Tag "Donald Trump"
LSE Bob Ward: Hurricanes are President Trump’s Fault
Irma and Harvey lay the costs of climate change denial at Trump’s door The president’s dismissal of scientific research is doing nothing to protect the livelihoods of ordinary Americans Bob Ward Sunday 10 September 2017 09.05 AEST As the US comes to terms with its second major weather disaster within a month, an important question is whether the devastation caused by hurricanes Harveyand Irma will convince Donald Trump and his administration of the reality of climate change.
Third, apart from strong winds and heavy rainfall, hurricanes cause damage through storm surges as their winds push seawater ahead of them.
Sea levels have been gradually rising globally, making storm surges bigger and deadlier.
Scientists are still not sure about the other ways in which climate change may be impacting hurricanes.
… Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/10/hurricane-irma-harvey-climate-change-trump The biggest problem for alarmists like Bob is there is no upward trend in hurricane frequency or intensity.
(h/t Benny Peiser) … It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
What if we keep burning fossil fuels and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere?
Climate models have never been validated in any meaningful scientific sense – an issue which bothers some climate scientists so much, they argue that the definition of science itself must be changed, to accommodate climate models’ lack of scientific falsifiability.
Are climate models falsifiable?
In a new study, the Stanford team used the insect-inspired design to protect a fragile photovoltaic material… Guest essay by Eric Worrall A Californian judge ruled that President Trump’s administration acted illegally in suspending Obama era royalty hikes against resource projects on government land.
Trump Attorney Sues Greenpeace Over Dakota Access Pipeline in $300 Million Racketeering Case
Energy Transfer Partners, owner of the Dakota Access pipeline, has filed a $300 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) lawsuit against Greenpeace and other environmental groups for their activism against the long-contested North Dakota-to-Illinois project.
Kasowitz is a member of the legal team representing President Donald Trump in the ongoing congressional and special counsel investigation of his 2016 presidential campaign’s alleged ties and potential collusion with Russian state actors.
The press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit details that Kasowitz attorney Michael J. Bowe is leading what the firm describes as an ongoing probe into the environmental groups’ “campaign and practices.”
He also represents Resolute Forest Products and co-plaintiffs in its ongoing RICO lawsuit against Greenpeace, Stand.earth and other defendants involved in a corporate social responsibility campaign revolving around Resolute’s forest-originated products.
Bowe, furthermore, is an attorney-of-record in a $50 million defamation lawsuit filed against freelance journalist Yashar Ali by suspended Fox News anchor Eric Bolling.
Ali published a freelance article commissioned by the HuffPost on August 4 in which multiple sources told Ali that Bolling had sent a litany of unsolicited lewd text messages to Fox News’ female employees.
Another attorney of record for the latest Greenpeace lawsuit, Jennifer Recine, formerly represented Trump “against the owners of one of the last large scale real estate development sites in Manhattan” and helped him win “the largest ever attachment in New York City history,” according to her biographical sketch on the Kasowitz Benson Torres website.
According to a New York Times article published in June, Marc Kasowitz represented Trump during the Trump Organization’s financial travails in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and has served as his attorney in other recent matters. ‘Meritless Lawsuit’ In its press release, the legal team for Energy Transfer Partners says that a website “will be established to catalog information and publish progress reports on the case and, when necessary, to set the record straight as the facts warrant.” “The alleged Enterprise is comprised of rogue environmental groups and militant individuals who employ a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation for purposes of increasing donations and advancing their political or business agendas,” Energy Transfer Partners says in its press release about the lawsuit.
Trump revoked an Obama rule that protected against flooding
Last summer, just weeks after being crowned the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald Trump scored major political points by visiting flood-ravaged southern Louisiana.
The flooding was America’s worst natural disaster since Hurricane Sandy, and yet, President Barack Obama had not yet interrupted his vacation to tour the damage.
First reported by E&E News, Trump’s order undoes an Obama-era executive order that required new public infrastructure projects — like subsidized housing, hospitals, and fire departments — to be built a few feet above the so-called “100-year floodplain,” or the height at which there is a 1 percent chance you’ll experience an enormous flooding event.
The requirement accounts for future sea-level rise predicted by “the best-available and actionable science,” the order reads.
That’s because sea levels are undeniably rising.
But Trump is on a mission to undo as many of Obama’s policies as possible, no matter now reasonable they were.
But speedily built projects are worthless if they become damaged beyond repair in just a few years.
Last year, he applied for a permit to build a sea wall to prevent erosion at his oceanfront golf resort in Ireland.
And The Hill reported that “Trump’s oceanfront condos in Miami and his Doral golf course would also be threatened, according to projections by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the South Florida Regional Climate Change Compact.” And yet, Trump has made clear that he thinks climate change is a “hoax.” That’s why Democratic Representative Earl Blumenauer in June introduced a bill, “The Prohibiting Aid for Recipients Ignoring Science (PARIS) Act,” to block the president’s properties from federally subsidized flood insurance.
When Trump visited Louisiana last year, he said, “I came here to help.” But now he’s showing little concern not only for future flood victims, but the taxpayers who will have to cover the damage to public infrastructure wrought by rising seas.
Trump wants to ignore the effects of climate change when permitting infrastructure projects.
Trump wants to ignore the effects of climate change when permitting infrastructure projects.. President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that he said will streamline the environmental review required to get large public construction efforts — like roads, bridges, and buildings — off the ground.
From the gilded lobby of Trump Tower, the president proclaimed that the executive order would repair our “badly broken” process for garnering permits for infrastructure projects.
The policy sets a goal of two years for finishing a permitting process and assigns a lead government agency to helm each approval.
The order also rescinds an Obama-era requirement that government-funded buildings take into account likely sea-level rise in design and construction.
(States and other local agencies, however, will still be able to establish stricter permitting practices.)
Updating America’s “crumbling infrastructure” became a central tenet of Trump’s presidential campaign — and he promised billions to the effort.
Trump called the current permitting process a “massive, self-inflicted wound on our country.” “It’s disgraceful,” the president said.
The White House argues the order will bring “accountability and discipline” back to the permitting process.
But many environmentalists decry it as an obvious attempt to skirt environmental rules — and cite it as further evidence of Trump’s anti-climate change agenda.
Why state action is no answer to bonfire of US climate rules
California has positioned itself as a leader in the fight to curb climate change.
Rather, it’s a way to promote goals such as political responsiveness, experimentation and policy diversity.
This careful balance of federal and state power has been implemented by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
In recent years, scholars have expanded on Justice Brandeis’ famous “laboratories of democracy” model of federalism with the notion of “democratic experimentation.” Brandeis’ core insight, updated for contemporary society, is that decentralization lets state and local governments experiment with different policies to generate information about what works and what doesn’t.
For example, state experimentation with pollution controls may allow regulators to identify cheap ways to reduce emissions.
Experimentation resulted in information on how to push pollution around instead of cleaning it up, and utilities in midwest states used this knowledge to shift pollutants to states downwind in the Northeast.
For example, Pruitt has formally proposed to rescind the Clean Water Rule, an Obama administration regulation that clarifies the jurisdiction of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate smaller water bodies and wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
One might think that without EPA on the beat, states will take a more central role in water pollution control.
Less creativity, not more There is even more need for a federal role in addressing problems that have global impacts, such as climate change.
By forcing Republican leaders to craft state climate policies and sell them to their constituents, the Clean Power Plan promoted what I consider truly useful experimentation that could have helped break the national gridlock on climate policy.
Trump now has the votes to feed U.S. fracking frenzy with new gas pipelines
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Before leaving town, the U.S. Senate handed President Donald Trump and the oil industry two long-sought regulatory appointments that could expedite construction of natural gas pipelines nationwide.
Energy lobbyists were giddy following the vote, optimistic the commission will quickly act on a backlog of multibillion-dollar gas pipelines proposed in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, the Virginias and North Carolina.
Chatterjee has served as an energy aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Powerson is a member of the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, a panel known to be friendly to the oil and gas industry.
Supporters say this fracking could boost production of gas-fired electricity, bringing down prices and allowing utilities to switch from coal to a cleaner-burning fuel.
As McClatchy reported in May, many are stunned that private companies have been granted state authority to use eminent domain to secure right of way for the projects.
In Ohio, state regulators have accused developers of the $4.2 billion Rover Pipeline of multiple violations of state water quality laws.
In Pennsylvania, homeowners have had their wells tainted by Sunoco’s construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline, which would carry hazardous natural gas liquids to a Pennsylvania port for export to Europe.
Some analysts have also raised concerns on whether there is a market for all the gas transmission lines that utilities are proposing.
FERC lost its needed three-person quorum earlier this year when Bay and former Commissioner Colette Honorable stepped down, leaving Democrat Cheryl LaFleur as the only remaining member.
Once they are seated, Chatterjee and Powelson will restore that quorum.
Trump’s “America First” Energy Plan Is A Losing Proposition For Industry. Here’s Why.
Trump’s “America First” Energy Plan Is A Losing Proposition For Industry.
It showed how out of step the administration is with leading American brands and global shifts in energy technology – but also that it lacks the leadership that businesses, the engine of our economy, need and deserve.
Pro-business politicians with a long-term vision help industry adapt and adjust to a changing world.
They propose policies with an eye toward the future, and consult with the brightest minds to better understand global market trends.
Instead, they listened to a few industry players eager to cut costs and to maximize profits in the short-term, while shirking their responsibility to help America’s booming natural gas industry stay competitive for decades to come.
Investors: We can’t afford climate risks More than ever before, environmental concerns are factoring into investment decisions, and sometimes even steering them.
As part of the shift to assets in lower-emitting companies and industries, investors are also demanding better carbon and methane disclosure along with proactive environmental management.
The recent watershed Exxon vote, for example – in which 62 percent of investors demanded better climate-risk disclosure from Exxon management – showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.
Which brings us back to methane emissions and the continuing waste of a natural resource from our oil and natural gas operations.
Trump’s policies could bring everybody down States such as Colorado show that methane leaks can, in fact, be managed cost-effectively and without harming production – just as investors demand.
Trump to submit notice of Paris withdrawal to UN – reports
Trump to submit notice of Paris withdrawal to UN – reports.
White House to write to UN to inform of US intention to withdraw from climate deal, but would remain engaged in hope that “more favourable” terms could be met Multiple reports said that the Trump administration would on Friday submit a written notice to the UN that it intended to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
The letter will be the first communication the US has made with the UN regarding the president’s announcement in June that he intend to withdraw and possibly “renegotiate” the US’ participation in the deal.
Report: Donald Trump says US will leave Paris climate agreement The Paris deal does not allow signatories to make any formal application to leave until three years after the deal was struck.
That coincidentally means that the US cannot fully withdraw until one day after the next US election – 4 November, 2020.
According to the New York Times, the White House letter read: “As the President indicated in his June 1 announcement and subsequently, he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the US can identify terms that are more favourable to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.” The statement said the continuation of a US state department team at climate talks, due to resume in Bonn in November, was in order to “protect US interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration”.
Climate Weekly: Sign up for your essential climate news update Andrew Steer, president and CEO of World Resources Institute, said the US intention to remain engaged in the process may be met with some degree of openness.
The United States could engage constructively in those negotiations on an issue such as transparency.
The state department did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change similarly did not respond.
Climate Change Week in Review: Week Ending August 4, 2017
President Donald Trump and those around him may yet have an enormous influence on U.S. energy policy and the economy,
Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Bill. Will It Impact Oil and Gas Development?
Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Bill.
Will It Impact Oil and Gas Development?.
As U.S. President Donald Trump reluctantly signs new legislation imposing sweeping new sanctions on Russia, it has been revealed that existing sanctions on the country, designed to prevent frontier oil and gas exploration, are not working.
Therefore Trump grudgingly signed signed the bi-partisan bill “for the sake of national unity,” while attacking it as “seriously flawed” and “unconstitutional.”
Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking.”
As president, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.”
The paper noted, “International oil and gas companies have warned that the new sanctions, if signed into law, could cause unintended harm to billions of dollars worth of projects, due to the potentially broad interpretation of some clauses in the bill.”
But are sanctions really as effective as we think at stopping oil and gas development in Russia?
Back in 2014, when Washington imposed sanctions on Moscow, the U.S. Treasury said it wanted to “impede Russia’s ability to develop so-called frontier or unconventional oil resources.”
Reuters pointed out that “Geologists are unanimous, though, that even though shale and limestone formations are different geological structures, they both constitute unconventional oil resources.
