air pollution is a real threat to the people and animals living with it and weakening the laws around it is stupid. When will people understand you can't save the world and keep producing at the same level?

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

optics

White man bad.

White babies worse.

Bosa

The administration's new Affordable Clean Energy rule does little to speed the phaseout of carbon pollution.

The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 19 published its “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) rule to replace the Obama EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The replacement plan is essentially the Trump administration’s attempt to adhere to the letter of the law mandating that carbon pollution be regulated, while requiring the smallest possible changes from the power utility industry. Preliminary research suggests that the ACE rule will barely reduce carbon emissions more than a scenario with no EPA policy whatsoever.

Current law says EPA must regulate carbon pollution
This story begins in 2003, when in response to a petition that the federal government regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, the George W. Bush EPA concluded that it did not have authority to do so under the Clean Air Act. Disagreeing with that determination, Democratic attorneys general of 12 states teamed up with several cities and environmental organizations to challenge that EPA action in court. The resulting litigation made it to the Supreme Court in 2007, and in the landmark Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling, the justices ruled 5-4 against the Bush administration and its EPA.

As a result, the agency was required to determine whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, meaning that they “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

In December 2009, EPA under President Obama completed its Endangerment Finding review of the scientific evidence and concluded that carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions responsible for human-caused climate change clearly endanger public health and welfare. That determination led directly to the conclusion that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA regulate those pollutants, leading in turn to the Obama EPA’s CPP to strictly regulate utilities’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes are addressed through corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, which the Trump administration is also proposing to dramatically weaken in a battle with California and several other states, again all Democratically-controlled. To address pollution from power plants, the Obama EPA developed the CPP, which, if implemented, would have established national carbon emissions performance rates for coal and natural gas power plants while giving individual states some flexibility in finding ways to meet those standards.

Efforts to repeal and replace the Clean Power Plan
Opponents to the Obama EPA rulemaking wasted little time in launching numerous legal attacks against the CPP. The argument that had the most traction interpreted the Section 111(d) New Source Performance Standards elements of the Clean Air Act as giving EPA the authority to regulate only “within the fence line” of individual power plants. Under that interpretation, the agency would have exceeded its authority by regulating emissions from the power sector as a whole.

States, cities, and environmental organizations supportive of that CPP rule have argued that it is on solid legal ground with supporting precedents. But in 2016, the Supreme Court issued a stay to temporarily halt EPA enforcement of the plan pending lower court rulings on associated lawsuits. Barely two months into his term, President Trump signed an executive order calling on EPA under then-Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the CPP. Soon thereafter, the administration requested an indefinite suspension of the rule (a continued temporary suspension was granted).

Some persistent opponents of climate change rule-making efforts, like Trump EPA transition team members Myron Ebell and Steven Milloy and the fossil fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, have pressed the agency to challenge the Endangerment Finding. However, Pruitt disagreed with that strategy, fearing such an effort could backfire and be overruled by the courts in light of the compelling scientific basis for health concerns arising from climate change impacts. In fact, a February 2019 study published in the prestigious journal Science found that the scientific evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding has only strengthened over the past decade.

Instead, Pruitt and his successor at EPA, Andrew Wheeler, opted to replace the CPP with a more industry-friendly alternative, the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, which is designed to help extend the lifetimes of expensive and heavily polluting coal-fired power plants. The June 19 release of the ACE rule now renders the CPP and associated lawsuits moot.

The new rule effectively implements the legal argument against the CPP by applying EPA regulations only to within the fence lines of individual power plants. Once implemented, it would provide states with various technological options that coal plants can install to help make them more efficient, thus potentially extending their lifespans. Because the new ACE rule establishes no numerical target for greenhouse gas emissions and allows states to consider factors like a plant’s “remaining useful life,” it could also allow state decisionmakers to conclude that no changes are needed at individual power plants.

The Trump administration has also argued that the CPP is no longer necessary. The plan’s goal was to cut carbon emissions from the power sector by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030; in 2017 they were already 28 percent below 2005 levels. However, U.S. power plant emissions rose slightly in 2018, a reflection of increased demand for natural gas. Critics of the new EPA rule caution that the trend toward cleaner electricity could certainly be slowed by fossil fuel-friendly policies such as the new ACE rule.

In addition, critics of ACE argue that since the power sector has been meeting the CPP targets so easily, EPA should be issuing more stringent targets and regulations to accelerate the clean energy transition, especially considering America’s current “critically insufficient” climate policies. A study published in Environmental Research Letters in April 2019 estimated that the ACE rule would lead to a negligible reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as compared to a “no policy” scenario. An analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC), a key national environmental organization, estimates that with the falling costs of clean energy, a stronger rule could cut power sector carbon pollution by 60 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and do so at less cost than the initial estimated costs of the CPP. The NRDC study claimed billions of dollars in health benefits would result from cleaner air along with thousands of prevented premature deaths, consistent with EPA’s own analysis of ACE.

What comes next? Litigation and a big election
Numerous state attorneys general and environmental groups are certain to sue EPA over the new rule, arguing that it’s insufficient in scope to meet the agency’s regulatory obligations. Some legal experts have said they think the Trump administration would welcome a court challenge that could result in a Supreme Court ruling limiting EPA’s ability to regulate sector-wide greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

The court challenges are expected to move forward slowly and incrementally, and if President Trump wins re-election for a second term in 2020, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be presented the case in the early 2020s. Those hoping for a supportive Supreme Court finding backing the new Trump rules appear hopeful – perhaps even confident – that the Court’s 2016 decision to temporarily halt the CPP is a sign that a majority of current justices are sympathetic to the Trump administration’s arguments.

With 2019 presidential campaign jockeying now well under way, most of the nearly two-dozen 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls have said they plan to restore and/or strengthen the Obama-era CPP. But their succeeding with such an effort would require surviving an inevitable Supreme Court challenge. Congressional climate legislation – perhaps reflecting the general approach of the Green New Deal conceptually supported by most of the Democratic presidential candidates – could potentially negate the need for EPA power plant regulations. However, passage of comprehensive climate legislation would require that Democrats not only take control of the White House, but also win a majority in the Senate and maintain their majority in the House … and then also pass reforms to current Senate rules on filibusters.

None of those steps will come easily or, perhaps, come at all. So, in short, curbing carbon pollution is a major challenge under the current U.S. political system. Most conservative policymakers oppose climate legislation of the scale needed to address the problem, and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court – let alone a future Court that could have more Trump-nominated and Senate-confirmed justices – may be friendly to arguments against EPA’s authority to regulate the power sector under the existing Clean Air Act.

When it comes to U.S. action on climate change, uncertainty, for the time being, appears to be the only certainty.

Bosa

A tense forum on California’s fight to preserve its auto emissions standards on Thursday boiled over multiple times as officials and lawmakers viciously sparred over one of the most controversial environmental regulatory efforts undertaken by the Trump administration.

For several hours during two hearings, federal officials defended the Trump administration’s efforts through its proposed Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule to strike at California’s long-running autonomy over deciding stronger emissions standards.

At one point during the hearing hosted by two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees, a letter from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler to top House Energy and Commerce Republicans circulated, accusing California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Mary Nichols of being “unwilling to be a good faith negotiator.” Nichols, who spoke on a second panel as a top defender of California’s rules, refuted Wheeler’s characterization, arguing that the Trump administration “unilaterally” cut off talks with the state intended to reach a resolution.

That back-and-forth accusation illustrated a larger dynamic at play throughout the day, as Democrats and California officials battled against Republicans and government political appointees over emissions standards.




TOP ARTICLES
1/5
READ MORE
In upstate New York, fossil fuels will turn into solar and
data

“I’m really not interested in a pissing contest between California and this administration, to be perfectly blunt,” snapped Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) at one point two hours in, speaking to Heidi King, deputy administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.

California is at war with the Trump administration over the state’s right under the Clean Air Act to an EPA waiver allowing it to set its own air pollution standards for vehicles. The state has exercised that right for decades, and 12 states along with the District of Columbia have similarly adopted California’s standards, representing 35% of the U.S. population and 1 in every 3 cars sold nationwide.

But in August 2018, the EPA proposed a nationwide freeze on federal fuel economy standards at 2020 levels — a direct strike at California over the objections of the EPA’s own staff. Efforts to resolve the problem fell apart in February, when federal officials said they had decided to end negotiations with California, further escalating tension.

“For decades, California has led the way on developing the gold standard for emissions,” said Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) in opening remarks, offering a defense of the state’s standards.

Other top Democrats similarly began on the offensive. “This action would have lasting negative consequences for the American auto industry,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), chair of the House Energy Committee’s climate subcommittee.

Pointing to analysis showing that standardizing auto standards nationally would hurt U.S. jobs in addition to compromising “our public health and the environment,” Tonko blasted the Trump administration’s attack on California’s standards. “This proposal takes us even farther backwards on climate,” he asserted.

But the government officials remained defiant in the face of Democratic outrage. The proposed rule would “give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles,” Wehrum argued, while King repeatedly defended the Trump administration’s approach to the issue.

Both officials have previously come under scrutiny for their ties to industry, particularly Wehrum, who worked as a lobbyist for clients including the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. Those groups have historically lobbied the government for the rollback of key climate policies.

During Thursday’s hearing, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) pushed Wehrum to disclose any meetings he or his staff might have taken with such groups relating to the California issue. Wehrum repeatedly demurred, prompting terse words from DeGette.

“This is the problem we’re having with your agency every day: a lack of cooperation,” she said, pointing to what Democrats have argued is a dearth of transparency from the EPA.


But much of the two-part hearing centered largely on an indisputable rift. President Donald Trump has repeatedly tangled with California, on everything from wildfire aid to climate action. That animosity has been cemented by the feud over emissions standards, something Nichols made clear in her testimony.

Arguing that California “has always been at the forefront” of climate action efforts, the official warned against ending a historically “strong partnership” with the federal government.

But it’s not just about California. That rift has implications for other states and for communities around the country. During the first panel, Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) highlighted the disproportionate rate at which communities of color suffer from air pollution connected to sources including auto emissions. Studies have repeatedly shown that black and Latinx children in particular are more impacted by bad air quality than their white counterparts. The EPA itself has similarly found that dangerous air pollution hurts people of color at higher levels than white communities in 46 states.

Democrats throughout the day also spoke to the opposition of the auto industry to the Trump administration’s efforts. Automakers have already worked to comply with the more sweeping standards and many fear that the new proposal would harm jobs and destabilize the economy.

Wehrum and King, however, largely declined to address those qualms.

“We’re concerned that it’s going to stifle companies from innovating,” Josh Nassar, legislative director for United Auto Workers, said during the second panel in opposition to the Trump administration.

The administration is expected to finalize the rule in coming months, but Democrats warned repeatedly on Thursday that it would inevitably be met with even more legal action, all but ensuring ongoing market instability. Nichols reiterated that litigation was likely, as she pushed the Trump administration to shift course.

“We will take the actions we must to protect the public and follow the law if the federal agencies do not change course,” Nichols asserted. “It is not too late to choose a better way—a path forward that benefits consumers, air quality and climate, as well as investments and jobs tied to a clear and consistent long-term path to cleaner cars.”

https://thinkprogress.org/california...-b76829064e4a/

Bosa

Bump to clear board pic