By Ted MacDonald
On the day the report was released, three of the networks — ABC, NBC and MSNBC — aired no prime-time coverage of it, while the other three networks each aired one prime-time segment. Out of 26 total prime-time news programs on the networks, only three reported on the UN assessment.
Major UN Report Warns of Extinction Crisis That Will Have Major Impacts on Humanity
A summary report released by the UN on May 6 finds that about 1 million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction due to expansive human development. The current extinction rate is "at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years." The global assessment, compiled by hundreds of experts with data drawn from thousands of studies, is the most comprehensive look yet at the rapid decline in planetary biodiversity. The report points to a number of human activities that are affecting biodiversity, including overfishing, poaching, farming, mining, logging and polluting. Climate change is also playing a large role in fueling the biodiversity crisis. And the loss of biodiversity in turn threatens humans by endangering water and food supplies and heightening the risks from floods and hurricanes.
The full report is set to be published later in 2019. But even with this summary, the authors show that the biodiversity and climate crises are directly intertwined, ultimately painting a grim picture about the state of our natural world.
Only One of Three Broadcast Nightly News Shows Covered the UN Biodiversity Assessment
Media Matters analyzed the major broadcast networks' nightly news programs on May 6, as well as cable news coverage from 4 p.m. to midnight.
On the broadcast networks, neither ABC's World News Tonight nor NBC Nightly News mentioned the UN biodiversity assessment. Significant segments on these networks instead focused on a Russian airplane fire, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen reporting to prison, and the birth of a royal baby in Britain. CBS Evening News was the only broadcast nightly news program to air a segment on the biodiversity report.
It should come as no surprise that ABC's flagship news program failed to cover the report; the network's news shows consistently lag behind their broadcast competitors in covering climate change. In 2018, ABC aired less than 11 minutes of climate coverage on its nightly and Sunday morning news programs, far less than its counterparts. In fact, ABC has spent less time on climate coverage than CBS and NBC every year since 2013.
On Cable, MSNBC Failed to Mention the Biodiversity Report in Its Prime-Time Coverage
None of the prime-time news shows on MSNBC on May 6 mentioned the UN biodiversity assessment. Much of the news coverage on the network that night focused on the Mueller report.
The only prime-time cable shows to mention the global assessment were CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper and Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier. Coverage on The Lead was straightforward, while Special Report's coverage was riddled with skepticism. Baier, who is billed as one of Fox's "news"-side reporters, began the segment by saying, "Many environmentalists are in a panic tonight over a new report," but "as in all such cases, some humans say the report and the response are exaggerations." The segment included commentary from industry-funded climate denier Marc Morano, who has no background in science. Morano downplayed the report and accused the UN of being a "self-interested lobbying organization." (The Morano footage had run previously on another of Fox's "news"-side programs, Shepard Smith Reporting.)
By Neglecting a Major Report About Threats to Life on Earth, TV Networks Are Failing Their Viewers
The extinction of threatened species will have serious human consequences. One takeaway from the UN assessment is the need to promote a better understanding of the fact that nature is the foundation for human development and all life on Earth. The media has a responsibility to help build an informed citizenry that understands the world it inhabits. By giving this report far too little attention, top TV networks have failed their audiences.
Media Matters analyzed coverage on May 6 on the major broadcast networks' nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News) and on shows airing from 4 p.m. to midnight on the major cable news networks (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC). We identified segments on the UN biodiversity assessment by searching IQ Media and Nexis for the terms (nature or biodiversity or extinction or extinct or climate or species or planet) and (report or study).
Ted MacDonald is a researcher with the climate and energy program at Media Matters, where he has worked since June 2018.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
- Human Civilization Is Under Threat. We Must Save Nature to Save ... ›
- Why Biodiversity Loss Hurts Humans as Much as Climate Change ... ›
By Katie Sullivan and Lis Power
On Tuesday, Harvard researchers published a study estimating that approximately 5,000 deaths can be linked to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. The same day, ABC canceled Roseanne Barr's eponymous show Roseanne after Barr sent a racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett, an adviser to former President Barack Obama. Cable news covered Barr's tweet and her show's cancellation 16 times as much as the deaths of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.
While the official death toll remains at just 64, the Harvard study, written up in The Washington Post, "indicated that the mortality rate was 14.3 deaths per 1,000 residents from Sept. 20 through Dec. 31, 2017, a 62 percent increase in the mortality rate compared with 2016, or 4,645 'excess deaths.'" BuzzFeed News, which also reported on the study, further explained that the researchers adjusted their estimate up to 5,740 hurricane-related deaths to account for "people who lived alone and died as a result of the storm" and were thus not reported in the study's survey.
Cable news barely covered the report. The May 29 broadcasts of MSNBC combined with the network's flagship morning show the next day spent 21 minutes discussing the findings. CNN followed with just under 10 minutes of coverage, and Fox covered the report for just 48 seconds.
By contrast, cable news spent more than 8 and a half hours discussing a tweet from Barr describing Jarrett, a Black woman, as the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes and the subsequent cancellation of her show.
Sarah Wasko / Media Matters
Media coverage of the crisis in Puerto Rico has been dismal since the hurricane hit; even when outlets reported on major scandals about the mismanaged recovery, the coverage was negligible and faded quickly.
Many in the media have been quick to label Barr's obviously racist tweet as racist. But they've failed in their coverage of the mismanaged recovery in Puerto Rico, which is also explained—at least in part—by racism.
The Root explained why "Puerto Rico's crisis is not generally seen as a racial matter. But it should be."
Vox explained "the ways the island and its people have been othered through racial and ethnic bias" and noted that "both online and broadcast media gave Puerto Rico much less coverage, at least initially, than the hurricanes that recently hit Texas and Florida."
A Politico investigation found that "the Trump administration—and the president himself—responded far more aggressively to Texas than to Puerto Rico" in the wake of the hurricanes that devastated both. Trump tweeted just days after Hurricane Maria hit that Puerto Ricans "want everything to be done for them." Only half of Americans are aware that Puerto Ricans are in fact U.S. citizens.
And MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude, chair of the Center for African-American Studies at Princeton University, pointed out, "When you think about 4,600 people dying—of color—dying in Puerto Rico, it reflects how their lives were valued, or less valued."
There are many different CBD oil brands in today's market. But, figuring out which brand is the best and which brand has the strongest oil might feel challenging and confusing. Our simple guide to the strongest CBD oils for pain, anxiety, and sleep will point you in the right direction.
More and more people are looking to boost their health with CBD oil. The rise in CBD's popularity shows that many people are experiencing positive outcomes through the regular use of CBD to help control and improve difficult health issues.
Our guide to the strongest CBD oils will help to point you in the right direction so that you can choose the best, most potent oil for your needs. We will also educate you about the best CBD oils along the way, while also discussing how we chose our top brands and why.
Does Strength of CBD Oil Matter?
The strength of an oil does matter. The more potent a CBD oil is, the stronger effects it will create. To that end, full spectrum oils are the best oils to go with because CBD isolates do not have all of the other vitamins, terpenes, compounds, and phytonutrients that full spectrum oils have. So, not only will you be getting all the positive effects that a strong oil has to offer, you'll also be able to receive the vast therapeutic benefits that the many compounds, terpenes, and phytonutrients bring to the table.
The strength or concentration of a CBD oil is measured in milligrams of CBD, both per bottle and per serving. For many brands, a serving is considered 1 mL of the oil tincture. The best way to evaluate the strength of a CBD oil by how many milligrams of CBD you will get with each 1 mL dropper.
6 Strongest CBD Oil Brands of 2021
Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. You can learn more about our review methodology here. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.
- Best for Pain Relief - Spruce CBD Oil
- Best Organic - Cornbread Hemp Distilled CBD Oil
- Best for Sleep - Charlotte's Web CBD Oil
- Best Value - CBDistillery Full Spectrum Tincture
- Best for Calm - Plant People Drops+ Mind + Body
- Best Flavors - FAB CBD Oil
How We Chose the Strongest CBD Oil Brands
When it comes to choosing a CBD oil brand, you need to take the time and put in the research to ensure that you are getting the strongest, and best quality product you can purchase.
We've put the time and effort into selecting the top brands that we feel have the strongest CBD oil, the best reputation, and the cleanest, most effective products. When it came to selecting our top strongest CBD oils, we looked at six key categories:
- Type of CBD - We looked to see whether the CBD oil was full spectrum, broad spectrum, or CBD isolate.
- Strength - We compared the oil strength and purity versus other available options. All of our recommendations offer a concentration of at least 50 mg of CBD per serving.
- Source - Where does the brand source its hemp from, and is it grown organically?
- Flavor - We looked for oil flavors and the ingredients used in the oil.
- Transparency - A key consideration is whether a third-party lab was used to test the products and if those results are easy for customers to find
- Customer experience - We also read verified customer reviews to see what actual users had to say.
Based on these factors, here are the brands that made our list of strongest CBD oils.
6 Strongest CBD Oils of 2021
Best for Pain Relief: Spruce CBD
- CBD - Full Spectrum
- Strength - 80 mg CBD per 1 mL serving
- Source - North Carolina and Kentucky
Why buy: Spruce CBD oils are high-quality, extremely potent, and 100 percent all-natural. We like their high potency CBD oil because it's an organic and all-natural CBD oil that has no added flavor to allow for their strongest CBD concentration in a 30 mL bottle. This is the strongest CBD oil for pain that may help manage aches, pains, and stiffness.
Best Organic: Cornbread Hemp Distilled CBD Oil
- CBD - Full Spectrum
- Strength - 50 mg CBD per 1 mL serving
- Source - Kentucky
Why buy — Cornbread Hemp CBD oils are all USDA-certified organic. They use a distillation process designed to preserve as many of the beneficial phytonutrients and minor cannabinoids as possible, and only extract their CBD from the flower of the hemp plant. We love that this CBD oil is vegan, non-GMO, and ideal for daytime use.
Best for Sleep: Charlotte's Web CBD Oil
- CBD - Full Spectrum
- Strength - 60 mg CBD per 1 mL serving
- Source - Colorado
Best Value: CBDistillery Full Spectrum Tincture
- CBD - Full Spectrum
- Strength - 83 mg CBD per 1 mL serving
- Source - Colorado
Why buy: CBDistillery is a reputable brand that works hard to create quality, potent, and affordable products. The brand has a broad product line that includes oils, gummies, and topicals. We love the affordability of their extremely potent CBD oils (like the 2500 mg option), and that they use Colorado-grown organic hemp.
Best for Calm: Plant People Drops+ Mind + Bodyplantpeople.coBest for Inflammation: Plant People Drops+ Mind + Body
- CBD - Full Spectrum
- Strength - 50 mg CBD per 1 mL serving
- Source - Colorado
Best Flavors: FAB CBD Oil
- CBD - Full Spectrum
- Strength - 80 mg CBD per 1 mL serving
- Source - Colorado
Why buy: FAB CBD offers some of the strongest, cleanest, and best CBD products out on the market today. FAB's full spectrum CBD oil comes in a variety of flavors and strengths, including mint, citrus, vanilla, natural, and berry oils in strengths of 300 mg, 600 mg, 1200 mg, and 2400 mg. We like FAB CBD oil because it gives you so many different options to find the strongest CBD oil that's right for you.
Research on CBD Oil and Potency
CBD oil is created when cannabidiol, or CBD, is infused into a fat-based carrier oil such as hempseed oil, coconut oil, grapeseed oil, or olive oil. Carrier oils are usually medium-chain triglycerides that are easily digested by the body. The very basic oils will only have CBD and the carrier oil, however, some can also contain other compounds such as tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, flavonoids, phytonutrients, and terpenes. Some brands will also infuse various natural flavors or essential oils into the final products.
CBD oil can vary in color, flavor, and consistency depending on its makeup. Likewise, the strength also depends on the oil's formulation. CBD oils can be isolates, broad spectrum, or full spectrum. In CBD isolates, only pure CBD is used. These oils are usually 99 percent pure. CBD isolates are typically made solely from the hemp plant.
Broad spectrum and full spectrum oils, on the other hand, are typically sourced from the cannabis plant and have had minimal processing and purification. These oils have a large amount of cannabinoids, terpenes, nutrients, vitamins, and phytonutrients. The difference between the two is that broad spectrum CBD products contain zero THC.
Along with CBD, one of the main compounds in full spectrum oils is THC. In large amounts, THC causes feelings of euphoria. However, legally, all CBD crafted and sold within the United States must contain less than 0.3% THC. When CBD and THC are combined, an entourage effect occurs. In the entourage effect, the compounds work together to dampen each other's negative side effects while amplifying each other's best qualities. For example, too much THC can cause feelings of nausea or dizziness. However, when THC is combined with CBD, the THC enables those with sleep issues to finally get some rest, and helps those with extreme nausea, due to cancer treatment, finally get some much-needed nourishment by increasing appetite. Put simply, the cannabinoids bind with cell receptors in the human endocannabinoid system to create therapeutic effects.
How to Choose the Right CBD Oil and Potency for You
There are several key factors to take into consideration when choosing the strongest CBD oil for pain, sleep, or anxiety. One of the first things to look at is the concentration of CBD within the product. Next, take a look at the milligrams of CBD that are in a single serving. The best quality products clearly have all the facts and information laid out on their labels. In reading the labels, you should be able to tell exactly how much CBD you are getting per serving. How much CBD you need to be taking depends on how your body reacts to the product over time.
What to Look For
Here are the primary things to look for when comparing the strongest CBD oil options.
CBD Spectrum - Make sure you know whether you are getting a full spectrum, broad spectrum, or CBD isolate oil. This is especially important if you are concerned about THC content.
Concentration - When looking for the strongest CBD oils, you need to be certain of how many milligrams of CBD are contained in each bottle and each 1 mL serving.
Lab Testing - For any CBD product, it's vital that you look for brands who ensure their CBD undergoes independent third-party lab testing for purity and safety.
How to Read Labels
Make sure that you know what to look for on the label of any CBD oil or product. Here are the key things to know.
- Type of CBD - The label should clearly indicate the spectrum of CBD in the oil. If it is a broad spectrum or CBD isolate, it will usually say that it is "THC-Free."
- Dosage Guide - Some brands include a dosage guide on the label to help you measure the appropriate amount of CBD per serving. This is important with higher potency oils.
- Test Results - Look for proof that the CBD has undergone third-party lab testing. Many brands include a QR code or link on the label to the test results for that product.
How to Use
Everyone's body is different, so what works well for one person might not work for another. Smaller individuals might need less CBD than larger individuals based on body size and overall mass. Along with body size, the reason you are taking CBD is another consideration in purchasing strong CBD oil.
Whatever oil strength you choose, you should first start low and go slow when it comes to dosing. For example, begin by taking half of a serving of CBD once a day for one week. If you are not feeling any benefits, then go ahead and take half a dose twice a day. Continue increasing the dosage slowly until you are achieving the desired effects. Always check in with yourself to see how you are feeling along the way. This will help you to determine if you should increase the dosage at all. As with any other medication or holistic supplement, your body will need adequate time to get used to a new CBD dosage, and CBD typically works best as it builds up in your system over time.
Safety & Side Effects
There are very few minor side effects associated with CBD. To date, a great number of studies have been done on CBD showing that it is generally well-tolerated and safe for adults.
Some of the most common side effects associated with CBD include:
- Dry mouth
- Changes in weight
- Changes in appetite
Those suffering from chronic pain or increased stress may benefit from stronger CBD oil tinctures that can provide a more potent dose of cannabinoids. CBD oil can be a great addition to any natural healthcare routine. Just make sure you are putting in the time and effort to find the product and the brand that is best suited to your own unique needs, condition, and lifestyle.
From the Dec. 2 edition of CNN Newsroom:
Clarissa Ward: Michael Mann is one of the country's top climate scientists. He has testified before Congress about the threat posed by climate change.
Ward: Is there a direct connection between the intensity of the hurricanes that we're seeing and climate change?
Michael Mann: There is a direct connection. And too often we hear the problem framed as "Did climate change cause this storm? Did it cause this hurricane?" That's not the right way to think about it. The question is, "Is climate change amplifying the impacts of these hurricanes?" And it absolutely is.
Ward: Mann explains that as Arctic ice, the world's refrigerator, has melted, that has accelerated the overall warming of the planet. The world's oceans have warmed by more than one degree Fahrenheit, and as the ocean surface heats, it allows more moisture into the atmosphere, making hurricanes like Harvey and Irma stronger, with more potential to flood. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that without significant cuts to carbon emissions, temperatures will continue to climb and the problem will only get worse.
Mann: The analogy I like to use, we're stepping out onto a minefield, and we don't know exactly where those mines are. But we know that as we set them off, we're going to see catastrophic impacts.
Watch the video clip below:
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
By Evlondo Cooper
Roy Moore, Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, has drawn media attention for his extreme and dangerous views on homosexuality, birtherism, and the role of Christianity in government (even though much of the coverage has been inadequate and misleadingly framed). But one of his extreme positions has received almost no major media attention at all: his absolute denial of climate science.
Media Matters has found that, from the time Moore announced his candidacy on April 26 to Oct. 31, the major broadcast evening news shows, prime-time cable news programs and national newspapers have all neglected to report on Moore's views on climate change, one of the most significant issues he would face if elected to the U.S. Senate. Over the same period, four of the top five largest-circulation newspapers in Alabama also failed to report on Moore and climate change.
The Montgomery Advertiser is the outlier: The Alabama newspaper asked Moore's campaign about climate change but didn't receive an answer. In July, the paper ran an article about climate change and the Senate race, reporting that "Moore's campaign declined to answer questions on the subject." In August, the Advertiser again reported that Moore "declined to answer questions on the issue."
Both Advertiser articles refer to Moore's campaign website, which lists a brief position on energy but makes no mention of the climate: "To gain independence from foreign oil, we need to foster development of our own natural resources involving nuclear, solar, wind, and fossil fuels. Coal mining and oil drilling should be encouraged, subject only to reasonable regulations."
However, despite his recent reticence on the subject, Moore has made his climate denial clear in the past. In 2009, he published an op-ed about climate change on fringe website WorldNetDaily, as HuffPost's Alexander C. Kaufman recently pointed out. From the WND op-ed:
"Not only is there no constitutional authority for Congress to regulate carbon emissions, but the premise of 'global warming' and 'climate change' upon which such environmental theories are based does not have the support of a scientific consensus.
Not only do scientists disagree on 'global warming,' but there is little hard evidence that carbon emissions cause changes to the global climate."
This is an extreme manifestation of climate science denial, and it's outright false.
Moore—who identifies as a Southern Baptist and addressed the Southern Baptist Convention's Pastors' Conference in 2005—has a denialist position on climate change science that aligns with the convention's stance, as do his positions on same-sex marriage and displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings. In 2007, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution on global warming that cast doubt on climate science and opposed climate action:
"WHEREAS, Many scientists reject the idea of catastrophic human-induced global warming;
RESOLVED, That we consider proposals to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions based on a maximum acceptable global temperature goal to be very dangerous, since attempts to meet the goal could lead to a succession of mandates of deeper cuts in emissions, which may have no appreciable effect if humans are not the principal cause of global warming, and could lead to major economic hardships on a worldwide scale;"
And in December 2016, as Kaufman reported, 12 former Southern Baptist Convention presidents joined other evangelical leaders in signing a letter in support of Scott Pruitt's nomination to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, defending Pruitt's call for "a continuing debate" on climate science.
Mainstream media have a history of inadequate reporting on climate change, especially during political campaigns. But global warming is expected to have serious negative effects on Alabama, including more severe drought, sea-level rise, and increased dangerous heat days, and many national and international leaders have called climate change one of the greatest challenges of our time.
In order to provide a full, fair picture of the Alabama Senate race and Moore's fitness to be a senator, media should report on his climate denial in addition to his other extreme and disturbing beliefs. And there's a clear contrast to draw, as Moore's Democratic challenger, Doug Jones, has made addressing climate change a key part of his platform.
Methodology: Media Matters conducted a Nexis search of print and television outlets using the search terms "Roy Moore" and "climate change" or "global warming." Our search covered the time period between April 26, 2017, the date Roy Moore announced his candidacy, and Oct. 31, 2017. For television, we searched transcripts of the broadcast evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC and transcripts of prime-time, weekday programs on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. For print coverage, we searched pieces published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Birmingham News, Press-Register (Mobile), The Huntsville Times, The Tuscaloosa News and Montgomery Advertiser. We also searched Factiva for pieces published in The Wall Street Journal.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
From the Sept. 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
PETE HEGSETH (CO-HOST): We know Hollywood has got left-wing bias. The media has got left-wing bias. Higher education, universities and colleges. But what we're looking at today is not even just that. It's high schools, it's junior highs, and parents need to be engaged and aware. What's your advice for them?
JULIE GUNLOCK: Well, you're right. More and more now these schools, elementary schools, middle schools are taking on the role—are really supplanting parents. You look at schools today. Kids can be dropped off at 6:30 in the morning. They get three meals a day. There's after care. There's even health care services at some schools. So, really schools have tried more and more to take on the role of parenting, and now we're seeing it in political issues. They're telling children this is how you should think about certain issues. This is how you should believe. This is the correct way to think on these issues. It's very disturbing, and parental rights are absolutely left out of the picture.
HEGSETH: We see it more and more every year. California's being criticized for allowing transgender issues to be taught in the classroom.
HEGSETH: A New York school board wants to include climate change in what they're instructing their students.
HEGSETH: You say parents need to be actively and aggressively involved. What does that mean?
GUNLOCK: I really do. I think particularly conservatives tend to be very polite and quiet, and they don't like to sort of cause a stir. But you've got to do that. You've got to go to your school. Meet with your principal. Meet with your teachers. Ask for the curriculum. Review it, and if there is something that you don't like, opt out. Now, some states don't allow people to opt out, and that's very unfortunate. But that is why it's important at the beginning of the year that you meet with the officials at the school and say I don't want this happening. I don't want politics in the classroom. And there are certain subjects that I believe, as a parent, I need to talk to my child, not the teacher.
HEGSETH: That's a great recommendation. And run for school boards so that you can be a part of changing it if you want to. But too many parents, you're right, are disengaged. They don't understand that even our public schools today so many of which have an agenda.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
By Kevin Kalhoefer
USA Today has once again invited a climate denier onto its opinion pages to cast doubt on mainstream science, and the paper failed to disclose the author's numerous industry ties.
On Aug. 14, USA Today's editorial board wrote a well-reasoned editorial highlighting the scientific consensus around climate science, titled Case for climate change grows ever stronger. The board noted that the findings of a draft federal climate report provided "ever more troubling evidence" that "humanity is responsible for a dangerously warming planet."
But on the same day, the newspaper also published an op-ed by Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute that disparaged the draft report, dismissing it as the work of "the career (and holdover) federal employee 'resistance'" and part of the "big business" of climate change:
Another week of the Trump presidency, another bout of fevered reporting on claims promoted by the career (and holdover) federal employee "resistance." But particularly when it comes to climate change, it seems the ordinary way of doing things is simply too much to ask.
"Climate" has become very big business since Congress first requested quadrennial "National Assessments on Climate Change" in 1990. A big part of that business is government. Another is the news media. Both of which thrive on the end-of-days narrative.
The two met this week to ride the latest national assessment, a draft of which prompted excited reportage and a particularly embarrassing correction by The New York Times.
Readers would have taken Horner's attack with more than a grain of salt had USA Today disclosed his deep ties to oil and coal companies. He claimed that climate change has become "big business," but Horner's own work has been funded by big fossil fuel corporations for years. Horner has gotten payments from Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal companies in the U.S., and has numerous ties to the coal industry. And Horner's employer, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil over almost two decades, as well as funding from Marathon Petroleum, Texaco, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Koch Industries, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, among others.
In his USA Today op-ed, Horner provided no evidence to support his claim that writing reports on climate change is "big business." According to a ProPublica article, the draft federal climate report was authored by "a mix of government and academic researchers," and lead author Katharine Hayhoe noted that the academic contributors were not paid for their work. Horner also didn't give any compelling evidence or argument to dispute the findings of the draft report.
So then why did USA Today publish Horner's op-ed? The paper's editorial board has a long-standing practice of publishing "opposing view" counterpoints to its editorials. As Media Matters has documented on multiple occasions, this "opposing view" format leads the newspaper to publish climate denial and misinformation, and go out of its way to find authors willing to dispute the well-established science of human-caused climate change.
A 2016 Media Matters study examining four major newspapers' opinion pages found that USA Today published six opinion pieces featuring climate denial or misinformation from January 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016—five of which were "opposing view" responses to editorials. Only The Wall Street Journal, which is notorious for pushing climate denial on its opinion pages, published more. All six of these misleading climate opinion pieces were written by individuals with fossil fuel ties, but USA Today did not disclose any of those ties to readers.
Red Team-Blue Team Is No Way to Conduct #Climate Science https://t.co/OyrVpNxTCG @DeSmogBlog @350 @Greenpeace @SierraClub @EnvDefenseFund— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1502712649.0
The "opposing view" format is all the more dangerous now that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator and climate denier Scott Pruitt is calling for a "red team" of climate deniers to debate mainstream "blue team" scientists. The Trump administration is even reportedly considering having a "red team" vet the draft climate report that Horner criticized. This sort of approach should not be getting an endorsement from the most widely read newspaper in the U.S.
By Kevin Kalhoefer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt has appeared on Fox News twice as often as on other cable and broadcast networks combined, and he has frequently granted interviews to right-wing talk radio shows and other climate-denying outlets, Media Matters has found.
Pruitt's media strategy is right in line with that of his boss. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump eschewed mainstream media outlets; it's a pattern his administration has continued since the election, favoring conservative and right-wing media outlets that are friendly to President Trump's agenda. By following the same approach, Pruitt has been able to push misinformation, avoid tough questioning and appeal to the president's political base.
Pruitt Appeared on Fox News Twice as Often as He Did on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC Combined
Scott Pruitt has been a guest on Fox News a total of 12 times since his confirmation. From February 17, when he was sworn in, to August 14, Pruitt made twice as many appearances on Fox News (12) as he did on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC combined (6).* With the exception of two appearances on Fox News Sunday, Pruitt rarely faced tough questions on Fox News and was able to use the network as a platform for pushing misleading talking points without rebuttal. Pruitt appeared most frequently on Fox & Friends, Trump's favorite show, which some journalists have criticized as "state TV" and "a daily infomercial for the Trump presidency" for its sycophantic coverage of the president and his administration. Pruitt made the following appearances on Fox News:
- One appearance on Hannity on March 28.
- One appearance on The Story with Martha MacCallum on June 5.
- One appearance on America's Newsroom on June 30.
By comparison, Pruitt made only six appearances on the other major cable and broadcast television networks combined. From the time Pruitt took the helm at the EPA through August 14, he was a guest just six times total on CNN, MSNBC, ABC and NBC, and he made no appearances at all on CBS. On each of these non-Fox programs, Pruitt faced questions either about whether Trump still believes climate change is a hoax or about Pruitt's own views on climate change. In response, Pruitt either avoided answering the question or repeated his "lukewarmer" stance that climate change is happening but we don't know how much is human-caused. In all but one of these appearances, Pruitt repeated false or misleading talking points about the Paris climate agreement. Here are Pruitt's guest appearances on cable news and broadcast networks other than Fox:
- One appearance on CNN's The Situation Room on February 28.
- One appearance on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper on June 1.
- One appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe on June 6.
- One appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on June 4.
*Pruitt's appearance on Meet the Press aired on both NBC and MSNBC, but for the purposes of this study, we only counted it as an NBC appearance.
Pruitt Has Been a Frequent Guest on National Right-Wing Talk Radio Shows
Pruitt has also been a frequent guest on nationally broadcast right-wing talk radio shows since his confirmation, Media Matters found. We examined the top 10 shows listed on Talkers.com's Top Talk Audiences list, as well as numerous shows broadcast on the SiriusXM Patriot channel and found the following:
- One appearance on SiriusXM Patriot's David Webb Show on April 26.
- One appearance on SiriusXM Patriot's Breitbart News Daily on June 5.
- One appearance on Westwood One's The Savage Nation on June 1.
All of these hosts or outlets have denied climate change:
- Hugh Hewitt has a years-long record of climate denial: He wrote in a 2011 blog post that "we don't know" how much humans contribute to global warming, adding "if it will be harmful or if there's anything we can do about it." Hewitt also downplayed the threat of climate change in a September 2016 episode of his show in which he said that warming might be "a real problem over 500 years."
- Brian Kilmeade has denied climate change, both as a host on his radio show and as a co-host on Fox & Friends. On a 2013 episode of his radio show (then called Kilmeade & Friends), Kilmeade suggested that only "corrupt" climatologists accept human-caused climate change. On the same day, Kilmeade disputed on Fox & Friends that it is "settled scientific collective thought" that human activity causes climate change.
- On the January 12 episode of the David Webb Show, Webb cast doubt on the scientific consensus around climate change, arguing that it's not significant that the vast majority of climate scientists publishing peer-reviewed research agree on the human causes of warming: "You can have 99 percent of peer-reviewed, but it doesn't mean that the one percent like that guy named Copernicus won't be correct about the fact that the Earth was not flat and we were not the center of the universe."
- Breitbart.com has a long track record of pushing blatant climate science misinformation and attacking climate scientists and climate science, calling researchers "talentless low-lives" and "abject liars" and climate change a "hoax." Breitbart is also a go-to outlet for fossil fuel industry-funded academics who want to get publicity for their work.
- Michael Savage has echoed Trump's position on climate change, calling it a "scam" and a "hoax," and has urged the president to continue denying that humans are the cause of global warming. During his June 1 interview with Scott Pruitt, Savage repeated the denier argument that human-made climate change is disproven by samples from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica and criticized Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for promoting "fake science." In response, Pruitt appeared to endorse Savage's views and floated the idea of having a "red team" of skeptical scientists debate a "blue team" of mainstream climate scientists, a proposal Pruitt pushed again a few days later on Breitbart's radio program:
Michael Savage (Host): Please explain to me how come ancient core samples from the Antarctic show that there was climate change going on hundreds of thousands of years before man industrialized. [Whitehouse] would not have an answer for us, Mr. Pruitt. The science is fake science that they've been foisting upon a gullible public.
Scott Pruitt: You know what's interesting, Michael? There was a great article in The Wall Street Journal to your point, by Steven Koonin, a scientist at NYU, called "red team/blue team." I don't know if you saw it or not. But he proposed that we should have a red team/blue team approach with respect to CO2. We should have red team scientists and blue team scientists, in an open setting, debate, discuss, and have an open discussion about what do we know, what don't we know, and the American people deserve truth.
Savage: Amen to that, because we've had no debate whatsoever. All Obama told us was 98 percent of scientists agree. So what? There was a time when 100 percent of scientists said the Earth is flat. Did that make them right?
Pruitt: No, look, I mean the reason there's not consensus, through policy in Washington, DC, is because, truly, the American people don't trust what has happened in the past several years with respect to regulatory policy and this issue.
Pruitt's right-wing radio appearances have extended beyond nationally broadcast shows. E&E News reported in May that Pruitt appeared on "the local morning talk radio show of a North Dakota blogger who described the Obama administration's EPA as an enemy to the well-being of his state." ThinkProgress noted that during a "state listening tour" in North Dakota earlier this month, "Pruitt stopped by the conservative talk radio show What's On Your Mind to share his thoughts on a number of EPA-related issues." During that conversation, Pruitt referred to the "so-called settled science" of climate change.
And on August 10, Pruitt appeared on a Texas radio show, Politico reported, where he said his staff will assess the "accuracy" of a major federal climate report that's been drafted by scientists from 13 agencies. "Frankly this report ought to be subjected to peer-reviewed, objective-reviewed methodology and evaluation," he said, ignoring the fact that the report has already undergone extensive peer review. Pruitt also used his appearance on the show to cast doubt on climate science in general.
Pruitt Has Given Interviews to Other Climate-Denying Outlets, Including Online Publications and Cable Business Shows
In addition to his June interview on Breitbart's radio show, Pruitt granted the Breitbart website an interview in March.
Pruitt also sat for a lengthy video interview in July with the fossil fuel-funded Daily Caller, another denialist online outlet. And he gave an interview in May to The Daily Signal, an online news outlet run by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that casts doubt on climate change.
Besides his appearances on cable news shows, Pruitt also went on cable business shows and networks that serve as platforms for climate denial—most notably CNBC's Squawk Box, where he told climate-denying host Joe Kernen that he did not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming. Pruitt has also frequently given interviews on Fox Business Network, which mirrors Fox News' denialist stance on global warming. Pruitt made the following appearances on the Fox Business Network:
- One appearance on Cavuto: Coast to Coast on March 9.
- One appearance on The Intelligence Report with Trish Regan on April 12.
Pruitt's Courting of Conservative Media is "On an Entirely Different Level" from Predecessors
Scott Waldman of E&E News reported that after "weeks of blowback" from Pruitt's appearance on Squawk Box, the EPA chief "shifted his media appearances to friendlier venues," a move that "allowed him to tee off on a favorite series of talking points: Obama's energy policy was 'America second,' energy industry innovations have reduced the U.S. carbon footprint, the so-called war on coal is now over, EPA's job is to encourage business growth in concert with the environment, and the era of punitive action against energy companies is over." Waldman also noted that Pruitt's "courting of conservative media is on an entirely different level" from previous EPA administrators. From Waldman's article:
To be sure, all administrations seek out friendly press. President Obama talked about health care on the "Between Two Ferns" comedy program with Zach Galifianakis, which Republicans criticized as undignified. And former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy granted exclusive interviews to left-leaning outlets like Mother Jones and Grist.
But critics say Pruitt's courting of conservative media is on an entirely different level.
Liz Purchia, a former EPA spokeswoman under the Obama administration, said it's extremely unusual to place an administrator only on partisan outlets. She noted that McCarthy regularly interacted with reporters from outlets that produced coverage EPA officials did not appreciate.
"Only talking to far right-wing media outlets, they are only talking to a small group of Americans that regularly follow them, and they are intentionally going to reporters who will only ask them questions they want to hear and aren't speaking to the broader American people about their actions," Purchia said.
In Mother Jones, Rebecca Leber also reported that "since taking office, Pruitt has almost exclusively relied on a small number of conservative media outlets to tell an upbeat version of his leadership at the EPA, with occasional detours into the Sunday news shows," creating "an echo chamber cheerleading the EPA's regulatory rollbacks, Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, and its newfound anti-science denial."
Leber also quoted Purchia remarking on how Pruitt's approach to media interviews "isolates him from most Americans and instead plays to Trump's base":
Liz Purchia, an Obama-era EPA communications staffer, says the EPA's attention to right-wing audiences resembles Trump's tactics at the White House. "They're tightly controlling [Pruitt's] public events and interviews, which isolates him from most Americans and instead plays to Trump's base," Purchia said in an email. "They're not trying to use communications tactics to reach a broad audience."
Media Matters searched the following terms in Nexis, iQ Media and TVEyes to find Scott Pruitt's on-air TV appearances from the date of his swearing in as EPA Administrator on February 17 to August 14: "Pruitt," "EPA administrator," "E.P.A. administrator," "EPA chief," "E.P.A. chief," "EPA head," "E.P.A. head," "head of the EPA," "head of the E.P.A.," "head of the Environmental Protection Agency," "Environmental Protection Agency Administrator," or "Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency." We did not count instances of networks airing Pruitt's appearance at the White House's June 2 press briefing.
For radio appearances, Matters Matters searched the same terms in Veritone for the top 10 programs in Talkers.com's Top Talk Audiences list and the following programs that air on SiriusXM Patriot: Breitbart News Daily, David Webb Show, Brian Kilmeade Show and The Wilkow Majority.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
By Lisa Hymas
Energy Sec. Rick Perry has ordered his department to produce a study on whether the ongoing shift toward renewable energy is affecting the reliability of the electrical grid. A number of experts, clean-energy advocates and politicians on both sides of the aisle believe the study is intended to be biased in favor of the coal and nuclear industries, which have been struggling in recent years.
As journalists prepare to report on the study, which is expected to be released this month, there are some critical factors to consider:
- The study leader worked for Koch-funded groups and has demonstrated bias against renewable energy;
- Wind and solar power are not major factors leading to the shuttering of coal and nuclear plants, according to energy experts and reports; and
- Numerous studies and grid experts have concluded that the electrical grid can incorporate increasing amounts of renewable energy and become more secure as a result, not less.
Perry Orders Grid Study That's Widely Viewed as Intended to Bolster the Coal Industry
On April 14, Perry put out a memo calling for the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a 60-day study "to explore critical issues central to protecting the long-term reliability of the electric grid." The study is intended to assess "how certain policies are affecting, and potentially putting at risk, energy security and reliability," according to the memo. Though Perry's memo didn't mention wind, solar or renewable energy by name, it was widely understood to be referring to policies that have supported the development of renewable energy.
Here's how Bloomberg explained it:
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry is ordering a study of the U.S. electric grid, with an eye to examining whether policies that favor wind and solar energy are accelerating the retirement of coal and nuclear plants critical to ensuring steady, reliable power supplies.
Perry highlights concerns about the "erosion" of resources providing "baseload power"—consistent, reliable electricity generated even when the sun isn't shining and the winds aren't blowing.
Perry's effort suggests that the administration may be looking for other ways to keep coal plants online.
As Jacques Leslie, a contributing opinion writer at the Los Angeles Times, put it in April, "Perry has already decided what the study should find: Its purpose is to buttress the Trump administration's pro-fossil fuel policies."
Chris Tomlinson, a business columnist for the Houston Chronicle, recently described the forthcoming study as "clearly a fait accompli," writing that "Perry ordered his own review of the grid to reach conclusions that suit the administration." Tomlinson explained: "Perry is looking for an excuse to override competitive electricity markets and force utilities to buy power from coal and nuclear plants."
In late June, Perry gave his critics more ammunition with remarks he made at the U.S. Energy Information Administration's annual conference, The Hill reported. While discussing the study, he said that "politically driven policies, driven primarily by a hostility to coal," threaten "the reliability and the stability of the greatest electricity grid in the world." The Hill further reported that Perry told the conference he "doesn't intend to give preference to renewable power, something he accused the Obama administration of doing." Perry said, "I recognize the markets have had a role in the evolution of our energy mix. But no reasonable person can deny the thumb, or even the whole hand, if you will, has been put on the scale in favor of certain political outcomes."
In addition to a long record of fossil-fuel boosterism, Perry has a history of denying that climate change is caused by humans burning fossil fuels, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. Perry reiterated this denial during a June 19 appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box, blaming climate change primarily on "the ocean waters and this environment that we live in" instead of carbon dioxide emitted through human activity.
Study Leader Worked for Koch-Funded Groups and Has Demonstrated Bias Against Renewable Energy
Perry selected Travis Fisher to lead the study, a political appointee who serves as a senior advisor in the DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Fisher has a record of skepticism toward clean energy and favoritism toward fossil fuels, as documented by the Energy and Policy Institute, a nonprofit watchdog.
Before joining the Trump administration, Fisher worked as an economist at the Institute for Energy Research and the American Energy Alliance, groups that are run by a former Koch Industries lobbyist and that received $3 million in donations from Koch-funded organizations in 2015. The Institute for Energy Research also received $50,000 from coal company Peabody Energy in 2015 and has been funded by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute.
While working at the Institute for Energy Research in 2015, Fisher wrote a report that argued wind and solar power threaten the reliability of the grid:
The single greatest emerging threat to reliable electricity in the U.S. does not come from natural disturbances or human attacks. Rather, the host of bad policies now coming from the federal government—and, unfortunately, from many state governments—is creating far greater and more predictable problems with grid reliability.
Subsidies and mandates that force increased amounts of unreliable sources of electricity on the grid, such as wind and solar power, and undermine the normal operation of reliable power plants [...] create a much less reliable grid and increase the chances of a major blackout.
Despite issuing these warnings, Fisher's 2015 report did not cite any examples of clean energy policies leading to blackouts.
Fisher also wrote an op-ed in 2014 that argued wind and solar are "unreliable sources of power" and policies that promote them "undermine our electric system."
Fisher isn't the only person involved with the study who has a biased background. Perry's memo calling for the study was addressed to his chief of staff, Brian McCormack, who until recently worked for the Edison Electric Institute, the primary trade group for the electric utility industry and an opponent of net-metering policies that encourage rooftop solar power. While at the Edison Electric Institute, McCormack played a key role in fighting policies that promote renewable energy.
Republican and Democratic Politicians Warn That the Study is Likely to be Biased and Lack Credibility
- Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, whose home state of Iowa has a robust wind power industry, sent a letter to Perry in May expressing serious doubts about the study. "I'm concerned that a hastily developed study, which appears to pre-determine that variable, renewable sources such as wind have undermined grid reliability, will not be viewed as credible, relevant or worthy of valuable taxpayer resources," he wrote. "In fact, at least one similar study has already been conducted by the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. It's my understanding that study took two years to complete."
- Seven Democratic members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee sent a letter to Perry in May saying, "This Study appears to be a thinly-disguised attempt to promote less economic electric generation technologies, such as coal and nuclear, at the expense of cost-competitive wind and solar power. … The Study, as you have framed it, appears to be intended to blame wind and solar power for the financial difficulties facing coal and nuclear electric generators and to suggest that renewable energy resources threaten the reliability of the grid."
Coal Groups Support the Review; Clean Energy Industry Groups are Skeptical
Industry trade groups appear to believe the study is likely to lean in favor of coal, as reflected in the coal lobby's support for the inquiry and clean energy groups' questions about how it's being conducted.
- A top coal lobbying group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, met twice with DOE officials to discuss the study "and came away hopeful about its results," The Hill reported in late June. "What DOE is doing is long overdue, and we're very pleased with this right now," said Paul Bailey, the group's president and CEO. "It looks like it will support the need for having a fleet of coal plants in the U.S."
- Luke Popovich, vice president for external relations at the National Association of Mining, wrote an op-ed for USA Today in May titled, Energy Department is right to study impact of U.S. power grid regulations. He praised Perry's call for the study, writing, "This is sensible policy."
- Clean energy industry trade groups are worried that their perspectives will be left out of the study. In an April letter sent to Perry, three trade groups—Advanced Energy Economy, the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association—pointed out that "solar and wind power, energy efficiency, energy storage and advanced grid technologies ... have already been integrated smoothly into the electric power system in large and increasing amounts, as demonstrated in countless studies." The groups asked that the study be conducted through an inclusive, public process: "In light of the importance of this inquiry, we encourage you to follow standard practice and conduct the study in an open and transparent manner. When agencies prepare reports with policy recommendations that could affect entire industries and the millions of employees that work in them, such as the proposed one, it is customary for them to seek comments on a draft prior to the study being finalized."
- The American Petroleum Institute, which represents producers of natural gas as well as oil, is also skeptical of the forthcoming study because it appears likely to promote coal and nuclear plants at the expense of gas. "Baseload is kind of a historical term. It's not really relevant to how electricity is produced today," Erica Bowman, chief economist at API, told the Houston Chronicle. "What you need is dispatchability ... and [coal and nuclear] are far slower when you compare them to a lot of the technology natural gas plants have." Writes the Chronicle, "That position places the oil and gas lobbying giants firmly on the side of the renewable energy industry, which has expressed concern Perry's study is nothing more than an attempt to prop up the coal sector.
Renewable Energy is Not to Blame for Driving Coal and Nuclear Plants Out of Business, According to Reports and Experts
Perry called for the study to look into whether renewable energy threatens so-called "baseload" power plants. Wind and solar power are intermittent or variable, flowing into the grid when the wind blows and the sun shines, not 24/7. Perry expressed concern that government policies that encourage the development of renewable energy are leading to the closure of baseload plants that produce power around the clock, most of which are powered by coal and nuclear. Perry wrote in his memo that "federal subsidies that boost one form of energy at the expense of others ... create acute and chronic problems for maintaining adequate baseload generation," implying that subsidies for wind and solar are hurting the coal and nuclear industries.
- A new report by Analysis Group, an economic consulting firm, reiterates that point. "Analysis Group finds it is market forces—primarily low-cost natural gas and flat demand for electricity—that are causing some coal and nuclear power plants to retire, and not state and federal policies supporting renewable energy development," said a press release from Advanced Energy Economy and the American Wind Energy Association. The two trade associations commissioned the report "in order to independently answer questions asked by Energy Secretary Rick Perry about the reliability and market rules of the U.S. electric power grid."
- A recent report by the free-market think tank R Street refutes the idea that coal and nuclear are needed to maintain a reliable grid. "Concern over baseload retirements often masks an underlying preference for certain fuel types, namely coal and nuclear. Criticism of baseload retirements often ignores that nonbaseload resources can meet baseload demand reliably … and that new dependable resources have replaced retiring generators," the report concluded.
- Ben Fowke, president and CEO of large utility company Xcel Energy, told The Wall Street Journal in July that wind and solar are not responsible for the closure of coal and nuclear plants.
Utility and Grid Experts Say the Grid Can Incorporate More Renewables and Be More Secure as a Result
- For a period on Feb. 12 of this year, wind provided a record 52.1 percent of the electricity to the grid in the Southwest Power Pool's service region, which spans 14 states. Bruce Rew, vice president of operations for the Southwest Power Pool, said, "Ten years ago, we thought hitting even a 25 percent wind-penetration level would be extremely challenging, and any more than that would pose serious threats to reliability. Now we have the ability to reliably manage greater than 50 percent wind penetration. It's not even our ceiling."
- Colette Honorable, an outgoing commissioner at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said in late June that large amounts of renewable energy have been successfully integrated into regional grids around the U.S. and have "absolutely not" harmed grid reliability. "I have seen no problems with reliability," she said during remarks at the the U.S. Energy Information Administration's annual conference. "Bring on more renewables."
- Ed Smeloff—managing director at the nonprofit Vote Solar, who previously worked at SunPower Corp., the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District—wrote an op-ed for The Hill in June arguing that renewable energy and clean technology "can make the electric grid more resilient and reliable," not less. "DOE studies have already shown that much more renewable energy can reliably be added to the grid. If the federal government calls for policies that protect 'baseload' resources from market forces, the results will be higher electric bills, slower domestic economic growth and, critically, a less secure electric power system," he wrote.
- Don Furman, director of the Fix the Grid Coalition and a former executive at the utility PacifiCorp, told Media Matters for America by email, "A reliable, carbon-free grid based on renewable energy is not only possible, it is economically feasible. It will take time for an orderly transition, and we will need policies to help people impacted by the move away from coal. But we absolutely can do it, starting now."
- According to Axios, Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, said on May 24 at the annual conference of the American Wind Energy Association, "I don't think 5 or 10 years ago I'd be comfortable telling you we could not sacrifice reliability when we're going to have 35% of our energy come from wind. I'm telling you, I'm very comfortable with that today."
- David Hochschild, a commissioner with the California Energy Commission, the state's primary energy policy and planning agency and David Olsen, a member of the California Independent System Operator Board of Governors, which runs the state's electric grid, argued in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle that clean energy makes the grid more stable:
In California, which has installed more clean energy than any other state, there have been no threats to the reliability of the electric grid caused by renewables. Instead, the three biggest threats to our grid over the last 20 years came from market manipulation (Enron et al, during the 2001 energy crisis), a nuclear plant failure (San Onofre, 2012) and the largest natural gas leak in history (Aliso Canyon gas storage facility, 2015). Rather than create these emergencies, renewable energy was part of the solution and continued to operate reliably and prevented these events from becoming worse.
In August 2011, when a heat wave in Texas shut down 20 natural gas plants, it was wind power that kept the electric grid operator from having to black out areas of the state. In Iowa, wind power now provides 37 percent of the state's electricity with no reduction in reliability.
Numerous Studies, Including Ones from DOE, Have Found That the Grid Can Incorporate More Clean Energy and Improve Reliability in the Process
In 2016, renewable energy sources provided 15 percent of U.S. electricity, according to the Energy Information Administration. Nearly 6 percent came from wind energy and about 1 percent came from solar energy. Many studies have concluded that the grid can handle considerably higher percentages.
In fact, a leaked early draft of the very study Perry has commissioned reached the conclusion that the electrical grid is now more reliable than it was in the past even though it is handling more wind and solar power. According to Bloomberg, a draft written by career staff at the Department of Energy concluded, "The power system is more reliable today due to better planning, market discipline, and better operating rules and standards." But the draft report is currently being reviewed by department leaders and is expected to read somewhat differently by the time it is officially released. "Those statements as written are not in the current draft," a DOE spokesperson told Bloomberg.
Previous studies reached conclusions similar to those of DOE career staff:
- The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is funded and overseen by the Department of Energy, found that the grid could handle 80 percent renewable power by 2050. The lab assessed the question of grid reliability in a four-volume 2012 study: "The central conclusion of the analysis is that renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States." This study, whose authors described it as "the most comprehensive analysis of high-penetration renewable electricity of the continental United States to date," is the one Grassley said had taken two years to complete.
- Other studies from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory also found that the grid can accommodate much more renewable energy than it does now. The Solar Energy Industries Association summarized them in a recent briefing paper:
Multiple studies from the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have shown that the existing grid can handle high penetrations of renewable energy without compromising reliability and performance. In their Western Wind and Solar Integration Study and Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study NREL finds that both the existing western and eastern electric grids can accommodate upwards of 30% of solar and wind power without requiring extensive infrastructure investments.
Phase three of the [western grid] study demonstrated that reliability of the western grid can be maintained at high renewable penetration rates in the face of large system disturbance (such as the loss of a fossil plant).
- A 2016 study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado, Boulder, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that "widespread distribution of renewables would help address the intermittency problem by covering a wider swath of land and taking advantage of weather conditions over a larger area," as Climate Nexus explained.
- The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a not-for-profit regulatory authority, released a report last month that found the U.S. power grid has been successfully incorporating renewable energy. Midwest Energy News summarized the report: "NERC's own findings suggest that—for now, at least—the nation's power system has been largely successful in adapting to new technologies, shifting policies and fickle market forces."
- Studies by grid operators have found that reliability can be maintained with higher proportions of renewables. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "The authorities responsible for operating the nation's power grid—regional transmission organizations and independent system operators—have all published or participated in studies evaluating how increased renewable energy supplies would affect the electricity system. These studies have overwhelmingly shown that higher levels of renewable energy can be achieved regionally without affecting the reliability of electricity supplies."The Solar Energy Industries Association summarized some of these studies:
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which manages the largest amount of solar resources in the country, finds that the state will have no issues in maintaining reliability in hitting its 33% renewables target by 2020. PJM, which operates much of the eastern grid in the U.S., found in a 2014 study that they would not encounter reliability issues with 30% of their energy coming from solar and wind.
In a separate study, CAISO found that solar photovoltaic power plants, when equipped with commercially available inverter technology, can offer "electric reliability services similar, or in some cases superior to, conventional power plants." Likewise, Concentrating Solar Power plants (CSP), which produce electricity by using the sun to heat boilers and push turbines, are easily paired with thermal energy storage and provide a host of grid benefits that allow them to function similar to any fossil fuel plant.
- Studies by independent groups have also found that much more renewable energy can be accommodated on the grid. A new study by The Brattle Group, an economic consulting firm, found that "no single technology or fuel type is needed to keep the lights on" around the clock. According to a press release from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which commissioned the study, "The nation's electricity grid operators are increasingly turning to more flexible resources and low-cost renewable energy options like wind and solar, rendering outdated the notion that 'baseload' generating plants are required to reliably power America's homes and businesses."
The Brattle study also reviewed "a number of other studies of grid operations and planning across the country," the Natural Resources Defense Council noted. "These studies uniformly highlight the increasing value of system flexibility. For example, an analysis of the California electricity system from Astrape Consulting found that as flexibility increases, reliability improves and both production costs and emissions decrease. An analysis of New Mexico grid operations reached a similar conclusion, finding that future blackouts are more likely to be driven by a lack of system operational flexibility."
An earlier study by The Brattle Group, published in 2015, presented case studies on Colorado and Texas and determined that "integrating variable renewable energy at penetration levels of 10-20% on average and at times above 50% — i.e., high relative to the current levels in most of the United States — is possible. … While infrastructure changes will likely be necessary in the longer term, the shorter-term integration challenges in many cases can be addressed with modest operational changes." The study was commissioned by the Advanced Energy Economy Institute, the educational affiliate of the trade group Advanced Energy Economy.
A 2014 study by the International Energy Agency found, in the words of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that "most countries can achieve high grid reliability at renewable penetration rates of 25 – 40%."
Climate Nexus has rounded up additional studies with similar findings.
Grid Operators Have the Technology and Know-How to Improve Reliability While Incorporating More Renewables
Experts point to many strategies and technologies that can be used to handle an increasing proportion of clean energy on the grid.
The Washington Post noted a couple of them:
Perry's memo did not mention energy storage, which as it proliferates, is expected to help integrate more renewable energy onto the grid. For instance, batteries could store some of the energy generated by large solar arrays during the day, deploying that energy at night, effectively making solar into something a lot more like a "baseload" power source.
More and more, electricity markets are purchasing the lack of electricity use as a commodity, as "demand response" options, in which companies lower their energy use at times of peak demand to reduce burdens on the grid, proliferate.
Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, listed more approaches grid operators could use in a blog post: "Coordination of demand response, electric vehicle charging, and simple upgrades such as thermostats and efficient lighting reduce the stress on the grid, directly and immediately improving reliability. The utility industry has great potential to improve this sort of interaction with consumers, as well as the game-changing possibilities of battery energy storage."
The nonprofit group Climate Nexus outlined a number of additional strategies:
Grid operators have an array of tools to deal with variability. Among these tools are accurate weather forecasting, sophisticated controls for renewable generators, flexible balancing of other resources like natural gas, utility-scale energy storage, and transmission lines to move power to areas of high demand. Changes in the wholesale market that allow for better scheduling of power plants and sharing of reserve margins across wide geographical areas could also reduce curtailment.
Climate Nexus also noted, "The challenges renewables pose to the national power grid are minor compared to the larger systemic problems of aging infrastructure, susceptibility to weather-related outages and an overreliance on fossil fuels."
And the group pointed out that incorporating more renewable energy into the U.S. electrical system provides numerous other benefits as well, including human health protections, job growth, electricity cost savings, and a more stable climate.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
By Kevin Kalhoefer
Newsweek missed multiple opportunities to disclose the fossil fuel ties of industry groups when it re-published a Daily Signal article promoting allegations of collusion between Russia and environmental groups that oppose fracking.
On July 11, Newsweek posted an article by Kevin Mooney that first appeared in The Daily Signal about a letter House science committee members Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Randy Weber (R-TX) had written to Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin. According to Mooney, the congressmen alleged that "the Russian government has been colluding with environmental groups to circulate 'disinformation' and 'propaganda' aimed at undermining hydraulic fracturing" in order to prop up Russian oil prices by reducing the U.S.' natural gas production.
Newsweek failed to disclose that The Daily Signal is the news site of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil and millions from the oil billionaire Koch brothers' family foundations.
And, as Andrew Freedman of Mashable noted, the allegations contained in Smith and Weber's letter were "based on research done by a PR front group, known as the Environmental Policy Alliance, with a record of ties to the energy industry. This raises the question of whether Smith is using the alleged Russian activities as cover to go after environmental groups, who are no friend of his." Indeed, the Environmental Policy Alliance is a subsidiary of a group called the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), which was founded and is run by the PR firm of corporate lobbyist Richard Berman. The New York Times reported that Berman had "solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas industry executives" in 2014 for a campaign against environmental activists and boasted of being able to keep donors' contributions and involvement hidden.
Dianna Wray of the Houston Press also highlighted the Environmental Policy Alliance's industry ties in a July 12 article about the congressmen's letter, noting that it doesn't offer proof of its allegations and that the claims come from the "other EPA":
The idea that Russians are attempting to meddle in the U.S. energy industry isn't entirely ludicrous. After all, it is believed Russian money was backing protesters opposed to fracking in Romania back in 2014, according to the The New York Times.
But keep in mind that what Smith presents is far from actual proof. Plus, the letter Smith and Weber signed failed to note one crucial detail about the stories claiming the Russians have been attempting to influence energy policy by dumping money secretly into U.S. environmental organizations like the Sierra Club. Namely, that all of the stories about this big Russian plot to shut down fracking in the United States are based on research from the Environmental Policy Alliance. (The other EPA.)
While the name may sound fairly innocuous, the organization is actually a public relations firm with ties to the oil industry, i.e., a group that has its own reasons for wanting to cast doubt on any and all environmental reports, particularly any reports that find problems with fracking.
In its article, Newsweek also failed to note that Smith and Weber themselves have received substantial donations from the fossil fuel industry. Both congressmen have individually received hundreds of thousands of dollars in fossil fuel campaign contributions over their respective careers.
This isn't the first time Newsweek has allowed industry-tied authors and groups to push pro-fossil fuel claims without disclosure. In 2015, Newsweek published an article by Randy Simmons, the former Charles G. Koch professor of political economy at Utah State University, without disclosing his affiliation. The magazine subsequently added an update disclosing his fossil fuel ties after Media Matters flagged the omission. In publishing The Daily Signal's article, Newsweek missed another opportunity to be transparent with its readers and disclose important conflicts of interest.
The New York Times has done some stellar reporting on climate change, and it's poised to do more thanks to its recent creation of a dedicated climate team. See, for instance, its impressive ongoing series on how climate change is affecting major cities, and another recent multimedia series on the melting of Antarctica.
But the paper has made serious missteps in recent days and weeks, some of which have bolstered the White House's case for climate denial and for dropping out of the Paris climate agreement.
Here are four problems that deserve to be called out:
1. Letting Bret Stephens spread climate denial, which was seized on by Scott Pruitt
The New York Times hired conservative climate denier Bret Stephens as an op-ed columnist in April, and his first column was a factually compromised and misleading attack on climate science. Its publication provoked widespread condemnation of the Times and Stephens in late April.
Then the column got a new round of attention late last week, in the wake of President Donald Trump's controversial decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. On June 2, the day after Trump's announcement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt defended the move from the podium in the White House briefing room, and cited Stephens' column to make the case that climate science is unsettled:
I don't know if you saw this article or not, but the "Climate of Complete Certainty" by Bret Stephens that was in The New York Times talked about—and I'll just read a quote, because I thought it was a very important quote from this article. "Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the IPCC knows that, while the modest 0.85 degrees Celsius warming of the earth that has occurred since 1880, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That's especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn't to deny science. Isn't (sic) to acknowledge it honestly."
Pruitt actually misquoted the column, omitting Stephens' acknowledgement that there has been "indisputable ... human influence" on the warming of the earth since 1880. But nonetheless, Pruitt left the impression that The New York Times supported his fringe views.
As Media Matters senior fellow Matt Gertz put it, "It's a disaster for a paper that sold itself to readers as a bulwark against the new president, then turned around and hired a prominent climate change skeptic."
2. Ignoring the fact that Pruitt seized on Stephens' climate denial
In an article about Trump's views on climate change, New York Times reporter Peter Baker noted that Pruitt had questioned climate science during his remarks at the White House, but Baker neglected to mention that the EPA chief had used a New York Times column as a main piece of supporting evidence for his claims.
3. Publishing a misleading story on small-business owners' views on Paris, which was seized on by Pruitt
On June 2, The New York Times published an article by Landon Thomas Jr. titled "Small Businesses Cheer 'New Sheriff in Town' After Climate Pact Exit." Thomas claimed, "While multinational corporations such as Disney, Goldman Sachs and IBM have opposed the president's decision to walk away from the international climate agreement, many small companies around the country were cheering him on, embracing the choice as a tough-minded business move that made good on Mr. Trump's commitment to put America's commercial interests first."
The article ignored the fact that hundreds of small businesses had publicly called for remaining in the Paris agreement, and it quoted no small-business owners who supported the deal. Small-business supporters weren't that hard to find, even in red states. NPR's Morning Edition featured one, Fhebe Lane, who runs a store in a conservative Texas coal town. A Trump voter, Lane said she was concerned about the climate getting hotter and thought limiting emissions was a good idea.
Thomas' article also drew criticism for quoting some of the same pro-Trump voices he had cited in a previous piece, as Media Matters has noted. Boston Globe writer Michael Cohen pointed out that the article was "remarkably similar" to a piece Thomas wrote three months earlier; Cohen and others noted that the same two people "are quoted in both articles extolling Mr. Trump's virtues" and "their positive words about Trump are used as evidence that small business owners are behind the president."
But Pruitt, for one, liked the article. He quoted it during an appearance on ABC's This Week on June 4:
Even The New York Times had an article, I think, within the last couple of days that talked about small business celebrating, euphoria, with respect to the president's decision.
4. Blaming the Democrats alongside the Koch brothers for GOP climate denial
New York Times reporters Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton published a mostly well-reported article on widespread Republican refusal to accept climate science. But the story contained a ridiculous claim that "Democratic hubris" was partly to blame:
The Republican Party's fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation.
it's a measure of asymmetric polarization in US politics that acting on climate change becomes "Democratic hubris" https://t.co/qKBCXIKnHt— John Harwood (@John Harwood)1496584093.0
Talking Points Memo Editor Josh Marshall characterized the "Democratic hubris" line as "half of what is imbecilic in contemporary political journalism":
Half of what is imbecilic in contemporary political journalism captured right here. Great job, NYT ...… https://t.co/zXLG2C5Y4e— Josh Marshall (@Josh Marshall)1496543502.0
As New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, who wrote a book on the Koch brothers, noted in a post on June 5, Republican climate denial and the rejection of the Paris agreement are clear and direct consequences of the Kochs and other rich fossil fuel barons pouring money into the political scene. "It is, perhaps, the most astounding example of influence-buying in modern American political history," she wrote.
Democrats, hubristic or not, can't claim credit for that.
Whither the Times?
"The paper has lost its way," Think Progress' Joe Romm wrote in a post criticizing the Davenport/Lipton article and other pieces published by the Times. "A shocking number of recent articles reveal a paper that's begun to embrace false balance, giving equal time to both climate misinformers and actual climate experts, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus."
Still, many journalists at The New York Times are pulling in the right direction. Columnist David Leonhardt gently disputed the "Democratic hubris" argument in a piece on June 5. A number of Times journalists expressed their displeasure with Stephens' first column. And the climate team keeps doing great work. Let's hope their side wins the tug-of-war.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
Kimberly Guilfoyle (Co-Host): I don't think this is a deal that anybody should be crying about. Like we said, it's non-binding, and the United States is already a clean energy, oil and gas leader. So, we can keep doing what we're doing, we can keep reducing our emissions. Why would we in fact put ourselves at an economic disadvantage, giving and subsidizing an economic windfall to other countries, in sort of a climate redistribution of wealth scheme? It makes no sense to me.
I think he did the brave and courageous thing, and in fact, I told him that this morning at 8 a.m., when he called. And I spoke to him about it, and this was something very much so on his mind, but he seemed like ...
Greg Gutfeld (Co-Host): Wait a second, who called you?
Guilfoyle: The president.
Dana Perino (Co-Host): To ask about climate change?
Gutfeld: Why did he call you?
Guilfoyle: Climate change, taxes. The Five.
Gutfeld: I think that you buried the lede here.
Perino: You just tried to slip that in there, just like maybe it happens all the time.
Gutfeld: I know, yeah, the president called me at 8 in the morning.
Guilfoyle: It said "unknown," I thought it was Fox News. But then he said he loves The Five, "terrific show." Said to say hello to all of you.
Watch the video from the June 1 edition of Fox News' The Five below:
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.
By Kevin Kalhoefer & Lisa Hymas
President Donald Trump has decided to exit the Paris climate agreement, according to Axios. The news site also reported that the Scott Pruitt-led U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been "quietly working" with opponents of the agreement to help them place op-eds in newspapers. Media Matters identified a number of anti-Paris agreement op-eds that have been published in papers around the U.S. in recent weeks, spreading misinformation about the expected economic impacts of the agreement, the commitment of developing countries to cutting emissions and climate science in general.
Trump plans to decide whether to remain in the climate pact in the coming days.
Axios and The New York Times both reported on May 31 that President Donald Trump is expected to pull out of the Paris agreement, according to sources with knowledge of the decision. Trump subsequently tweeted on May 31 that he would announce his decision on the Paris accord this afternoon at the White House Rose Garden. The agreement, reached in December 2015, brought nearly 200 nations together in a pledge to fight climate change and curb their greenhouse gas emissions.
I will be announcing my decision on Paris Accord, Thursday at 3:00 P.M. The White House Rose Garden. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)1496279117.0
Paris Agreement Opponents Publishing Deceptive Op-Eds May Have Been Assisted by Scott Pruitt's EPA
EPA is "quietly working" to help right-wing activists publish op-eds arguing that Trump should take the U.S. out of the Paris agreement.
As Axios reported, "Pruitt told aides he wanted them to pump the brakes on publicly lobbying for withdrawal from Paris. Instead, the EPA staff are quietly working with outside supporters to place op eds favoring withdrawal from Paris."
Misleading op-eds have appeared in multiple newspapers in recent weeks.
Media Matters identified five anti-Paris agreement op-eds featuring misinformation about the agreement and climate change that were published in newspapers in recent weeks, including some that were syndicated and appeared in multiple outlets. Papers publishing the op-eds included The Washington Times, the Boston Herald, USA Today, The News Journal, The Jackson Sun and The Hill.
Right-Wing Op-Eds Pushed False Claim that Paris Agreement Would Be Economically Disastrous
Conservative op-ed writers falsely claimed that the Paris accord would impose massive costs on U.S. businesses and families.
In an opinion piece in The Washington Times, Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the agreement, adding, "As economist Nicolas Loris and U.N. expert Brett Schaefer recently noted, 'The U.S. regulations alone would increase energy costs for U.S. families and businesses, causing an overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs and total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four by the year 2035.'" The figures were based on a 2016 Heritage Foundation report that claimed former President Obama's keystone policy for meeting Paris obligations, the Clean Power Plan, would cause an "aggregate gross domestic product loss of more than $2.5 trillion" by 2035. And Loris, who also works for the Heritage Foundation, penned his own opinion piece in the Boston Herald claiming, "Compliance with the Paris agreement will cost the global economy trillions of dollars over the next 80 years."
Other studies have concluded that the Clean Power Plan would produce net economic growth.
PolitiFact rated as "False" a Trump statement that was partly based on Heritage's claim that the Clean Power Plan would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.5 trillion. The fact-checking website noted that other analyses, including one written by Harvard researchers and published in a peer-reviewed journal, found that the plan would have a multibillion-dollar net-positive effect on GDP.
A Citi study found that it is not addressing climate change that would be extremely costly.
A study by financial institution Citi found that unchecked climate change could cost up to $72 trillion in global GDP and that moving to a low-carbon economy would be approximately $2 trillion cheaper than not doing so. From Harvard Business Review:
Estimates of climate risk in the trillions are unfortunately getting more common. [In 2015], Citi produced a powerful study of the costs and benefits of shifting the energy system toward low-carbon technologies. Unchecked climate change, Citi said, could cost the world $72 trillion by the middle of the century. But the big surprise in Citi's report was the cost of building the low-carbon economy: the world can spend $2 trillion less in total on energy infrastructure and ongoing fuel costs than it would in the business-as-usual scenario. So we save $2 trillion and avoid losing up to $72 trillion in economic activity.
Transitioning to a clean energy economy in line with Paris obligations would fuel economic growth and stimulate job creation. A report published this year by the International Energy Agency and the International Renewable Energy Agency found that transforming the global energy system to line up with the goals of the Paris agreement "can fuel economic growth and create new employment opportunities" in energy and other sectors:
The energy transition can fuel economic growth and create new employment opportunities.
Global GDP will be boosted around 0.8% in 2050 (USD 1.6 trillion). The cumulative gain through increased GDP from now to 2050 will amount to USD 19 trillion. Increased economic growth is driven by the investment stimulus and by enhanced pro-growth policies, in particular the use of carbon pricing and recycling of proceeds to lower income taxes. In a worst-case scenario (full crowding out of capital), GDP impacts are smaller (sic) but still positive (0.6%) since the effect of pro-growth policies remains favorable. Important structural economic changes will take place. While fossil fuel industries will incur the largest reductions in sectoral output, those related to capital goods, services and bioenergy will experience the highest increases. The energy sector (including energy efficiency) will create around six million additional jobs in 2050. Job losses in fossil fuel industry would be fully offset by new jobs in renewables, with more jobs being created by energy efficiency activities. The overall GDP improvement will induce further job creation in other economic sectors.
Big businesses have strongly lobbied the Trump administration to stay in the Paris accord.
Despite right-wing claims that adhering to the Paris climate agreement would bring economic disaster, hundreds of major U.S. businesses have urged the Trump administration to stick to the climate deal. From CNN Money:
If Trump bails on the agreement, which has been signed by 195 countries, he will do so over the objections of hundreds of major U.S. businesses.
In recent months, big business has lobbied fiercely in favor of the deal, which aims to end the fossil fuel era. Even major oil firms like Chevron (CVX) and ExxonMobil (XOM) back it.
Exxon CEO Darren Woods wrote a personal letter to Trump earlier this month, urging him to stick to the deal. The U.S., he said, is "well positioned to compete" with the agreement in place and staying in means "a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field."
It might appear to be a strange move for energy firms, but many like the agreement because it favors natural gas (which they produce) over dirtier coal.
It's more than just energy firms, though: Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30), Apple (AAPL, Tech30), Starbucks (SBUX), Gap (GPS), Nike (NKE), Google (GOOGL, Tech30), Adidas (ADDYY) and L'Oreal (LRLCY) all support continued U.S. involvement.
Business leaders say the Paris deal, also called COP21, will help generate new jobs, limit damage from climate change and help assert American leadership on the global stage.
Conservative Op-Eds Argued Wrongly That China and India Are Not Taking Action
Right-wing op-eds falsely claimed that China, India and other developing nations were not committed to Paris goals.
In a syndicated column that appeared in USA Today and USA Today Network newspapers, Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment and a former vice president of Americans for Prosperity, wrote, "The Paris treaty effectively bans coal-fired power plants in the United States—while China has 368 coal plants under construction and more than 800 in the planning stage. India's coal production under the deal is allowed to double by 2020—and they are likely to have emissions much higher than what they promised." And in his anti-Paris op-ed in the Boston Herald, Loris wrote, "Developing nations want affordable, dependable energy to raise their standards of living, and countries such as India, China and Indonesia need to use a lot of coal to get there."
China and India are on pace to meet their emissions targets ahead of schedule.
The Washington Post recently reported that an analysis conducted by the Climate Action Tracker found that "China and India are on track to overachieve on their climate pledges" and quoted Bill Hare, CEO of the nonprofit science and policy institute Climate Analytics, saying that China and India "are going to slow the global growth in CO2 emissions significantly." A New York Times editorial discussing the same analysis noted, "The shift from fossil fuels has ... been much faster and more pronounced than most experts expected. China has reduced coal use for three years in a row and recently scrapped plans to build more than 100 coal power plants. Indian officials have estimated that country might no longer need to build new coal plants beyond those that are already under construction."
China and India are taking big steps to develop clean energy and scale back coal plants.
In January of this year, China announced that it plans to spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable energy sources and is canceling plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants. Last year, India announced that it plans to get 57 percent of its total electricity capacity from renewable sources by 2027 and launch a $2 billion equity fund to boost renewable energy development. According to The Associated Press, a March report by the groups CoalSwarm, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace found that "construction starts for coal-fired plants in China and India were down by 62 percent in January from a year earlier while new facilities starting operation declined 29 percent." Additionally, a May 22 New York Times editorial noted, "Electric vehicle sales in China jumped 70 percent last year, thanks in large part to generous government incentives. India is much further behind in this area, but the country's minister of power said last month that all cars sold in the country should be electric by 2030.
Developing nations pushed for a strong Paris agreement and were "crucial" to its adoption.
Developing countries, including the least developed countries, were a key part of the "high ambition coalition" that called for tougher climate change policies and "was widely credited with ensuring the Paris meeting ended in agreement," according to Climate Change News. Far from pushing for a weak agreement and wanting leeway to burn coal, the developing nations have been insistent on the need for fast action to deal with climate change, and have sounded alarms about the role of corporations and lobbyists in UN climate negotiations, fearing that they might weaken emissions goals.
Developing nations committed to cutting emissions even though it's more difficult for them and they have less responsibility to do so.
The world's developing countries have emitted only a small proportion of the climate-warming gases that humans have sent into the atmosphere over the past 160 years, and so they're responsible for only a small proportion of the global warming the world is experiencing. And yet all but two of the world's developing nations signed onto the Paris agreement and submitted action plans, many of which experts said were ambitious. Yet developing countries face a tougher challenge reducing emissions than their wealthier counterparts do. As Robert Lempert of the RAND Corporation explained to the Chicago Tribune, "The richest countries have much of their economy in lower-emitting sectors. ... The U.S. can grow their economy and improve their quality of life without increasing energy use. But in developing countries, you can't do that."
Op-Eds Against the Agreement Pushed Climate Science Denial
Anti-Paris agreement op-eds spread climate science misinformation.
In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Princeton emeritus physics professor and climate denier William Happer wrote that the U.S. "should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement," claiming, "For too long, well-meaning policymakers have been misled by propaganda, masquerading as science, that more atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will harm the planet ... More CO2 is not a pollutant but is a benefit to humanity." In an op-ed in The Hill, Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute attempted to undermine the scientific rationale behind the Paris agreement by disputing that human activity is the dominant cause of recent global warming.
Slate's Phil Plait: Claiming CO2 is not a pollutant is "ridiculous" and "in-your-face wrong."
In a Feb. 18 column, science journalist Phil Plait wrote in Slate that the frequently used climate-denier claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is "ridiculous," "in-your-face wrong" and a "typical denier distraction technique, trying to downplay or distract you from what's really going on." He summarized the overwhelming scientific consensus: While some carbon dioxide is necessary for plant life, burning fossil fuels and thus releasing excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is warming up the globe "too quickly for many living things to adapt." Carbon pollution is causing rapid changes to the Earth's climate, and, as Plait explained, that speed is the "danger; the rate at which we are heating the planet is unprecedented."
Humans are "by far" the dominant cause of global warming.
InsideClimate News reported in 2016 that "ninety to 100 percent of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming due to human activity, according to a peer-reviewed paper published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The study, called a 'consensus on consensus' synthesizes findings from prior published research." In 2013, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines "extremely likely" as having 95 to 100 percent probability. A 2009 letter signed by 18 U.S. scientific organizations stated that "greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver" of climate change. In a 2012 literature review for the blog Skeptical Science, Dana Nuccitelli laid out the overwhelming evidence that humans are the primary driver of climate change, writing, "A wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years. This robust scientific evidence is why there is a consensus among scientific experts that humans are the dominant cause of global warming."
Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.