A display commemorates the 25th Earth Day in Washington, DC on April 22, 1995. Jeffrey Markowitz / Sygma via Getty Images
This April 22, Earth Day turns 50.
The world's largest secular holiday approaches its golden anniversary in the shadow of two global crises. This year's day is dedicated to climate action, and the celebration has moved online in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
But Earth Day has a history of uniting people around the world to solve the major problems facing our planet. Here's a look back on some of the most important Earth Days in the celebration's 50-year history and what they helped accomplish.
<h3>1970: The First Earth Day Sprouts a Movement</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2a6fda52745554d7d5598e7c8b5f9413"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nEmARFci__I?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>By 1970, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/environmental-victories-2561818321.html" target="_self">decades of rampant pollution</a> had dirtied America's air, set rivers on fire and led to major disasters like the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/01/28/688219307/how-californias-worst-oil-spill-turned-beaches-black-and-the-nation-green" target="_blank">Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969</a>. So on April 22 of that year, <a href="https://www.earthday.org/history/" target="_blank">20 million Americans</a>, or 10 percent of the U.S. population, came out to demand a clean, healthy environment. The day had many organizers, but the idea came from Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, a staunch environmentalist.</p><p>"The objective was to get a nationwide demonstration of concern for the environment so large that it would shake the political establishment out of its lethargy," Nelson said, <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-earth-day" target="_blank">according to History</a>, "and, finally, force this issue permanently onto the national political agenda."</p><p>He succeeded. The day is widely credited with encouraging the formation of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> and the passage of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-air-act" target="_self">Clean Air</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-water-act" target="_self">Clean Water</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species-act" target="_self">Endangered Species Acts</a>.</p>
<h3>1990: Earth Day Spreads Earth-Wide</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4126e150c27a1d24627e48c1e05ef3a7"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lBqPIhRzOno?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>One of the original Earth Day organizers and <a href="https://www.earthday.org/" target="_blank">Earth Day Network</a> founder Denis Hayes was asked by a coalition of environmental leaders to organize a big event for the day's 20th anniversary. Hayes told <a href="https://time.com/5570269/earth-day-origins/" target="_blank">TIME in 2019</a> that the 1990 Earth Day was "probably the second most important Earth Day."<br></p><p>In some ways, Hayes conceded, the day was not a success. It tried to raise awareness about <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a> and the need for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a>, but without a groundswell of popular concern around those issues.</p><p>"We were trying to create a wave from basically nothing but intellectual discourse," Hayes told TIME. "Did we succeed? The answer to that nearly 30 years later is pretty obvious, though I'm not sure there was a way it <em>could </em>succeed."</p><p>However, the day did "[give] birth to what is known as the modern Earth Day movement," as <a href="https://theyearsproject.com/learn/news/the-evolution-of-earth-day/" target="_blank">The Years Project put it</a>. The day was celebrated by 200 million people in 141 countries, according to the Earth Day Network. It raised global awareness about <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/recycling" target="_self">recycling</a> and helped lead to the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.</p>
<h3>2010: Earth Day Launches a Billion Acts of Green</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b174a1124cc5366d67ad217fc5e1ad11"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZPZt0AEdhPA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>Earth Day continued to grow through the new millennium and continued to push for climate action and clean energy. On its 40th anniversary, it gathered more than 250,000 people in Washington, DC for a <a href="https://www.earthday.org/earth-day-network-announces-the-climate-rally-in-washington-dc-on-april-25/" target="_blank">climate rally</a>, according to the Earth Day Network. Internationally, the day was celebrated in 192 countries. It coincided with the <a href="https://pwccc.wordpress.com/support/" target="_blank">World People's Conference on Climate Change</a> held in Cochabamba, Bolivia and saw the first community trash pick-up in Kolkata, India, as <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/4/100422-earth-day-40-40th-anniversary/" target="_blank">National Geographic reported at the time</a>.<br></p><p>The Earth Day Network channeled that energy into launching <a href="https://www.earthday.org/billion/" target="_blank">A Billion Acts of Green®</a>, which it says is the "<a href="https://www.earthday.org/worlds-largest-environmental-service-campaign-reaches-halfway-point/" target="_blank">world's largest environmental service campaign</a>." The organizers asked participants to do "just one thing that will help our planet," from making their homes more energy efficient to biking to work. The initiative is still going strong, with now more than two billion acts registered.</p><p>"The idea that we can all belong to something is what's exciting people and what's making them want to join," Earth Day Network President Kathleen Rogers told National Geographic when the campaign was first launched.</p>
<h3>2016: The Paris Agreement Is Signed</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f8d9a7b968efd9b8d8d2548a5847890f"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/otD3ieuZa8M?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>In a testament to the symbolic power of Earth Day, then-United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/on-earth-day-150-world-leaders-to-sign-paris-climate-agreement-1891117805.html" target="_self"> chose it</a> as the day when world leaders would sign the landmark <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris climate agreement</a> at a ceremony in New York City.<br></p><p>The Paris agreement was the first international agreement pledging all countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374" target="_blank">BBC News reported when it was first announced in December 2015</a>. Countries committed to limiting global warming to "well below" two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, with an ideal aim of stopping warming at 1.5 degrees. The Earth Day ceremony saw 175 leaders sign the landmark agreement — the most to ever sign an international agreement in one day.</p><p>"The participation by so many countries today, and the attendance by so many world leaders, leaves no doubt that the world is determined to take climate action," Ban <a href="https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2016-04-22/secretary-generals-remarks-joint-press-conference-his" target="_blank">said at the time</a>.</p><p>While the agreement has been undercut somewhat by President Donald Trump's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-begins-withdrawal-paris-agreement-2641223963.html" target="_self">decision to withdraw the U.S</a>. and the fact that, if countries stick to their current pledges, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-climate-change-un-2641459291.html" target="_self">we will still see</a> 3.2 degrees Celsius of warming, its record-setting Earth Day signing is still an important reminder that world leaders can choose to come together for the sake of our common home.</p>
<h3>2020: Earth Day Fights for Climate Action on Lockdown</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="aba2dbb167688f7b5cfe6827ba9e39ef"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KcDsRJJ5epg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>As Earth Day's 50th anniversary approached, organizers found themselves in a situation not unlike the one that led to the first Earth Day.<br></p><p>"The social and cultural environments we saw in 1970 are rising up again today — a fresh and frustrated generation of young people are refusing to settle for platitudes, instead taking to the streets by the millions to demand a new way forward. Digital and social media are bringing these conversations, protests, strikes and mobilizations to a global audience, uniting a concerned citizenry as never before and catalyzing generations to join together to take on the greatest challenge that humankind has faced," the Earth Day Network <a href="https://www.earthday.org/history/" target="_blank">reflected</a>.</p><p>Hayes <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/earth-day-will-fight-for-climate-action-on-its-50th-anniversary-2635345330.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4" target="_self">said</a> he wanted Earth Day 2020 to do for climate change what Earth Day 1970 had done for other environmental issues. But then organizers were faced with something they did not have to deal with 50 years ago — the coronavirus pandemic.</p><p>With <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-on-lockdown-coronavirus-italy-2020-3?r=US&IR=T" target="_blank">more than a third of the planet</a> under some form of lockdown order, Earth Day is going digital for the first time in its history, with <a href="https://www.earthday.org/campaign/digital-earth-day/" target="_blank">24 hours</a> of virtual talks, action calls, teach-ins and performances. Find an event <a href="https://www.earthday.org/earth-day-live/" target="_blank">here</a> or register your own to be part of Earth Day's ongoing history.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- What Is Earth Day Live? The Largest Online Mass Mobilization in ... ›
- 3 Ways to Celebrate Earth Day All Through April (on Lockdown, of ... ›
- Earth Day Will Fight for Climate Action on Its 50th Anniversary ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA), testifies during a House Appropriations Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 4 in Washington, DC. Wheeler testified about the EPA's fiscal 2021 budget requests. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
By Vijay Limaye
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2018 censoring science proposal aimed to undercut the agency's application of landmark public health science by severely restricting its use in decision making. The proposal was a dangerous disaster that lacked any sound legal basis and threatened to impose draconian and hugely costly restrictions on the types of scientific information eligible for consideration by EPA in implementing laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act. Those laws have delivered major health and economic benefits to the American public over the past 50 years, and that progress was put in direct peril because of this transparent attempt to undercut the evidence-based approach that has made environmental protection so effective in the U.S.
<p>Because Pruitt's 2018 proposal was so <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/were-standing-against-epas-attempt-censor-science" target="_blank">ill-conceived</a>, it generated fierce opposition. The 600,000 public comments submitted to EPA included criticism from scientists and health experts (like doctors and nurses, epidemiologists, and toxicologists) and everyday citizens who understood its potential to fundamentally weaken our nation's public health safeguards by favoring industry-backed pseudoscience over consensus-based, peer-reviewed, established facts. NRDC submitted <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/nrdc_comments_on_pruitt_censoring_science_proposal.pdf" target="_blank">127 pages of comments</a> on the original proposal, outlining its numerous legal and scientific deficiencies—flaws that should've sent the proposal into the trash bin.</p>
<p>Instead, with former coal industry lobbyist <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stop-andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> now running the EPA, the agency Tuesday <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> to expand the scope of the censoring science rule. In a wandering supplemental proposal, EPA reveals that it now intends to greatly expand, not retreat from, its science censorship agenda in key ways:</p><ul><li>Broader definitions: EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">now says</a> that its science censorship rule would apply to any "data and models" used by the agency to craft regulations. This change is a significant expansion of the net cast in the original proposal, which was limited to "dose-response data and models," and it could weaken a wider range of current pollution controls across the country.</li><li>Arbitrary interference: The agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposes</a> to prioritize its consideration of certain scientific studies over others without clear criteria. That's a recipe for bias and chaos in future EPA rulemaking, because there's no clear explanation for how such important decisions will be made or implemented.</li><li>Veto power: The agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposes</a> to give the EPA administrator the authority to ignore the rule's restrictions and make exceptions to allow for an unlimited number of handpicked studies to be considered. Moreover, the administrator would not need to provide any robust explanation for such a run-around.</li><li>Retroactive restrictions: EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">now says</a> that it may apply the rule retroactively so that it could throw out the literally tens of thousands of studies that it has relied to craft environmental laws. This radical approach could upend the decades of gains we've made in national clean air and water protections and force us to start from scratch—meanwhile, restrictions on polluters could be significantly relaxed.</li></ul>
<p>Amazingly, nearly two years after it first proposed this idea, the agency still doesn't know what the legal authority it has to implement this fatally-flawed proposal. Instead, it's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">asking the public</a> to tell it what that is. This is absurd and, I believe, unprecedented. Agencies are supposed to be interpreting the law, not embarking on fanciful crusades and then trying to find a legal justification for their actions.</p><p>It's no secret that the Trump administration <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/trumps-pick-lead-his-new-climate-change-panel-says-co2-has-been-demonized" target="_blank">despises science</a>, whether it's the factual evidence of accelerating climate change or the significant health dangers posed by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/26/us/politics/ap-us-trump-virus-outbreak.html" target="_blank">COVID-19 outbreak</a>. Rather than accept scientific facts and do their jobs, EPA's political leaders prefer to close their eyes and reject established truths. By redoubling its efforts on science censorship and stacking the deck in favor of industry interests, the Trump EPA is putting the health of us all at risk.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/epa-doubles-down-its-attempt-censor-science" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/epa-doubles-down-its-attempt-censor-science" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a></p>From Your Site Articles
- EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants ... ›
- Trump's Hand-Picked Scientists Rebuke EPA Rollbacks - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Proposal to Restrict Science Panders to Polluters - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Fiat Side With Trump in Fuel Efficiency War Against California
29 October 2019
Business
Brand new cars sit in a lot at the Auto Warehousing Company near the Port of Richmond on May 24, 2018 in Richmond, California. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
The fight between the Trump administration and the state of California over fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks has now turned into an auto-industry civil war.
<p>In July, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW of North America <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/automakers-emissions-california-trump-2639356453.html" target="_self">negotiated a deal</a> with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to meet stricter emissions standards preferred by the state.</p>
<p>Now, major automakers including General Motors, Kia and Toyota are throwing their weight behind the Trump administration in the legal battle over whether or not California can set its own standards under the Clean Air Act, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/467810-auto-groups-side-with-trump-admin-in-emissions-lawsuit" target="_blank">The Hill reported Monday</a>.</p><p>The automakers, joining under the banner of the Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation, filed their motion on behalf of the administration Monday. They are supporting the administration against California and 22 other states who sued in September to stop the federal government from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-california-emissions-standards-2640413062.html?rebelltitem=6#rebelltitem6" target="_self">revoking</a> California's waiver to set its own tailpipe emissions standards.</p><p>"Historically, the industry has taken the position that federal government is the sole purview of fuel economy," John Bozzella, president and CEO of industry group Global Automakers and coalition spokesperson, said, as The Hill reported.</p><p>California leaders responded with anger to the automakers' decision. State Senator Scott Wiener noted that the announcement came as the state was battling massive <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="_self">wildfires</a>.</p><p>"Toyota, GM & Chrysler have great timing: moving to overturn California's auto emission standards as our state burns due to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a> & the irresponsible policies that fuel it," he tweeted. "Let's remember this selfish corporate betrayal."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Toyota, GM & Chrysler have great timing: moving to overturn California’s auto emission standards as our state burns due to climate change & the irresponsible policies that fuel it.<br><br>Let’s remember this selfish corporate betrayal. <a href="https://t.co/lw29rRGmAI">https://t.co/lw29rRGmAI</a></p>— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) <a href="https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1188951269303443456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols also spoke out against the car companies.</p><p>"We are disappointed in the Association of Global Automakers for hiding behind the Trump administration's skirts and its assault on public health," she told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/climate/general-motors-california-emissions-trump.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>The companies siding with the administration also include Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, Hyundai and Fiat Chrysler, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/gm-toyota-fiat-chrysler-back-trump-on-california-emissions-challenge-idUSKBN1X728Y" target="_blank">according to Reuters</a>.</p><p>At the heart of the battle are fuel efficiency standards proposed by the Obama administration that would have required automakers build vehicles with an average fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, The New York Times explained. This would have prevented around six billion tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.</p><p>Automakers initially asked the Trump administration to weaken standards, but it pushed them so low that California and several other states said they would continue to enforce higher standards, potentially splitting the U.S. car market. This is the context in which the four car companies made a deal with California to promise a slightly less ambitious target of 51 miles per gallon by 2026.</p><p>Honda, one of the car companies involved with that deal, distanced itself from Monday's legal action.</p><p>"Honda is not a participant in this litigation," spokesperson Marcos Frommer told The New York Times, "and is not contributing any funds supporting our trade association's activity in this area."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The layers to this saga are mind bending.<br>Trump V. Cali<br>States rights V. Federal Power<br>Ford, VW, Honda V. GM, FCA and Toyota, <br>Emissions<br>Climate change<br>Regulatory authority<br>Other than that....not much going on<a href="https://t.co/JG7QuYjcwd">https://t.co/JG7QuYjcwd</a></p>— Brent Snavely (@BrentSnavely) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentSnavely/status/1188982358445297664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Bozzella insisted that the car makers were not joining the lawsuit to influence what the national fuel efficiency standard should be. They simply wanted to ensure it would be one national standard. He said the administration had not asked the car companies to join the lawsuit.</p><p>"The decision to intervene in the lawsuit is about how the standard should be applied, not what the standard should be," he said, as Reuters reported.</p><p>The car companies' action follows a move by seven states to join the lawsuit on the administration's side on Friday.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 23 Governors Join California in Opposing Trump's Fuel Efficiency ... ›
- Trump Admin to Officially Revoke California's Waiver to Set Stricter ... ›
- 4 Automakers Strike Emissions Deal With California, Steering Clear ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
The Paradise Fossil Plant in Kentucky. Coal-fired power plants are a major source of air pollution. TVA / GPA Photo Archive / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Tweeting that the U.S. has the cleanest air in the world does not make it so. Not only do we rank 10th, but a new study says that after steady improvement during the Obama-era, air pollution has gotten worse while Donald Trump has been president.
<p>The <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w26381" target="_blank">report</a> issued by the <a href="https://www.nber.org/" target="_blank">National Bureau of Economic Research</a> found that fine particle air pollution, known as PM2.5, dropped by 24.2 percent from 2009 to 2016. However, in the following two years, it increased an average of 5.5 percent each year. PM2.5 is particularly concerning because its microscopic size means it can easily enter the respiratory tract and be absorbed into the blood stream.</p>
<div id="b9711" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="SEW5UD1576661261"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1186320822236925952" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW: Recent increases in air pollution are estimated to have killed 9,700 Americans in 2018. (The relevant pollutan… https://t.co/Dp1zqDDB4v</div> — Cass Sunstein (@Cass Sunstein)<a href="https://twitter.com/CassSunstein/statuses/1186320822236925952">1571675899.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"The health implications of this increase in PM2.5 between 2016 and 2018 are significant," the <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w26381" target="_blank">study's abstract</a> says. "The increase was associated with 9,700 additional premature deaths in 2018. At conventional valuations, these deaths represent damages of $89 billion."</p><p>The trend toward cleaner air that has now been reversed has several causes, including deregulation of industry, loosening of the Clean Air Act and an increase in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="_self">wildfires</a>. Two economists from Carnegie Mellon University, Karen Clay and Nicholas Muller, performed the study.</p><p>The growth of the U.S. economy coupled with looser regulations has led to an increase in diesel powered trucks and other polluting-emitting vehicles on the roads, as well as boosted manufacturers' carbon emissions, Clay and Muller wrote, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/increased-economic-activity-wildfires-coincide-with-deadly-decline-in-u-s-air-quality/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p><p>"The chemical composition of particulates point to increased use of natural gas and to vehicle miles traveled as likely contributors to the increase" in pollution, the economists wrote, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/increased-economic-activity-wildfires-coincide-with-deadly-decline-in-u-s-air-quality/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported. "We conclude that the effect is due to diesel vehicles as well as some industrial boilers."</p>
<p>Fine particles are worrying since they easily <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740125/" target="_blank">cause lung damage</a>, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/113/39/10797" target="_blank">collect in the brain</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26963193" target="_blank">send people to the emergency room</a>, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/air-pollution-is-getting-worse-data-show-more-people-are-dying/" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. The data shows that airborne particles have an association with dementia and cognitive decline. These effects often occur at levels far below the current regulatory threshold.</p><p>The increases in particulate matter were particularly high in the west, especially in California. The authors noted that California experienced a large increase in particulate matter since a large segment of the population was exposed to wildfires and vehicular pollution and the state represented "a large share of the increase in premature mortality," as the non-profit <a href="https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/10/22/new-report-says-air-quality-in-u-s-especially-in-california-is-getting-worse/" target="_blank">StreetsBlog</a> reported.</p><p>"Because of these large increases and the large exposed population in California, we find that nearly 43% of the increase in deaths nationally from 2016 to 2018 occurred in California," the study authors said, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/increased-economic-activity-wildfires-coincide-with-deadly-decline-in-u-s-air-quality/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p><p>However, it is a mistake to point to the spate of wildfires as the culprit. The economists ran the numbers without the devastating fires that engulfed California last November and they found the wildfires do not account for the general decline in air quality and the reversal of the trend in air pollution, according to the Cal <a href="https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/10/22/new-report-says-air-quality-in-u-s-especially-in-california-is-getting-worse/" target="_blank">StreetsBlog</a>.</p><p>The decline in the demand for coal has helped, but it has not been enough to offset the rise in emissions from increased use of natural gas, people driving more, and an increase in trucks crisscrossing the country and idling on city streets, according to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/air-pollution-is-getting-worse-data-show-more-people-are-dying/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>.</p><p>The study authors say that since our growing understanding of air particulate matter's deleterious effects on human health that the recent wave of rollbacks on environmental regulations is particularly concerning in light of the reversing trend in air quality since 2016, as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/air-pollution-is-getting-worse-data-show-more-people-are-dying/" target="_blank">Washington Post reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Air Pollution Caused 400,000 Early EU Deaths in 2016, Study Finds ... ›
- New Study Links Air Pollution to Dementia - EcoWatch ›
- Even Small Spikes in Air Pollution Can Threaten Children's Mental ... ›
- Air Pollution Reaches the Placenta During Pregnancy, New Study ... ›
- Polluted U.S. Neighborhoods Haven't Improved in 40 Years ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Disbanded Air Pollution Panel Finds EPA Standards Don’t Protect Public Health
22 October 2019
Insights + Opinion
By Gretchen Goldman
The Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel has released their consensus recommendations to the EPA administrator on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. The group of 20 independent experts, that were disbanded by Administrator Wheeler last October and reconvened last week, hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, has now made clear that the current particulate pollution standards don't protect public health and welfare.
<p>The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) — the remaining seven-person committee that is providing science advice to the EPA on the particulate matter standards — <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/49FAF8892AD2D38285258473006D1F4A?OpenDocument" target="_blank">meets this week</a> to discuss their recommendations on whether the current standards are adequate. The letter from the Independent Panel will be the elephant in the room.</p>
<p><em>Gretchen Goldman is the research director at the Center for Science and Democracy.</em><br/></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/particulate-matter-science-experts" rel="noopener noreferrer">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>
The Elephant in the CASAC Meeting
<p>CASAC has already acknowledged that <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/uncharted-territory-the-epas-science-advisors-just-called-out-administrator-wheeler" target="_blank">they don't have the expertise</a> to conduct the review but you know who does? The Independent Panel. The Panel has more than double the experts of CASAC, and importantly, it has multiple experts in each of the necessary scientific disciplines critical to ensure a comprehensive, robust review of the science supporting the standards.</p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">As a result, we should watch whether or not CASAC aligns with the panel in their recommendations on the standards. If CASAC </span>doesn't <span style="background-color: initial;">decide this week to make a similar recommendation as the Independent Panel, they'll have to explain why they disagreed with a larger, more experienced, and more diverse </span><a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/science-and-democracy/pm-panel-meeting-docs/2-ipmrp-biosketches.pdf" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">set of experts</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> on the topic. In any event, the administrator will have access to both CASAC and the </span><a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/science-and-democracy/IPMRP-FINAL-LETTER-ON-DRAFT-PA-191022.pdf" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">Independent Panel's recommendations</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> when he ultimately makes the decision of where to set particulate pollution standards. The panel's recommendations should hold the administrator's feet to the fire.</span></p>The Fine Particulate Matter Standards Don’t Protect Public Health
<p>The standards of greatest interest are the primary PM2.5 standards. These are the standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter) that are designed to protect public health. The panel supported the preliminary conclusions of a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/draft_policy_assessment_for_pm_naaqs_09-05-2019.pdf" target="_blank">Draft EPA Policy Assessment</a> that the current standards aren't requisite to protect public health.</p><p>The letter cited new and consistent epidemiological findings, supported by human and animal studies and other studies with natural experiments, as providing "clear and compelling scientific evidence" for tighter standards. Since the last particulate matter review, several new large-scale epidemiological studies provide powerful evidence that particulate matter is causing adverse health outcomes (such as early death, heart attacks, and respiratory stress) at locations and during time periods with concentrations at or below the level of the current standards.</p><p>They write, "New and compelling evidence that health effects are occurring in areas that already meet or are well below the current standards." Notably, this evidence cuts across different locations with different study populations, different study designs, and different statistical approaches.</p><p>Given the weight of the evidence from new studies across scientific disciplines and consistent with the decision-making process that EPA and its science advisers have used for many years, the panel recommends a particulate matter standard between 8 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3 for the annual PM2.5 standard (compared to the current standard of 12 µg/m3) and between 25 µg/m3 and 30 µg/m3 for the 24-hour standard (compared to the current standard of 35 µg/m3) to protect public health. These ranges are tighter than those recommended in EPA's Draft Policy Assessment.</p>Keeping the Current Fine Particulate Matter Standards Ignores the Science
<p>The Independent Panel rejected a potential argument for maintaining the current primary PM2.5 standards. The Draft Policy Assessment offered up an alternative rationale that might be used if the agency were to reject the draft assessment's recommendation to strengthen the standards and maintain the current standards. This alternative rationale explains that such a move would require the administrator to be arbitrarily selective in choosing which new studies to accept and which to toss and to disregard new epidemiologic evidence showing effects at lower levels.</p><p>The panel roundly rejected this justification, noting that, "Arguments offered in the draft Policy Assessment for retaining the current standards are not scientifically justified and are specious." This is important because if the administrator fails to strengthen the standards, he'll have to explain (both in court and in the court of public opinion) why he feels such a decision is science-based, as required under the Clean Air Act. And one proposed argument he could use has just been debunked by this expert Panel.</p>Otherwise, the EPA’s Draft Policy Assessment Is Scientifically Sound
<p>While the Independent Panel critiqued some details of the EPA's Draft Policy Assessment, the panel agreed that the draft science and policy assessments were cohesive and robust and the panel commended the "good faith effort" involved in the policy assessment. Specifically, the panel affirmed the use of EPA's causality framework used in the Integrated Science Assessment they reviewed last year and the Policy Assessment's new use of a hybrid modeling technique that allows for better assessment of risk from particulate matter exposure across the country especially in rural areas.</p><p>This diverges from what the seven-member CASAC has said and done around the EPA's assessment of the science and policy. In December, they concluded that the agency's draft science assessment was not a scientific document (it is) and CASAC Chair Dr. Tony Cox has been critical of the agency's causality framework that has been developed with dozens of experts over more than a decade. This view is <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6434/1398" target="_blank">not shared by the scientific community</a>, and now, not shared by the Independent Panel either.</p>Other Particulate Pollution Standards Also May Need Revamping
<p>The Independent Panel decided other particulate standards were also inadequate. On PM10, particulate matter less than 10 micrometers, the panel recommended revising this standard downward given that the PM2.5 component would also be tightened and noted several research and monitoring areas that need further work. On the secondary standards, i.e. the standards designed to protect welfare effects, such as visibility, the panel concluded that the standards should be tightened in order to be more protective.</p>The Panel Condemns the EPA’s Broken Process
<p>The Independent Panel's deliberations, demands for further research, and unanswered questions highlight how <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/wheeler-worsens-particulate-pollution-review-process" target="_blank">broken the EPA process is</a>. In a normal review cycle, the panel would have had the opportunity to talk with agency scientists directly. The EPA staff would then have considered their comments and revised the Integrated Science Assessment in response to the committee and panel's suggestions. But because the administrator disbanded the panel and abbreviated the process, there was no opportunity for such dialogue and refinement of the agency's science assessment before <a href="https://twitter.com/GretchenTG/status/1184207743261036551" target="_blank">policy decisions were discussed</a>. But alas, the panel had to make do with what was available to them and CASAC does too.</p><p>Fortunately for CASAC, an Independent Panel has already done their job, and they are free (and encouraged) to run with it, especially given <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/a-timeline-of-recent-attacks-on-the-epas-science-based-ambient-air-pollution-standards" target="_blank">the long list</a> of ways that EPA Administrator Wheeler has damaged the ambient air pollution review process.</p><p><a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/A2DF51609E3DFC9C85258473006CF120?OpenDocument" target="_blank">Listen</a> and <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/49FAF8892AD2D38285258473006D1F4A?OpenDocument" target="_blank">watch</a> this week as CASAC discusses the same questions that the Independent Panel did last week. If CASAC comes to different conclusions than the larger, more experienced, and more diverse Independent Panel, we should ask why.</p><p>You can raise these questions yourself and demand that the administrator follow the panel's recommendations, by providing written or oral public comments at a <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/A0D0F9D4C6BC36D88525848C00467771?OpenDocument" target="_blank">future CASAC meeting</a> and commenting on the docket for the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/11/2019-19627/release-of-a-draft-document-related-to-the-review-of-the-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for" target="_blank">particulate matter rule-making</a>. I'll be providing public comments this afternoon urging CASAC to follow the advice of the Independent Panel and commenting on the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/a-timeline-of-recent-attacks-on-the-epas-science-based-ambient-air-pollution-standards" target="_blank">EPA's problematic process</a> and drawing attention to that elephant in the room.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Air Pollution Linked to 30,000 U.S. Deaths in One Year - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants ... ›
- These Scientists Were Disbanded by the EPA — They Plan to Meet ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Golden Gate Bridge in California. Sasha Kravchenko / Flickr / CC BY-ND 2.0
By Don Anair
The Trump administration has been on a collision course with California, and it appears that collision is imminent. An administrative action to undermine the authority granted to the state by the Clean Air Act to protect its citizens from vehicle pollution appears to be imminent. This illegal attack is not just harmful for the nation's most populous state—it is an attack on the 13 states and the District of Columbia that follow California's lead and, ultimately, the entire country. The American auto industry and the American public will be worse off as a result.
<p>California's laws to reduce <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">pollution</a> from cars and trucks have long been <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/pruitts-epa-attempts-to-undermine-californias-leadership-on-vehicle-standards" target="_blank">a target of the Trump administration</a>. Along the way various officials have given lip service to a commitment to negotiate with California and the desire to maintain a national program. Yet the administration ended the supposed <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-epa-auto-emissions-talks-20190620-story.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">negotiations</a> despite Congress members from their own party <a href="https://debbiedingell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/190625fueleconomy_epa_dot.pdf" target="_blank">telling them to go back</a> to the negotiating table. There may be no surer sign that the administration negotiated with CA in bad faith than a deal that California and several automakers agreed to weeks ago. Fed up with an intransigent administration proposing actions that will undermine their businesses, BMW, Ford, Honda and VW agreed to a <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/four-automakers-stand-with-california-against-administration-rollback" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">compromise</a> agreement with California.</p><p>So it comes as little surprise that despite opposition from the regulated industry to a roll back and overwhelming public support for more efficient vehicles, the Trump administration is launching a direct attack on California's long held authority to clean up vehicle pollution.</p>
<p><br/></p><h3><br/></h3>
Trump legal strategy = throwing spaghetti at a wall
<p><br>Successfully attacking California's long held legal authority will be no easy task. The Trump administration has struggled to find a compelling argument for why California, and other states that follow it, cannot protect their citizens from vehicle pollution. They've come up with every excuse in the book and then some to claim California can't do what it has done for decades.</p><p>They have claimed that California does not have an immediate and pressing need to reduce global warming emissions, when <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/killer-heat-in-united-states" target="_blank">extreme heat</a>, wildfires, drought, and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise" target="_self">sea level rise</a> prove that California is at the front lines and needs action now.</p><p>They have claimed that eliminating tailpipe pollution via electrification, a critical step in the state's fight against poor air quality, is somehow equivalent to setting fuel economy standards (it's not).</p><p>They have claimed, incomprehensibly, that it is not possible to meet the zero-emission vehicle requirements of the state's standards when manufacturers are both <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/what-will-it-take-for-automakers-to-meet-californias-ev-requirements-not-as-much-as-you-might-think" target="_blank">ahead of schedule</a> and promising even more options.</p>The states will be fighting this in court … and so will we.
<p>State leadership has been critical to protecting the environment, driving innovation in the auto industry, and bringing new clean car technologies to world from catalytic converters to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles" target="_self">electric vehicles</a>. California's laboratory for clean air technology and policy innovations has not only led to cleaner air across the U.S. but across the globe. American automakers and technology companies have benefited from this leadership by being at the forefront of global automotive trends.</p><p>Fortunately, the Clean Air Act is crystal clear about the unique authority granted to California to be a leader. Unfortunately, this action by the administration will guarantee years of lawsuits and create enormous uncertainty for the industry at a time when the industry is navigating unprecedented technology disruption – from electric drivetrains to self-driving technology.</p><p>The states will be fighting this injustice in court, and we will be joining them in that fight—the stakes are too high to let this administration, not just ignore its responsibilities to protect this country, but to run roughshod over the longstanding environmental laws that are meant to protect us from such reckless behavior.</p><p><em><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/author/don-anair" target="_blank">Don Anair</a>, research and deputy director of the UCS Clean Vehicles Program, is a vehicle engineer and an expert on diesel pollution, advanced vehicle technologies, and alternative fuels.</em></p><p><em>This story was reposted with permission from our media associate </em><u><em><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/06/trump-administration-goes-after-states-protecting-environment" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></u><span></span></p>From Your Site Articles
- 29 States and Cities Sue to Block Trump's 'Dirty Power' Rule ... ›
- Trump's Misleading Speech on His Environmental Record Is a 'True ... ›
- 17 of World's Largest Car Makers Ask Trump for Compromise on ... ›
- States, Cities and Green Groups Sue to Stop Trump Fuel Efficiency Rollback - EcoWatch ›
- California Passes World's First Clean Trucks Rule - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
At his nomination on July 9, Brett Kavanaugh claimed, "No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." Official White House photo by D. Myles Cullen
When President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday, he picked the potential justice with the most environmental law experience of his final four frontrunners, E&E reported.
<p>The announcement sent environmentalists and legal experts scouring through his more than 300 rulings on the D.C. Circuit Court to reveal a contradictory picture: Kavanaugh accepts the science behind <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>, but has ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency's (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) attempts to do anything about it. </p><p>"Judge Kavanaugh isn't anti-environmental, but he tends to be anti-agency," Michael Gerrard told <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10072018/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump-nominee-climate-change-policy-environmental-law" target="_blank">Inside Climate News</a>. Gerrard is the director of the <a href="http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/" target="_blank">Sabin Center for Climate Change Law</a> at Columbia University. "He's often struck down regulation that he didn't think Congress had authorized explicitly enough." </p><p>In a 2012 case, for example, he dissented from a majority ruling upholding Obama-era attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, arguing Congress had not empowered the EPA to do so.</p><p>"The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important," he wrote, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/climate/kavanaugh-environment-supreme-court.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. But, despite that, he ruled the "EPA went well beyond what Congress authorized." </p><p>Kavanaugh's past rulings are particularly important because, if confirmed, he could have a major impact on the Supreme Court's environmental decisions. This is because Kennedy was a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kennedy-supreme-court-environmental-laws-2582036709.html" target="_self">key swing vote</a> on the issue. </p><p>In <em>Massachusetts v. EPA</em>, Kennedy broke a tie in ruling that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, even though the act does not mention them explicitly, since it was written in the 1970s, before climate change was a major concern.</p><p>Kavanaugh's strict adherence to the letter of Congressional laws suggests to legal scholars he would have ruled differently. </p><p>"I think he would have decided against <em>Massachusetts v. EPA,</em>" University of California Los Angeles environmental law professor Ann Carlson told <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/what-would-kavanaugh-mean-for-the-environment/564830/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a>. "Everything points to the direction of a very narrow construction of the Clean Air Act, and that will seriously limit the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases in a way that makes a meaningful difference." </p><p>Kavanaugh decided against the EPA in three major cases involving the Clean Air Act during the Obama years, The Atlantic reported.</p><p>In one, <em>E.M.E. Homer City Generation v. Environmental Protection Agency</em>, he struck down the EPA's ability to regulate <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a> that passed from one state to another. The Supreme Court later overturned that decision, in a ruling Kennedy supported, according to The New York Times.</p><p>Kavanaugh has ruled in favor of environmental actions in some instances, however. In 2013, he ruled that it was legal for the EPA to revoke a mountaintop-removing mining permit in West Virginia, though he ruled against the EPA in a different legal argument involving the same case, according to The Atlantic. </p><p>In 2014, he also decided in favor of the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> in a case challenging pro-industry policies for emissions from cement kilns, The New York Times reported. </p><p>Harvard law professor Richard J. Lazarus told The New York Times that Kavanaugh was not hostile to environmental laws per se, but that his approach might harm the environment as long as the legislative branch declines to pass new ones. </p><p>"Congress stopped making clean air laws after 1990, so the EPA has to work with increasingly tenuous statutory language. In effect, his approach to environmental law would make it harder to address current problems so long as Congress remains out of the lawmaking business," Lazarus said. </p><p>However, Kavanaugh's approach could also stymie the Trump EPA's attempts to deregulate independent of Congress. </p><p>"If he faces some <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_blank">Scott Pruitt</a>-era rule that was kind of done quick and dirty, I don't think the administration should expect him to rubber-stamp it," Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler told The Atlantic. "He doesn't grade federal agencies on a curve."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. Mario Antonio Pena Zapatería / CC BY-SA 2.0
By Ken Kimmell
Battle lines over President Trump's nominee for a new U.S. Supreme Court justice are now being drawn, as they should be, over crucial issues such as a woman's right to choose, health care, immigration, civil rights and criminal justice. In past nomination fights, little attention has been paid to the court's role in shaping environmental law and science-based regulation. But it would be a major mistake to overlook these issues now. The Supreme Court has an enormous impact on how U.S. environmental laws are interpreted and enforced, and a new justice could tip the balance against science-based rules on climate change, clean air and clean water.
<p>This threat is especially potent now because the current court is composed of four conservative and four liberal justices who typically vote in their respective blocks, with retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy in the middle. Trump's nominee is highly likely to align with the conservative block, and therefore to create a five-justice majority to take the court in a sharply rightward direction for decades to come. To get a sense of how much hangs in the balance for the environment, consider three cases decided in the past decade on 5-4 (or 5-3) votes in which Justice Kennedy sided with the majority.</p><p><strong>EPA's Duty to Address Global Warming</strong></p><p>In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in <em><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html" target="_blank">Massachusetts v. EPA</a></em> that many consider the most important <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html" target="_blank">environmental decision</a> in its history. The court ruled that the term "pollutant" in the Clean Air Act included the heat-trapping gases that cause global warming. This ruling, which sounds obvious now, was momentous then; it required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) to make a determination about whether these heat trapping gases threatened health and the environment, and if so, to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. The ruling was the legal foundation for the bulk of the climate action plan issued by President Obama in 2013, and the key regulations to implement that plan (limits on carbon dioxide from power plants, controls on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane">methane</a> leaks from oil and gas operations, and EPA fuel economy standards for cars and trucks). The ruling enabled President Obama to offer an ambitious U.S. emissions reduction pledge to the world which, in turn, made possible the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris climate agreement</a>.</p><p>This case was decided on a 5-4 vote, with Justice Kennedy joining four liberal justices. Justice Kennedy's "swing vote" was therefore a lynchpin to the federal government's necessary push to address climate change.</p><p>Three of the four dissenters to that ruling (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) are still on the court, and the fourth dissenter (Scalia) has been replaced by the like-minded Neil Gorsuch. If Trump picks a Supreme Court nominee aligned with the four dissenters, as seems highly likely, that decision—and with it EPA's authority to address climate change—stands at risk, either of being overruled directly, or chipped away at via subsequent court decisions. In other words, a newly constituted court could damage the federal government's fledgling efforts to address climate change at least as seriously as the EPA under Scott Pruitt tried to do—and that is saying a lot.</p><p><strong>The Role of Science in Water Protection</strong></p><p>In the key 2006 Supreme Court case <em><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1034.ZS.html" target="_blank">Rapanos v. United States</a></em>, a landowner was sued by the federal government for filling a wetland, but contended that the government did not have jurisdiction over his land under the Clean Water Act. The case raised a recurring question—does the Clean Water Act apply only to standing bodies of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water">water</a> such as <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a>, perennial streams, ponds and lakes, or does it also protect upstream wetlands and intermittent tributaries? The court's decision was complex and confusing, as four conservative justices opted for a restrictive test for federal jurisdiction and four liberal justice supported a more expansive test. Justice Kennedy issued a concurring opinion that eschewed the jurisdiction line that the four conservative justices promoted, noting that wetlands and intermittent tributaries can have significant effect on downstream water bodies. His opinion was a paean to good science; he reasoned that to exclude these lands would conflict with the overall purpose of the Clean Water Act. As he wrote:</p><blockquote>Important public interests are served by the Clean Water Act in general and by the protection of wetlands in particular. To give just one example … nutrient-rich runoff from the Mississippi River has created a hypoxic, or oxygen-depleted, "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico that at times approaches the size of Massachusetts and New Jersey [and] scientific evidence indicates that wetlands play a critical role in controlling and filtering runoff.<br></blockquote><p>In Justice Kennedy's view, upstream wetlands and tributaries could be regulated, if they had a "significant nexus" to the downstream waters. Ultimately, science, and not arbitrary lines, would determine the issue of jurisdiction.</p><p>Unfortunately, the question of federal jurisdiction has not been settled. The Obama administration issued a rule that tried to clarify the question, but that rule was put on hold by the courts and is slated for repeal. So, more litigation is likely, possibly before the Supreme Court, and the question is this: Will a replacement justice demonstrate the same respect for science when considering the issue? If not, we could be left with a highly restrictive interpretation of the Clean Water Act that does not do justice to the complex science involved and fails to ensure clean water.</p><p><strong>Drawing the Line on Governmental Compensation for Environmental Regulations</strong></p><p>The constitution provides that government may not take private property unless there is a lawful purpose and the government pays compensation to the landowner. The provision was put in place to prevent physical seizures of property, but it has long been understood that sometimes a government regulation can be deemed a "taking" if it "goes too far" by leaving the landowner with no viable use of the property.</p><p>This was the issue the Supreme Court tackled in the 2017 case <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-14_f1gj.pdf" target="_blank">Murr v. Wisconsin</a></em>. In the case, a landowner who owned two adjacent riverfront lots claimed that environmental restrictions prevented him from developing the lots and wanted the government to compensate him for "taking" one of the lots even though the landowner could combine the two undersized lots into one larger, buildable one.</p><p>In that case, the court decided that it did not need to treat the two lots as separate, but instead would look at the value of the property with the lots combined. The court then ruled that the state had not "taken" the landowner's property, because the owner still had viable use of it by combining the two lots.</p><p>Here again, the court split in a 5-3 decision, with Justices Alito, Thomas and Roberts dissenting, and Gorsuch not participating (presumably because he joined the court too late to do so). The case is important because, for those who favor radical deregulation, the takings clause could be a potent weapon when applied expansively. As the former Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/393/case.html" target="_blank">said</a>: "Government hardly could go on if, to some extent, values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law."</p><p><strong>What's Next?</strong></p><p>These three cases illustrate the importance of the Supreme Court in environmental law, the court's deep division on ideological grounds, and the key role Justice Kennedy's independent vote has played. A new conservative justice is highly likely to tip this very delicate balance in ways that threaten continued progress on climate, clean air and clean water. In addition to undermining the fragile decisions in the case above, the court will likely rule on many new cases of major environmental import. In the next term, for example, the court will take up the authority of the Fish and Wildlife service to designate "critical habitat" areas on private land to protect <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species">endangered species</a>. Further down the road, if the Trump administration follows through on its threat to try to take away the right of California and other states to establish their own global warming emissions standards for cars and trucks, no doubt the court will be asked to weigh in on this crucial question.</p><p>Given how much is at stake, the public debate over the next nominee needs to include these issues. Just as nominees should be thoroughly questioned on a woman's right to choose and civil rights issues, the nominee's record on matters of science and environmental regulation deserves careful scrutiny. Senators should be prepared to ask probing questions, such as whether the nominee considers <em>Mass. v. EPA</em> to be "settled law" and therefore disfavored from being overruled under the doctrine of stare decisis. More generally, a robust discussion about whether the nominee accepts the scientific consensus on climate science, and whether and how a judge should consider scientific evidence in statutory interpretation, is needed. If this scrutiny reveals the nominee to be hostile to science-based regulation, this should establish a bright line which senators should refuse to cross.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d2d9a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="VSJXMM1576663198"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1012317415546507265" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Environmental Consequences of Justice Kennedy’s Retirement https://t.co/rJ5qBr0ttz</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1012317415546507265">1530190254.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/author/ken-kimmell" target="_blank">Ken Kimmell</a> is president of the Union of Concerned Scientists and has more than 30 years of experience in government, environmental policy and advocacy.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
States Representing 44% of U.S. Population Sue EPA for Blocking Auto Emissions Standards
02 May 2018
Climate
Drivers battle traffic during rush hour in Los Angeles, CA in March 2015. Eric Demarcq / flickr / cc
By Jessica Corbett
A coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia is suing the Trump administration for blocking greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles that aimed to reduce air pollution and curb U.S. drivers' contributions to the global climate crisis.
In what critics called an "indefensible and frankly embarrassing decision," last month U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt caved to automobile industry lobbyists' demands and announced that his agency is drafting relaxed manufacturing rules for vehicles made between 2022 and 2025.
<p>"Enough is enough," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Tuesday. "The evidence is irrefutable: today's clean car standards are achievable, science-based, and a boon for hardworking American families. But the EPA and Administrator Scott Pruitt refuse to do their job and enforce these standards."</p><p>Becerra, California Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Air Resources Board are leading the coalition that filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to a <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-and-states-representing-over-40-percent-us-car-market-sue-defend" target="_blank">statement</a> released by Becerra's office, the lawsuit alleges that Trump's EPA "acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failed to follow its own regulations, and violated the Clean Air Act" when rolling back the regulations.</p><p>"This coalition represents approximately 43 percent of the new car sales market nationally and 44 percent of the U.S. population," the statement noted. States attorneys general or agencies from Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia have signed on to the <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/2018-05-01%20Petition%20Revised%20MTE.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> (pdf).</p><p>In a short video posted to Twitter, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman—who has <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/03/savethecensus-major-cities-join-17-states-lawsuit-block-trumps-citizenship-question" target="_blank">spearheaded</a> <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/01/17/22-states-file-suit-stop-ffcs-illegal-rollback-net-neutrality" target="_blank">multiple</a> <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/23/federal-court-blocks-trumps-bizarre-attempt-encourage-toxic-tailpipe-pollution" target="_blank">suits</a> challenging the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts—outlined how the "responsible greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks" were implemented over the course of several years, only to be quashed by Trump and Pruitt "to serve their pro-pollution agenda."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p>
<p>"This move is totally unjustifiable under the facts and the law. That's why, today, we're going to stop them," Schneiderman said. "We need these responsible emission standards in New York and across the country. They fight climate change, they cut air pollution, and they save drivers money."<br></p><p>The lawsuit was lauded by environmental advocates nationwide.</p><p>Andrea McGimsey of <a href="https://environmentamerica.org" target="_blank">Environment America</a> commended the states for "standing up for the rights of their citizens to a stable climate and clean air."</p><p>"The mission of the EPA is to protect the environment and public health," McGimsey added. "Clearly Administrator Pruitt has not upheld this critical mission, so the states have rightfully filed this lawsuit to hold the administration accountable to the rule of law."</p><p>"Scott Pruitt is recklessly disregarding the vast technical and economic bases for America's clean car standards, and instead launching an all-out attack that risks Americans' health and their pocketbooks," declared Environmental Defense Fund general counsel Vickie Patton. "The states' legal challenge is crucial to protect our nation's clean car standards that reduce dangerous air pollution and save Americans hard-earned money."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="310ce" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="P12ONY1576662005"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="991434617256366080" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">U.S. Air Pollution Falling More Slowly Than EPA Data Suggests https://t.co/6WKQIseLMr @EPAairmarkets @cleanaircouncil</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/991434617256366080">1525211407.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Los Angeles skyline. Prayitno Photography / CC BY 2.0
U.S. air pollution isn't declining as fast as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has claimed, a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed.
To track the levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, two pollutants that contribute to smog formation, an international research team used satellite pollution measurements backed up by local air quality monitor readings.
<p style="">They compared this to EPA data, which is based on readings from air monitors and pollution estimates from vehicles and industry, and came to a surprising conclusion. </p><p style="">While nitrogen oxide levels had fallen by a healthy 7 percent annually from 2005 to 2009, from 2011 to 2015 the decline stalled to a mere 1.7 percent per year. This meant a 76 percent slowdown in pollution decline and contrasted with EPA data, which put the slowdown from 2011 to 2015 at only 16 percent.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style="">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzYxMzUwMC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzkwMzU0Nn0.-0cXQAOM-XtYHULS1cAvU8dx3H0zsSbsgWkQP8E4Sgk/img.gif?width=980" id="73446" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7fa3e0ea2bb8658eca04cbafcd308c8b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A graph showing the discrepancy between EPA and satellite nitrogen oxide measurements. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Zhe Jiang, redrawn by Simmi Sinha, UCAR</small></p><p style="">"We were surprised by the discrepancy between the estimates of emissions and the actual measurements of pollutants in the atmosphere," lead author Zhe Jiang said in a National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) <a href="https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/132435/us-gains-in-air-quality-are-slowing-down" target="_blank">press release</a>. "These results show that meeting future air quality standards for ozone pollution will be more challenging than previously thought."</p><p style="">The researchers, who were funded by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Colorado Boulder and the NCAR-sponsoring National Science Foundation, hypothesized that the difference between the satellite data and the EPA measurements of nitrogen oxide were due to three factors. </p><ol class="ee-ol"><li> The decrease in nitrogen oxide released by cars because of the widespread use of catalytic converters</li><li>A relative increase in nitrogen oxide released by boilers and off-road vehicles</li><li>A slower decrease in emissions from diesel trucks than expected due to the fact that effective catalytic converters for these vehicles are still being perfected. </li></ol><p style="">The researchers found that carbon monoxide levels had also slowed their decline and hypothesized that this was due to the effectiveness of catalytic converters in cars. </p><p style="">NCAR scientist and study co-author Helen Worden told <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/your-air-isn-t-getting-as-clean-as-the-epa-said-it-is" target="_blank">Bloomberg News</a> that the slowdown in air pollution decline was influenced by the fact that, as the 1970 Clean Air Act succeeded in reducing pollution from cars and factories, pollution sources such as boilers and off-road vehicles that had fallen under the radar before were playing a bigger role. </p><p style="">"To some extent, this is a product of our own success," Worden said. "The relative contribution of those sources is now more important because cars and power plants have gotten better."</p>Unfortunately, the findings come at a time when the EPA is backtracking on its commitment to its former successes. Since December 2017, the EPA <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-air-quality-pruitt-2561179827.html" target="_self">has passed four memos</a> weakening controls on industrial air pollution. And in April, EPA head <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a> announced the agency would adapt less stringent car emissions standards through 2025.<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="e9e18" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="M396CQ1576662006"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="981283974562623488" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EPA Rolls Back Fuel Efficiency Standards https://t.co/EWOcDIdcUm @OpenSecretsDC @DeSmogBlog</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/981283974562623488">1522791305.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Koch vs. California: These Groups Want Pruitt to Undo the State’s Right to Regulate Auto Emissions
11 April 2018
Climate
Pacific Coast Highway traffic. Kenyon Edmond / Flickr
By Ben Jervey
A coalition of conservative groups, many with close ties to the Koch brothers, is calling for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to strip California of its right to set stricter greenhouse gas limits for personal vehicles.
<p>Not satisfied with <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/04/pruitt-automakers-car-dealers-retreat-behind-closed-doors-weaken-fuel-efficiency-targets" target="_blank">Pruitt's decision to rewrite the Obama-era emissions standards</a>—which had been written cooperatively with the automakers, state of California, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and EPA—<a href="http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ACI-Coalition-Letter-Final.pdf" target="_blank">the American Consumer Institute (ACI) organized a letter to Pruitt</a> calling "for the revocation of California's waiver from the Clean Air Act, which allows the state to decouple from federal policy and impose strict emission standards on automobiles."</p><p style="">When asked about this threat on the sidelines of the BNEF Future of Energy Summit, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, told Desmog, "I don't think they're going to do that."</p><p>Commenting on the conservative organizations requesting that Pruitt revoke the waiver, Nichols told Desmog, "They're the same groups that've been supporting Pruitt through all this other stuff."</p><p>In the weeks leading up to his announcement about the emissions standards, Pruitt had taken a more antagonistic tone towards California, signaling that he might attempt to revoke the waiver that was <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/california-greenhouse-gas-waiver-request" target="_blank">granted by the Obama administration, per legal mandate, in 2009</a>.</p><p>"California is not the arbiter of these issues," Pruitt told Bloomberg News in March, adding that the state "shouldn't and can't dictate to the rest of the country what these levels are going to be."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="ded39" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="57VTZI1576662012"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="974465391140491265" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Scott Pruitt: California Can’t 'Dictate' National Emissions Policy https://t.co/vKcFeRSPIZ @foe_us @greenpeaceusa</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/974465391140491265">1521165628.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>With the waiver in hand, California can continue to enforce current greenhouse gas emissions standards, despite whatever the <span style="background-color: initial;">EPA</span> sets as the new national standards for model years 2022-2025. On top of that, any other state can choose to adopt California's standards, which 13 other states and the District of Columbia currently have.<br></p><p>Because these states represent roughly one-third of the country's personal vehicle market, automakers would have to decide whether to set up two different production lines for states following the California standards and the rest of the country, or whether to treat California's targets as a de facto national standard.</p><p>Predictably, the automakers, through the powerful Auto Alliance and Global Automakers trade groups, are calling for one national regime, which could result from a grand bargain like the one that Pruitt just scrapped, or could be delivered by Pruitt stripping California of its waiver.</p><p>Any attempt at such a repeal would be hugely controversial, and possibly illegal, due to many nuances in the Clean Air Act and the history of its application and enforcement. A waiver granted to California under the Clean Air Act has never been revoked, and has only been denied once.</p><p>Notably, that lone denial came in December 2007 when William (Bill) Wehrum, who ran the EPA's clean air division at the time, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/27/nation/na-waiver27" target="_blank">convinced then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to reject the state's request</a> to set its own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, the very issue at hand today.</p><p>(California was later granted that same waiver in 2009 under the Obama administration, after the state sued the EPA, and after the Supreme Court had held in 2007 that <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/04/02/the-tenth-anniversary-of-massachusetts-v-epa/" target="_blank">the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions</a>. For a much more comprehensive background on California's waiver and Wehrum's opposition, see <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/bill-wehrum-once-denied-california-right-cut-auto-emissions-and-could-do-it-again-epa" target="_blank">this recent Desmog article</a>.)</p><p>Today, Wehrum is again the air chief at the EPA, and is again in a position to attempt to strip California of its unique authority to set its own <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a> limits. As Wehrum, Pruitt and EPA policymakers work to figure out the new national emissions standards for cars and light trucks, they are hearing from groups including the American Consumer Institute and its Koch-tied coalition on the importance of revoking the California waiver.</p><p><strong>Who Are the Groups Fighting California's Clean Air Act Waiver?</strong></p><p>The ACI letter to Pruitt, dated March 28, 2018, was signed by representatives from 11 groups, eight of which have known ties to the Koch network, and all of which are routine commenters on conservative issues.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Consumer_Institute" target="_blank">American Consumer Institute (ACI)</a> is credited with organizing the coalition, and the letter is signed by its President Steve Pociask. The group is best known for opposing <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/" target="_blank">net neutrality efforts</a> while being funded by a major Internet service provider lobby, as journalist <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8gdbw5/cables-companies-are-astroturfing-fake-consumer-support-to-end-net-neutrality" target="_blank">Lee Fang detailed for VICE</a>. More recently, Pociask has turned his attention to attacking <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">electric vehicles</a>, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevepociask/2018/03/22/the-science-on-electric-vehicles-does-not-support-continuing-californias-waiver/" target="_blank">writing on Forbes</a> that "the science on electric vehicles does not support continuing California's waiver."</p><p><a href="http://lessgovernment.org/#sthash.UrtaKSlM.dpbs" target="_blank">Less Government</a> is an "organization dedicated to reducing the power of government and protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault," which was founded and run by <a href="https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/seton-motley" target="_blank">Seton Motley</a>, who is also listed as a policy adviser to the climate science-denying <a href="http://desmogblog.com/heartland-institute" target="_blank">Heartland Institute</a>. Though Motley and his Less Government organization have their roots in telecom and media issues, he has in recent years engaged more on climate and energy issues, <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/americans-for-prosperity-anti-wind-letter-analysis/" target="_blank">signing some anti-wind energy letters organized by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity</a> and <a href="http://lessgovernment.org/why-are-republicans-resurrecting-failed-green-energy-subsidies/#sthash.9ki1QTaT.dpbs" target="_blank">writing a bit on electric vehicles</a>.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/taxpayer-protection-alliance" target="_blank">Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA)</a> is part of the <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/koch" target="_blank">network of front groups</a> funded by the Koch brothers and their donor network through the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/center-to-protect-patient-rights-ga/" target="_blank">Center to Protect Patient Rights</a> (now called <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Encore" target="_blank">American Encore</a>) and <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/behind-the-curtain-exclusive-the-koch-brothers-secret-bank-96669.html" target="_blank">Freedom Partners</a>. As the Energy and Policy Institute has described, "TPA essentially exists as a shell for its advocacy, based on its own IRS form 990s: 'The Taxpayers Protection Alliance has given control of the management duties and the daily activities of the organization to MLM Consulting, LLC (MLM). MLM will be responsible for managing the organization and work to support the exempt purposes of TPA. The President of TPA, David Williams, is the sole owner of MLM Consulting LLC.'" Williams signed the ACI letter to Pruitt. TPA has fought clean energy policy in the past using the website SolarSecrets.org and has published white papers arguing against <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar">solar</a> energy tax credits.</p><p><a href="http://caseforconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Consumer Action for a Strong Economy</a> is run by Matthew Kandrach, and has been <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/freedomworks#s46" target="_blank">linked to a number of coalition efforts stemming from the FreedomWorks</a> organization, which was born of a merger between the Koch-founded <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy" target="_blank">Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Empower_America" target="_blank">Empower America</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.americancommitment.org/" target="_blank">American Commitment</a> is run by Phil Kerpen, a former vice president of Americans for Prosperity. The organization was founded by <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sean_Noble" target="_blank" title="Sean Noble">Sean Noble</a>, a right-wing operative with close ties to the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_brothers" target="_blank" title="Koch brothers">Koch brothers</a> who also runs the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_to_Protect_Patient_Rights" target="_blank" title="Center to Protect Patient Rights">Center to Protect Patient Rights</a> (American Encore), a major funnel for Koch donor network money to front groups.</p><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/freedomworks" target="_blank">FreedomWorks</a> was, as mentioned above, born of a merger between the Koch-founded <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy" target="_blank">Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Empower_America" target="_blank">Empower America</a>, though it has no known Koch ties at present day. The group was described in a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150821200015/http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/dick-armey-resigns-freedomworks-tea-party" target="_blank">2012 article in Mother Jones</a> as "one of the main political outfits of the conservative movement and an instrumental force within the tea party." It pushes free market policies and has <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">questioned the well-established science</a> linking human activity to a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">warming planet</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute" target="_blank">Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)</a> is a conservative advocacy group <a href="https://cei.org/about-cei" target="_blank">dedicated</a> to "economic freedom" that has <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute" target="_blank">received funding</a> from ExxonMobil, Texaco and the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations" target="_blank">family foundations of the Koch brothers</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/americans-for-tax-reform" target="_blank">Americans for Tax Reform</a> (ATR) is an <a href="https://www.atr.org/about" target="_blank">anti-tax</a> group that has received funding from the oil and gas lobbying group, the <a href="http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform-americans-for-tax-reform-foundation/?og_tot=127&order_by=contribution+DESC&adv=American+Petroleum+Institute&min=&max=&yr=&yr1=&yr2=&submit=#grants" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute</a>, along with various groups in the Koch network such as the <a href="http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform-americans-for-tax-reform-foundation/?og_tot=127&order_by=contribution+DESC&adv=claude&min=&max=&yr=&yr1=&yr2=&submit=#grants" target="_blank">Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform-americans-for-tax-reform-foundation/?og_tot=127&order_by=contribution+DESC&adv=Center+to+Protect+Patient+Rights&min=&max=&yr=&yr1=&yr2=&submit=#grants" target="_blank">Center to Protect Patient Rights</a>, as well as <a href="http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform-americans-for-tax-reform-foundation/?og_tot=127&order_by=contribution+DESC&adv=donors&min=&max=&yr=&yr1=&yr2=&submit=#grants" target="_blank">DonorsTrust</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/60-plus-association" target="_blank">60 Plus Association</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20151014182632/http://60plus.org/about/" target="_blank">describes itself</a> as the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and receives significant funding from groups connected to the Koch brothers. The group has also received funding from the American Petroleum Institute, and was created by Sean Noble (see American Commitment above). Noble was until recently a consultant for the Arizona Public Service utility company, and <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/08/how-arizona-corporation-commission-turned-anti-solar-just-few-years" target="_blank">has led efforts in Arizona to kill solar-friendly legislation</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/frontiers-freedom" target="_blank">Frontiers of Freedom</a>, run by George Landrith, has received significant funding from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">Exxon</a>, the Koch brothers and dark money organizations like Donors Trust. In 2015, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/23/energy-equality-coalition-koch-attack-federal-electric-vehicle-tax-credit" target="_blank">Landrith launched the Energy Equality Coalition</a> to battle against the federal electric vehicle tax credit. The coalition also includes David Williams of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance and Horace Cooper, a senior fellow at the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute" target="_blank">Heartland Institute</a>. Landrith is also a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20171115202340/http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPR_Directors.pdf" target="_blank">director </a>of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/national-center-public-policy-research" target="_blank">National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR)</a>. </p><p>The Center for Freedom and Prosperity was <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/center-for-freedom-prosperity-foundation/" target="_blank">once funded by the Charles Koch Foundation</a> and has actively lobbied for more liberalized tax laws, and for less scrutiny towards offshore tax havens.</p><p>Seven of the organizations that signed this letter to Pruitt—and five of the actual representatives who signed—<a href="http://www.rstreet.org/outreach/letter-support-policies-encouraging-smokers-to-switch-to-less-harmful-alternatives/" target="_blank">also recently penned a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration</a> defending "electronic and heat-not-burn" tobacco products (or vaping products), indicating that this network is defending the tobacco industry as well as oil and gas companies.</p><p><strong>California and Partner States Fight Back</strong></p><p>Nichols has signaled that California will not be retreating from its strong standards.</p><p>"California will not weaken its nationally accepted clean car standards, and automakers will continue to meet those higher standards, bringing better gas mileage and less pollution for everyone," Nichols wrote in a statement emailed to reporters. "This decision takes the U.S. auto industry backward, and we will vigorously defend the existing clean vehicle standards and fight to preserve one national clean vehicle program."</p><p>California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has also said that California is prepared to sue if the EPA moves to weaken the vehicle emissions standards.</p><p>"We are going to do everything that can been done to defend these standards," <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-autos-emissions-california/california-attorney-general-says-ready-to-defend-vehicle-efficiency-standards-idUSL1N1R927Q" target="_blank">Becerra told </a><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-autos-emissions-california/california-attorney-general-says-ready-to-defend-vehicle-efficiency-standards-idUSL1N1R927Q" target="_blank">Reuters</a><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-autos-emissions-california/california-attorney-general-says-ready-to-defend-vehicle-efficiency-standards-idUSL1N1R927Q" target="_blank"> last week</a>. "So far, when we have been challenged on environmental standards we have had a good record in court. We haven't lost a case."</p><p>Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to grant California a waiver on air pollution emissions standards if the state has "compelling and extraordinary circumstances," which California argued a decade ago, and which the Obama administration agreed that it does. To revoke the waiver, the EPA would legally have to prove that those circumstances are no longer there. To satisfy the courts in California's inevitable legal challenge, this would require a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous analysis.</p><p>At the BNEF Future of Energy Summit on April 10, Nichols said, "The document that came out a week ago from the administrator did nothing to change the nature of the debate. It expressed Mr. Pruitt's view but there was absolutely nothing new in the way of data or analysis to support that view." </p><p>She did indicate that she would be willing to sit down with the EPA and automakers to look at some "minor adjustments" to the technical changes measuring how companies could comply, but not the targets themselves. She provided an example related to electric vehicles. "Under the 2012 rules [car companies are] responsible for upstream emissions of power plants for charging EVs [electric vehicles]. I don't think that's a great idea. I didn't think so at the time."</p><p>However, "if the whole system is up for reexamination," said Nichols, "then that's a whole different story … That's a different fight. And we would win it."</p><p>It's also clear that other states would have California's back and join a legal fight, or start their own. Attorneys general from 11 states said last week in a statement that they would defend California's right to set firm standards.</p><p>"By cooking the books on its review of national auto emissions standards, the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration is putting special interests ahead of New Yorkers' health and wallets," said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. "We stand ready to take legal action to block the Trump administration's reckless and illegal efforts to reverse these critical standards and the gains we've made in ensuring cars are more fuel-efficient and less polluting."</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/10/koch-nichols-scott-pruitt-strip-california-waiver-regulate-auto-emissions" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Why California Gets to Write Its Own Auto Emissions Standards: 5 Questions Answered
06 April 2018
Popular
Traffic on the I-405 in Los Angeles. Eric Beteille / Flickr
By Nicholas Bryner and Meredith Hankins
Editor's note: On April 2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the Trump administration plans to revise tailpipe emissions standards negotiated by the Obama administration for motor vehicles built between 2022 and 2025, saying the standards were set "too high." Pruitt also said the EPA was re-examining California's historic ability to adopt standards that are more ambitious than the federal government's. Legal scholars Nicholas Bryner and Meredith Hankins explain why California has this authority—and what may happen if the EPA tries to curb it.
<p>
<strong>Where does California get this special authority?</strong>
</p><p>
The Clean Air Act empowers the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a> to regulate air pollution from motor vehicles. To promote uniformity, the law generally bars states from regulating car emissions.
</p><p>
But when the Clean Air Act was passed, California was already developing innovative laws and standards to address its unique air pollution problems. So Congress carved out an exemption. As long as California's standards protect public health and welfare at least as strictly as federal law, and are necessary "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions," the law <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543" target="_blank">requires</a> the EPA to grant California a waiver so it can continue to apply its own regulations. California has received <a href="https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations#notices" target="_blank">numerous waivers</a> as it has worked to reduce vehicle emissions by enacting ever more stringent standards since the 1960s.
</p><p>
Other states can't set their own standards, but they can opt to follow California's motor vehicle emission regulations. Currently, <a href="https://database.aceee.org/state/tailpipe-emission-standards" target="_blank">12 states and the District of Columbia</a> have adopted California's standards.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzUyNTA5Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNjExMzg5N30.ub0vFlCEVCK1l7SOZ5N5IPA1l2cRCm0fD0XA31zYyMI/img.jpg?width=980" id="e772d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="69a875ac04e0f5022dd03c073773b977" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Gov. Ronald Reagan signs legislation establishing the California Air Resources Board to address the state's air pollution, Aug. 30, 1967. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">CA ARB</small></p><p>
<strong>What are the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" that California's regulations are designed to address?</strong>
</p><p>
In the 1950s scientists <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00966665.1953.10467586" target="_blank">recognized</a> that the unique combination of enclosed topography, a rapidly growing population and a warm climate in the Los Angeles air basin was a recipe for dangerous smog. Dutch chemist <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/hsawards/a_lesson_from_the_smog_capital_of_world.pdf" target="_blank">Arie Jan Haagen-Smit</a> discovered in 1952 that worsening Los Angeles smog episodes were caused by photochemical reactions between California's sunshine and nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicle exhaust.
</p><p>
California's Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board issued <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm" target="_blank">regulations</a> mandating use of the nation's first vehicle emissions control technology in 1961, and developed the nation's first vehicle emissions standards in 1966. Two years later the EPA adopted standards identical to California's for model year 1968 cars. UCLA Law scholar Ann Carlson calls this pattern, in which California innovates and federal regulators piggyback on the state's demonstrated success, "<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1115556" target="_blank">iterative federalism</a>." This process has continued for decades.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="68bbecb68e144ac686b8ea0050319b20"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k2Ra8PRtXSU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>
<strong>California has <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-blazing-a-low-carbon-path-pay-off-for-california-72168" target="_blank">set ambitious goals</a> for slowing climate change. Is that part of this dispute with the EPA?</strong><br/>
</p><p>
Yes. Transportation is now the <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/transportation-replaces-power-in-u-s-as-top-source-of-co2-emissions" target="_blank">largest source</a> of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. The tailpipe standards that the Obama EPA put in place were designed to limit GHG emissions from cars by improving average fuel efficiency.
</p><p>
These standards were developed jointly by the EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and California, which have overlapping legal authority to regulate cars. EPA and California have the responsibility to control motor vehicle emissions of air pollutants, including GHGs. DOT is in charge of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/32902" target="_blank">regulating fuel economy</a>.
</p><p>
Congress began regulating fuel economy in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s. DOT sets the Corporate Average Fuel Economy <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy" target="_blank">(CAFE) standard</a> that each auto manufacturer must meet. Under this program, average fuel economy in the U.S. improved in the late 1970s but <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100TGLC.pdf" target="_blank">stagnated</a> from the 1980s to the early 2000s as customers shifted to purchasing larger vehicles, including SUVs, minivans and trucks.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzUyNDk4OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODQ1NTU4N30.rIhzApAnjWW7io9gMjpLFtObdX9D5GnW8ckFrx9ResY/img.png?width=980" id="b1cc4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a58567edb29520e8eb218f6345757ba" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
</p><p>
In 2007 Congress responded with a new law that required DOT to set a standard of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and the "maximum feasible average fuel economy" after that. That same year, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html" target="_blank">ruled</a> that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from cars.<br/>
</p><p>
The Obama administration's tailpipe standard brought these overlapping mandates together. EPA's regulation sets how much carbon dioxide can be emitted per mile, which matches with DOT's increased standard for average fuel economy. It also includes a "midterm review" to assess progress. Administrator Scott Pruitt's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/mte-final-determination-notice-2018-04-02.pdf" target="_blank">new EPA review</a>, released on April 2, overturned the Obama administration's midterm review and concluded that the 2022 to 2025 standard was not feasible.
</p><p>
The EPA now <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-ghg-emissions-standards-cars-and-light-trucks-should-be" target="_blank">argues</a> that earlier assumptions behind the rule were "optimistic" and can't be met. However, its review almost entirely ignored the purpose of the standards and the costs of continuing to emit GHGs at high levels. Although the document is 38 pages long, the word "climate" never appears, and "carbon" appears only once.
</p><p>
The EPA's decision does not yet have any legal impact. It leaves the current standards in place until the EPA and DOT decide on a less-stringent replacement.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzUyNDk5MC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDE4OTIzOX0.6OVDxv_YqvHKDS-zWK_EpBwNaxGtpQ0HwXg8nKOC7cs/img.png?width=980" id="b1cb6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="369b78dd129af65c2a50f7e20a7ce791" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
</p><p>
<strong>Can the Trump administration take away California's authority to set stricter targets?</strong><br/>
</p><p>
The EPA has never attempted to revoke an existing waiver. In 2007, under George W. Bush, the agency <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html" target="_blank">denied</a> California's request for a waiver to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions. California sued, but the EPA reversed course under President Obama and granted the state a waiver before the case was resolved.
</p><p>
California's <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-09/pdf/2013-00181.pdf" target="_blank">current waiver</a> was approved in 2013 as a part of a "<a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>" between California, federal agencies and automakers. It covers the state's Advanced Clean Cars program and includes standards to reduce conventional air pollutants like carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, as well as the GHG standards jointly developed with the EPA and DOT.
</p><p>
The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration is threatening to revoke this waiver when it decouples the national GHG vehicle standards from California's standards. EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Pruitt</a> has <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-ghg-emissions-standards-cars-and-light-trucks-should-be" target="_blank">said</a> that the agency is re-examining the waiver, and that "cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country." In our view, this statement mischaracterizes how the Clean Air Act works. Other states have voluntarily chosen to follow California's rules because they see benefits in reducing air pollution.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<div id="3e61a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3N8ONS1576662073"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="980896503249092608" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Trump Administration’s assault on clean car standards risks our ability to protect our children’s health, tackl… https://t.co/yYHUybng2E</div> — Xavier Becerra (@Xavier Becerra)<a href="https://twitter.com/AGBecerra/statuses/980896503249092608">1522698925.0</a></blockquote></div>
</p><p>
<strong>How would California respond if the EPA revokes its waiver?</strong><br/>
</p><p>
<a href="https://twitter.com/JerryBrownGov/status/980894214903836672" target="_blank">Gov. Jerry Brown</a>, <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-epa%E2%80%99s-assault-federal-greenhouse-gas-emission-standards" target="_blank">Attorney General Xavier Becerra</a> and <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-chair-issues-response-epa-press-release-weakening-vehicle-standards" target="_blank">California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols</a> have all made clear that the state will push back. It's almost certain that any attempt to revoke or weaken California's waiver will immediately be challenged in court—and that this would be a <a href="http://legal-planet.org/2018/03/16/will-pruitt-join-sessions-in-expanding-the-attack-on-california/" target="_blank">major legal battle</a>.
</p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94379/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Ken Kimmell
A major front in the climate change debate has moved to the courtroom, as I've previously discussed. Last week, plaintiffs in two separate cases won significant procedural victories—one against major fossil fuel companies, and a second against the Trump administration. Here are the latest developments and their implications.
<h4>Bay Area vs. Big Oil</h4><p>In this suit, <em><a href="https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2017/09/19/san-francisco-oakland-sue-top-five-oil-gas-companies-costs-climate-change/" target="_blank">The People of the State of California v. BP et al</a>., </em>the cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued five major oil companies (BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Shell), charging that these companies created a public nuisance by extracting and selling oil, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> and gas while misleading the public about the harms that these products cause.</p><p>The two cities filed in state court and under state law<em>.</em> This was an important strategic choice, as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers California) had dismissed prior cases brought in federal court, holding that congress enacted the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Clean-Air-Act">Clean Air Act</a> to comprehensively address the emission of greenhouse gases, and that therefore there was no role for federal lawsuits of this kind.</p><p>Citing the precedent of these earlier rulings, the defendant oil companies transferred the cities' cases to federal court, and argued that the cities' claims were preempted by federal law. In response, the cities claimed that they had a right to file in state court and that their claims under state law were not preempted by federal law, and they asked the judge to send the cases back to state court.</p><p>A federal district court judge issued a <a href="http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2016/05/Cal-v-BP-removal-decision-ND-Cal-2018.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a> that neither side argued for. The court decided in the oil companies' favor that the case was properly in federal court, reasoning—with some logic—that climate change is an international problem, that state courts might apply inconsistent standards if allowed to adjudicate these cases, and that only the federal court could apply a uniform standard.</p><p>But, the court went on to find that the two earlier cases which had dismissed federal court suits did not apply to this case. The court found that while the Clean Air Act addresses the emissions from fossil fuel combustion, the San Francisco/Oakland case was not about emissions of pollutants, but rather an alleged scheme to sell a product<em> </em>through deception. The court reasoned—again with some logic—that the Clean Air Act offered no remedy for that conduct, and therefore did not preempt this lawsuit.</p><p>This part of the ruling was a major win for the plaintiffs, as it seems to take away the key defense of preemption that the oil companies seemed to be counting on.</p><p>On top of this, the court also <a href="http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180227_docket-317-cv-06011_notice.pdf" target="_blank">ordered</a> the parties to participate in a five-hour "climate science" tutorial for the court, to be held on Mar. 21. The judge ordered the parties to "trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historic cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes and global warming." And further, to inform the court of "the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise and coastal flooding."</p><p>This is fascinating and highly unusual. As anyone who has seen a trial on television or in the movies knows, courts don't conduct tutorials; they oversee trials, in which lawyers present the testimony of witnesses under oath and each side gets to examine and cross examine. The sheer novelty of this procedure is a good sign for the plaintiffs. Why would the judge invest time and energy to learn about climate science unless he thought the plaintiffs' legal claims might rest on a durable foundation? Also, the fact that the court asked for a climate science timeline suggests the court is honing in on some key questions: what did the fossil fuel companies know about climate change, when did they know it, and how did their public statements square with the scientific consensus at the time?</p><p>All eyes will be on this climate science tutorial, which will presumably be open to the public. To my knowledge, this is the first time climate science will be presented to a court in this fashion, and it offers an excellent opportunity to highlight the longstanding and well-supported scientific consensus.</p><p>It is too early to confidently predict what lies ahead but, on the basis of the judge's initial opinion, one can say this: the courtroom door is open now on these issues as it never has been before.</p><h4>Kids sue to protect themselves and future generations.</h4><p>In this case, <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/" target="_blank"><em>Juliana v. the United States</em></a>, a group of kids are suing the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump administration</a> for failing to protect them against the harms of climate change. I <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/ken-kimmell/climate-change-goes-to-court" target="_blank">wrote about</a> the novelty of this case last fall, and its early success when a federal district court judge in Oregon ordered the case to trial, rejecting all the Trump administration's procedural defenses.</p><p>Since that time, the Trump administration asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to dismiss the case. This was an unusual move because, ordinarily, a party to a lawsuit cannot appeal until the trial court has issued a final judgment. In this case, however, the district court had not done so. Predictably, the court of appeals <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5aa0319753450acab4dac5bc/1520447895924/2018.03.07+Ninth+Circuit+Order+on+Trump+Mandamus+Petition.pdf" target="_blank">ruled</a> that the appeal was therefore premature, and sent the case back to the district court.</p><p>(Full disclosure: UCS joined a friend of the court brief on this issue, ably authored by <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> attorneys).</p><p>The case was originally set for trial in February, 2018, but the Trump administration's appeal delayed that. Presumably, the next step will be for the court to set another trial date.</p><p>This is not good news for the Trump administration. At a minimum, a trial on this will be a public relations nightmare in which an appealing group of kids, represented by experienced attorneys, will have the opportunity to question Trump administration officials in open court. They will no doubt ask questions that the administration will find extremely difficult to answer, such as: Why has the Trump administration sought to withdraw from the Paris agreement, rolled back regulations to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and promoted subsidies for coal? Does the Trump administration not accept climate science? Does it not care about the harm of runaway climate change?</p><p>Further down the line, if the plaintiffs are successful in district court and if the court of appeals or the supreme court affirms the ruling (all very big "ifs," of course), the Trump administration faces the prospect of being forced under court order to develop and implement a plan to address climate change.</p><h4>Chickens coming home to roost.</h4><p>These lawsuits and the apparent judicial receptiveness to them—at least so far—are not accidental. Courts are heavily influenced by historic context, and judges are no doubt well aware of the pressing urgency of climate change and the failure of the federal government to address it. With no solution in sight, it is not surprising that courts are increasingly willing to hear cases urging a strong judicial role.</p><p>Is it ideal that courts, rather than our elected representatives, would decide these issues? Of course not. Maybe it is time for those who have opposed having our elected leaders take action on climate to consider this question–would they prefer the courts to do that job?</p><p><em><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/author/ken-kimmell#.WqqFJpPwYcg" target="_blank">Ken Kimmell</a> is president of the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> and has more than 30 years of experience in government, environmental policy, and advocacy.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less