Latest in Environment News
Get up-to-date environment news from our reporters
High court appears supportive of EPA despite climate advocates’ concerns over its anti-environmentalist track record
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared receptive to upholding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s right to place generic limits on ocean sewage discharge as San Francisco took its contentious battle to the high court Wednesday.
read more
How TikTok catapulted Louisiana climate activists into the political spotlight
In January, the Biden administration announced a pause on approvals of proposed liquefied natural gas projects after one popular TikTok creator traveled to southwest Louisiana to capture some of the residents’ stories.
read more
Biochar Is ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’ for Sequestering Carbon and Combating Climate Change
Made from heating wood and other biomass at high temperatures with no oxygen, biochar mixed in soils dominated the carbon offset marketplace last year in tons of warming gases absorbed from the atmosphere.
read more
Parents concerned over poor health impact on children caused by climate change
“I brought them into this world. And so it’s incumbent on me to make sure that this is a world worthy of them,” said Dr. Lisa Patel, executive director for the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health.
read more
Growing wildfire problem requires new response strategies, lawmakers told
“Our planet is on fire. It’s not just the western part of this country, our planet is on fire,” said Sen. Carper (D-Del.).
read moreSenators hear ways to have companies curb plastic pollution, other waste
WASHINGTON – Senators on Wednesday heard from companies and nonprofit groups on effective ways to have producers take responsibility for packaging waste and other sustainability goals as they weigh legislation to curb pollution from plastics and disposable items.
The concept of putting the onus on manufacturers, known as extended producer responsibility (EPR), is explained by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition as requiring producers “to provide funding and/or services that assist in managing covered products after the use phase.”
The ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), said in her opening statement that she wanted to ensure that policies being considered “are grounded in reality.”
Herbert Fisk Johnson III, the chairman and CEO of S.C. Johnson & Son, which makes numerous consumer cleaning and household products like Windex and Ziploc, said he is a longtime conservationist who still sees the value of plastic as a versatile and cost-effective product. He also backs EPR initiatives.
“The challenge is reconciling those two perspectives,” Johnson said. He aims to “preserve many of the benefits that plastic has brought to humanity, while preventing the vast amounts of plastic that end up in landfills, or even worse, end up in the environment.”
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) said he worried that the extra costs would potentially fall on low-income households, citing how there are various instances where regulation has raised costs for consumers.
Dan Felton, the executive director of AMERIPEN, a group that represents the North American packaging industry, pushed back and said the United States would see the best impact if producers absorbed some of the extra costs and kept prices the same.
“Packaging has value throughout its life cycle, and none of it belongs in roadways, waterways, or landfills,” Felton said.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) added that EPR is “just one aspect of the circular economy for plastic” and that lawmakers should also look at initiatives like recycling infrastructure investments, improved data collection and any other strategies.
EPR exists in some capacity in only a handful of states. According to the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, while nine states have introduced legislation involving EPR for packaging in 2024, just four of those bills have passed: in Maine, California, Oregon and Colorado.
Producers said they are facing barriers as a result of inconsistent state regulations. For example, Johnson’s company finds it difficult to comply when his packaging is shipped across state lines.
“The labeling law that’s part of EPR in California will prevent the chasing arrows symbol in most cases, whereas 30 other states have laws that mandate the chasing arrows,” Johnson said. “It would be impossible for us to comply with the law when you have that kind of labeling conflict.”
Federal standards would help address those inconsistencies, some witnesses said. Erin Simon, who used to work for the plastics industry but is now the vice president of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund, expressed frustration with the lack of federal action regarding single-use plastics.
“We can’t even get our small recycling bills through Congress, so how in the world are we going to be able to do something on a federal level at the scale that we’re talking about here?” Simon asked.
Johnson urged the senators to pass these regulations as soon as possible, saying there are benefits to early implementation that give the government more room to adjust policy over time.
“The sooner we get federal regulation and the more time given to meet goals, the more innovation can happen, the more you get economies of scale and you can mitigate the costs and inconvenience to the people that buy our products,” he said.
Simon also backed Johnson’s sentiment to move quickly.
This is a “huge untapped opportunity,” she said. “If we were to start today to transform our plastic linear economy into a circular one, we could save more than $4 trillion in direct environmental and social costs by 2040.”
Published in conjunction with 
Looming government shutdown threatens farmers and consumers, Agriculture secretary warns
WASHINGTON – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack warned lawmakers that preparing for potential government shutdown is “an extraordinary waste of time and resources.”
“This team is working their tail off,” Vilsack said on Wednesday during a USDA oversight hearing by the Senate agriculture committee. “So please don’t tell me the work’s not getting done, because I can show you that it is.”
A partial government shutdown still looms next week despite a one-week funding extension. The plan that passed the House on Thursday would extend funding for the departments of Veterans Affairs, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Transportation, Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency – but only until March 8.
It is the fourth time in recent years that the Agriculture Department has had to plan for a government shutdown, Vilsack said.
If the USDA is shut down after next week, beneficiaries of multiple programs would face harm. This includes farmers seeking loans or disaster assistance, researchers on yearslong projects as well as recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly called food stamps, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.
As part of their oversight role, senators raised concerns to the USDA secretary that their constituents had brought up.
Multiple lawmakers said their states have experienced unprecedented natural disasters – like floods, droughts and wildfires – in the past year that have harmed their agriculture sectors.
“It’s a tough time” for Alabama farmers,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.).
“The farmers in Alabama, you know, it seems like every other phone call I get is about something different that they’re having to face, whether it’s climate change or whether it’s the high cost of fertilizer – all the things that are coming at them at once,” Tuberville added.
While top lawmakers have agreed to push the funding deadline another week, partisan gridlock threatens the reauthorization of the farm bill, which expires every five years and sets policies for agriculture, nutrition, conservation and forestry.
The current farm bill will run out Sept. 30 after being extended one year from its initial expiration date. Until then, the USDA will operate based on the current farm bill, Vilsack told reporters after the hearing.
Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that the bill should include a robust farm safety net.
Many Republicans, like ranking member John Boozman (R-Ark.), were also worried about declining net profits for farms nationwide.
“What I’ve heard from our nation’s farmers and ranchers is that they’re very concerned,” Boozman said. “If we truly care about rural communities on our farm and ranch families, farming at all scales must be economically viable, and we must provide a safety net that works.”
Earlier this month, the USDA forecasted that net farm income would drop by 27.1%.
Vilsack said profit loss is due to weak global economies, rather than the U.S. economy, which has record low levels of unemployment and poverty.
“Do we want to weaken the American economy so people aren’t buying stuff?” he asked.
According to Vilsack, the USDA is focusing on creating opportunities for farmers to get multiple sources of revenue so they do not have to work “two full-time jobs” to sustain their farms.
He said investing in new markets, climate-smart agriculture, renewable energy and local food systems can “provide opportunities for farmers to do what they love to do.”
In 2023, the USDA awarded more than $1 billion in grants to 81 projects for agricultural conservation.
Despite gridlock over the details of the farm bill, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers expressed their hope to get a bill passed in order to help their communities.
“Division is not the way to make progress in this country,” Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said. “It’s not the way to make progress in agriculture.”
Electric vehicle companies are setting up shop and bringing jobs to South Carolina. Residents are skeptical.
BLYTHEWOOD, S.C. — Gregory Bledsoe, 23, gazed out over the dimly lit field bordering the town cemetery in Blythewood, S.C., just outside of the state capital of Columbia. The distant sound of Amtrak’s Silver Star line seemed to get louder as he shook his head at the pile of construction debris behind him.
“I’ve been here my whole life, and I remember when it was a lot smaller,” he said. “I don’t like seeing it grow up.”
Bledsoe’s hometown will be the site of Scout Motors’ first all-electric manufacturing plant, scheduled to begin vehicle production by the end of 2026. Even though it will bring thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in investment, many residents were not excited about the progress and felt left out of the process.
Scout’s expansion is one of several ongoing projects in the state, supported by Gov. Henry McMaster’s executive order in 2022 prioritizing EV company recruitment and President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, giving companies incentives to set up shop domestically and to manufacture zero-emission vehicles.
But Bledsoe is among the residents who said he’s pessimistic about the recent push toward electric vehicle investment in his home state and on a nationwide scale.
Only 38% of Americans say they’re very or somewhat likely to consider an electric vehicle when buying their next car, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted last year.
The plant, however, is garnering support from some residents.
“I’ve got 12 grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, four children, a lot of people I’m concerned about with regard to climate change,” Blythewood resident James DeBruhl said, who was interviewed waiting to vote during Saturday’s Republican primary. “When I go in there and vote, I vote with them in mind.”
While Scout is one of the first major manufacturing companies to break ground near the capital city, the state has successfully attracted many others from the automotive sector. Since the 1990s, BMW, Mercedes Benz and Volvo have flocked to the state to establish U.S. manufacturing facilities.
That’s made the area much more competitive on an international scale, South Carolina’s Secretary of Commerce Harry Lightsey said in an interview with Medill News Service.
Lightsey said it was important for the governor to retain and recruit automotive jobs to ensure that the state doesn’t become a “technological obsolescence.” He sees companies like Scout Motors as long-term investments that will lead the industry for decades.
“The automotive space is our largest manufacturing sector, employing 75,000 South Carolinians,” Lightsey said. “We have a well-established reputation as a state that’s able to provide a workforce that’s well-trained with the right skill sets to be successful.”
South Carolina is attracting other companies in the electric vehicle sector. Redwood Materials, a battery production and recycling company, selected South Carolina as its second U.S. manufacturing site for its $3.5 billion plant, attracted in large part by the state’s university training programs, according to Morgan Crapps, director of public affairs and media relations.
“South Carolina has been a longtime leader in the automotive industry, but as we start to see it changing, I think Redwood is a company that can close the loop and be both at the beginning and the end of an automotive lifecycle,” Crapps said.
She also cited the state’s business-friendly practices – from low taxes and utility costs to strong support from local and state government – as reasons why Redwood Materials chose the state to expand beyond its primary site in Nevada.
The Palmetto State exempts electric vehicle companies from paying state property taxes and sales taxes on manufacturing machinery and industrial power, codifying financial benefits for manufacturers moving to or expanding in South Carolina.
Redwood Materials was greeted with support from both Democrats and Republicans when drawing up plans for the recycling plant, according to Crapps.
“Scout’s CEO said the thing that impressed him about our state was our ability to work together across state, local and even federal entities to bring results that we were able to negotiate in roughly 60 days, much faster than what he experienced in other states,” said Lightsey.
Such factors also prompted Germany to see America as a robust automotive partner in the 1990s and open up its first stateside BMW plant, said Conor Harrison, a professor at the the University of South Carolina who studies the relationship between energy and society.
Though the eight million square-foot assembly plant employs more than 11,000 South Carolinians, Harrison said it transformed the landscape of Spartanburg County.
“You go to these places, and they’ve become McMansion communities with a booming downtown. BMW has completely changed the trajectory of that area,” he said.
That type of rapid expansion, Bledsoe noted, is unwelcome in the town of Blythewood.
Jeff Buck, a product specialist at Jim Hudson Chevrolet in Richland County, echoed his skepticism, contending that electric vehicles are an unreliable choice for families seeking to take long road trips this summer.
With the Biden administration set to roll back strict guidelines on tailpipe emissions that would encourage drivers to switch to electric vehicles, car manufacturers aren’t in a rush to make the switch, and consumer sentiment remains apathetic, according to Harrison.
“If you live in the city, it’s a great deal. But think about it – if you drive across the country with your family and you have to stop and charge it every couple of hours. Road trips simply aren’t feasible,” Buck said.
While NIMBYism might be at play — focused on the disruption caused by Scout’s construction site in Blythewood — residents say they’re most doubtful about whether Biden can equip the nation with the infrastructure necessary to support EVs from coast to coast.
Adoption in the U.S. has been slower than other countries, but the Biden administration has set a goal of having 50% of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be electric by 2030.
And since Biden took office in 2021, his administration has installed 170,000 publicly available EV chargers nationwide. But many residents of the Palmetto State aren’t sold on the progress.
“Blythewood is losing its little town feel,” said poll worker Kris White. “And what’s worse is, they don’t have the infrastructure. If the roads can’t handle it, we’re all screwed.”
Senators express bipartisan concern over microplastics
WASHINGTON – Bipartisan concern about microplastics in the Senate brought about a rich discussion on Tuesday regarding future research and policy.
In a hearing focused on the presence of plastic particles in drinking water and wastewater, senators grappled with how they might take effective action even as expert witnesses told them research on the topic was still incomplete.
“While we don’t know everything, what we do know is concerning,” Director of Sustainability at the Penn State Erie campus Sherri Mason said, “and water, the necessary elixir of life, is a primary means for the movement of micro and nanoplastics into people.”
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are various ways microplastics can enter drinking water. The two most prominent ways are through surface run-off and sewage, according to a WHO information sheet.
Once inside the body, experts warn microplastics could have negative effects on the body.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) “establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.”
But while the CWA created some standards when enacted in 1972, there is currently not a lot of policy surrounding microplastics due to their relative novelty.
Research around microplastics in the United States is still being collected, said Susanne Brander, a witness at Tuesday’s hearing who is an associate professor at Oregon State University. Most of the research to date had been conducted in Europe and Asia, but the U.S. can still use these findings, she said.
Nanoplastics, which are much smaller than microplastics, are even more difficult to identify. While microplastics are smaller than 0.5 millimeters in diameter, nanoplastics are just 0.000001 millimeters or less. Nanoplastics are invisible to the human eye.
Brent Alspach, vice president & director of applied research at Arcadis, said that because scientists don’t completely understand nanoplastics, policymakers cannot take meaningful action to remedy the issue yet.
But the research is lagging behind the effects, as plastics are being found in various locations, including human livers, lungs and breast milk, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said.
“While drinking water in the U.S. does contain fewer microplastics in comparison to wastewater, the U.S. does have among the highest prevalence of microfibers in its drinking water and the highest number of particles detected per liter currently,” Brander said.
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) pointed out constituents are feeling concerned.
“Despite the large number of unknowns, there continues to be a considerable public interest in this topic,” Lummis said.
Brander, a researcher of microplastics, said one of the largest challenges with her work is that it is expensive to effectively test and track these plastics.
Indeed, microplastics are also disproportionately consumed by marginalized communities, making it a large environmental justice issue, Brander said.
Mason suggested working toward macro solutions. Cleanup is secondary to addressing the source of the problem, she said.
“When you are looking at a problem, you look as far upstream for a solution as you can. That’s where the real solutions are,” she said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was especially pleased with the discussion.
“This has been a very helpful and productive hearing,” he said. “I always appreciate it when a bipartisan panel can produce so much consensus and agreement on a particular issue.”
Supreme Court hears arguments on whether to limit EPA’s authority in high-stakes air pollution case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on whether to freeze an EPA policy aimed at reducing air pollution that crosses from one state to another in a case that experts say could significantly limit the agency’s ability to regulate air pollution nationwide.
In Ohio v. EPA, the court heard four cases involving challenges of the EPA’s so-called Good Neighbor Plan. Three states – Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia – along with numerous actors in the oil and gas industry are challenging the EPA’s rule that sets national emission standards for certain air pollutants. Among those include ozone, a pollutant that can trigger or exacerbate a wide-range of health issues – like asthma and bronchitis – when present in high levels.
In 2023, the EPA rejected 21 state plans for failing to meet these standards and subsequently introduced the “Good Neighbor Plan,” requiring “upwind” states to ensure that their emissions do not interfere with the ability of “downwind” states to meet federal air quality standards.
The states challenging the Good Neighbor Plan contend it would be costly and pose “irreparable harm” to the states involved. The plaintiffs also argued that the EPA failed to give the states adequate time to make revisions to their plans before the EPA imposed their own regulations.
The nine justices seemed to be divided along ideological lines based on their questioning. Justice Elena Kagan criticized the “generality” of the plaintiffs’ motions, saying that their briefs do not address a “very complicated cost argument.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed skepticism about the urgency of this particular case, arguing that it was “fairly extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to hear arguments before they have first been considered by a lower circuit court.
“I’m worried about the standards that this court needs to take into account when it decides whether or not to entertain these kinds of motions,” Jackson said. “The (plaintiffs’) argument is just boiling down to ‘we think we have a meritorious claim, and we don’t want to have to follow the law while we’re challenging it.’”
Malcolm L. Stewart, on behalf of the EPA, noted the importance of promoting equity when considering cross-air state pollution, specifically in downwind states disproportionately affected by greater emissions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he was sympathetic to the detriments of air pollution but defended the states challenging the EPA’s plan, pointing out that “there are also the equities of the upwind states and the industry…and they’re both major.”
In an interview with the Medill News Service, Richard J. Lazarus, a professor of law at Harvard University, said he believes there may be at least four justices who would vote in favor of the plaintiffs, noting that it is highly unusual for the court to hear a case on the shadow docket – or cases seeking expedited action from the Supreme Court before lower courts rule on them.
“Historically, the court would have denied it in a heartbeat,” Lazarus said, adding that the Supreme Court has accepted such motions in recent years “in part because they’re concerned that the EPA in particular is overreaching.”
In 2022, the court restricted the EPA’s use of the Clean Air Act to combat emissions that contribute to climate change. Last year, the court weakened the EPA’s regulatory oversight over wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
In 2014, the court ruled in a 6-2 decision that the EPA was well within its authority to impose its own plans to curb air pollution on states under the prior Good Neighbor rule. If the court rules against the EPA, it would signal a reverse in precedent and underscore the political conservatism of the court, according to Lazarus.
“Those are two of the biggest losses the EPA has ever had in the United States Supreme Court within one year,” Lazarus said. “This ruling will tell us whether the court is going to be hyper-aggressive.”
Devon Ombres, senior director for courts and legal policy at the Center for American Progress, a progressive-leaning think tank, told the Medill News Service that pausing the EPA’s plan would bring about dire environmental consequences.
The center predicts that such a pause could allow upwind states to emit approximately 70,000 additional tons of nitrous oxide by the peak of 2026 ozone season, resulting in an estimated 1,300 premature deaths.
“If the EPA can’t regulate air pollution, then what is the point of the EPA?” Ombres asked. “If the EPA can’t act to regulate air pollution of the second-largest carbon polluter in the world, then we are really in for some existential crises in the future.”
Published in conjunction with
House Republicans advance bill to reverse Biden’s pause on liquefied natural gas approvals
WASHINGTON — The House Rules Committee on Tuesday advanced a bill to take away the Department of Energy’s authority over liquefied natural gas permits, effectively reversing the Biden administration’s pause on permit approvals that began last month.
During the hearing, the Republican-controlled committee voted along party lines to report to rule the bill, sending it to the full House. The legislation would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the sole authority to approve or deny an LNG permit application.
Currently, applications also require the approval of the Department of Energy, which assesses the impact of the exports. FERC is responsible for looking at the environmental and economic impacts of the facilities.
Democrats pointed out that this was the fourth time a near-exact version of the bill came before the committee, and none made it through the Senate. They called it a sign of House Republicans’ inability to govern.
“I just think the bill is being brought up as a distraction,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) complained. “House Republicans are once again returning to this bill that’s already passed the House twice, even though it stands no chance of becoming law. And it’s not going to be law because it’s a bad bill.”
This is the first time the bill has been taken up since President Joe Biden announced on Jan. 26 an indefinite pause on pending decisions on LNG exports to countries where the U.S. does not have free trade agreements.
During a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing last week, Republicans focused their concerns more on the effects Biden’s move will have on cutting profits and jobs in the energy industry. But on Tuesday, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle highlighted the same priorities: keeping gas prices low at home, bolstering national security and protecting the environment. However, there wasn’t agreement on how LNG could help achieve those goals.
Already-permitted projects are expected to triple the current level of LNG production in the United States by the early 2030s, But Republicans contended that won’t be enough to meet global demand.
According to the European Council, the E.U. gets the most natural gas from Norway at 30.3%, while the United States provides 19.4% and Russia provides 14.8%. An official from the European Commission told Reuters the pause would not affect U.S. LNG supplies in the next two to three years, and expressed confidence in the projects that have already been approved.
Ranking Member Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) accused House Republicans of “playing games” with the world’s security by refusing to consider the Senate bill containing Ukraine funding.
“We’re letting Ukraine dangle out there,” McGovern said. “Putin is salivating because he thinks he’ll have the green light to (continue to) invade Ukraine, and we’re doing this here, and we’re not even going to bring a bill on Ukraine to the floor anytime in the near future.”
China, the United States’ main economic rival, was the world’s largest LNG importer in 2023. The U.S. provides a significant portion of those imports, making up 43% of Chinese LNG sales and purchase agreements signed 2021-2022. Pallone criticized the United States promoting China’s economic and military growth.
But Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said having China buy more natural gas produced in the United States benefits the country by funding American companies.
Producing enough LNG to meet China’s full demand for energy would also significantly lower emissions from the highest polluting country, Republicans argued, repeatedly describing LNG as clean energy.
“If you want to reduce China’s emissions, provide them a way to make that happen,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said.
Previous academic and government research indicate that LNG can reduce global warming by replacing coal. However, a few studies have concluded that the warming effect from LNG is higher than from coal in the short-term, using a higher rate of methane leakage, around 3%. The researchers believe this rate is more realistic than the 0.7% used in the DOE’s 2019 analysis. Methane is much more powerful than carbon dioxide, but carbon dioxide lingers longer in the atmosphere.
The pause will give the Energy Department the time to analyze the unknown effects on the economy and environment, Pallone said.
“All we’re saying is that we want to be able to look at this public interest, and what’s in the interest of America,” he said. “And all [Republicans] are saying is, we don’t need to do that anymore. To me that doesn’t make any sense.”
U.S. will continue strong exports of natural gas, Biden official tells senators, in spite of pause on new projects
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Thursday attacked the Biden administration’s pause on reviewing liquefied natural gas export applications, saying it will harm the energy security of the U.S. and its allies, even as officials say the move will not prevent the U.S. from more than doubling its exports by 2030.
During a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, David Turk, deputy secretary of the Department of Energy, said this pause will not halt the eight terminals currently exporting LNG nor the five under construction.
The move, however, would keep the Department of Energy from assessing over a dozen pending project applications to export LNG, a gas used to heat homes and generate electricity until the review is completed.
“DOE has the responsibility to assess additional proposed exports using the most complete, the most updated and the most robust cost analysis possible,” Turk told lawmakers. “I would find it irresponsible if we weren’t taking a step back and undertaking this rigorous analysis.”
President Joe Biden’s announcement in late January of the pause cites environmental concerns, potential energy cost increases to Americans and health risks to communities that “disproportionately shoulder the burden of pollution from new export facilities.” The last time the DOE updated its analysis was 2018, when the country’s export capacity was less than a third of what it is now.
But several Republicans and some Democrats, like committee Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), criticized the decision, citing national security and global demand.
Calling Biden’s decision “political theater,” ranking member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said “the world needs and wants more American energy, not less.”
Republicans said the move could shift energy markets to competitors like Russia and Iran and reduce potential economic growth in the U.S.
“We need to be able to send a message to our friends and allies, you can actually trust the United States to be true to their word,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
Two groups interrupted the hearing to protest the use of LNG, which contributes to global warming, before being escorted out.
The U.S. had the world’s largest export capacity of LNG in 2023. Russia came in fourth, with around a third of the capacity of the U.S., and Iran did not make the top 10.
The pause does not affect exports to countries that have free trade agreements with the U.S., which constitute around 20 percent of the country’s total exports. It also exempts national security emergencies.
“The European Commission has said publicly that the pause will not have any short- or medium-term impact on EU security of supply,” Turk noted.
He added that U.S. LNG exports will continue to increase while Europe’s demand goes down.
Turk also said global LNG demand must fall 75% by 2050 in order to reach net zero emissions.
An NYU study found that the estimated climate costs of continuing to export LNG outweigh the economic benefits for American households.
“Under all scenarios evaluated, we found the gross climate damage greatly exceeded economic benefits,” said Minhong Xu, an economist who co-authored the study.
Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for LNG, a group that represents oil and gas companies, said future projects will benefit local economies by creating jobs and boosting revenue.
In an interview with Medill News Service, Manchin warned that workers could lose their jobs if the DOE does not extend contracts for existing facilities.
All 23 Republican attorneys general signed a letter Tuesday urging Biden and DOE to resume review of export applications, claiming the pause is unlawful, economically damaging and “detrimental to our national security.”
In a back and forth debate, Manchin said Biden “put the cart before the horse” by announcing the pause before discussing it with interested parties.
But Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) replied: “I think just the opposite,” adding that it was the Energy Department’s legal responsibility “to see that export projects are in the public interest, not in the interest of the oil and gas industry. Isn’t what you’re doing here – simply looking before we leap?”
Published in conjunction with
Senators demand accessible, affordable flood insurance as Congress looks to reauthorize a federal program
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers on Thursday stressed the urgency of renewing the National Flood Insurance Program, with reforms to rein in ever-increasing premiums that are becoming harder for homeowners to afford.
The Senate Banking Committee is working to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program before its March 8 expiration date, which has already been extended multiple times as Congress has struggled to pass the budget and other legislation. The latest version of the bill proposes to limit price increases, provide swift payments for homeowners and increase oversight for insurance vendors.
“Congress cannot allow the NFIP to lapse,” said Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.). “Whether you’re in Ohio or California or the New Jersey/New York area, the number of flood insurance policies in place is essentially nonexistent. Floods don’t simply happen when you live near the water. Floods today happen throughout the country.”
Destructive hurricanes and torrential rainfall and other weather disasters are adding to the urgency to provide affordable insurance across all coastal and inland states. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) pointed to drastic flooding events from coast to coast just this month, including in Rhode Island, California and Louisiana.
The insurance program, funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, serves residents with rates based on their property’s elevation within a zone on a Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Homeowners with a federal mortgage living in designated flood zones must buy flood insurance, while those living outside of the mapped areas may opt into a federal or private plan.
The proposed legislation intends to counter the increase in premiums from FEMA’s Risk Rating 2.0, implemented in April 2023. The new program incorporates more factors in calculating premiums, including how close a home is to a body of water and the estimated cost of rebuilding after damage. Of the 3.4 million single-family homes with policies under the federal program, only about 625,000 homeowners would see rates decline.
Since the introduction of the risk-rating change, senators have expressed concern of policyholders dropping their coverage because of higher rates, even as flood risk for all homes is increasing as a result of climate change.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) noted that the program has lost 100,000 policyholders so far, and FEMA estimates it could lose one million policyholders by the end of the decade.
“Families who are forced to drop their flood insurance coverage due to rising costs and later suffer damage in future disasters, that’s the ultimate disaster for them,” Menendez said.
FEMA caps rate increases at 18% per year, as informed by flood mapping data and catastrophe models. The proposed reauthorization would implement stricter rate caps at 9%, protecting policyholders from hasty price spikes.
Senators on both sides of the aisle criticized the increase in premiums, noting that they are becoming less affordable for working, middle-class American families.
“This is just an excuse to raise premiums,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), adding that he has seen price increases of between 300% and 500% in various counties of Louisiana. “The whole purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program is to provide a product that people can afford. FEMA lied, and they’re not going to do any better.”
In response to a lawmaker’s question, Michael Hecht, the president of the economic development agency Greater New Orleans Inc., said only about 4% of U.S. homeowners have flood insurance, “though that number should be much, much greater.”
Dr. Daniel Kaniewski, managing director at insurance company Marsh McLennan, also called for the legislation to get ahead of flood damage by including incentives for building in areas with less flood risk in the first place.
“Hazard avoidance is at the center of our universe,” he said.
Published in conjunction with
To win youth vote, Republican Party needs to address the group’s concerns about climate
MANCHESTER, N.H. – The frontrunner in the GOP presidential race, Donald Trump, is continually vowing that if he becomes president, he will “drill, baby, drill” for oil and gas.
Such a message, however, runs counter to efforts by the Republican Party to attract young voters, many of whom say they want to see the candidates talk about stronger solutions to tackling climate change. So far, the GOP’s strategy has been to change the delivery of its messages rather than the content.
“We’re young conservatives, we’re young Republicans. But we also believe that we need to protect the environment and that climate change is an issue that we need to be addressing,” said Chris Barnard, president of American Conservation Coalition Action, an environmentally focused group. “Both because it is an important issue, but also because it’s an issue that more and more voters care about, and Republicans will lose elections if they don’t seriously address it.”
To discuss winning over young voters, the established leadership of the Republican National Committee and New Hampshire Republican Party hosted a Youth Advisory Council Roundtable on Monday, the day before the New Hampshire primary. The roundtable, lasting just over 20 minutes, emphasized messaging as the solution for low youth engagement with GOP politics.
The party still has a long way to go toward peeling off votes from Democrats.
Generation Z, born 1997-2012, combined with millennials will make up the majority of eligible voters by 2028, and Biden won voters under 30 by 24 points in 2020.
A 2023 poll by Circle at Tufts, a nonpartisan research group that focuses on youth civic engagement, found that climate change is among the top three priorities for voters ages 18 to 34. And according to a 2022 Pew survey, 69% of Americans support the United States taking steps to be carbon neutral by 2050.
Rick Loughery, national chair of the Young Republicans, said during the roundtable that one way his group has increased contact between young voters and the Republican party is with social media guides explaining its policies.
Younger voters themselves are also thinking about the party’s outreach. The environment was one of three discussion points at a Future of Conservatism Roundtable on Jan. 16, co-hosted by New Hampshire Young Republicans, New Hampshire College Republicans and the American Conservation Coalition Action.
Barnard said his group asks Republican candidates to discuss their climate policies, with the goal of bringing the environment into mainstream political conversations.
“For Republicans, it’s not about either choosing climate extremism or climate denial,” Barnard said. “There’s a middle path there that we can take that is rooted in conservative principles.”
Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley’s climate stance is the most progressive compared to her main rival Trump as well as candidates who have since dropped out including Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie, according to the American Conservation Coalition Action website.
Haley promotes an “all of the above” energy policy, which would ramp up the country’s fossil fuel production while also investing in nuclear power. She also plugs her role in pulling the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which calls on nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the widespread impact of climate change.
At a rally in Exeter a few days before the primary, Haley was confronted by a protester holding a sign reading “oil sellout” before he was dragged out of the auditorium.
Haley did address the generational divide within the Republican Party on climate policies.
“I also know that we have a lot of young people in the audience, and I know that y’all care about the environment,” Haley said. “But you know what I want to tell you? Everybody in this auditorium cares about the environment.”
Rally attendee Molly O’Connell, who said this year will be her first time voting, said she is excited about Haley, viewing her as a moderate choice between Trump and President Joe Biden.
“I like that she’s acknowledging that there’s the younger generation that wants to help the climate,” O’Connell said. “But she just didn’t really seem to have that big of a plan or anything.”
She added that Haley’s plan to increase fossil fuel production, which is the root cause of global warming, is “counterintuitive” if she wants to address climate change.
Dartmouth College government and politics professor Russell Muirhead said the generational divide in mainstream political parties – be they Republicans, Democrats or independents – concerns him.
He said first-time voters “want to look out at their country and see someone who ideally inspires them, but short of that just speaks to them.”
A lack of enthusiasm for participation is a problem all parties have to address. A 2023 Harvard Institute of Politics poll found that 56% of young Republicans say they are “definitely voting” in this year’s presidential race, down 10 percentage points from 66% in the fall of 2019. The percentage of young Democrats who responded that they are “definitely voting” fell slightly to 66%, from 68%, in the same period.
Muirhead said that when young voters do not vote because they are uninspired by the candidates, they could get into a habit of not voting. This could lead them to rally behind “demagogues” who reject the political system, he added.
“I’m really worried about the attachment of young people to our political system and to our political institutions,” Muirhead said. “I really, really worry about losing a whole cohort of young voters.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Generation Z was the country’s second-largest voting block in 2022.
Haley’s climate policy elicits appreciation from her supporters
SEABROOK, N.H. – Presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s climate policy is viewed as a middle ground between the “extreme” positions of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump according to some of her supporters, but her approach could prove to be counteractive.
Customers welcomed Haley to a meet and greet at Brown’s Lobster Pound in Seabrook on Sunday. Supporters stood to catch a glimpse of the presidential candidate as she made a loop around the packed New Hampshire restaurant, greeting attendees.
Voters here say they are drawn to Haley because of her novelty, charm and “moderate” policies in comparison to President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump.
That includes her approach to the climate crisis, which Haley classifies as an “all of the above energy approach” where the energy sector becomes an “economic powerhouse,” while also bolstering “clean energy.”
“That means nuclear, that means talking to India and China about burning coal,” said attendee Elizabeth Childs. “It means not forcing people to make choices like, ‘you have to drive an electric vehicle,’ but helping people understand how that’s valuable as a part of the solution.”
Childs said she appreciates how Haley allows voters to make educated choices about how to approach the climate crisis as opposed to the more “extreme” mandates by the current president. Childs views climate change as a real problem, so Trump’s “hoax” claims seem extreme, too.
While Haley has said she supports environmental protection, her actions point toward a more economically-focused executive branch, should she take office. After proudly dropping out of the Paris Climate Agreement, she has said throughout her campaign that the bigger threats are international powers like India and China.
“I think what she is saying is very rational,” Haley supporter Jennifer Nassour said. “We can do everything that we can in the United States, but unless the biggest victimizers in China and India are changing their policies, it’s not going to change anything. And so at the end of the day, we need to become energy independent.”
As the top three emitters, the United States, India and China pollute 15 times the emissions of the bottom 100 countries, with energy as the largest factor.
Two-thirds of Americans back climate-positive policies, according to a 2020 poll, but voters differ on how strict they think the rules should be.
“I’m a mom,” Nassour added. “I want to make sure that this Earth is here for a long time for my kids and my future grandkids, but I don’t want to do it at our expense and then people around the world are not doing their part to change anything.”
Conservative-leaning voters and candidates alike are wary of forfeiting personal freedoms for environmental protection, claiming Biden’s policy is too restrictive. Haley did not address how she intends to pressure China and India to implement a more environmentally conscious policy. But the impacts of pollution are visible on a domestic scale, calling into question how much more time we can afford to wait before taking action.
Supreme Court poised to limit federal agency power
WASHINGTON – Conservative justices on The Supreme Court seem poised to overturn a doctrine that allows federal agencies to interpret ambiguous legislation, after oral arguments Wednesday.
The doctrine came under threat from two separate cases involving small fishing companies, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, but the Court’s holding will impact more than how many herring the companies’ vessels can catch.
The plaintiffs asked the justices to overturn the Chevron Doctrine, one of the most cited Supreme Court rulings, which is meant to ensure that federal agencies can implement laws passed by Congress. An overturn of the 1985 ruling would drastically limit the power of the bureaucracy.
“This is a major administrative law case,” said Julie Marie Blake, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. “One of the most important questions that the Supreme Court is going to consider this term with huge implications for fundamental freedoms, the separation of powers, federal agencies and everyday Americans.”
Despite Chevron limiting judicial activism by deferring interpretation to experts, it has helped expand executive power via federal agencies. This includes rulings regarding climate protection, Medicare, Medicaid and public safety.
But it wasn’t always only supported by the pro-regulation camp. The doctrine came from a case that reduced pollution regulation.
Only in the past decade has Chevron come under question after a conservative movement to restrict the administrative state gained prominence, according to Ian Fein, senior counsel at the National Resource Defense Council. This is why many small-government proponents support overturning the deference, and why almost 70 briefs have been filed to add insight to the case.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have each previously opposed deferring interpretation to agencies. Their questions to defense lawyers on Wednesday indicated their willingness to overturn the 40-year precedent.
Justice Kavanaugh said he feared “unchecked executive power,” and Justice Alito said the deference forces courts to favor the federal government at citizens’ expense, even when the court disagrees with an agency’s interpretation of rules.
Stressing the inevitable ambiguity of some legislation, Justice Elena Kagan offered the rapid development of A.I. as an example where Congress cannot account for future development. She called this the “limits of language.”
The defense said courts could act as “neutral umpires” to decipher such ambiguity, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said resolving legislative ambiguity is better left to experts than the courts.
“When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” she said, adding that deferring decision-making power to judges would result in an “impractical and chaotic” world.
“The stakes in this case are pretty high,” Fein of NRDC said. “But to me, what’s of greater concern is how this case fits into those other arguments that regulatory opponents are making.”
The plaintiffs went to court after the National Marine Fisheries Service updated its regulations to require vessels to contract with and pay third-party observers, who would ensure the companies complied with conservation guidelines and not overfish.
They argued that NMFS overstepped by making herring vessels pay for the monitors when Congress’s legislation did not specify that herring companies were to cover these costs.
Paying the observers could reduce a vessel’s take-home pay by 20%, but government waivers and exemptions made the program more affordable.
NMFS ended the industry-funded monitoring program two years after it started and offered a 100% reimbursement to the companies affected.
According to the respondents’ brief, “[i]n practice, the 2020 rule’s monitoring provisions have had no financial impact on regulated vessels.”
The plaintiffs argued that the lower courts’ rulings, which both cited Chevron, gave federal agencies the power to make and interpret the law.
“Chevron deference is a way for agencies to flip through the rule books, push the most radical aggressive interpretation of law, and then cross their fingers that the courts won’t actually look at the law itself,” Marie Blake said in support of overturning the doctrine.
In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. House of Representatives contended that this case did not invoke the Chevron doctrine.
But it said: “treating statutory silences standing alone as delegations of power would make it extraordinarily difficult for Congress to constrain agency authority.”
The Department of Commerce argued that Chevron stabilizes decision-making when Congress fails to create specific laws.
But the prosecutors said statutory silence on certain issues does not signal “hours of deliberation” in Congress. Rather, it could mean members of a divided Congress were unable to pass bipartisan legislation, so they relied on “friends” in executive agencies to further particular agendas.
The New York Times recently reported that the nonprofits representing the Loper Bright and Relentless plaintiffs have each received millions of dollars in funding in recent years from the Charles Koch Foundation — a right-libertarian network funded by its namesake, Bloomberg’s 21st wealthiest individual.
The increasing power of large corporations — many of which, like Koch’s, engage in practices such as oil refining — speaks to Fein’s concern that limiting the administrative state will result in “more harm occurring to individual humans,” who benefit from agency protections.
But according to Fein, any limitation on Chevron will “end up with a lot more probably disarray in the law in terms of what agencies can and can’t do.”
Published in conjunction with
House subcommittee members clash over methane emission regulations
WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency’s new methane emission regulations drew rebuke from House Republicans on Wednesday when they said small and midsize oil and gas companies would struggle to survive, while Democrats and environmental advocates called to further tighten the regulations to limit pollutants and protect human health.
In August, the EPA expanded the Clean Air Act’s emission regulations of greenhouse gases for the oil and gas industries, including adding a methane emission reporting program. The rule was created in response to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and President Joe Biden’s executive order on the first day in office in 2021 calling for federal agencies to take necessary actions to “immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.”
The regulations require companies to report their emissions and includes provisions that facilities releasing above a certain amount of methane must pay for each metric ton above this level. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for one-third of global warming that poses severe public health risks.
House Republicans labeled the fee a “methane tax” and brought in several small oil and natural gas producers who testified that they cannot afford to stay in business if the fees are enacted. GOP members emphasized that the U.S. is an energy production leader, advocating for a reduction in regulation.
“We have achieved this while also reducing emissions more than any other nation,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said at the hearing. “We should be celebrating this legacy and building on our achievements.”
Drew Martin, a cofounder of Miller Energy Company, a small Michigan company with 56 employees, said in prepared testimony that if the EPA regulations “are implemented as written, my business and the business of many of my peers in Michigan will end abruptly.” He explained that mature oil wells like the ones his company operates “simply don’t have the volume, pressure, and associated emissions to be burdened with the energy, effort, and cost associated with complying with these regulations as written.”
McMorris Rodgers told the Medill News Service her greatest concern with the regulations is their impact on small and midsize businesses, like Martin’s. She referenced the statistic that 300,000 of 750,000 small oil and gas businesses could be put out of work as a result of the regulations.
Other Republicans added that the challenge of interpreting and implementing the regulation will burden companies and consumers alike.
Earthworks Policy Director Lauren Pagel pushed back on such criticism. “Today’s hearing was an attempt by industry cheerleaders to prioritize profits over people,” Pagel said in a statement to Medill News Service.
But Joseph Goffman, principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA, said in his written testimony that the new rule will yield the equivalent of “$7.3 to $7.6 billion a year from 2024 to 2038, after accounting for the costs of compliance and savings from recovered natural gas.”
“Any increases in the sales price for crude oil and natural gas are expected to be small,” he said.
Democrats argued that firmer regulations are necessary to combat the current climate emergency and invest in the planet’s future. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said protecting the environment and preserving industry is “not a zero sum game.”
Democrats for their part pointed to the benefits that controlling pollutants would have on Americans’ health. Many of Rep. Nanette Barragán’s (D-Calif.) constituents have asthma, which is associated with living near oil and gas production facilities, she said. According to Goffman, the methane controls the EPA is setting are projected to prevent up to 97,000 cases of asthma symptoms.
Similarly, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said he was disappointed with Republicans opposing all regulation and said collaboration could make it possible to come up with a mutually beneficial solution.
“I really want to work on this in a bipartisan way, and this is what I get: not a discussion of how to get better regulations,” Peters said. “But an idea that we should just get rid of all the regulations entirely, and I am really frustrated by this.”
.
Medill Today | November 21, 2024