“The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of rising climate pollution. It has universal participation. The U.S. was the first industrialized nation to join the treaty following its ratification under former President George H.W. Bush — and it will be the only nation ever to leave it.
The move marks an intensifying effort by Trump to topple climate efforts compared to his first term, when he decided against quitting the treaty.
…
Since taking office for a second time a year ago, the Trump administration has tried to undermine U.S. and international climate efforts by shuttering offices throughout the federal government and threatening to unleash tariffs on countries that support carbon taxes on shipping emissions.
He has overseen a wide-ranging campaign to erase regulations governing climate pollution at power plants and in cars, and his administration recruited high-profile climate contrarians to write a report that promoted misinformation about the tenets of climate science.
…
The U.S. Senate ratified the U.N. framework 34 years ago, making it a rare environmental pact that was supported unanimously. That could complicate any future president’s efforts to rejoin the treaty.
Some legal experts say the Senate’s consent does not operate in perpetuity after the U.S. leaves a treaty. Others argue that if a president can unilaterally leave a treaty, a future president could rejoin it without a new vote.”
“Trump said the administration was officially terminating Biden’s “ridiculous” CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rules, claiming car prices would come down in response to today’s action. Automakers are now required to meet an average of 34.5 mpg across their model fleet by 2031, a dramatic drop from the average of 50.4 mpg across 2031 that the Biden administration had proposed.”
As the U.S. backs away from clean energy and limiting global warming on the president’s false belief that climate change is a hoax, China is stepping in as a leader globally, leading on the issue and selling its technologies and products to countries around the world. Despite its leadership and its massive renewable production, it still uses a lot of dirty coal. China’s clean energy partnerships around the world give it influence. The Trump-led U.S. is banking on past fuels and energy, while China is advancing into the future.
“Trump has championed coal, oil and gas and sought to squash clean energy efforts in the U.S. and abroad. He has removed the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate change agreement, for the second time, and has used the threat of tariffs to try to bolster sales of American fossil fuels.
The speeches from a handful of leaders displayed, at times, the anger and dismay that countries feel about the U.S. breaking its promises and attempting to undermine the global effort to tackle global warming.”
“The planned, carefully controlled burns that can prevent megafires—known as prescribed fires—rarely qualify. They are, by definition, intentional and therefore generally fail to meet the Clean Air Act’s requirements for exceptional events. The result is a perverse incentive: The uncontrolled wildfire that blackens the skies is given a regulatory free pass, while the low-intensity prescribed fire that could have reduced the risk of that disaster faces red tape and potential penalties.
As a result, states become reluctant to issue burn permits, and fire practitioners scale back projects rather than risk running afoul of federal standards.”
“the Energy Department announced that it will offer $625 million in funding to “reinvigorate and expand America’s coal industry.” The funding includes $350 million to modernize outdated coal power plants or recommission closed ones, and up to $175 million for coal power projects in rural communities. This announcement was coupled with an Interior Department directive to open 13.1 million acres of federal land for coal mining at lower royalty rates. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, announced on Monday it would roll back several Joe Biden-era regulations on coal plants
…
In May, the Energy Department issued an order to prevent a Michigan coal plant from closing in order to prevent blackouts. The order failed to keep the lights on and cost the utility $29 million over five weeks, which is expected to be, at least in part, paid for by ratepayers
…
These cost hikes are likely to escalate if the federal government continues to force power plants to stay open. An August report from Grid Strategies, a power sector consulting firm, estimates that ratepayers could pay more than $3 billion per year through 2028 if the Energy Department “mandates that the large fossil power plants scheduled to retire between now and the end of 2028 remain open.” This figure could soar to $6 billion per year through 2028 if additional power plants move up their retirement dates to secure government subsidies.
…
the federal government has opened up millions of dollars in funding for coal projects and passed several measures to benefit coal, including subsidizing coal production overseas. The cost of those actions won’t necessarily show up in monthly utility bills—but it will force the federal government to borrow more heavily in the future, at a time when the national debt is already unsustainably large
…
Ben King, director of the Rhodium Group’s energy program, told Semafor “the price of coal would need to fall by at least half,” to “change the calculus” and make coal more attractive to investors than natural gas or renewables. Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling at the think tank Energy Innovation, told the outlet, “this funding is essentially cash for clunkers, but without trading in the clunkers.”
Trump’s latest coal maneuver will benefit utilities and coal companies, but it will come at the expense of taxpayers, who will be forced to finance yet another wasteful government spending account, and ratepayers who will likely see their utility bills continue to climb.”
“a detailed examination by POLITICO’s E&E News found that the report obscures key facts about climate change. It relies on outdated studies and cites analyses that were not peer reviewed. It cherry-picks mainstream research and omits context. It revives debunked arguments in an attempt to cast doubt on long-term warming trends.
The result is a report that promotes ideas starkly at odds with the vast majority of scientific evidence. That prompted a remarkable response from the National Academies last week that stated, “Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people in the United States.””
“Despite the polls showing overwhelming public concern about climate change, another type of poll sends the wrong signal to politicians. When pollsters ask people to rank issues in order of importance, climate change typically finishes near the bottom. Yet global warming is not a freestanding issue. It has a significant impact on the issues that rank high, including the economy, cost of living, jobs, inflation and energy prices. ”
““They are putting it directly under the administrator and subjecting it to political interference, subjecting research at the office to political interference,” said Nicole Cantello, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, which represents EPA Region 5 employees. “They are splitting apart ORD for no reason.”
Cantello said the Office of Research and Development has produced “unparalleled” research that scientists have relied on for decades to craft policy and regulations that protect the public and the environment. Splitting up the office, she said, is meant to intimidate scientists and will undermine the credibility of EPA science.”