Fees on Electric Cars, Influenced by Koch Network, Unfairly Penalize Drivers, Consumer Reports Says
17 September 2019
Business
Electric cars recharge at public charging stations. Sven Loeffler / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Ben Jervey
Drivers of electric cars are being unfairly punished by punitive fees in several states, according to a newly published analysis by Consumer Reports. Legislators in 26 states have enacted or proposed special registration fees for electric vehicles (EVs) that the consumer advocacy group found to be more expensive than the gas taxes paid by the driver of an average new gasoline vehicle.
<p><br/></p>
<p>These punitive EV fees have been pushed in many states by the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-legislative-exchange-council" target="_blank">American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)</a>, the corporate-funded group which produces model legislation and voted on a model <a href="https://www.alec.org/model-policy/resolution-supporting-equal-tax-treatment-for-all-vehicles/" target="_blank">resolution</a> supporting "equal tax treatment for all vehicles" — a move that bears the fingerprints of the fossil fueled–<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-network-database" target="_blank">Koch network</a>.</p><p>"We are seeing a sudden, dramatic increase in fees that are especially unfair," said Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports and co-author of the EV fees study. "Some of these fees could force some consumers to pay triple or even quadruple what the owner of a gas-powered vehicle pays in gas taxes."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTEwNDU4My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NDYwMDg1NH0.58qrF4LuNSVbLXXOm7QCe40jFllGmJrd9OMrPHjyobQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="ed86c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9f12ebf8ad9554e3678a2157de4fb6dc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
www.desmogblog.com
<p>In 2019, eight states passed new fees for <span style="background-color: initial;">EV</span> registrations or increased current fees, and of these, Consumer Reports found that all but one would be "extremely punitive" — or would cost <span style="background-color: initial;">EV</span> drivers at least 50 percent more than the gas taxes paid by the driver of an average new gas-powered car.</p><p>All told, there are already 18 states with EV fees higher than the annual gas tax equivalent for an average new car, and at least eight more punitive fees have been proposed. </p><p>The current highest fees in place are found in Arkansas and Wyoming, where EV owners must pay what a driver of a vehicle that gets 13 miles per gallon does in gasoline taxes. </p><p>The highest proposed fees are in Missouri and Arizona, which would translate to the gas tax paid by a vehicle that gets 9 to 10 miles per gallon.</p>EV Fees Don't Do What Proponents Say They'll Do
<p>In effect, the real world impact of these fees undermines the arguments of those who support or propose the EV tax policies. Proponents of higher EV fees say that they are necessary to ensure that plug-in cars pay their fair share for the roads. In nearly every state, highway funds are raised from revenue from gasoline taxes. Because EV drivers don't buy gas, they aren't chipping in for those highway funds, the argument goes.</p><p>Or so the argument went, before Consumer Reports dug into the actual numbers. The report found that these punitive fees on EV registrations don't actually make up for declining tax revenues. Currently, fees only make up 0.04 percent of state highway funding in states where they are in use. By 2025, this is only projected to increase to 0.3 percent, even with a rapid growth of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">EV adoption</a>.</p><p>The real <a href="https://itep.org/an-unhappy-anniversary-federal-gas-tax-reaches-25-years-of-stagnation/" target="_blank">culprit</a> in the loss of gas tax revenue is that conventional vehicles have become far more efficient. As they consume less gasoline, less revenue is generated for the highway funds. Moreover, gas taxes have not kept up with inflation for decades.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTEwNDU4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzgwODc5M30.m21anVPEhb7-fSqtQzcYJHOPyKloZW4IDe0dVoAwuwg/img.jpg?width=980" id="d9c92" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="60af7c264ccad924e2e8f5aa515883ed" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>So while they are portrayed as a pragmatic solution to declining gas tax revenue, the <span style="background-color: initial;">EV</span> fees are actually forcing electric car drivers to contribute more than their fair share to fund highways.</p><p>"We hope politicians see our analysis and realize that punitive taxes on electric vehicle drivers are not only a poor way to make up for road maintenance shortfalls, but are also really unfair to the average family trying to save money by going gas-free," said Consumer Reports' Shannon Baker-Branstetter, one of the study's co-authors.</p>
State EV Fees Are Being Pushed by the Oil Industry
<p>Why are state legislators increasingly turning towards a policy that doesn't solve the highway funding shortage and, <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/electric-vehicle-incentives-and-fees.aspx" target="_blank">in some cases</a>, actively undermines state efforts to accelerate adoption of electric cars? Because the oil industry is pushing for these EV fees, both through direct lobbying of state legislatures and through ALEC itself. </p><p>As noted earlier, the ALEC <a href="https://www.alec.org/model-policy/resolution-supporting-equal-tax-treatment-for-all-vehicles/" target="_blank">resolution</a> which passed last November claimed:</p><blockquote>WHEREAS, certain vehicles, due to their fuel or propulsion systems, use little or no liquid fuels and therefore do not contribute to the tax revenue used for road construction and maintenance; and<br>WHEREAS, many non-liquid fuel vehicles are heavier than comparably sized liquid-fueled vehicles, largely due to the onboard battery packs, and thus cause more wear and tear on road infrastructure; and<br>WHEREAS, the elimination of special-interest tax credits for vehicles, and the establishment of a system under which the owners and operators of all vehicles using public roads share in the cost of construction and maintenance for those roads, do comply with and reflect principles of "economic neutrality," and "equity and fairness," principles of taxation;<br>THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that as a part of revenue-neutral tax reform {state} specifically supports efforts to eliminate federal tax credits for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles and the creation of an alternative fuel vehicle user fee whose revenue can be used to support highway construction and maintenance.<br></blockquote><p>Despite ALEC's claims, EVs are far less of a <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/more-states-hitting-electric-vehicle-owners-with-high-fees/" target="_blank">burden</a> on the roads than larger SUVs and heavy-duty trucks, and create other economic benefits by <a href="http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php" target="_blank">improving air quality</a> because they don't have tailpipes spewing dangerous <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/emissions">emissions</a>.</p><p>The misinformation about electric vehicles is unsurprising, given that <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/charles-koch" target="_blank">Charles Koch</a> and the Koch network now more or less control ALEC, as described in this recent <a href="https://kochdocs.org/2019/09/03/koch-industries-and-alec-a-history-of-documents/" target="_blank">post</a> on the Koch-dedicated web archive KochDocs. In fact, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/grant-kidwell" target="_blank">Grant Kidwell</a>, who manages the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force for ALEC, was until recently employed by the Charles Koch Institute and <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/americans-for-prosperity" target="_blank">Americans for Prosperity</a>, the main political advocacy arm of the Koch network. </p><p>This very model resolution that coincided with the recent spike in state EV fee bills was itself <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/09/tesla-government-subsidies/" target="_blank">shepherded into the ALEC committee</a> by <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/thomas-pyle" target="_blank">Tom Pyle</a>, president of the Koch-funded <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-energy-alliance-aea" target="_blank">American Energy Alliance</a> and a former lobbyist for <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-inc" target="_blank">Koch Industries</a>.</p><p><a href="https://documented.net/2019/01/fact-checking-alec-where-do-its-model-bills-come-from/" target="_blank">Emails</a> obtained by Documented, a corporate influence watchdog, confirmed an E&E News report that Pyle was behind the model resolution. In the emails, Pyle writes, "Attached is a resolution for consideration supporting equal tax treatment for all vehicles. Representative Thompson has kindly agreed to be the public sector sponsor (at least for now)."</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTEwNDU4Ni9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDU0NjgxNX0.taymjBZgjMyEpFQ94H0BefmXL0ng8PB9uNQQUZk5FXA/img.png?width=980" id="5f597" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="72d4aff926d5221c3a42d707109b115c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>The correspondence reveals how Pyle finds a "sponsor" for the model resolution, and how the legislator and Pyle both approve edits that are suggested by Kidwell. Though ALEC likes to claim that its public sector representatives introduce the model legislation, in the case of this EV tax bill, it was clearly born of a Koch-funded entity. </p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">"</span>These special fees don't make a dent when it comes to funding road repair, and these punitive policies could instead discourage people from purchasing a fuel-efficient or gas-free car in the first place," said Baker-Branstetter. "Perhaps it comes as no surprise that the oil industry not only supports, but in many cases even helped to pay for the development of the legislation behind these fees."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/09/11/koch-alec-fees-electric-cars-penalize-drivers-consumer-reports" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
On David Koch’s Death and the Koch Network’s Endless War on Clean Energy
27 August 2019
Insights + Opinion
David H. Koch attends the Lincoln Center Spring Gala at Alice Tully Hall on May 2, 2017 in New York City. Dia Dipasupil / Getty Images for Lincoln Center
By Ben Jervey
Billionaire libertarian activist and oil industry tycoon David Koch died on Friday, leaving a toxic legacy that includes helping birth the climate denial movement, fighting against regulations that protect worker and public health, and — critical to our work here on DeSmog's KochvsClean project — helping fund and coordinate a decades-long attack on clean energy and low carbon energy solutions.
<p>We will leave the mourning to his family and friends, and the condemning to those who were immediately impacted by his efforts — a massive group, considering the far-reaching impacts of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>, which are already being felt across all continents and latitudes.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Billionaire industrialist David Koch is dead. <br><br>He deployed his stupendous fortune funding climate denial in the years when the science was clear and there was still time to avert catastrophic warming. He died as fires raged from the Amazon to the Arctic.<a href="https://t.co/edFPH7DC0P">https://t.co/edFPH7DC0P</a></p>— Alexander Kaufman (@AlexCKaufman) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1164881629434826756?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 23, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>On <a href="https://www.kochvsclean.com/" target="_blank">KochvsClean</a>, our focus is on the Koch network's ongoing efforts to stall the spread of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">clean energy</a> and the decarbonization of the global economy. And those efforts will be wholly unchanged by David Koch's passing.</p><p>Though many reports, obituaries and commentaries on his death have portrayed David as an equal partner in the "Koch brothers" tandem, longtime Koch historians have noted that his brother Charles was the driving force in many of the Koch network's activist and political efforts.</p><p>In an <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/154836/david-koch-changed-world" target="_blank">interview with The New Republic</a>, journalist Christopher Leonard, author of the recently published book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kochland-History-Industries-Corporate-America/dp/1476775389" target="_blank">Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America</a>, </em>put it this way<em>:</em></p><blockquote>David Koch's tragic passing will have no impact whatsoever on the political strategies of the Koch network or the operation of the corporation. Charles Koch has always been the center of gravity for that, not David.<br><br>The machine will continue to go forward as it has, even without David Koch at the forefront.</blockquote><p>Or, as <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/david-h-koch-a-reflection-by-greenpeace-climate-change-denial/" target="_blank">Connor Gibson, of Greenpeace's investigations team, put it</a>:</p><blockquote>But the reality is that David Koch's passing will not change anything, politically speaking.<br>It has always been Charles Koch who was the driving force of the "Koch brothers" political network, and the ringleader of Koch Industries, the source of the fortunes that fuels his political activity.</blockquote><p>The constellation of think tanks and front groups and citizen advocacy organizations — and the foundations and dark money groups that support them — will continue to do <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/charles-koch" target="_blank">Charles Koch</a>'s bidding.</p><p>As has been reported by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, David Koch had stepped back from leadership roles in the business and advocacy groups due to his declining health. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150919210158/http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp" target="_blank">In addition to his own foundation</a>, David Koch had also served until recently on the boards of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/cato-institute" target="_blank">Cato Institute</a>, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation" target="_blank">Reason Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Prosperity_Foundation" target="_blank">Americans for Prosperity Foundation</a>. None of these organizations have seen any fundamental shift in mission or tactics since David Koch left.</p><p>Moreover, these are but a few tentacles of the "Kochtopus" that will continue to influence policy and pollute public discourse on climate change and energy policy.</p><p>"The Kochs have built kind of an assembly line to manufacture political change," said Mayer, in a radio interview after the publication of <em>Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right</em>. "It includes think tanks, which produce papers. It includes advocacy groups, that advocate for policies. And it includes giving money to candidates."</p><p>This "assembly line" reflects the real world implementation of an integrated strategy to influence public policy, one laid out more than two decades ago by Koch Industries insider Richard Fink in an essay titled, "<a href="https://kochdocs.org/2019/08/19/1996-structure-of-social-change-by-koch-industries-executive-vp-richard-fink/" target="_blank">Structure of Social Change</a>."</p><p>After David Koch's passing, nothing has or will change about how the Koch network activates and implements this strategy. Here on KochvsClean, we will continue to investigate how Koch money is misleading the public on the clean energy transition, and how these Koch-funded and affiliated groups are influencing policy at the federal, state and even local level. David Koch's death will not slow the Koch network's influence machine.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">New Koch-Funded Fossil Exhibit at the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Smithsonian?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Smithsonian</a> Is Curiously Quiet on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FossilFuels?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FossilFuels</a> <a href="https://t.co/NYglBpeLHt">https://t.co/NYglBpeLHt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/DeSmogBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DeSmogBlog</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1155553737932492800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 28, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/26/death-david-koch-network-war-clean-energy" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
From Kochland to Standing Rock: Here Are the 16-plus Best Environmental Books of August
01 August 2019
Popular
Loz Pycock / CC BY-SA 2.0 / Created with GIMP
By John R. Platt
Things are heating up — and not just because it's August. This past June was the hottest June on record, and as of this writing July was shaping up to follow. That makes this month's new books about climate change essential reading, along with other important new titles on pollution, wildlife, oceans and Indigenous peoples.
<p>Our full list — an amazing 16 books, plus an entire series for kids — appears below. They include a deep dive into the world of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers" rel="noopener noreferrer">Koch brothers</a>, a look at plastic in our food, an examination of the future of bluefin tuna, thoughts from the Standing Rock protests and a whole lot more.</p>
Climate Change:
<p><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Kochland/Christopher-Leonard/9781476775388" target="_blank"><em>Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America</em></a> by Christopher Leonard — The scary true story of how one private company stalled action on climate change, bought influence in the government, widened the gap between rich and poor, killed unions and so much more.</p><p><a href="https://www.abc-clio.com/ABC-CLIOCorporate/product.aspx?pc=A4825C" target="_blank"><em>Leave It in the Ground: The Politics of Coal and Climate</em></a> by John C. Berg — Want to know why we need to get rid of coal — and how we do it? This book lays out the science in clear, understandable language and reveals the truth about the politics and economics of the coal industry. Berg then provides a roadmap for how activists and governments can dismantle it.</p><p><a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/bryan-walsh/end-times/9780316449618/" target="_blank"><em>End Times: A Brief Guide to the End of the World</em></a> by Bryan Walsh — This isn't strictly a climate-change book — it also covers apocalyptic volcanos, nuclear war, disease outbreaks and other terrifying scenarios — but it does showcase the people working to understand how the world could end and what they're doing to prevent it. Which, you know, is kind of an important job.</p><p><a href="https://www.grandcentralpublishing.com/titles/tatiana-schlossberg/inconspicuous-consumption/9781538747094/" target="_blank"><em>Inconspicuous Consumption: The Environmental Impact You Don't Know You Have</em></a> by Tatiana Schlossberg — How do your fashion sense, your lunch and your taste in Netflix movies contribute to climate change? A former <em>New York Times</em> science writer lays out the hidden effects of our daily lives and shows how informed and empowered consumers can make a difference.</p>Wildlife & Conservation:
<p><a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/future-bluefin-tunas" target="_blank"><em>The Future of Bluefin Tunas</em></a> edited by Barbara A. Block — Dozens of experts from 15 countries contribute to this exhaustive examination of the threats facing all three species of bluefin tuna and what's being done to save them.</p><p><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/extinction-a-very-short-introduction-9780198807285?cc=us&lang=en&" target="_blank"><em>Extinction: A Very Short Introduction</em></a>by Paul B. Wignall — A slim book about a big topic: Why do species die out? Covering historic mass extinctions and the current biodiversity crisis, this book offers what you need to know about what we're losing.</p><p><em><a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250143129" target="_blank">Science Comics: Cats</a> </em>by Andy Hirsch — A fun focus on our feline friends, looking at the science of everything from tigers to housecats. As with the rest of the "Science Comics" series, this is perfect for young readers or graphic-novel fans of all ages.</p><p><a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/tracking-the-highland-tiger-9781472900920/" target="_blank"><em>Tracking the Highland Tiger: In Search of Scottish Wildcats</em></a> by Marianne Taylor — Persecution by farmers and hybridization with housecats have made the Scottish wildcat one of the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/scottish-wildcat-kittens/" target="_blank">rarest and most threatened felines on the planet</a>. This book comes out at a time when conservation efforts to save the species are starting to pay off. Will they be in time?</p><p><a href="https://garethstevens.com/series/Life-Without-Animals" target="_blank"><em>Life Without Animals</em></a> by Theresa Emminizer — This six-book series for young readers (available individually or as a set) asks what would happen if species such as elephants, sea otters, prairie dogs and tigers disappeared and examines the ecological effects of their extinctions.</p>Pollution:
<p><a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520305281/wilted" target="_blank"><em>Wilted: Pathogens, Chemicals and the Fragile Future of the Strawberry Industry</em></a> by Julie Guthman — A truly eye-opening book about the often exploitative industry that produces one of the world's most mouth-watering fruits.</p><p><a href="https://www.capstonepub.com/library/products/you-are-eating-plastic-every-day-1/" target="_blank"><em>You Are Eating Plastic Every Day: What's in Our Food?</em></a> by Danielle Smith-Llera — Middle-school students may never eat at the school cafeteria again after reading this book.</p>Oceans:
<p><a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/538736/the-outlaw-ocean-by-ian-urbina/9780451492944/" target="_blank"><em>The Outlaw Ocean: Journeys Across the Last Untamed Frontier</em></a> by Ian Urbina — The high seas exist outside of international law, which means they can also be quite lawless. The author spent five years reporting around the world to expose the crime and exploitation that run rampant through the fishing, oil and shipping industries.</p><p><span></span><em><a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062691545/into-the-planet/" target="_blank">I</a></em><a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062691545/into-the-planet/" target="_blank"><em>nto the Planet: My Life as a Cave Diver</em></a> by Jill Heinerth — Science and adventure far beneath the sea. This must-read memoir looks back at an amazing career and provides insight into parts of the world that few of us will ever see in person.</p><p><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ocean-recovery-9780198839767?q=ocean%20recovery&lang=en&cc=us" target="_blank"><em>Ocean Recovery</em></a> by Ray Hilborn and Ulrike Hilborn — Which of the world's fisheries are sustainable, and why? This book offers the scientific context for what we know about the status and ecological impact of global fishing operations.</p><p><a href="https://www.wwnorton.com/books/9780393635164" target="_blank"><em>Floating Coast: An Environmental History of the Bering Strait</em></a> by Bathsheba Demuth — The Bering Straits are known for their Arctic waters, amazing wildlife and Indigenous peoples, but they're also the site of a clash between capitalism and communism for control of the natural world's finite resources.</p>Indigenous Peoples:
<p><a href="https://www.oupress.com/books/15107980/indigenous-food-sovereignty-in-the-united-sta" target="_blank"><em>Indigenous Food Sovereignty in the United States</em></a> edited by Devon A. Mihesuah and Elizabeth Hoover — The subtitle of this book is "Restoring Cultural Knowledge, Protecting Environments, and Regaining Health," which pretty much says it all. Noted activist Winona LaDuke provides the foreword.</p><p><a href="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/standing-with-standing-rock" target="_blank"><em>Standing With Standing Rock: Voices from the #NoDAPL Movement</em></a> edited by Nick Estes and Jaskiran Dhillon — An essential volume to understand the history and significance of the famous resistance action, combining everything from essays and interviews to poems and photography.</p><p>That's our list for this month, but check out dozens of other recent eco-books in the <a href="https://therevelator.org/tag/revelator-reads/" target="_blank">"Revelator Reads" archive</a>.</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://therevelator.org/environmental-books-august-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Revelator</a>. </em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
New Koch-Funded Fossil Exhibit at the Smithsonian Is Curiously Quiet on Fossil Fuels
24 July 2019
Energy
A T. rex skeleton in a live-action pose over a skeleton of a triceratops. Smithsonian Institution
By Michael Svobod
After five years and $39 million, the Smithsonian's completely renovated Hall of Fossils is open again — complete with T. rex and a message about climate science. But though the exhibit clearly communicates the facts about human influence on Earth's climate, it is oddly quiet about the most important solution to the problem: rapidly reducing fossil fuel use.
<p>The exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, called "Deep Time," was eagerly anticipated. Over 40,000 people toured it just on the opening weekend of June 8.</p><p>Equally enthusiastic were the stories filed by the reporters who covered the exhibit for the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-smithsonians-renewed-fossil-hall-sends-a-forceful-message-about-climate-change/2019/05/25/bc896212-78d2-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2019/06/05/smithsonian-natural-history-museum-new-dinosaur-fossil-hall-opens/1327465001/" target="_blank">USA Today</a>, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/dinosaurs-fossil-hall-smithsonian/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>, the <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2019/0607/How-T.-rex-can-make-you-think-about-the-future" target="_blank">Christian Science Monitor</a>, <a href="https://www.apnews.com/1e5f7a86dc1748c88669ccdd4c03ba46" target="_blank">Associated Press</a> and <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/smithsonian-open-fossil-exhibit-focus-climate-change/story" target="_blank">ABC</a>. Many admired how boldly the exhibit broke with tradition. Instead of isolated individual specimens, the new exhibit features ensembles of displayed fossils, related either by a shared ecosystem or an evolutionary lineage. Throughout, the exhibit connects those fossils with Earth's geologic history, including the new era in which one species, Homo sapiens, is changing the planet and its climate.</p><p>As museum director <a href="https://www.si.edu/about/bios/kirk-johnson" target="_blank">Kirk Johnson</a> explained in an <a href="https://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2019-06-10/the-dinosaurs-are-back" target="_blank">interview</a>, the exhibit weaves together four narrative threads: climate, evolution, extinctions, and humans. In the 21st century, he explained, it would be both unscientific and irresponsible to tell the story of the dinosaurs without also talking about how humans have shaped the future: "Our ancient history holds very relevant clues for what might happen."</p><p>But many news outlets have called attention also to the new name of the exhibit space: The David H. Koch Hall of Fossils.</p><p>The director emeritus of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned fossil fuel company in the U.S., <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koch" target="_blank">David H. Koch</a> has for many years collaborated with his brother Charles in funding groups that questioned the science of climate change and lobbied against efforts to enact climate policies. Three days after the "Deep Time" exhibit opened, in fact, <a href="https://climatenexus.org/" target="_blank">Climate Nexus</a> reported that Koch-funded groups sent a letter to Congress reiterating their vehement opposition to a proposed carbon tax.</p><p>Had David Koch's $35 million fossil-fueled contribution to the Smithsonian affected how the project's directors rewrote the story of the Smithsonian's fossils?</p><p>In response to a version of this question from Joshua Johnson, host of the nationally syndicated radio program <a href="https://wamu.org/show/1a/" target="_blank">1A</a>, museum director Kirk Johnson <a href="https://wamu.org/story/19/06/11/dinosaurs-come-back-to-life-at-the-smithsonian/" target="_blank">answered</a>, "There's a bright red line between what we put into the exhibit and what the funder believes, thinks, or feels …. I can tell you that [David Koch] had no impact on the content of the exhibit."</p><p>And, indeed, visitor reactions gathered on that opening weekend by Washington Post reporter <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/sarah-kaplan/" target="_blank">Sarah Kaplan</a> indicated that an urgent message about climate change was coming through loud and clear. "We're terrified," one visitor told the Post. "I'm glad it's here in many places. It needs to be a big billboard with flashing lights."</p><p>But in walking through the exhibit attending specifically to what it says on the subject, many may emerge with a more ambiguous take-away message. Koch in some way very likely did influence the exhibit, but not by leaning directly on the Smithsonian.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/new-koch-funded-fossil-exhibit-at-the-smithsonian-is-curiously-quiet-on-fossil-fuels/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/core/dashboard/editor/2639325101?#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>
The Journey Through ‘Deep Time’
<p>After passing through the portal for the exhibit, visitors face a choice of possible paths. On a rise to the left is a separate gallery for the Age of Humans.</p><p>Directly in front, the central path curves the full length of the hall, taking visitors back to the time of single-celled micro-organisms and to the glass-walled fossil lab where Smithsonian's paleontologists and paleobotanists work in full view. Along the way, visitors encounter glass-enclosed models of prehistoric scenes, including one that replicates, in miniature and fully fleshed, the most celebrated tableau in the hall, as shown above: the T. rex skeleton arranged in a live-action pose over the skeleton of a triceratops.</p><p>The central path is marked by posts that tell visitors how far back in time they have traveled. Dramatic black columns identify mass extinction events, most notably the <a href="https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/paleontology/mass-extinction-large-dinosaurs-and-more" target="_blank">asteroid impact</a> that ended the Jurassic and the even more lethal <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6419/eaat1327" target="_blank">end-Permian extinction</a>, believed to have been caused by a period of high volcanic activity that dramatically increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Message: Earth has a turbulent history.</p><p>The elements most directly related to anthropogenic climate change are found in and around the Age of Humans. There a pair of graphs compares prehistoric and current increases in carbon dioxide. And captions on columns and walls state one of the exhibit's main messages:</p><blockquote>We're changing the planet faster than any other species in Earth's history. What does this mean for our future?<br><br>The evidence is clear: We are causing rapid, unprecedented change to our planet. But there is hope — we can adapt, innovate, and collaborate to leave a positive legacy.<br></blockquote><p>A video loop in a side exhibit — "Finding Fossils in Coal Mines" — comes to the same conclusion: "Coal connects the climate of the deep past to the climate of today. What we do with coal today will change the future of Earth's climate."</p><p>Fossils fuels are changing the climate. Couldn't be clearer, right?</p>An Odd Restraint
<p>Yes, "fossil fuels are changing the climate" clearly states the problem. But at best it only implies the solution: Stop burning fossil fuels. An odd reticence about remedies for humanity's reliance on fossil fuels pervades the exhibit.</p><p>Nowhere is the portion of global <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/greenhouse-gases">greenhouse gas emissions</a> attributable to fossil fuels (versus beef production or deforestation, for example) spelled out.</p><p>Of the five videos that continuously loop in the small amphitheater devoted to "How Are We Changing the Planet?" only one addresses reducing the carbon in the atmosphere, and it focuses on how soils might store more carbon if more ecological farming practices were adopted. The other four videos showcase efforts by communities to adapt to urban heat waves, storm surges, and rising sea levels, and to reduce humanity's impact on the oceans.</p><p>Nowhere within Deep Time are alternative sources of energy highlighted. To see how much wind and solar energy could be tapped across the globe, one has to go to the nearby ocean hall.</p><p>And nowhere within the fossil hall can one find a statement that approaches the summaries offered of the most recent IPCC report, such as this one from <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17948832/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report" target="_blank">Vox</a>: "We have just 12 years to make massive and unprecedented changes to global energy infrastructure to limit global warming to moderate levels."</p>Why ‘Deep Time’ Holds Back on Climate Solutions
<p>Within the media coverage of the hall's reopening one can find two reasons for this reticence. A third can be inferred from the Smithsonian's somewhat delicate position as a nonpartisan, government-funded institution.</p><p>The first reason is practical. To avoid instantly dating the material, graphs extend into the future and captions do not include relative references. Thus, a warning that humanity has just "12 years to make massive and unprecedented changes to global energy infrastructure" was not an option.</p><p>The second reason is directly related to the vision of "deep time" promoted by Smithsonian. As Johnson observed in his 1A <a href="https://wamu.org/story/19/06/11/dinosaurs-come-back-to-life-at-the-smithsonian/" target="_blank">interview</a>, for 75 percent of Earth's history the poles were ice-free: "There were palm trees in the Arctic and forests covered Antarctica." An ice-free future does not mean a life-less nor even a human-less planet.</p><p>One of the exhibition's core team members, paleontologist Scot Wing, elaborated on this view for the <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2019/0607/How-T.-rex-can-make-you-think-about-the-future" target="_blank">Christian Science Monitor</a>: "There's also no reason from the fossil record to feel that we've endangered life on Earth as a whole, or even really ourselves. We seem to be pretty resilient and the technology we have is pretty good at buffering us from bad environments."</p><p>After contemplating the end-Permian extinction, it seems, the prospect of breaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold does not seem so daunting — which is not to say that the consequences of climate change won't be disastrous.</p><p>A third reason for the exhibit's reticence might be inferred from the Smithsonian's delicate relationship with the government, and here the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers" rel="noopener noreferrer">Koch brothers'</a> aggressive anti-climate lobbying may be a factor.</p><p>To retain its nonpartisan status, the Smithsonian must steer clear of policy disputes. And in the U.S., major fossil-fuel industry funders, like the Koch brothers, have successfully created disputes even on climate science, for which a broad scientific consensus can be demonstrated. Having pointed out the problem, the exhibit's creators may feel that pointing out the most logical solution — stop relying on fossil fuels — ventures too far into policy.</p>Facts With Implications for the Future
<p>According to museum director Kirk Johnson, the National Museum of Natural History greets roughly 40 million unique visitors each decade. What message will the next 40 million visitors take away from the Deep Time exhibit?</p><p>They will see that there is a problem. But they will also be given reasons for confidence – or at least reasons not to panic. Most may draw the logical conclusion: Humans must reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. But as Kirk Johnson acknowledged to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-smithsonians-renewed-fossil-hall-sends-a-forceful-message-about-climate-change/2019/05/25/bc896212-78d2-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>, "I have no doubt that the kind of individual who is inclined to deny climate change will find it in their soul to do that to this exhibit.</p><p>"But this is basic science," he told the Post. "We're actually looking at facts about our planet's history, and then just saying it looks like these facts have implications for the future."</p><p>That point may include the Smithsonian's own future, as its National Mall location is itself one of the lowest parts of the low-lying District of Columbia, making it, too, vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme rain storms, such as those that plagued the D.C. area in the early weeks of July.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Drinking Water PFAS Contamination Crisis: Ex-Koch Chemicals ... ›
- Facebook Hires Koch-Funded Climate Deniers for 'Fact-Checking ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Isriya Paireepairit / Flickr
By Andy Rowell
It may not come as a surprise that leading climate denier Donald Trump has made more than 10,000 false or misleading claims since he became president, according to fact-checkers at the Washington Post.
As the Post reports, Trump's "tsunami of untruths just keeps looming larger and larger."
Much of this tsunami of untruths will get reposted on Facebook as fact. Those hoping that Facebook will accurately check Trump's statements and clean up the torrent of fake news on its platform will have to think again, especially if you are concerned about climate change.
<p>In what can only be described as verging on the bizarre, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given the contract to fight fake news to an organization that pushes fake news on climate change.</p>
<p>According to reports in <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-fact-checker-koch-climate-deniers-f5288be4c3f9/" target="_blank">Think Progress</a> and <a href="https://grist.org/article/the-koch-brothers-are-funding-facebooks-newest-fact-checking-partner/" target="_blank">Grist</a>, Facebook has announced that it was teaming up with CheckYourFact.com, which is an offshoot of the anti-<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/" target="_self">science</a> media site, The Daily Caller.</p><p>The <a href="https://checkyourfact.com/about-us" target="_blank">CheckYourFact</a> website brags that: "Our mission is a non-partisan one. We're loyal to neither people nor parties — only the truth. And while the fact-checking industry continues to grow, there are still countless assertions that go unchecked. We exist to fill in the gaps."</p><p>In fact, the opposite seems to be true. As <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/scientist-slams-daily-caller-for-distorting-his-research-to-suggest-climate-change-is-fake-a9240a9e38e2/" target="_blank">Think Progress</a> outlines:</p><blockquote><em>The Daily Caller, which has published <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/scientist-slams-daily-caller-for-distorting-his-research-to-suggest-climate-change-is-fake-a9240a9e38e2/" target="_blank">misinformation about climate science</a> for years, was co-founded by the science-denying Fox News host Tucker Carlson and is backed by major conservative donors, including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers" target="_self">Charles and David Koch</a>, the billionaire <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> barons who are the single biggest funders of climate science misinformation.</em></blockquote><p>Think Progress includes a link back to 2015, when a peer-reviewed <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2349.html" target="_blank">paper</a> from scientists at Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute was published in the journal <em>Nature Geoscience</em>. The Daily Caller tried to twist the research to argue that "global warming is nothing new."</p><p>It is hardly surprising that leading climate scientists and academics are outspoken about the Facebook fact-check tie up.</p><p>One of the world's leading climatologists, professor Michael Mann, whose own work has been distorted by The Daily Caller, told Think Progress<em>: </em>"It is appalling that Facebook has teamed up with a Koch-funded organization that promotes climate change denial. Facebook must disassociate itself from this organization."</p><p>Mann also tweeted:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"The Koch brothers are funding <a href="https://twitter.com/facebook?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Facebook</a>’s newest fact-checking partner" by Paola Rosa-Aquino (<a href="https://twitter.com/prosaaquino?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@prosaaquino</a>) for <a href="https://twitter.com/grist?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Grist</a>:<a href="https://t.co/6gSG4c46iJ">https://t.co/6gSG4c46iJ</a></p>— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1122982837681106945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Environmental sociologist, <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-fact-checker-koch-climate-deniers-f5288be4c3f9/" target="_blank">professor Robert Brulle,</a> who is an authority on the climate denial network, asked, "Why they are partnering with an organization that is part of the right wing echo chamber?" He added that: "Facebook should cancel this contract."</p><p>But as both <a href="https://grist.org/article/the-koch-brothers-are-funding-facebooks-newest-fact-checking-partner/" target="_blank">websites</a> point out this is not the first time Facebook has joined forces with a climate denial website: In the fall of 2017, Facebook <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/weekly-standard-named-official-facebook-fact-checking-partner-against-advice-of-independent-report-ecc9bd23d180/" target="_blank">named</a> the right-wing, partisan Weekly Standard as a fact-checking partner.</p><p>Last year, Tessa Lyons, a product manager for Facebook wrote about the company's actions on <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/hard-questions-fact-checking/" target="_blank">Fake News</a>:</p><blockquote><em>False news is a money maker for spammers and a weapon of state actors and agitators around the world … Misinformation is bad for our community and bad for our business. It's why we're investing significant time and resources to fight it.</em></blockquote><p>Fighting fake news with more fake news is a sure recipe for disaster. Especially during a climate emergency.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/Greenpeace?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Greenpeace</a> Calls BS After Trump Cites 'Paid Lobbyist' Masquerading as Co-Founder to Peddle Climate Denial <a href="https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@greenpeaceusa</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GreenNewDeal?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GreenNewDeal</a> <a href="https://t.co/8aGPsoPZDj">https://t.co/8aGPsoPZDj</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1105610585524391937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p data-twitter-extracted-i1556636342598526216="true" data-twitter-extracted-i155663653624581676="true"><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2019/04/30/facebooks-new-fact-checking-service-are-koch-funded-climate-deniers/" target="_blank">Oil Change International</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Wheeler Appoints Climate Denier to EPA Science Board - EcoWatch ›
- Facebook Loophole Allows Climate Deniers to Spread Misinformation - EcoWatch ›
- Facebook Suspends More Than 200 Environmental and Indigenous Groups - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Drinking Water PFAS Contamination Crisis: Ex-Koch Chemicals Executive Playing Key Role in Shaping EPA's Response
05 February 2019
Insights + Opinion
Linus Strandholm / EyeEm / Getty Images
A former chemical and fossil fuel industry executive who recently oversaw the anti-environmental agenda of the Koch brothers is playing a lead role crafting the Trump administration's plan to address the crisis of PFAS contamination in the nation's drinking water supply, according to a report Monday by Politico.
<p>David Dunlap, a top political appointee in the Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), has played a significant role in shaping the agency's plan for addressing PFAS contamination in the tap water supplies of more than 100 million Americans. According to documents obtained by Politico through a public records request, Dunlap began working on the issue almost immediately after coming to EPA, in October, and has participated in at least nine meetings on PFAS, including one briefing with Andrew Wheeler, the agency's acting administrator. </p><p>Dunlap, a chemical engineer, had been the director of environmental affairs at Koch Industries since 2010, before coming into the Trump administration. On his <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/dunlap-david-78981834/" target="_blank">LinkedIn profile,</a> Dunlap described his position at Koch Industries as a "subject matter expert" on water, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, chemical management and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Before working for Koch, Dunlap worked at the Chlorine Institute.</p><p>Last week, Politico Pro's Annie Snider <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/epa-toxic-chemicals-drinking-water-1124797" target="_blank">reported</a> that, according to her sources, Wheeler will not move to regulate any of the PFAS family of fluorinated chemicals by setting a legal limit, known as a maximum contaminant level, under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.</p><p>Studies have linked PFAS chemicals to cancer, kidney disease, weakened childhood immunity and other health problems.</p><p>"When Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, installs a former Koch executive to clean up toxic chemicals in drinking water, the chances of it happening are about as likely as snowfall in San Diego," said EWG senior vice president of government affairs Scott Faber. "We hope both Wheeler and Dunlap will follow EPA's mission statement instead of the demands of the chemical industry and adopt a health-protective drinking water standard that will reduce PFAS in the drinking water serving millions of people."</p><p>EWG and researchers at Northeastern University have tracked <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/update-mapping-expanding-pfas-crisis" target="_blank">172 PFAS contamination sites in 40 states</a>. Drawing on unreleased data from EPA tests, EWG estimates that water supplies for as many as 110 million Americans may be contaminated.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="bee4d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="YPUS5Q1576663905"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1029023887403745280" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">A Toxin in Every Household https://t.co/Nc2MJrWzB9 @CleanAirMoms @NRDC @ewg @EnvDefenseFund</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1029023887403745280">1534173387.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Removing Toxic Fluorinated Chemicals From Your Home's Tap Water ›
- 110 Million Americans May Be Drinking PFAS-Contaminated Water ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
General Motors
By Elliott Negin
When multibillionaire industrialist Charles Koch perceives a potential threat to his fossil fuel empire, he doesn't mess around.
<p>To undercut the burgeoning wind industry, Koch's network of advocacy groups, think tanks and Capitol Hill friends <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-koch-brothers-are-sti_b_4396033.html" target="_blank">fought</a> to terminate the federal <a href="https://www.awea.org/policy-and-issues/tax-policy" target="_blank">production tax credit</a>, and Congress ultimately agreed in 2015 to phase it out over the following four years.</p><p>To slow the exponential growth of solar power, his network has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/rooftop-solar-panels-tax-credits-utility-companies-lobbying.html" target="_blank">lobbying</a> state legislatures to curtail the practice of net metering, which gives solar panel owners credit for the excess energy they generate and send back to the grid.</p><p>Now <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers">Koch</a> wants to kill a federal income tax credit of up to $7,500 for electric vehicle (EV) buyers for the first 200,000 EVs each automaker sells. Although EVs make up less than 2 percent of total vehicle sales nationally, 123,000 of them were <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/electric-vehicle-sales-are-taking-off-in-2018" target="_blank">snapped up</a> in the first six months of this year, more than twice the amount sold in all of 2015, and more carmakers are expected to introduce new EV models over the next few months. Alarm bells are going off at Koch Industries headquarters.</p><p>Last year, the initial draft of the House Republican tax reform bill included a provision terminating the EV tax credit, but it survived in the final, end-of-the-year tax package President Trump signed in December. This year's tax-break-extenders bill finds the Koch network back at work to block the EV tax credit, and it got a boost this week from White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/419507-us-to-end-subsidies-for-electric-cars-renewables-white-house" target="_blank">said</a> the Trump administration wants to end EV subsidies.</p><h3>A Fight Looms</h3><p>The rationale behind the tax credit, which Congress passed in 2009, is to create a stable market for EVs much in the same way government policies helped the gasoline-hybrid market grow. Congress has a long history of providing tax breaks to help emerging and established industries alike, and EVs are a natural candidate because auto industry entry barriers are steep, and electrifying the U.S. transportation sector is one of the most important steps the country can take to address global warming.</p><p>The battle over the EV tax credit's future is expected to play out before Congress adjourns for the holidays. Leading the fight in favor of the tax credit is Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who introduced a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3449" target="_blank">bill</a> in mid-September that would remove the 200,000-unit cap—which Tesla has already hit—and extend the credit until 2028. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced the same <a href="https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-unveils-tax-incentives-make-electric-vehicles-more-affordable-and" target="_blank">bill</a> in the House.</p><p>Meanwhile, Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) introduced a pair of bills in mid-October that would eliminate the 200,000 sales cap but begin to phase out the credit in 2022. That would still help out Tesla, which built an electric car battery factory in Nevada, and Nissan, which manufactures its Leaf EV in Tennessee.</p><p>On the other side: Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), other strategically placed Republicans, and at least 20 advocacy groups—all making the same specious arguments, and all beneficiaries of Koch largesse.</p><p>In early October, Barrasso introduced a <a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/10/barrasso-introduces-legislation-to-end" target="_blank">bill</a> in the Senate that would not only eliminate the EV tax credit, but also slap EV owners with a user fee that would go to the Highway Trust Fund, which is financed by the federal gasoline tax. Koch Industries has been one of the senator's top 10 supporters since 2013, donating $45,400 to his campaign and leadership political action committees.</p><p>Before the EV tax credit gets to a floor vote as a part of a tax-extender package, it has to go through the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, and Charles Koch has cultivated a critical mass of friends on both. Since 2013, Koch Industries has given $253,600 to 11 of the 14 Republicans on the Senate committee and $374,000 to 21 of the 24 Republicans on the House committee, including Chairman Brady. (The company gave nothing to the 13 Democrats on the Senate committee and only $1,030 combined to two of the 16 Democrats on the House committee.)</p><h3>Koch-Funded Groups—and Koch Industries—Enter the Fray</h3><p>Three weeks before Barrasso introduced his bill, 30 seemingly independent, self-described free-market organizations signed a <a href="https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/EVCoalition2.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a> to Brady urging Congress to either retain the cap on the first 200,000 EVs sold—which would penalize U.S. automakers Tesla and General Motors for selling more EVs than their Asian and European counterparts—or just "eliminate the tax credit entirely, as the House proposed in last year's tax bill."</p><p>But it turns out that they are not true free-market groups at all. Yes, they argue that the government shouldn't subsidize any energy technologies, but they confine their objections to tax breaks for clean energy alternatives, claiming all the while that the oil and gas industry receives no subsidies. In fact, since 1918, permanent oil and gas <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2016/05/26/138049/it-is-time-to-phase-out-9-unnecessary-oil-and-gas-tax-breaks/" target="_blank">tax breaks and other subsidies</a> have averaged $4.86 billion per year in 2010 dollars, according to a 2011 <a href="http://www.dblpartners.vc/resource/what-would-jefferson-do/" target="_blank">study</a> by investment firm DBL Partners. Taking inflation into account, that amounts to an average of $5.62 billion today.</p><p>Why would free-marketeers make such an exception?</p><p>Perhaps because they get significant funding from fossil fuel interests, most notably Charles Koch, whose privately held Koch industries owns three oil refineries, thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines, and bulk coal delivery services. These think tanks and advocacy groups essentially function as public relations arms of their benefactors, representing their interests under the guise of being neutral, albeit conservative, policy shops.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODk2OTIwMi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODk0MzAwN30.YgLPyv4JSLiX3tp6hdkdeF09xMF4qiKf7Y4AQONq8mo/img.png?width=980" id="14c17" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="94019d25d7c8d4fbfc23f6ccec763a8a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p>Consider the group that organized the anti-EV tax credit letter: the American Energy Alliance. AEA is the political lobbying arm of the Institute for Energy Research, and the president of both groups is Thomas J. Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Between 2012 and 2016, Koch foundations gave $8.9 million to the groups—which together employ only a dozen people—and in previous years, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute were among their patrons.<br></p><p>Like AEA, 15 of the other 29 organizations that signed Pyle's letter, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heritage Action—the Heritage Foundation's political lobbying arm—are Koch grantees, collectively receiving $142.6 million over the same five-year time period. And two other groups on the letter—the National Black Chamber of Commerce and Taxpayers Protection Alliance—got AEA grants in 2015. Including those two, at least 18 of the 30 signatories are known cogs in the Koch network.</p><p>Koch Industries itself weighed in on Oct. 24, when company lobbyist Philip Ellender sent a <a href="https://news.kochind.com/media-resources/On-The-Issues/Koch-Urges-Senate-to-Allow-Innovation-and-Consumer" target="_blank">letter</a> to members of Congress opposing the Heller and Black bills that would extend EV tax credits for four more years and eliminate the 200,000-unit cap. "Congress should not be in the business of picking winners and losers by subsidizing one form of energy over others," Ellender wrote, "regardless of its source." Left unsaid, of course, is the bogus Koch World claim that oil and gas industry tax breaks are not subsidies.</p><h3>Koch-Funded Think Tanks Provide Deceptive Arguments</h3><p>If direct funding of politicians and advocacy groups weren't enough, Koch foundations also underwrite the libertarian think tanks that produced the studies cited by Barrasso, Pyle and Ellender to make their case: the Pacific Research Institute, which received $200,000 from Koch funds between 2012 and 2016, and the Manhattan Institute, which received $954,500 in Koch grants and another $535,000 from ExxonMobil over that same five-year period. The two studies' spurious arguments are that the EV tax credit largely benefits wealthier Americans and reduces U.S. tax revenue, and that the internal combustion engine-powered cars are as clean as EVs.</p><p>The Pacific Research Institute <a href="https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CarSubsidies_final_web.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> found that nearly 80 percent of EV tax credits in 2014 went to households with an adjusted gross income of at least $100,000 and more than half went to households with adjusted income levels of at least $200,000. What the study failed to mention, however, is the fact that upper-income Americans are generally the only ones who can afford to buy any kind of new vehicle, whether electric, hybrid or gasoline-powered. As a 2018 <a href="https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NCST-ARB_Turrentine-Tal-Rapson-Dynamic-of-PEVs-in-Secondary-Market_Final-Report_APR-2018.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> by the National Center for Sustainable Transportation pointed out, the average income of households buying new cars in 2012 was $119,400; accounting for inflation, that would equal an average annual income of $131,000 today.</p><p>The Pacific Research Institute study also ignores the fact that some EVs are a relative bargain, and the federal tax credit makes them even more so. The <a href="https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2018-02-01-Average-New-Car-Prices-Rise-Nearly-4-Percent-For-January-2018-On-Shifting-Sales-Mix-According-To-Kelley-Blue-Book" target="_blank">average price</a> of a new vehicle across the country in January of this year was $36,270. The tax credit reduces the cost of a 2018 Nissan Leaf to $22,490 and a 2018 Chevy Bolt to less than $30,000, making these two EVs more affordable options for middle-income households.</p><p>The Manhattan Institute <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/short-circuit-high-cost-electric-vehicle-subsidies-11241.html" target="_blank">study</a>, meanwhile, argues that the EV tax credit is cheating the U.S. Treasury out of tax revenue. Last year, the EV tax credit amounted to <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/Tax-Expenditures-FY2017.pdf" target="_blank">$670 million</a>. Compare that to the lost tax revenue in 2014 from the oil and gas industry's permanent tax breaks, which totaled <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progress%20report%20to%20G20%202014%20Final.pdf" target="_blank">$4.7 billion</a>.</p><p>Unlike many of the other Koch-funded groups, the Manhattan Institute grudgingly <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/no-time-discourage-us-oil-and-gas-production-2958.html" target="_blank">concedes</a> that the oil and gas industry indeed gets tax breaks, but insists that those subsidies provide consumers a "tangible benefit" by reducing the retail cost of oil and gas. In other words, it's fine for the government to pick winners and losers as long as it picks your preferred subsidy recipient.</p><h3>EVs Significantly Cleaner Than Gas Engines</h3><p>The Manhattan Institute study also makes the ludicrous claim that new internal combustion engines emit next to no pollutants while EVs, which are powered by the electricity grid, likely produce more pollution and will not significantly reduce carbon emissions.</p><p>Wrong.</p><p>Experts at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a truly independent energy think tank, posted a <a href="https://www.rmi.org/if-we-cherry-pick-data-rely-on-discredited-projections-and-ignore-co2-evs-are-bad/" target="_blank">thorough take-down</a> of the Manhattan Institute report last July. In a nutshell, they found that it used "flawed methodology and flawed assumptions" when comparing monetary damages associated with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from EVs and internal combustion vehicles and completely ignored the damages associated with carbon dioxide emissions. "A methodology that accurately accounts for all emissions," they concluded, "results in a dramatically different result."</p><p>"Nonpartisan institutions, including the <u><a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a></u> (UCS) and the <u><a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/09/18/document_cw_01.pdf" target="_blank">Electric Power Research Institute</a></u>, have published accurate and reliable studies of these questions that found the opposite of what [the Manhattan Institute report] concludes," they added, "as have others <u><a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/lesser-climate-denier-attacks-electric-vehicles/" target="_blank">cited</a> </u>by the Energy and Policy Institute."</p><p>In fact, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-continue-to-get-cleaner" target="_blank">according to</a> UCS Senior Engineer Dave Reichmuth, 75 percent of Americans live in areas where an EV is cleaner than a gasoline-powered car that gets 50 miles per gallon, and the carbon emissions from an average EV sold in the United States this year are equivalent to that of gas-powered car that gets 80 MPG. "And the good news," he says, "is EVs will only get cleaner as the U.S. electricity grid adds more renewable energy."</p><h3>Will the EV Tax Credit Survive?</h3><p>The Koch network is working overtime to pull the plug on the emerging electric car market, but the momentum is not in its favor.</p><p>Demand for EVs is growing. An <a href="https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/05/1-in-5-us-drivers-want-electric-vehicle/" target="_blank">AAA survey</a> published this spring found that 50 million Americans will likely buy an EV for their next car, 5 percent more than in 2017.</p><p>The supply of EVs is growing as well. The number of available EV models jumped from only two in 2010 to more than 40 today.</p><p>Sticker price, as with any vehicle purchase, remains a sticking point. Falling manufacturing costs, aided by the EV tax credit, are already starting to help. The cost of an EV battery, for example, <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/09/cv-factsheets-ev-incentives.pdf" target="_blank">plummeted</a> 80 percent between 2010 and 2017 and will become even cheaper as more automakers ramp up electric vehicle production. And EVs have built-in cost advantages over internal combustion cars: They are much cheaper to maintain—and they save owners a ton on gas. Keeping the EV tax credit in place for another decade and removing the 200,000-unit cap would certainly help ensure that EVs can become <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/accelerating-us-leadership-electric-vehicles-2017#.XAVv5eJOmCo" target="_blank">cost-competitive</a> with gas vehicles.</p><p>Finally, Tesla, Nissan and General Motors—which manufacture EVs in California and Nevada, Tennessee, and Michigan, respectively—as well as Ford and Fiat-Chrysler will be pressed to compete with automakers in Asia and Europe that are getting significant support from their governments to go electric. Encouraging EV sales here at home may threaten Charles Koch's fossil fuel empire, but retaining the EV tax credit will not only help combat climate change, it will fortify the U.S. auto industry, which—even with the recent layoffs at General Motors—still employs more than 2 million people.</p><p><em>Danya Abdel Hameid provided research assistance for this article. Koch grant data came from the following Koch-controlled foundations' 990 tax forms (which can be found at ProPublica's <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/" target="_blank">Nonprofit Explorer</a> and the Foundation Center's <a href="https://foundationcenter.org/find-funding/990-finder" target="_blank">990 Finder</a>): American Encore, Charles Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. Campaign contribution data came from the Center for Responsive Politics website, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/" target="_blank">opensecrets.org</a>.</em><br></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Max Pixel
By Dana Drugmand
Koch Industries is calling for the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs), all while claiming that it does not oppose plug-in cars and inviting the elimination of oil and gas subsidies that the petroleum conglomerate and its industry peers receive.
Outgoing Nevada Republican Senator Dean Heller introduced a bill in September that would lift the sales cap on electric vehicles eligible for a federal tax credit, and replace the cap with a deadline that would dictate when the credit would start being phased out.
<p>Under the current tax credit for EVs, once a manufacturer sells 200,000 EVs in the U.S. the amount of the credit gets slashed in half, then halved again. The full credit amount is $7,500. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/tesla">Tesla</a> has already hit the 200,000 cap and GM will soon reach it, so both companies would benefit from a tax credit extension via eliminating the sales cap. Heller's <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s3582/text" target="_blank">bill</a> lifts the 200,000 vehicle limit and substitutes a phase-out period starting in 2022.</p><p>But the conservative senator's bill is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/koch-targets-endangered-gop-senator-s-car-credit-that-aids-tesla" target="_blank">facing opposition</a> from the conservative billionaire <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers">Koch brothers</a>.</p><p>In a <a href="https://news.kochind.com/media-resources/On-The-Issues/Koch-Urges-Senate-to-Allow-Innovation-and-Consumer" target="_blank">letter</a> to senators dated Oct. 24, Koch Industries lobbyist Philip Ellender urges opposition to the expansion of EV tax credits through 2022. Ellender claims that the tax credits primarily benefit wealthy consumers and that subsidization interferes with "innovation and consumer choice."</p><p>The letter cites two studies, each by a right-wing think tank. One study comes from the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/pacific-research-institute" target="_blank">Pacific Research Institute</a>, which has received <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> funding—including more than $1.7 million from Koch-related foundations and $615,000 from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">ExxonMobil</a>. The <a href="https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CarSubsidies_final_web.pdf" target="_blank">PRI study</a>, "Costly Subsidies for the Rich: Quantifying the Subsidies Offered to Battery Electric Powered Cars," emphasizes that "the majority of the dollar benefits from energy and electric car subsidies are paid to tax filers in the higher income tax brackets."</p><p>The other study is from the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/manhattan-institute-policy-research" target="_blank">Manhattan Institute</a>, another "free market think tank" that takes in money from the Koch network and Exxon. The <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/short-circuit-high-cost-electric-vehicle-subsidies-11241.html" target="_blank">study</a> paints a misleading picture of EVs and their subsidies.</p><p>In addition to citing biased studies by groups tied to Koch money, Ellender claims in the letter, "We do not oppose electric vehicles."</p><p>This sentiment echoes <a href="https://www.kochvsclean.com/koch-industries-all-for-electric-cars/" target="_blank">the company's 2016 advertorial</a>, in which Koch Industries claimed to be "all for electric vehicles."</p><p>Ellender also claims that Koch Industries is against any and all energy subsidies, even ones that benefit the company. According to the letter:</p><blockquote>Instead of expanding this subsidy for wealthy EV owners, Congress should eliminate it along with all other energy incentives—including eliminating any incentives given to us and our competitors where we may participate. We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls.</blockquote><p>In reality, while Koch Industries is claiming publicly to support ending fossil fuel subsidies (along with EV and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">clean energy</a> incentives), Koch lobbyists have long worked to ensure that the petroleum industry continues to get subsidized.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.kochvsclean.com/koch-industries-all-for-electric-cars/" target="_blank">Koch vs. Clean</a> previously pointed out, "In a <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence" target="_blank">detailed 2011 report on Koch Industries, the Center for Public Integrity wrote</a>: 'Oil is the core of the Koch business empire, and the company's lobbyists and officials have successfully fought to preserve the industry's tax breaks and credits.' The report documented that Koch lobbyists have worked to preserve billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies, including the Section 199 manufacturing tax deduction and the 'last-in, first out' accounting rule."</p><p>In fact, according to the International Business Times, <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/charles-koch-blasts-subsidies-tax-credits-his-firm-has-taken-195-million-worth-them-2034949" target="_blank">Koch Industries has itself directly secured subsidies totaling more than $195 million</a>.</p><p>The Koch network also lobbied for the Trump tax cuts that became law late last year. The corporate tax cut is not specific to energy, but it benefits giant corporations including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">Big Oil</a> and Koch Industries nonetheless. <a href="https://americansfortaxfairness.org/koch-brothers-1-billion-tax-cut/" target="_blank">Americans for Tax Fairness estimated</a> that the Kochs would save more than $1 billion just this year from the tax cut—a significant windfall for a corporate behemoth that claims, <em>"</em>We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="3cd3f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ANYGUQ1576662656"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="984081334950875136" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Koch vs. California: These Groups Want Pruitt to Undo the State’s Right to Regulate Auto Emissions… https://t.co/QqVojSadKD</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/984081334950875136">1523458248.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><i>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/09/koch-industries-lobbies-against-electric-vehicle-tax-credit" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</i><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
SounderBruce / Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0
By Dana Drugmand
Electric buses are replacing existing diesel-fueled fleets at an accelerating rate, and the transition to battery-powered buses is outpacing even the most optimistic projections. In this light, it should come as little surprise that commentators and organizations with ties to the Koch network and the oil industry are attacking a transportation option that yields fewer fossil fuel profits and cleaner, healthier air for people and planet.
<p>A string of recent commentaries published in the conservative Washington Examiner have relied on a handful of critical reports about the rollout of electric buses in individual municipalities, which the commentators use to portray electric buses, as a class, as uneconomical and unreliable.</p><p>Despite these efforts by Koch affiliates and oil industry consultants, the electrification of bus transit is firmly underway. These high tech buses are already being widely deployed throughout China, which, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry" target="_blank">adding about 9,500 electric buses every five weeks</a>. As China leads the way and North American and European municipalities follow suit, analysts expect this momentum to accelerate and predict <a href="https://about.bnef.com/blog/e-buses-surge-even-faster-evs-conventional-vehicles-fade/" target="_blank">80 percent of the global municipal bus fleet to be electric by 2040</a>.</p><p>That is bad news for the oil industry. <a href="http://about.bnef.com/blog/e-buses-surge-even-faster-evs-conventional-vehicles-fade/" target="_blank">Bloomberg New Energy Finance</a> forecasts that switching from internal combustion engine transport to electric vehicles will displace 7.3 million barrels of oil a day.</p><p>According to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, this year electric buses already will lower diesel consumption by 233,000 barrels a day.</p><h3>Who's Behind a Series of Drive-by Attacks on Electric Buses in the Washington Examiner?</h3><p>As more cities and states move toward this electrified mass transit option, it cuts into the demand for conventional diesel fuel—and into fossil fuel industry profits. <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rise-of-electric-vehicles-threatens-oil-industry" target="_blank">A Washington Examiner article</a> from Dec. 12, 2017 explores the rise of electric vehicles with a particularly telling headline: "Rise of electric vehicles threatens oil industry."</p><p>More recently, the Washington Examiner has run a series of opinion pieces criticizing electric buses. The main arguments are that they are expensive and unreliable, prone to breaking down. These pieces share arguments, and their authors share affiliations, with the Koch brothers and other oil industry funders.</p><p>For example, one <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/marthas-vineyard-latest-to-get-taken-on-a-bumpy-ride-by-warren-buffetts-electric-bus-company" target="_blank">commentary </a> by Philip Wegmann looks at a new electric bus fleet on Martha's Vineyard, pointing to the cost of the vehicles and the fact that they experienced technical problems early on. The piece neglects to mention any benefits of these buses to the environment or public health, nor does it reference the fact that the Vineyard Transit Authority's slow rollout of the buses was expected and that <a href="https://www.mvtimes.com/2018/08/01/electric-bus-rollout-delayed/" target="_blank">they plan on doubling the size of the electric fleet by next summer</a>.</p><p>Wegmann has been closely tied to the Koch network since the beginning of his career. He started his writing career as a fellow of the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/America%27s_Future_Foundation" target="_blank">Koch's</a> America's Future Foundation writing program. Wegmann is currently a fellow at the <a href="https://www.steamboatinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Steamboat Institute</a>, a right-wing think tank <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steamboat_Institute" target="_blank">affiliated with the Koch-backed State Policy Network</a>. This year, he was <a href="https://www.steamboatinstitute.org/update/the-steamboat-institute-awards-the-2018-tony-blankley-fellowship-to-philip-wegmann/" target="_blank">awarded the Steamboat Institute's Tony Blankley fellowship</a>, which came with a $10,000 stipend and a host of other benefits.</p><p>Prior to joining the Examiner as a staff writer, Wegmann worked for conservative media outlet The Daily Signal, which is published by the Koch network-funded <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/heritage-foundation" target="_blank">Heritage Foundation</a> and which also features work by fellow America's Future Foundation alumnus <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/michael-bastasch" target="_blank">Michael Bastasch</a>.</p><p>Another <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/los-angeles-keeps-buying-electric-buses-from-china-and-they-keep-breaking" target="_blank">Examiner piece by Wegmann</a> slams electric buses in Los Angeles. "They don't run, they are expensive, and they're Chinese," Wegmann wrote. LA's neighbor Santa Monica is also converting its buses to electric, and <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/santa-monica-will-spend-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-on-buses-that-basically-no-one-rides" target="_blank">Wegmann again attacks that move</a> in another commentary. He again played the cost card, and claims, without statistical evidence, that "basically no one" rides the new buses.</p><p>Wegmann continues to rail against the electric bus in the Examiner, as recently as last week commenting on Atlanta, Georgia's purchase of a fleet from the Chinese company Build Your Dreams (BYD). "One expects cities like Albuquerque and Los Angeles to drop millions on the novelty environmental fleets, not a deep red state in the South that traditionally votes Republican and cares more for business than green pipe dreams," <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/georgia-helps-save-chinese-electric-buses-from-the-trump-trade-war" target="_blank">he writes</a>.</p><p>Ross Marchand echoes this criticism in another <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/electric-buses-will-only-leave-cities-seeing-red" target="_blank">Examiner opinion piece</a>. Marchand is director of policy for the <a href="https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/" target="_blank">Taxpayers Protection Alliance</a>, which is basically a <a href="https://www.energyandpolicy.org/renewable-energy-state-policy-attacks-report-2015/taxpayer-protection-alliance/" target="_blank">front group funded in part through Koch-connected channels</a>. Previously Marchand interned for the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/texas-public-policy-foundation" target="_blank">Texas Public Policy Foundation</a> and the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-legislative-exchange-council" target="_blank">American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)</a>, both part of the Koch network.</p><p>Marchand's argument is primarily based on expense, but he even claims that electric buses could "prove dirtier than conventional fleet depending on which energy sources America relies on in the future." He backs that statement with a link to <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/are-electric-cars-worse-environment-11242.html" target="_blank">a piece by Jonathan Lesser</a>, president of the consulting firm Continental Economics. Lesser has an antagonistic record towards clean energy policies, and he has "submitted expert testimony and reports on behalf of major utility and fossil fuel interests like Exelon, Occidental, Duke Energy, and FirstEnergy," <a href="https://www.energyandpolicy.org/front-groups-spread-disinformation-ohio-energy-standard/" target="_blank">according to the Energy and Policy Institute</a>.</p><p>Lesser is also frequently contracted by the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/manhattan-institute-policy-research" target="_blank">Manhattan Institute, a think tank that has received millions of dollars in funding from foundations in the Koch donor network</a>.</p><h3>Electric Bus Myths, Debunked</h3><p>The claims laid out by electric bus antagonists use limited views and dog whistles of "communism" and "environmental zealotry" to attack the electric vehicles, especially when compared to "cleaner natural gas-burning buses." The unreliability argument is backed, for instance, by an <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-electric-buses-20180520-story.html" target="_blank">investigative story in the LA Times</a> from May that looks at problems with range and quality encountered by the Chinese e-bus manufacturing company BYD.</p><p>The Times article raises legitimate concerns about the products delivered by BYD, and the company <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2018/05/21/buffett-backed-byd-answers-l-a-times-criticism-new-tech-brings-issues/#158789824065" target="_blank">responded with a statement</a> saying that glitches are to be expected with "any groundbreaking technology." However, the article referred only to BYD buses, and not the electric bus industry as a whole.</p><p>"That was an article about a company, but the headline was about a category," <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/byds-electric-bus-woes-threaten-to-tarnish-the-broader-industry#gs.npVYNco" target="_blank">Ryan Popple, CEO of electric bus maker Proterra, told GTM</a>. "I hope that people don't paint a broad brush over the whole category." While the BYD buses struggled on hills—a major focus of the LA Times article—competitor Proterra's electric buses have been tested, for instance, in the mountains around Park City, Utah, to the satisfaction of local municipal transit planners, who <a href="https://www.visitparkcity.com/blog/post/park-citys-free-bus-system-is-now-faster/" target="_blank">ordered six units to serve the local bus routes</a>.</p><p>Had he wanted, Wegmann could have looked even closer to find a counterpoint to the problematic BYD buses in Los Angeles. Foothill Transit, which serves 22 cities from downtown LA to the east, first tested Proterra buses in 2010 and is still using them.</p><p>"The technology is very robust," Doran Barnes, Foothill's executive director, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/electric-bus-startup-proterra-shifts-into-higher-gear/" target="_blank">told the Seattle Times</a>. "We've had very few problems." Foothill Transit now operates 17 Proterra electric buses, and recently ordered 13 more, including a new set of all-electric double decker buses. Foothill Transit has <a href="http://foothilltransit.org/foothill-transit-announces-all-electric-bus-fleet-by-2030/" target="_blank">pledged to serve its hilly region with an exclusively electric fleet by 2030</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODMzNDI3My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MTQ1ODAyN30.w1vmMgeSPmkKsfSvtH2TYN8RNoPWjMhEXzJB7RGQTQg/img.png?width=980" id="912c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d3ca9b3423e783957c6d14cc72fce85b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="http://foothilltransit.org/" target="_blank">Foothill Transit</a></small></p><p>So despite the early performance and mechanical issues from at least one manufacturer, as these issues are resolved and technology continues to improve, municipal transit authorities across the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> continue to order more of the buses from <span style="background-color: initial;">BYD</span>and other major electric bus manufacturers like Proterra and New Flyer.</p><p>As for the cost argument, it is true that electric buses cost more up front than their diesel-powered counterparts. However, those costs are falling, and when considering the entire life cycle of the vehicle—purchase price, fuels, operational and maintenance expenses—<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~ja3041/Electric%20Bus%20Analysis%20for%20NYC%20Transit%20by%20J%20Aber%20Columbia%20University%20-%20May%202016.pdf" target="_blank">electric buses prove to be cheaper than their diesel counterparts</a>.</p><p>Moreover, according to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-01/electric-buses-will-take-over-half-the-world-by-2025" target="_blank">BNEF</a>, the projected decline in battery costs likely make electric buses cost-competitive with diesel at the point of purchase by 2026. By then, the number of electric buses on the road is expected to more than triple and make up nearly half of the worldwide city bus fleets.</p><p>There are solid reasons behind this trend. Electric buses are better for public health (reducing local air pollution from burning diesel), better for the climate (increasing efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels), and make economic sense in terms of their full cost of moving passengers, when factoring in maintenance and fuel cost-savings. These various benefits are explained in a <a href="https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/electric-buses-clean-transportation-healthier-neighborhoods-and-cleaner-air" target="_blank">May 2018 report from U.S. PIRG and Environment America</a>.</p><p>In terms of public health, there is no question that electric is better. Diesel exhaust is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a likely carcinogen, and it is internationally recognized as a cancer-causing agent that is also responsible for respiratory and other illnesses. Chicago estimates that its electric buses will result in $55,000 in healthcare savings annually per bus, while a Columbia University analysis for New York City pegs it at $150,000 per bus.</p><p>Another obvious benefit of shifting from diesel to electric buses is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. In the U.S. alone, converting transit buses to electric could save over 2 million tons of emissions each year, a clear win for the climate.</p><p>Electric buses also have lower operating and maintenance costs. As with other electric vehicles, there is no fuel cost. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180206213131/http:/www.transitchicago.com/electricbus" target="_blank">Chicago Transit Authority</a> estimates it saves $25,000 annually in net fuel costs for each bus.</p><p>Furthermore, the U.S. PIRG <a href="https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Electric%20Buses%20-%20National%20-%20May%202018%20web.pdf" target="_blank">report states</a> that:</p><blockquote>"According to studies of electric buses currently in operation, electric buses save at least $0.19 per mile in lower maintenance costs. Over the lifetime of the bus, an electric transit bus can avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in operating costs over an equivalent diesel or natural gas bus, from lower fuel and maintenance costs." </blockquote><p>While the e-bus costs more upfront, the fuel and maintenance cost-savings make up the difference, usually within 10 years.</p><p>Improved models and better battery technology are moving toward solving reliability issues, too. The newer electric bus models apparently can travel up to 200 miles or more on a single charge. Proterra makes e-buses designed to go 200 to 350 miles, for example. Electric buses also have fewer parts than diesel buses, which would theoretically require less maintenance.</p><p>Given these considerations, many cities are now announcing transitions to electric bus fleets. New York City announced in April its plans to electrify its fleet by 2040. Los Angeles is committed to an entirely zero-emissions fleet by 2030. Seattle is purchasing 120 e-buses by 2020 and has committed to electrifying its entire fleet by 2040.</p><p>Electric buses are moving toward the mainstream, despite attacks from oil industry apologists.</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/20/koch-fueled-attack-electric-buses-washington-examiner" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em><em></em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Trending
America Burns From Climate Change While Trump Officials Attend Climate Denial Conference
13 August 2018
Climate
The Ferguson Fire burns in the Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National Park on Aug. 10. Pacific Southwest Region 5 / CC BY 2.0
By Andy Rowell
The disconnect could not be greater. As wildfires raged across the U.S. last week, inflamed by climate change, Trump officials attended the America First Energy Conference, where delegates heard age-old fossil fuel arguments that, amongst others, carbon dioxide makes the planet greener and could not be creating a climate crisis.
<p>The conference comes after an unprecedented heat wave in the Northern hemisphere. Scientists are warning that this summer's heatwave is caused by climate change, which in turn has caused unprecedented temperatures and wildfires in Canada, Greece, Sweden and the U.S. Indeed this summer's heatwave was made more than twice as likely by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/heatwave-made-more-than-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change-scientists-find" target="_blank">climate change</a>, according to a rapid assessment by scientists.</p><p>Some scientists are even warning that we are descending into "<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/07/1810141115" target="_blank">hothouse earth</a>," where a series of positive feedback mechanisms could trigger even more extreme warming.</p><p>A record number of Americans now believe that humans are causing climate change, too. The latest survey by the <a href="http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2018-spring-climate-belief.pdf" target="_blank">University of Michigan</a> Muhlenberg College revealed that "a record 60% of Americans now think that global warming is happening and that humans are at least partially responsible for the rising temperatures."</p><p>These high temperatures continue to cause <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/12/wildfires-more-than-100-us-six-new-blazes-erupt" target="_blank">massive wildfires</a> with more than 100 major active blazes in the U.S. right now. Some 30,000 personnel are battling wildfires that have devastated more than 1.6 million acres (648,000 hectares) of land.</p><p>Meanwhile, the climate dinosaurs continue as if nothing is happening. They <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">deny the science</a> and evidence as the flames get ever closer.</p><p>The conference was organized by the leading climate denial think tank, Heartland Institute, which has been regurgitating the same climate denial old rubbish—what we now would now call "fake news"—for the last two decades. It has received significant funding from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">Exxon</a> and the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers">Koch brothers</a> to do so.</p><p>But all their climate denial friends were there too, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange/at-america-first-energy-conference-solar-power-is-dumb-climate-change-is-fake-idUSKBN1KU1Y1" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, including speakers from JunkScience, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the Center for Industrial Progress and officials from the U.S. Department of Interior and the White House.</p><p>The panels included sessions on "Carbon Taxes, Cap & Trade, and Other Bad Ideas," "Fiduciary Malpractice: The Sustainable Investment Movement," and "Why CO2 Emissions Are Not Creating a Climate Crisis."</p><p>Another one of the ludicrous conspiracy theories peddled at the conference was "that the United Nations puts out fake science about climate change to control the global energy market." Oh and they hate <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> too, calling <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind">wind</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar">solar</a> energy "dumb."</p><p>According to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange/at-america-first-energy-conference-solar-power-is-dumb-climate-change-is-fake-idUSKBN1KU1Y1" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, the U.S. officials who attended included White House special assistant Brooke Rollins, Interior Department Assistant Secretary Joe Balash, and Jason Funes, an assistant in the office of external affairs at Interior. All "praised the administration's moves to clear the way for oil industry activity."</p><p><a href="http://americafirstenergy.org/#close" target="_blank">Tim Huelskamp</a>, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, closed the seminar by stating the person who had made the difference to the climate deniers was Donald Trump. "We have a president who has kept his promises," he said. "It proves that one man can make a difference." He called Trump "our last political chance at freedom."</p><p>And in many ways he is right. Trump represents the last chance for the fossil fuel industry to wreck this planet. What they call freedom, we call wildfires. When they see freedom, we see <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise">sea level rise</a>.</p><p>Huelskamp told <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange/at-america-first-energy-conference-solar-power-is-dumb-climate-change-is-fake-idUSKBN1KU1Y1" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, "The leftist claims about sea level rise are overblown, overstated or frankly just wrong."</p><p>Ironically, the conference was held in New Orleans, which was once ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. As Reuters—not normally seen as left-wing conspiracy theorists—noted: "Evidence of sea level rise, however, is strewn across the state that hosted the conference."</p><p>The panel speakers are so blinkered in their climate denial they do not notice what is happening right now. They may look, but they cannot see. On the speaker's lectern was the strapline "freedom rising." Maybe someone should have just written "sea level rising" instead.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d1311" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6R0B651576663370"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="971943772803293184" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">At Least 20 Climate Change Deniers Lead Trump Team, POLITICO Reports https://t.co/angApWTJxF @IMPL0RABLE @American_Bridge</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/971943772803293184">1520564427.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2018/08/13/as-america-burns-from-climate-change-trump-officials-attend-denial-conference-to-discuss-why-climate-change-is-fake/" target="_blank">Oil Change International</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump: 'Ice Caps Were Going to Be Gone, But Now They're Setting ... ›
- At Least 20 Climate Change Deniers Lead Trump Team, POLITICO ... ›
- Trump’s Climate Change Record Threatens the Planet - EcoWatch ›
- Will We Be Able to Reverse Trump’s Climate Damage? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An artist's rendering depicted a light rail line on Charlotte Avenue near Sylvan Park. Nashville Public Radio / Nashville Mayor's Office
The Koch brothers are pouring money into grassroots state efforts to defeat public transit proposals, The New York Times reported.
<p>Local chapters of Koch advocacy group Americans for Prosperity have worked in at least seven states since 2015 to sway voters against public transit proposals, with some notable successes: the group was partially responsible for the defeat of a popular light rail and bus improvement plan in traffic-choked Nashville this May, after making more than 42,000 phone calls and knocking on 6,000 doors. </p><p>Koch Industries is deeply embedded in the automobile industry, and the group has also launched attacks on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">electric vehicles</a> in recent years. "Stopping higher taxes is their rallying cry," Ashley Robbins of Virginia Tech told The New York Times. "But at the end of the day, fuel consumption helps them."</p><p>As reported by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Supporters of transit investments point to research that shows that they reduce traffic, spur economic development and fight <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">global warming</a> by reducing emissions. Americans for Prosperity counters that public transit plans waste taxpayer money on unpopular, outdated technology like trains and buses just as the world is moving toward cleaner, driverless vehicles.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">...</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><span></span>The paucity of federal funding for transit projects means that local ballots are critical in shaping how Americans travel, with decades-long repercussions for the economy and the environment. Highway funding has historically been built into state and federal budgets, but transit funding usually requires a vote to raise taxes, creating what experts call a systemic bias toward cars over trains and buses. The United States transportation sector <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29612" target="_blank" title="">emits more earth-warming carbon dioxide</a> than any other part of the nation's economy.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration had initially raised hopes of more funding for transit by advocating a trillion-dollar infrastructure push. However, when that proposed plan was made public it reduced funding for transit-related grants."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="15f7e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="AVJJ2Y1576663945"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="884886296509984770" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Koch Brothers Launch Attack to Kill Electric Cars https://t.co/9kJQQyD5f3 @EVdotcom @EV_Research</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/884886296509984770">1499808308.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong><br></p><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">New York Times</a></p><p> <em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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