SEC Chair Revokes Illegal Climate Disclosure Rule

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Jon McGowan reports at Forbes Acting SEC Chair Says Climate-Related Disclosure Rule Is Illegal.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Background

Following the Paris Agreement in 2015, a series of global initiatives were pursued to reduce the impacts of climate change and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050. The goal included a significant reduction in GHG emissions, but also utilized “offsets” that, through technology and protection of natural resources, would result in overall emissions being at a net of zero. This resulted in a carbon credit market that allowed high GHG emitting countries and businesses to purchase credits from underdeveloped countries that produce little emissions.

On the financial side, a multi-prong approach was used to influence and regulate businesses. Large investment firms, like BlackRock, used their influence to drive ESG and sustainability. By 2021, it was standard practice for businesses to release annual ESG and sustainability reports. However, there was no standardization of the practice. Claims were unregulated and content was unclear. As a result, reports were focused on what the business thought mattered to investors and were little more than marketing pieces.

This became problematic in the highly regulated financial industry. Funds that claim to be ESG, green, climate friendly, or sustainable must back up those claims with data. As a result of demand and Paris Agreement based initiatives, international regulators began drafting standards for reporting, marketing, and investments relating to climate change and other green initiatives.

In 2021, the International Sustainability Standards Board drafted the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation’s Sustainability Disclosure Standards. IFRS is an independent, nonprofit organization that develops financial reporting standards, including international accounting standards. IFRS is not used in the U.S., who uses generally accepted accounting principles, also known as GAAP, but is used in 132 jurisdictions. The IFRS Standards were adopted in June 2023 as the global standard for sustainability and climate change reporting, including greenhouse gas emissions.

The US Securities Exchange Commission Story Regarding ESG

In the U.S., the SEC proposed the development of climate-related reporting standards in March 2022. The final rule, adopted on March 6, 2024, required large publicly traded companies to disclose climate action, GHG emissions, and the financial impacts of severe weather events. The Climate-Related Disclosure Rule was initially set to go into effect in 2026. However, it was immediately met with legal challenges and the SEC delayed implementation indefinitely while the cases worked through the judicial process. Now it appears the delay will become permanent.

Rough Seas for Captains of Industry

Under the leadership of Gary Gensler, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission saw a wave of regulatory and enforcement actions relating to environmental, social, and governance; sustainability; and climate change. It was clear that his exit, effective the day President Trump took office, would significantly alter the SEC’s approach to those topics.

On February 11, acting SEC Chair Uyeda, a Biden appointee, effectively ended the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. In the statement, Uyeda said,

“The Rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and our economy.”

“Both Commissioner Peirce and I voted against the Rule’s adoption. Commissioner Peirce said that then-existing disclosure rules were sufficient and that the ‘[R]ule’s anticipated benefits do not outweigh the costs.’ She argued that ‘only a mandate from Congress should put us in the business of facilitating the disclosure of information not clearly related to financial returns.’ I stated that the Commission was ‘without statutory authority or expertise’ to address climate change issues and that ’this [R]ule is climate regulation promulgated under the Commission’s seal.’”

“The Commission’s briefs previously submitted in the cases consolidated in the Eighth Circuit do not reflect my views… I also question whether the agency followed the proper procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act to adopt the Rule.”

As a result, Acting Chair Uyeda has asked the court for a delay in the proceedings while the SEC takes action to rollback the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. As a result, climate reporting at the national level is effectively dead. The focus now turns to the states and international actions.

 

Why Overturning Net Zero Hurts China

Posted on by Ron Clutz

As the image suggests, the push for Net Zero burdens western nations, but benefits China and Russia in different ways.  Russia pays lip service to the CO2 phobia, while its scientists and climate modelers know that any global warming will be modest and a boon to their high latitude country.  Thus, any economic and military self-destruction by other powers increases Russia’s position and security.

China’s gains from the Net Zero obsession have been greater and different.  First of all, China is protected from emissions reductions and economic development there can proceed unimpeded.

Secondly, and more significantly China has bet the house to be the dominant global supplier of  “Green” energy hardware like wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries.  Their great success makes them vulnerable should the rest of the world realize these are impractical solutions for an imaginary problem.  Walter Russell Mead explains in his article Trump Outsmarts China on Green Energy.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

By dismantling the net-zero agenda, he ramps up economic pressure on Beijing

So much is happening so quickly in Washington these days that Donald Trump’s war on the green climate agenda has passed almost unnoticed. Steps like pulling out of the Paris Agreement, dropping electric-vehicle mandates, ending offshore leasing for wind projects, and fast-tracking fossil-fuel infrastructure would have dominated the news in quieter times.

But Mr. Trump’s climate policy matters for reasons that go beyond the climate debate. China has made Western climate policy a major focus of its economic strategy, and by pulling the rug out from under the global green agenda, the Trump administration is adding significantly to the economic pressure on Beijing.

Call it brilliant Chinese planning or gross Western incompetence, but the only real winner from the green agenda that Western governments have done so much to impose on the world is Beijing. Solar power cells, wind turbines, electric vehicles and the batteries that keep them moving: China has swiftly established dominance in one critical industry and supply chain after another.

This diagram shows the origin of the metals required for meeting the 2030 goals. The left side of the diagram shows the origin, based on today’s global production of metals. The right side shows the cumulative metal demand for wind and solar technologies until 2030. From study showing tonnage of Dutch demand only.

This was eminently foreseeable. The Chinese Communist Party’s economic planners in Beijing are the most effective technocrats the world has ever known, eclipsing the fumbling Soviet planners of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras. Give them a set of targets, a timetable and a list of technologies to promote, and they will coordinate state policy, banking subsidies and market forces to produce world-beating industries in record time.

China’s production capacity for these materials and components dwarfs the rest of the world – exceeding global demand in many cases. Source: James Kennedy https://us.docworkspace.com/d/sIAGK_NAjoOC-lAY

The European and American architects of the green transition were
unintentionally creating a playing field ideally suited to China’s core
strengths, and Beijing took full advantage.

But even the most brilliant planners make mistakes. China today is a combination of extraordinary economic and industrial success and monumental failure. The ruinous demographic consequences of its one-child policy, the explosive mix of financial and social pressures wrapped up in the real-estate bubble, and the excess industrial capacity resulting from decades of aggressive state planning loom ever larger over China’s future. Mr. Trump’s proposed upending of global climate policy would transform China’s drive to dominate the energy transition from a major win to an expensive misfire for Beijing.

The net-zero agenda, a set of targets and strategies by Western governments and climate diplomats to arrest global warming by limiting emissions, is the most audacious international effort in diplomatic history. It seeks to persuade or compel every country on the planet to make a transition to energy production that does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The costs of the transition easily run into the trillions of dollars. The social and economic impact will transform everything from agriculture to manufacturing.

An enterprise this ambitious requires enduring political support. As time goes by, the costs of the energy transition inexorably rise, and opposition to the project grows as more interests are affected. Proponents understood this and counted on three factors to ensure that progress toward net zero continued even as opponents dug in their heels.

  1. Blame Natural Disasters on CO2 Emissions

First, as the growing costs of climate change ricocheted through the economy (driving up insurance costs in disaster-prone areas, for example, as weather risks grew), more voters would support net-zero policies.


2. Green Industries Lobby to Protect Their Interests

Second, industries that had invested in climate-friendly technologies (like automobile makers investing billions in EV-producing factories) would lobby politicians to protect their investments by maintaining the regulations and subsidies that made them profitable.

3.  Workers Wanting to protect their Green Jobs.

Third, as net-zero-friendly industries employed more workers, these beneficiaries of net-zero policies would support measures that protected their jobs.

Will those be enough to stop the rising wave of energy realism and loss of Net Zero faith?

Wright is now confirmed as US Secretary of Energy

EPA priorities Announced by Director Zeldin

 

Funding for University Wokism Cut

Posted on by Ron Clutz

William M Briggs explains in his blog article Trump Slashing The Cancerous “The Science” Bloat: Cut Cut Cut! Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

I responded on Twitter (follow me): “You might not know it, but this is a MAJOR VICTORY of outstanding proportions. Overhead is what fed the administrative beast. Overhead paid for DIE. Overhead paid for assistants to the assistants to the assistant Deans for development. Kill the Beast by starving it.”

For those new to grants, the overhead is the amount tacked on by the researchers’ institution to a researcher’s grant. If a Harvard grant is for, say, $1 million, an amount already bloated for all the usual reasons of excess, then the amount NIH pays to Harvard is $1,690,000. That extra $690,000 feeds the Beast. The Beast grows and causes the original grant totals to swell, for reasons not directly related to the research, like increased salaries for all and such like. Bureaucrats are spawned from the overhead funds. They emerge from their pods with gaping maws mewing to be fed—fed—fed! Overhead is a slow-motion monster movie.

(If you want more detail on overhead, this is a good article.)

Now I know this next part will make no sense to you, but not all are taking well the splendiferous news overhead will be treated like a bikinied teenager in a Wes Craven movie. The far-left politics journal Science screamed “NIH slashes overhead payments for research, sparking outrage“.

“Outrage”, as we have said many times, is the second of only
two emotions a woke can express. The first being smug self-satisfaction.
They don’t get the first anymore, though.

Or take as representative lead covid panicker Eric Fing-Ding. Through sweet, sweet tears, he tweeted (among other things) that the cuts will “COMPLETELY DECIMATE MEDICAL & PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH”.

Bad news, because we’d like the effect to be greater than a mere measly ten percent. We need to whack, with pitiless remorseless brutality, at least half of governmental science funding. The Science article was more hopeful. They said “‘This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,’ said a statement from the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR)”.

Crippling is much better than decimating.

Bring on the pain. Their pain. Universities have had it good too long. And we’ve had it bad.  It’s not only your old Uncle Sergeant Briggs saying this.

Here’s a ripe pull from “The natural selection of bad science” by Paul E Smaldino and Richard McElreath. These fellas are not critiquing cellar-dwelling simulacra of science, like say sociology, but what’s taken as the good stuff, like medicine.

These are not the only ones on the inside saying these things. The word is out. Science has gone bad: “A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent.”

Data Republican says: “Universities are among the largest drains on taxpayer money in my dataset. They receive massive funding from NGOs and USAID, and they take more government grants on top of that. Meanwhile, anonymous professors have reported to me that true scientific research is stagnating due to DEI mandates and administrative bloat.”

Understand: universities were ground zero for the DIE zombie invasion. And much worse. A tsunami of bad ideas flowed from universities over the last century. Many of those responsible are still employed there. These people need to be made to go. It’s not only DIE, but the base bloat caused by government micro-managing science. It is government, almost completely, that decided what got funded, and funded to ridiculous levels. This forced consensus-based science upon us. This has stifled much innovation, as we have seen time and again. It must be made to change, for change won’t come from within.

Now that 15% might eventually rise, given the wounded howling coming from universities (an AFMR email said “We have also launched an E-Action Alert to engage the broader scientific community and mobilize support for advocacy efforts to reverse or mitigate these changes.”).  But the rate must fall. The NIH and NSF budgets need to treated like the mess they are.

The only way to rid ourselves of this stuff is to stop feeding those producing it. We need to force a restructuring and rethinking. The old ways need to go. The only way to do this is to cause pain. Minor course corrections are not enough. Cut, cut, and cut some more. Make it sting.

See Also:

Examples of Debased Government Science

Trust Me, I’m a Scientist. Really?

Why Federalized Science is Rotten

US Energy Status Quo and Outlook–Sec. Chris Wright

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Three days after he was confirmed as US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright was interviewed on CNBC Squawk Box by Brian Sullivan.  The video clip above and one at the end provide his view of the way forward for US energy.  For those who prefer to read, I provide a transcript in italics from the closed captions, lightly edited with my bolds and some added images.  Brian refers to interviewer Brian Sullivan and Chris to Secretary Wright.

Brian: Let’s get to the topical issues, price of oil. The president says drill, baby, drill. You’re a guy that ran a fracking company. How do we balance out ringing down the price of gasoline, adding to US production, but yet not destroying the oil and gas investments as well? The CNBC audience talks about and looks at that every day.

Chris: Yeah, of course it’s a business and prices are dictated by supply and demand. But we’ve had four years of an administration that’s done everything it could to raise the cost to produce a barrel of oil. “We’re not sure if you can get a permit to drill here” or “It’s going to take 18 months. You’ve got uncertainty. You’ve got to build pipelines or gathering lines to move that product to market. “Well, we’re not sure if you can do that. You’ve got to do another study, or another this or that.” So when you add to costs of course you hurt the economics.

Now we’re going to have a more efficient operating environment. I think we’re going to see some efficiencies from scale, some efficiencies from certainty and from more credible Capital Markets. We’ve tried to starve the oil and gas industry globally, somehow thinking that’s going to help climate change. There’s been a lot of nonsense. And I think the agenda of this administration, this president, is to bring back common sense.

Brian: Can we have lower oil and gas prices and still have stocks that are not much lower than they are right now?

Chris: Oh, absolutely. Look, if you lower the cost of operations, there’s a lot of fat in the cost of operations. If you lower the cost of operations that’s going to flow through to lower prices but not necessarily lower profits.

Rough Seas for Captains of Industry

Brian: And that margin you think can remain steady and thus hold up because you were the CEO of a publicly traded company and on the board of another publicly traded company, which you have now left.

Chris:  Absolutely. And look, it’s capitalism and business is driven by profit motives that have driven innovation, that have driven efficiency and driven improvements in our system. And that’s exactly what we want going forward in nuclear and natural gas and oil and geothermal, whatever it is.

Brian: Just before this interview we were talking about tariffs and the impact. They were showing health and beauty stocks down 25%. We know there’s a pause on the potential Canada tariffs, there’s 4.4 million barrels a day we bring in from Canada on average. Much of that goes to where you’re from, the Rocky Mountains, the Denver area, the upper Midwest. What is your view on potential 10% tariffs? If it does happen, what is going to happen to US oil and gasoline prices?

Chris: Well, look. Obviously the Canadian energy system is built and integrated with the United States energy system. Those pipelines come to US refineries that are tuned to refine that heavier, more viscous crude that Canada produces. I don’t think we’re going to see that change. As the president has said, this is a drug war. This is about concerns and security at our border. This is to get everyone’s attention and focus on how can we reduce criminals and fentanyl and drugs that are a threat to American security coming in our borders. I think things are moving in a productive direction.

Brian: It doesn’t sound like you think the tariffs would ultimately occur.

Chris: I don’t know what the future will bring there, but I know we’ve got very productive dialogues right now.

Brian: I’m sure you have many friends in Canada, as do I. And you know, they’re angry about this. They said, “Well, you know what? If they want to tariff our oil, let’s just ship it to Vancouver and we’re going to sell it overseas. I would call that the nuclear option. Do you see anything like that occurring if the tariffs were to occur, Mr. Secretary?

Chris: It’s hard to build new pipeline capacity. Canada does have a West Coast pipeline, which is running today and exporting oil to Asia. But that’s 10% or less of Canadian oil production. But look, this president is aggressive. He doesn’t like the status quo. He wants to change things and improve things. We had a lot of noise and sound and fury last time he was president about tariffs and inflation. Inflation averaged less than 2% in the four years he was president.

His agenda is to lower prices and better American lives, and
I don’t see any reason to believe think that’s not going to happen.

Brian: You mentioned climate a couple of minutes ago. Coming into this Administration, one of the big question marks is: What will happen to the loans and the grants and the IRA Inflation Reduction Act monies that may be already committed to wind, to solar. This matters to CNBC’s audience. In the stock market, a lot of these companies have seen their share price decline by a lot. What is your view on the Inflation Reduction Act and wind and solar projects, and the monies that are required to produce them?

Chris: So look, I’m in this chair three days now. One of the things we are doing is looking at all the projects that are out there. Where are the commitments? Where are the uncommitted funds? What’s the best use to grow the supply of affordable, reliable, secure American energy? Tremendous opportunities there. So there’s upside here as well.

But one thing I will say, Brian, we will not follow the German model. And I think the last administration wanted to go down that road. Germany spent a half a trillion dollars, made their electricity 2 to 3 times more expensive, and they produce 20% less electricity today than they did 15 years ago. We’re not going to go down that road.

We want affordable, reliable, secure energy and
reindustrialization of America, not De-industrialization of America.

Brian: Well, that’s something I’ve obviously personally reported on many times for CNBC. Been over there, seen what’s happened. So just to be clear, because let’s be honest, a lot of Wall Street makes a lot of money investing in wind and solar and even nuclear. You were on the board of a nuclear company. So final question. Should we say that that it’s possible big wind and solar projects are still going to be okay, that they’re not going to be starved of Funds under this administration? What’s the what’s the money situation regarding some of these renewable wind and solar and nuclear type energy programs?

Chris: Look, I think you’re going to see continued development in the United States of all of these energy sources. But obviously, a flow of funds from this administration is all going to be about not what the energy technology is, but will it increase the supply of affordable, reliable, secure energy?

Will it better the lives of American consumers and
encourage businesses to build things in America?

Brian: Well, finally, on building things. The first new nuclear plant in the United States just opened up last year in Georgia, took about 20 plus years to build way over budget. You’re a nuclear guy. You were on the board of Anglo until you resigned that seat. What is the future of nuclear in the United States? Some say it’s the future. Others say way too doggone expensive up front, doesn’t pay off.

Chris: I think the future is very bright, very bright. It’s an energy dense technology that gives reliable energy at all times, with a small amount of land and a small amount of materials. Do we need innovation? Do we need some government out of the way to make it work economically? Absolutely. But that’s what America is about.

Brian: Exclusive interview with the new Secretary of Energy on Day three, Christopher Wright. Thank you very much for your time here.

 

“Green” Agenda is Anything But

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Steve Milloy explains the deceptive “Green Agenda” label in his Real Clear Wire article There Is Nothing Green About the ‘Green’ Agenda.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Now that the Democrats have lost their lock grip on power, what’s a green activist to do? It’s almost comical how the climate left is trying to cloak their agenda in terms they think will melt in Republicans’ ears. For example, Jennifer Granholm, energy secretary in the Biden administration recently penned an opinion piece arguing that President Trump is playing right into Communist China’s evil hands by killing off America’s green economy. 

Translation: The left is furious that Trump has halted the flow of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to subsidize electric vehicles that nobody wants and only the well-off can afford. The new president is killing the “green economy,” as Granholm puts it.

There is nothing green about the climate left’s solutions. 

If the climate movement was truly sincere and intellectually honest in its desire to stop actions contributing to global environmental degradation, it would stand fast against solar panels and electric vehicles. There is nothing green about the climate left’s solutions.

There is nothing environmentally friendly about using enslaved children in the Congo to mine cobalt for lithium-ion rechargeable batteries used in EVs. They labor with crude tools and bare hands, breathing in cobalt’s toxic dust in cramped pits. Runoff infused with cobalt and other chemicals contaminate the water supply. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, green activists sit blithely unaware or unconcerned in the comfort of their own homes. They are saving the world, they smugly assure themselves, while children suffer in an environmental hellhole.

Far removed from U.S. environmental standards, Indonesia is the center of mining and refining nickel, an essential component in EV batteries. Pea soup-thick brown emissions shroud nickel smelting operations in the Indonesian island of Sulawesi as well as the coal-fired plants that fuel them. Processing waste and chemicals potentially leach into the ground. Dust residue from both ubiquitously blanket nearby communities, while waterways tainted by mining operations have red cast.

Whatever else climate activists may try to tell us,
there is nothing green going on here.

In Brazil, near the mouth of the Amazon River, a factory refines bauxite into what eventually becomes aluminum. It had been the source of aluminum in the Ford F-150 Lightening, the company’s now cancelled all-electric pickup truck. A lawsuit alleges that toxic elements, including aluminum and other heavy metals emanating from the refinery, have been responsible for cancer, birth defects, neurological dysfunction, digestive disorders, skin conditions, and increased mortality. How can an EV be called green or good for the environment when it’s making thousands of Brazilians sick?

Elsewhere in Brazil this past Christmas season, Brazilian authorities shuttered construction of an EV factory when it was discovered that its builders were working under “slavery”-like conditions. How is that a green virtue? Perhaps green dogma holds that human worth and dignity are small sacrifices that must be made for the common good.

Solar energy, long the prize pig of the climate crowd, isn’t green either.

The fact that destroying forest land for solar arrays is bad for the environment should be obvious. Studies have found “the loss of carbon-dioxide gobbling forests for solar installations results in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.” Nor should wind farms be considered remotely green when wildlife is being killed and habitats are being disrupted. The same is true offshore, with a number of whale deaths associated with mammoth wind operations.

The same folks pushing “green” have been disingenuous from the start. In 1970, they assured us that human activity would cause an ice age by the 21st century and that we’d be under food rationing by 1980. Acid rain was a crisis until it wasn’t. Then global warming became the crisis, with much of New York City to be underwater by 2019. In 2008, Al Gore prophesized that the North polar cap would be gone in five years. It wasn’t. In 2009, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown proclaimed,” We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe. Spoiler alert: We’re still here and thriving.

Their seemingly endless lies have been accompanied by Orwellian word games, moving from “global warming” to “change.” Now the Newspeak has shifted to “extreme weather and “overheating.

The truth is there is no green energy. No energy is clean. No energy is dirty. There are only challenges, solutions and tradeoffs. At the time of already high energy costs, choosing reliable, fossil fuel-backed energy is of paramount importance. Word sophistry from our friends on the left won’t change that.

 

Five More Climate Lawsuits Shot Down

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Legal Newsline reports the string of climate lawfare defeats in their article Fifth judge agrees with Big Oil, dismisses another climate change case.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – A New Jersey state court judge refuses to be the one who sets international energy standards and has thrown out a climate change lawsuit brought by the state.

Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s case is one of dozens around the country making state law claims under consumer protection and public nuisance laws, and Mercer County Superior Court judge Douglas Hurd on Feb. 5 tossed it out of court.

Hurd becomes the fifth state court judge to grant motions to dismiss by companies like Chevron and Exxon, targeted by private lawyers who earned contingency fee contracts from government officials. Platkin hired lawyers at Sher Edling for his 200-page 2022 lawsuit.

“This court’s decision is reliant upon and consistent with both federal and state courts across the country that have rejected the availability of state tort law in the climate change context,” Judge Hurd wrote.

“This court agrees that the logic and reasoning of those decisions compel dismissal of claims seeking damages by transboundary emissions.”

Hurd joins two state judges in Maryland, one in Delaware and one in New York in throwing out this type of case. His is the third dismissal since the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the issue, which kept Honolulu’s case going past the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The cases allege consumers would not have burned as many fossil fuels
as they did had companies been more forthright about their effects.

The litigation started with a battle over where the cases should be heard. Defendants wanted them in federal court to bolster their defense, and that strategy resulted in federal judges in California and New York granting motions to dismiss. The Second Circuit affirmed the New York dismissal.

But the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the lawsuits belonged in various state courts because plaintiff lawyers had crafted their cases to make state law claims under consumer protection statutes and for public nuisance.

At issue is whether state court judges should have the power to essentially impact the international energy market. Twenty Republican state attorneys general argued the Hawaii case involves questions of interstate and international law that can only be decided by Congress or in federal courts.

Judge Brown, in the Baltimore case, said the litigation goes beyond the limits of Maryland law, or whatever states other cases are filed in. Most municipalities and states that have filed suit are near oceans, though Boulder, Colo., has also sued.

Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher represents Chevron
says the New Jersey decision joins a “nearly unanimous consensus.”

These types of claims are precluded and preempted by federal law and must be dismissed under clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. As the Court rightly held, ‘the leading and most persuasive case supporting dismissal is the Second Circuit decision in City of New York. There, the federal appeals court rejected the availability of state tort law in the climate change context.’”

Hurd says the fundamental principles of federalism in the U.S. Constitution show that state law cannot operate in areas of uniquely federal interests.

“The Hawai’i Supreme Court’s decision in City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco is not persuasive to this court because it does not address this critical point,” he wrote.

“And that point being that ‘state law does not suddenly become presumptively competent to address issues that demand a unified federal standard simply because Congress saw fit to displace a federal court-made standard with a legislative one,'” he added, citing the New York decision.

Summary

So, after several years of waging war in the courtroom without racking up even a single victory, and with a Congress and White House that have expressed a sincere desire to do the things that could actually tackle climate change, why are the proponents of litigation continuing to waste taxpayer resources in this vain effort so a few trial lawyers can hopefully become very rich while accomplishing precisely nothing on climate change?

 

EPA Priorities Announced

Posted on by Ron Clutz

During Trump 1.0 the appointed EPA Director summarized the false dichotomy long plaguing the agency: “If you are for the Environment, you must be against Development; and if you are for Development, you must be against the Environment.” In reality, a balance must be struck, and a new administration intends to find it.  There has been much gnashing of teeth in the legacy media over this month’s dismissal of scientists from EPA advisory boards, without mentioning the same housecleaning happened in 2021 when Biden regime took over.  Now we have an official announcement about the new EPA direction and priorities.  Text in italics with my bolds and added images.

WASHINGTON – On February 4, 2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, to achieve the agency’s mission while energizing the greatness of the American economy. This plan outlines the agency’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin. The newly announced Powering the Great American Comeback initiative consists of five pillars that will guide the EPA’s work over the first 100 days and beyond:

Pillar 1: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American

“Every American should have access to clean air, land, and water. I will ensure the EPA is fulfilling its mission to protect human health and the environment. In his first term, President Trump advanced conservation, reduced toxic emissions in the air, and cleaned up hazardous sites, while fostering economic growth for families across the country. We remain committed to these priorities in this administration, as well as ensuring emergency response efforts are helping Americans get back on their feet in the quickest and safest way possible. We will do so while remaining good stewards of tax dollars and ensuring that every penny spent is going towards advancing this mission,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 2: Restore American Energy Dominance

“Pursuing energy independence and energy dominance will cut energy costs for everyday Americans who are simply trying to heat their homes and put gas in their cars. This will also allow our nation to stop relying on energy sources from adversaries, while lowering costs for hardworking middle-income families, farmers, and small business owners. I look forward to working with the greatest minds driving American innovation, to ensure we are producing and developing the cleanest energy on the planet,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 3: Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership

“Any business that wants to invest in America should be able to do so without having to face years-long, uncertain, and costly permitting processes that deter them from doing business in our country in the first place. It will be important for the EPA to work with our partners at the state and federal levels to ensure projects are being approved and companies can invest billions of dollars into our nation. Streamlining these processes, while partnering with businesses to follow the necessary steps to safeguard our environment, will incentivize investment into our economy and create American jobs,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 4: Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World

“As we rapidly advance into this new age of AI, it is important that the United States lead the world in this field. Those looking to invest in and develop AI should be able to do so in the U.S., while we work to ensure data centers and related facilities can be powered and operated in a clean manner with American-made energy. Under President Trump’s leadership, I have no doubt that we will become the AI capital of the world,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 5: Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs

“Our American auto industry is hurting because of the burdensome policies of the past.

Under President Trump, we will bring back American auto jobs and invest in domestic manufacturing to revitalize a quintessential American industry. We will partner with leaders to streamline and develop smart regulations that will allow for American workers to lead the great comeback of the auto industry,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Footnote:

The Trump Administration not only cut “environmental justice” programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, they put nearly 200 staffers on leave.

According to reports, the staffers were called into a meeting on Thursday afternoon where they were informed that they were being placed on leave.

“Effective immediately, you are being placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. This administrative leave is not being done for any disciplinary purpose,” the email stated, according to Politico.

“Career staff made determinations on which Office of Environmental Justice employees had statutory duties or core mission functions,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a statement. “As such, 168 staffers were placed on administrative leave as their function did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties or grant work. EPA is in the process of evaluating new structure and organization to ensure we are meeting our mission of protecting human health and the environment for all Americans.” Source.

Carnage: Trump Cuts ‘Environmental Justice’ Programs, Puts Nearly 200 EPA Staffers on Leave

It’s Better to be Outside Paris Accord

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Chris Johnson writes at Real Clear Energy to explain Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement Won’t Hurt the Climate.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Cue the leftwing meltdown. Though everyone knew the withdrawal was coming, the left and the “international community” are still decrying America’s alleged abdication of leadership on climate.
But toothless agreements window dressed with international
summits and photo ops are not the same as leadership.
The truth is America has led the world in reducing emissions for years not because of the Paris Agreement, but because innovation and the free market facilitate the deployment of cheaper and cleaner energy.  Let’s review the record.
In recent decades, America has achieved unprecedented — and unexpected — energy production thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling. Since the early 2000s when these twin technologies began to be deployed much more expansively, U.S. natural gas production has more than doubled. By 2016, hydraulically fractured gas wells accessed through horizontal drilling accounted for nearly 70% of all oil and natural gas wells.
While the left may clutch its pearls at the increased production of a fossil fuel like natural gas, this clean energy source has been a main driver of U.S. emissions reductions. Over the past 15 years when America has massively increased natural gas output, the U.S. reduced carbon emissions more than any other country. We can see this year by year.
For example, from 2022 to 2023, America offset dirtier coal energy generation with natural gas. As coal declined by 121.9 terawatt hours of electric generation over that time, natural gas increased by 118.9 terawatt hours. At the same time, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined 1.9%. Notably, 80% of the U.S. carbon emissions reductions were driven by the electric power sector — precisely where natural gas has an outsized impact.
Notice what didn’t cause those emissions reductions? The Paris Agreement.
The American energy sector — powered by innovation and good-old-fashioned free market economics — has been driving down carbon emissions cheaply and effectively before the Paris Agreement was a twinkle in climate activists’ eyes. And it will continue to reduce carbon emissions long after President Trump’s decision to withdraw.
The Paris Agreement is far from the panacea some activists claim it is.
It isn’t even a particularly effective tool to
rally nations toward greater climate success.
In the middle of the allegedly climate-conscious Biden administration, none of the world’s biggest emitters — America included — had reduced their emissions in accordance with the Paris goals. Apparently, the $1 trillion regulatory and subsidy regime erected by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act had little bang for the buck.
What Agreement supporters forget is that no number of high-profile international accords can make command-control tactics work — or instill other nations with the ambition to fulfill their empty promises.

Yes, those are trillions of dollars they are projecting to spend.

The Paris Agreement is the definition of bureaucratic failure, conflating meetings, busyness, and lofty goals as success. Its only achievement is to make climate ideologues and green jetsetters feel good about themselves as they fly to international conferences.
It’s no wonder President Trump withdrew. Talk is cheap. What matters is success. On that metric, the Trump administration is set to actually achieve what Paris Agreement signatories only write on paper.
Trump entered office promising to deregulate the fossil fuel industry, increase permitting for natural gas extraction, approve the construction of energy facilities like natural gas export terminals, and re-establish American energy dominance.
By leaning into America’s carbon advantage and exporting clean American energy abroad, he will boost the U.S. economy, supplant dirty energy from nations like Russia and Venezuela with a clean American alternative, and lower emissions both at home and abroad, all without the jaw-dropping price tag of the failed Biden-era green agenda. We should combine these steps with efforts to actually hold the biggest polluters accountable (which are being discussed by President Trump’s cabinet). This approach would be the antithesis of the Paris Accords’ America-last strategy.
Of course, some are urging President Trump to go further and not just withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but also back out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This may seem like an easy choice, seeing as the UNFCCC, like so many UN bodies, acts contrary to American interests. But that’s exactly why America must remain in the UNFCCC.
Climate treaties will be formed whether or not the U.S. is involved, and the UNFCCC will continue to operate as a forum for those negotiations. Staying in the UNFCCC costs America nothing while allowing Trump and his appointees to keep a seat at the table, hold the UN accountable, and counter any deal that would put America at a disadvantage. While the UNFCCC can be harmful, it’s only the Paris Agreement that’s impotent.
The breathless alarm over the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is overwrought. When President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord during his first administration, America went on to cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years. Re-embracing the power of natural gas in his second term, he’ll do it again.
So instead of the UN and international climate activists judging the U.S., we should remind everyone that if you want to put climate first, you should actually put America first.
Chris Johnson is a GOP strategist who organizes the next generation of conservative leaders. He also serves as a senior advisor to the National Federation of College Republicans, focusing on energy issues.

 

No, Grist, MSN, et al: CO2 Is Not Making Oceans Boil

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

The Climate Crisis media network is announcing a new claim that rising CO2 is causing recent ocean warming, proving it’s dangerous and must be curtailed.  Examples in the last few days include these:

Finally, an answer to why Earth’s oceans have been on a record hot streak Grist

Ocean warming 4 times faster than in 1980s — and likely to accelerate in coming decades MSN

News spotlight: Fossil fuels behind extreme ocean temperatures, study says. Conservation International

Ocean temperature rise accelerating as greenhouse gas levels keep rising UK Natural History Museum

The surface of our oceans is now warming four times faster than it was in the late 1980s The Independent UK

Oceans Are Warming Four Times Faster as Earth Traps More Energy Bloomberg Law News

All this hype deriving from one study,
and ignoring the facts falsifying that narrative.

Fact:  Historically, ocean natural oscillations drive observed global warming.

The long record of previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles.

Fact: Recent rise in SST was driven by ENSO and N. Atlantic Anomalies.

And now in 2024 we have seen an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping below its peak.

The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through December 2024.  A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016, followed by rising temperatures in 2023 and 2024.

To enlarge, open image in new tab.

Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes.  That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period.  A small warming was driven by NH summer peaks in 2021-22, but offset by cooling in SH and the tropics, By January 2023 the global anomaly was again below the mean.

Now in 2023-24 came an event resembling 2015-16 with a Tropical spike and two NH spikes alongside, all higher than 2015-16. There was also a coinciding rise in SH, and the Global anomaly was pulled up to 1.1°C last year, ~0.3° higher than the 2015 peak.  Then NH started down autumn 2023, followed by Tropics and SH descending 2024 to the present. After 10 months of cooling in SH and the Tropics, the Global anomaly came back down, led by NH cooling the last 4 months from its peak in August. It’s now about 0.1C higher than the average for this period. Note that the Tropical anomaly has cooled from 1.29C in 2024/01 to 0.66C as of 2024/12.

Fact: Empirical measurements show ocean warms the air, not the other way around.

One can read convoluted explanations about how rising CO2 in the atmosphere can cause land surface heating which is then transported over the ocean and causes higher SST. But the interface between ocean and air is well described and measured. Not surprisingly it is the warmer ocean water sending heat into the atmosphere, and not the other way around.

The graph displays measures of heat flux in the sub-tropics during a 21-day period in November. Shortwave solar energy shown above in green labeled radiative is stored in the upper 200 meters of the ocean. The upper panel shows the rise in SST (Sea Surface Temperature) due to net incoming energy. The yellow shows latent heat cooling the ocean, (lowering SST) and transferring heat upward, driving convection. [From An Investigation of Turbulent Heat Exchange in the Subtropics by James B. Edson]

As we see in the graphs ocean circulations change sea surface temperatures which then cause global land and sea temperatures to change. Thus, oceans make climate by making temperature changes.

Fact: On all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia, temperature changes first and CO2 changes follow.

Previously I have demonstrated that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels follow changes in Global Mean Temperatures (GMT) as shown by satellite measurements from University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). That background post is included in the posting referenced later below.

My curiosity was piqued by the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024, and then declining afterward.  I also became aware that UAH has recalibrated their dataset due to a satellite drift that can no longer be corrected. The values since 2020 have shifted slightly in version 6.1, as shown in my recent report  Ocean Leads Cooling UAH December 2024.

I tested the premise that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  The chart above shows the two monthly datasets: CO2 levels in blue reported at Mauna Loa, and Global temperature anomalies in purple reported by UAHv6.1, both through December 2024. Would such a sharp increase in temperature be reflected in rising CO2 levels, according to the successful mathematical forecasting model? Would CO2 levels decline as temperatures dropped following the peak?

The answer is yes: that temperature spike resulted
in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected.
And lower CO2 levels followed the temperature decline.

Above are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.

Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies now referenced to the 1991-2020 period. CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example December 2024 minus December 2023).  Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month. Note the recent CO2 upward spike and drop following the temperature spike and drop.

Summary

Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.

12/2024 Update–As Temperature Changes, CO2 Follows

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arctic Ice Recovery Stalls January 2025

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Arctic ice recovered more slowly than usual in December and January, likely due to polar vortex pulling freezing air from the Arctic down into lower latitudes, replaced by warmer southern air.  A post at Severe Weather Europe is February 2025 Forecast, describing the dynamics this winter.  

After a mild start, a new Polar Express is looming
for the United States and Canada mid-month.

As January is slowly ending, we can look at preliminary surface temperature data for the month so far. Below is the CDAS analysis, and you can see that January was colder than normal across the entire United States, apart from California and parts of Nevada. But these anomalies do not show the full picture of just how cold some days in the month were, breaking records for several years and even decades in the past.

On the other hand, we can see that Canada had warmer than normal temperatures. This is an expected pattern, as while the colder air was transported further south into the United States, it was replaced by high-pressure and a warmer-than-normal airmass.

The movement of the pressure systems drives these temperature patterns and weather changes. Pairs of pressure systems are also known as Rossby Waves. You can see an example of Rossby waves in the image below by NOAA and how they are all connected and function with the jet stream.

The purple line connecting these pressure systems is called the jet stream. This rapid stream of air is found around 9 to 14 kilometers (6 to 9 miles) above sea level.

In late January, the average temperatures in the northern United States and southern Canada are still around or below freezing, so even a strong positive anomaly does not actually mean warm temperatures in that region. But, it is interesting to see the rapid shift in temperature anomalies as the pressure systems reposition.

February 2025 is about to start, with the latest weather forecasts indicating a very dynamic month over the United States and Canada. After the power struggle between the cold and warmth at the start of the month, another Polar Vortex lobe looms for the United States around mid-month.

Below is the surface temperature anomaly, averaged for next week. You can see the large supply of colder air over the northern United States and western Canada. Another cooler area is forecast for eastern Canada and the northeastern United States.

But most of the central and southern half of the United States is forecast to have above-normal temperatures. We often see such a division in the weather patterns, where the colder and warmer air separate along the jet stream.

Going into the weather trend for the second half of February, we will use the extended-range ensemble forecasts. These forecasts serve as trends that show the prevailing idea of where the pressure systems are positioned and how the airmass is expected to move.

The continuous low-pressure systems over Canada helped to initiate large-scale cold air transport from the Arctic into the United States and Canada, also powered by the Polar Vortex in the stratosphere.

We continue to see the presence of the low-pressure area over Canada in the forecast for February. But the forecast now indicates an interesting core movement of the Polar Vortex in the stratosphere, likely to initiate another deep cold event around mid-month over the United States and Canada.

Impact on Arctic Ice Extents

The 19-year average for January shows Arctic ice extents started at 13.13M km2 and ended the month at 14.36M km2.  2024 started somewhat higher and matched average at the end.  Other recent years have been lower, and 2025 started 540k km2 in deficit and 818k km2 below average at month end. The gap had closed to 400k km2 before losing extents at the end.  SII and MASIE tracked closely this month.

The table below shows year-end ice extents in the various Arctic basins compared to the 19-year averages and some recent years.  2007 seven was close to the average, so 2018 is shown for comparison.

Region 2025031 Ave Day 031 2025-Ave. 2018031 2025-2018
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 13543740 14362137 -818398 13792271 -248532
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1071001 1070386 614 1070445 556
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 965989 965974 15 965971 18
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087063 74 1087120 18
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897824 21 897845 0
 (5) Kara_Sea 921520 917381 4139 895363 26157
 (6) Barents_Sea 428814 563859 -135044 481947 -53133
 (7) Greenland_Sea 614789 613370 1418 501411 113378
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1080930 1328380 -247450 1406903 -325972
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854878 853510 1368 853109 1769
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260903 1260778 125 1260838 66
 (11) Central_Arctic 3211379 3210507 872 3184817 26562
 (12) Bering_Sea 534452 648807  -114354 382206 152245
 (13) Baltic_Sea 39334 62876  -23542 41713.99 -2380
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 559692 823877  -264185 704398 -144707

This year’s ice extent is 818k km2 or 5.7% below average.  About half of the deficit comes from the Pacific basins of Bering and Okhotsk sea.  The other two major losses are in Barents Sea and Baffin Bay.  With the annual maximum typically occurring mid-March, it is likely the ice then will also be lower than usual.   

 

 

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring Arctic ice extents and NH snow cover.