EnviroPolitics Blog

If climate truth doesn’t fit your politics, deny it. If that doesn’t work, repress it.

According to the National Park Service, Glacier National Park’s ice sheets are a fraction of the size they were 100 years ago. (Beth J. Harpaz/AP)By

Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey and Brady Dennis
report for the Washington Post – June 7 at 9:33 PM

White House officials barred a State Department intelligence staffer from submitting written testimony this week to the House Intelligence Committee warning that human-caused climate change could be “possibly catastrophic” after State officials refused to excise the document’s references to the scientific consensus on climate change.

The effort to edit, and ultimately suppress, the written testimony of a senior analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research comes as the Trump administration is debating how best to challenge the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet and could pose serious risks unless the world makes deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Senior military and intelligence officials have continued to warn climate change could undermine America’s national security, a position President Trump rejects.

Officials from the White House’s Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Management and Budget and National Security Council all raised objections to parts of the testimony that Rod Schoonover, who works in the office of geography and global affairs, prepared to present on the bureau’s behalf for a hearing Wednesday.

According to several senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about internal deliberations, Trump officials sought to cut several pages of the document on the grounds that its description of climate science did not mesh with the administration’s official stance. Critics of the testimony included William Happer, a National Security Council senior director who has touted the benefits of carbon dioxide and sought to establish a federal task force to challenge the scientific consensus that human activity is driving recent climate change.

Administration officials said the White House Office of Legislative Affairs ultimately decided that Schoonover could appear before the House panel, but could not submit his office’s statement for the record because it did not, in the words of one official, “jibe” with what the administration is seeking to do on climate change. This aide added that legislative affairs and OMB staffers routinely review agency officials’ prepared congressional testimony before they submit it.

A House Intelligence Committee aide confirmed that the panel received the written testimony of the two other intelligence officials who testified at Wednesday’s public hearing, but not Schoonover’s.

Read the full story

If climate truth doesn’t fit your politics, deny it. If that doesn’t work, repress it. Read More »

Bank of America expands onsite solar to more than 60 locations

Alyssa Danigelis reports for Energy Manager Today

Bank of America is installing onsite solar at more than 60 locations across the country, including financial centers, ATMs, and offices. The investment bank and financial services company expects that their onsite solar initiative will generate more than 25 megawatts of electricity.

Six financial centers located in California, Florida, and Pennsylvania as well as and two office locations in Nevada and North Carolina already have onsite solar installations. In 2019, the bank plans to install solar panels at 15 financial centers and on 10 ATMs. Over the next three years, the company says it expects to add more than 60 solar installations across their operations.

“The onsite solar initiative is a critical component that will directly offset the bank’s energy use and lower energy costs, resulting in an estimated savings of $50 million over 25 years,” says Tom Scrivener, global real estate and enterprise initiatives executive at Bank of America.

Like this? Click to receive free updates

In 2018, the company says its total sourcing of renewable electricity was 1.8 million megawatt hours, amounting to 91% of its global energy use. Last November, the bank formed a partnership with Juhl Energy to support a solar hybrid project in Minnesota.

This year, the bank’s onsite solar initiative is focusing on installing panels at locations in these states: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia. In 2020 and 2021, Bank of America plans to install panels on select administrative offices in Arizona, Delaware, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas.

Bank of America, which is a member of RE100, indicated that increased onsite solar should help the company meet its broader operations commitment to carbon neutrality and purchasing 100% renewable electricity by the end of 2020, plus reducing location-based GHG emissions by 50% and energy use by 40% during the same time-frame.

“Having solar energy onsite to power our facilities is part of our responsible growth strategy and reduces our operational impact on the environment,” said Andrew Plepler, Bank of America’s global head of ESG.

Bank of America expands onsite solar to more than 60 locations Read More »

Bill to control public use of a pesticide harmful to bees advances in NJ Senate but could face floor amendments

An attorney for the National Resouces Development Council told the committee that neonicotinoids were found in 90 percent of surface water samples in Bergen County, with all being above federal safety limits.

By Frank Brill, EnviroPolitics Editor

Legislation sponsored by the New Jersey Senate Environment and Energy Committee Chair Senator Bob Smith and Senator Christopher Bateman, that would direct the Department of Environmental Protection to classify neonicotinoid pesticides as restricted use pesticides, cleared the Senate Environment and Energy committee on Thursday (6/6/19).

“The use of neonicotinoid pesticides must be restricted to protect New Jersey’s citizens and environment,” said Senator Smith (D-Middlesex / Somerset). “These insecticides should only be used by those who know the ramifications of excessive use and those who will use them appropriately to protect New Jersey’s agriculture and economy.”

The bill, S2288, would direct the Department of Environmental Protection to classify neonicotinoid pesticides as restricted use pesticides. This classification would mean that neonicotinoids could only be purchased and used by certified and licensed pesticide applicators or by those under the direct supervision of these applicators

Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically similar to nicotine. The neonicotinoid family includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.

They have been linked to adverse ecological effects such as honey-bee colony collapse disorder. This bill follows similar bills that have been passed in other states and the European Union to curb the negative ecological effects of neonicotinoid pesticides.

A number of New Jersey environmental organizations went on record in support of the legislation. Representatives from the chemical industry, retail stores, and landscapers, however, said the measure was too broadly written and could limit efforts to fight invasive species.

The NJ Farm Bureau said the bill would not have a significant on state farmers since most already are certified to apply insecticides or hire licensed applicators when necessary.

Senator Smith said he might consider floor amendments that would limit the bill’s application.

An identical bill, A4562, sponsored by Assemblymen Clinton Calabrese and Raj Mukherji, has seen no action in the Assembly Agriculture and National Resources Committee since it was introduced and referred there on October 15, 2018

Bill to control public use of a pesticide harmful to bees advances in NJ Senate but could face floor amendments Read More »

Major union, SEIU, endorses Green New Deal. Others remain skeptical

ZACK BUDRYK reports for The Hill – 06/06/19 03:07 PM EDT

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) on Thursday endorsed the Green New Deal, putting it at odds with other unions that have been critical of the ambitious environmental agenda.

SEIU’s International Executive Board passed a resolution in support of the sweeping environmental proposal at its board meeting in Minneapolis.

“We’ve been inspired by the fearlessness and courage of the climate change activists whose direct action and bold demands for change have put this issue front and center in the national conversation,” said Mary Kay Henry, the international president of SEIU. “The Green New Deal makes unions central to accomplishing the ambitious goal of an environmentally responsible and economically just society.”

SEIU called the Green New Deal vitally important for people of color, saying their communities are most impacted by the environmental issues the proposal is intended to address. The union added that its members support “immediate, bold action” on climate change.

SEIU said it is the first national union to endorse the Green New Deal.

Other union leaders have been skeptical of the environmental proposal introduced earlier this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America called the Green New Deal “exactly how not to enact a progressive agenda to address our nation’s dangerous income inequality” and “exactly how not to win support for critical measures to curb climate change.”

Separately, seven unions told House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) that they had “grave concerns about unrealistic solutions such as those advocated” by the Green New Deal.

Major union, SEIU, endorses Green New Deal. Others remain skeptical Read More »

Michael Bloomberg promises $500M to help end coal power and slow natural gas

Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, in January. In a statement, he said he saw “virtually no hope” of immediate government action on climate change.
Photo creditCreditManuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press

Lisa Friedman reports for the New York Times

WASHINGTON — Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, said on Friday he would donate $500 million to a new campaign to close every coal-fired power plant in the United States and halt the growth of natural gas.

The new campaign, called Beyond Carbon, is designed to help eliminate coal by focusing on state and local governments. The effort will bypass Washington, where Mr. Bloomberg has said national action appears unlikely because of a divided Congress and a president who denies the established science of climate change.

“We’re in a race against time with climate change, and yet there is virtually no hope of bold federal action on this issue for at least another two years,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement before the announcement, which he made in a commencement address at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Mother Nature is not waiting on our political calendar, and neither can we.”

President Trump has made reviving what he has called “clean, beautiful coal” a cornerstone of his energy agenda.

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg said most of the money would be spent over the next three years, though the time frame could be extended. It will fund lobbying efforts by environmental groups — in state legislatures, City Councils and public utility commissions — that aim to close coal plants and replace them with wind, solar and other renewable power. Part of the cash also will go toward efforts to elect local lawmakers who prioritize clean energy.

The campaign will be based on the need to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change, but will also emphasize the economic benefits of switching to clean energy.

Read the full story

Michael Bloomberg promises $500M to help end coal power and slow natural gas Read More »

EPA curbs state power to deny permits due to climate concerns

Ariel Wittenberg, E&E News reporter
Greenwire: Friday, June 7, 2019

EPA headquarters. Photo credit: EPA/Wikipedia — U.S. EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. EPA/Wikipedia

EPA says it can issue federal permits for projects, including pipelines, regardless of whether states raise questions about impacts to climate change or air pollution.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act gives states the right to “certify” that projects requiring federal permits comply with both the act and their water quality standards. That means projects being permitted federally by EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also must be approved, denied or approved with conditions by states.

In recent years, New York and Washington have used this certification process to deny permits for pipelines and coal terminals not just due to water quality concerns, but also because of their contribution to air pollution and climate change.

Like this? Click to receive free updates

Guidance issued today by EPA seeks to limit that practice. The guidance is meant as a stand-in while EPA works on formal regulations.

The guidance itself doesn’t carry the rule of law, and therefore states are not bound by it. But it serves as a significant warning shot. States that ignore EPA guidance could well find themselves in court, either fighting EPA for ignoring their certification decisions or fighting with industry.

It says that state certifications should be limited to water quality issues and standards described in the Clean Water Act.

If a state tries to deny a permit or place conditions on it unrelated to water quality, EPA says federal agencies should discuss whether the state has waived its right to certify the project and allow the permit to proceed anyway.

“Though Section 401 envisions a robust state and tribal role in federal permitting and licensing process, it places limitations on how that role may be implemented to maintain an efficient permitting process within the overall cooperative federalism construct established by the (Clean Water Act),” EPA wrote.

The guidance document also limits how much time states have to make their certification decisions.

The Clean Water Act itself gives them up to a year but does not say whether that timeline begins once a permit application has been received or once a state deems it has enough information to make a decision.

Read the full story

EPA curbs state power to deny permits due to climate concerns Read More »