The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Koch Brothers Struggle to Block Climate Action in State Legislatures
An alphabet soup of polluter-funded groups is taking credit for the latest state legislative push against climate action. The groups, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the American Energy Alliance (AEA) and the State Policy Network (SPN), all receive funding from the Koch brothers and their goal is to stymie the Clean Power Plan (CPP), President Obama's signature effort to cut carbon pollution from power plants.
The good news is that, so far, polluter interests are not yielding much return on their investment from the money and these front groups they’ve injected into state capitols.
Of the 50 state bills introduced this year to obstruct the CPP, 56 percent already have died. Another 34 percent of those bills are languishing and we expect most of them to expire when state legislatures adjourn. Polluter interests lost ground in West Virginia, whose legislature passed a bill that improves its ability to act on the Clean Power Plan. The Koch brothers did score a recent victory in their home state of Kansas to stop the state’s work on the CPP, but it’s not a huge loss because the state had already suspended the process anyway. Additionally, the wind industry in Kansas still plans to expand generation despite Clean Power Plan setbacks, because the state has incredible wind energy resources.
The Clean Power Plan is on a solid legal foundation and is likely to be upheld. The stay issued by the Supreme Court only hits the pause button on CPP implementation deadlines and has no bearing on the legal merits of the case. Many governors want to use this extra time wisely to develop the best possible pathway to reduce carbon pollution, so they can hit the ground running when the CPP deadlines are reinstated. Governors generally want to preserve the freedom and flexibility to act in the best interests of their state and these polluter-linked state legislative maneuvers would undermine those best interests. The legislative schemes range from requiring excessive legislative approval for a governor’s plan to Environmental Protection Agency, to mandating a work stoppage for CPP planning.
The Koch groups have been targeting state budgets as a vehicle to protect polluter interests, with limited success. In Colorado, the budget language does not include restrictions to planning for the Clean Power Plan—it only modestly cut the air agency budget (a vast improvement from the initial proposal to defund the entire agency). In Virginia, the budget rider restricting funds for Clean Power Plan work can be interpreted narrowly and Gov. McAuliffe wants to continue with development of a state Clean Power Plan. Gov. McAuliffe views the Clean Power Plan as “a necessary response to climate change and an opportunity for Virginia to become a leader in clean energy.” And, between you and me, I already had low expectations for Wyoming even before the legislature defunded the state’s Clean Power Plan process and I was pleasantly surprised when Wyoming leaders called for continued progress despite the budget restriction. In addition, just a few weeks ago, coal mining and utility executives in Wyoming reinforced this sentiment that the state needs to start planning for carbon reductions.
Outside of state budgets, polluters are also pushing stand-alone bills to restrict the Clean Power Plan progress in states:
- In Pennsylvania, Gov. Wolf vetoed the budget bill that included a rider to obstruct the Clean Power Plan and then coal-friendly legislators pulled the language into a new bill that’s coming up for a vote this month.
- In Ohio, a new bill dropped last week that extends the state's freeze on clean energy standards by an additional three years and also includes provisions to obstruct the Clean Power Plan. Gov. Kasich has said extending Ohio's clean energy freeze is "unacceptable" and that he will veto an extension.
- In Missouri, a number of bills intended to hobble the Clean Power Plan are headed for expiration when the legislature adjourns next month. They include a variety of strategies from requiring legislative approval of CPP plans to creating an interstate compact that supersedes federal authority ( ... a very ambitious proposal, if you ask me).
While many legislatures already have adjourned, some are still in session so a few bills could be in play. We will continue monitoring statehouses for developments, but so far it seems that the Koch brothers and polluter interests are not getting their money's worth in legislatures.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Global Banks, Led by JPMorgan Chase, Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
By Sharon Kelly
A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.