Climate Politics

Kavanaugh’s EPA Opinions Already Endorsed by Supremes

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Adam J. White wrote in Real Clear Policy July 31, 2018 Brett Kavanaugh’s Past Opinions Endorsed by Supreme Court  Excerpts below in italics with my bolds.

If all goes according to plan, Brett Kavanaugh will soon join the Supreme Court. But his ideas arrived at the Court well before him.

For 12 years, Judge Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often considered the “second-highest court in the land” because of its heavy portion of constitutional and regulatory cases. On those issues, Kavanaugh has become the intellectual leader of his generation of judges on the lower courts. And the best evidence of this are those cases in which Judge Kavanaugh’s analysis was adopted by the Supreme Court even after Kavanaugh’s colleagues on the D.C. Circuit rejected it.

Through eloquent judicial opinions and nuanced law review articles, Kavanaugh has challenged, in particular, today’s increasingly unaccountable administrative state. His uncanny ability to identify fundamental threats to our Constitution’s republican institutions, and to anticipate the Supreme Court’s own eventual response, is exemplified by three cases.

The first involved so-called “independent” agencies. Since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s discretion to create agencies with a measure of insulation against day-to-day presidential control. But when Congress attempted to layer one independent agency within another — i.e., the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, inside the SEC — Kavanaugh recognized that a line must be drawn.

“By restricting the President’s authority over the Board,” he wrote in a 2008 case, “the Act renders this Executive Branch agency unaccountable and divorced from Presidential control to a degree not previously countenanced in our constitutional structure.” Recognizing that “upholding the PCAOB here would green-light Congress to create a host of similar entities,” Kavanaugh dissented from his colleagues’ decision affirming the agency. The Supreme Court then reversed the D.C. Circuit, largely adopting Kavanaugh’s approach.

The second case involved an agency’s assertion of immense power in lieu of — or even contrary to — the laws enacted by Congress. When the Environmental Protection Agency imposed its initial suite of regulations for greenhouse gas emissions, the agency attempted to “tailor” the Clean Air Act to suit its climate policy. The EPA recognized that applying various parts of the Act to GHG emissions would lead to “absurd” results that Congress specifically sought to avoid when it created the Act in the first place. So the agency attempted simply to nullify those parts of the Act in order to maintain its climate policy.

As Kavanaugh explained in a dissenting opinion, the EPA was putting the regulatory cart before the legislative horse. If the EPA’s climate policy didn’t fit the Clean Air Act, then the EPA needed to change its policy, not the Act. Once again, Kavanaugh’s colleagues disagreed — and once again, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, largely adopting his approach in a 2014 case.

The third case involves judicial deference to an agency’s implausible and self-serving statutory interpretation. The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to impose certain air quality regulations when the agency concludes that such regulations are “appropriate.” When the EPA created new mercury restrictions for utilities, it refused to consider the enormous cost of those rules, claiming that such costs have no bearing on whether the rules are “appropriate.” Citing many scholars and judges, Kavanaugh concluded that it “is entirely unreasonable for EPA to exclude consideration of costs in determining whether” the regulation is “appropriate.” His colleagues rejected his approach and deferred instead to the agency. But in 2015 the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and followed Kavanaugh.

In each of these cases, Kavanaugh sensed that the administrative state was pushing matters to a breaking point. Each time, his circuit colleagues rejected his approach, but the Supreme Court embraced it.

If Kavanaugh’s nomination succeeds and he winds up joining the Court, where his ideas already have had such influence, there are at least three places where he will likely have significant impact in reforming and modernizing the judicial doctrines surrounding the administrative state.

First, Kavanaugh has expressed reservations about the degree of “deference” that courts now give agencies’ legal interpretations. (The best example of this is his 2016 article in the Harvard Law Review.) This is an increasingly common theme among conservative judges — indeed, the justice whom Kavanaugh would replace (and for whom he once clerked), Justice Kennedy, raised the same concerns in one of his own last judicial opinions.

Second, and relatedly, Kavanaugh has been called on courts to be more skeptical of agencies’ assertions of power over the most significant economic and political issues of our times. In an opinion dissenting from the D.C. Circuit’s deference to the Obama FCC’s “net neutrality” rules, Kavanaugh argued that courts should presume that Congress did not commit such vast regulatory powers to bureaucratic agencies, absent a clear statement to the contrary. In this respect, Kavanaugh echoes Chief Justice Roberts’s own un-deferential opinion in one of the Affordable Care Act cases, where Roberts — joined by the Court’s four liberal justices — agreed with the Obama administration but expressly refused to approach the case with any interpretive “deference” to the agencies’ claims of authority.

Finally, Kavanaugh raises serious questions about novel forms of agency “independence.” In a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Kavanaugh wrote a majority opinion holding the CFPB’s structure unconstitutional. The reason? The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB an unprecedented measure of independence without the usual multimember agency structure that disperses in independent agency’s power among more deliberative body (as in the Federal Trade Commission). Kavanaugh’s majority opinion — which echoed themes raised by Chief Justice Roberts in an earlier Supreme Court cases — was eventually vacated by the full D.C. Circuit, where Democratic appointees enjoy a strong majority. But even then, Kavanaugh’s intellectual influence among other judges was made evident when his approach to the CFPB case was adopted by the federal district court in Manhattan in a different challenge to the CFPB. Even more recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied a similar analysis to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, holding the FHFA’s structure unconstitutional with a judicial opinion replete with citations to Kavanaugh.

At the Scalia Law School, I direct the Center for the Study of the Administrative State. It is no exaggeration to say that for the past decade, to study the administrative state has been, in no small part, to study Judge Kavanaugh’s D.C. Circuit opinions. With an appointment to the Supreme Court, his official title will finally match his real-world influence.

Adam J. White is research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and director of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State. Previously, as a lawyer, he participated in some of the mentioned cases.

Postscript: A Majority Kavanaugh EPA Opinion

Last year DC Court of Appeals struck down EPA rules regarding HFCs and Judge Kavanaught wrote the majority opinion:

“EPA’s novel reading of Section 612 is inconsistent with the statute as written. Section 612 does not require (or give EPA authority to require) manufacturers to replace non ozone-depleting substances such as HFCs,” said the opinion, written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

“In any event, the legislative history strongly supports our conclusion that Section 612(c) does not grant EPA continuing authority to require replacement of non-ozone-depleting substitutes.. . In short, although Congress contemplated giving EPA broad authority under Title VI to regulate the replacement of substances that contribute to climate change, Congress ultimately declined.”

“However, EPA’s authority to regulate ozone-depleting substances under Section 612 and other statutes does not give EPA authority to order the replacement of substances that are not ozone depleting but that contribute to climate change. Congress has not yet enacted general climate change legislation. Although we understand and respect EPA’s overarching effort to fill that legislative void and regulate HFCs, EPA may act only as authorized by Congress. Here, EPA has tried to jam a square peg (regulating non-ozone depleting substances that may contribute to climate change) into a round hole (the existing statutory landscape).”

More at Gamechanger: DC Appeals Court Denies EPA Climate Rules

Footnote:

More and more likely we are witnessing a return to Constitutional separation of powers.

EU Seeks “Populist-Proof” Carbon Reductions

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Polish coal miners protest against liquidation of Polish coal mines.

The story July 10, 2018 by Sonja van Renssen EU wants new climate policy to be “populism-proof” [EPW] Excerpts from energypost, who like the idea, with my bolds.

van Renssen: No new targets, gas is in, jobs and growth are key: the EU is designing a new climate and energy strategy for the coming decades that must reflect a new EU identity post-Brexit – and must drive economic opportunity to ensure it is “populism-proof”.

Brussels is usually deserted in summer. The institutions shut down and everyone takes a break. This year, there are two big energy projects that will keep some people busy however.

First, the Austrian EU Presidency, which took over from Bulgaria on 1 July, will lead technical talks on a new electricity market design for Europe. This is part of the EU’s Clean Energy Package. With new laws on renewables, energy efficiency and governance concluded last month, market design is the Package’s last outstanding file. Austria wants to wrap it – and therefore the EU’s climate and energy framework fror 2030 – up by the end of the year.

It organised a first “trilogue” or negotiating session between Member States, the European Parliament and the European Commission on 27 June. This was basically a “meet and greet” session. Work will now get underway at a technical level over the summer ahead of a second trilogue scheduled for 11 September.

The second big topic this summer is a new EU climate and energy strategy for 2050. European heads of state and government called for it by next spring; the European Commission aims to deliver it by November. It is holding a big two-day stakeholder conference on it in Brussels on 10-11 July – in a room big enough for 1000 people, an official said (see programme).

Next week, the Commission will launch a 3-month public consultation on the strategy, ensuring that stakeholders as well as officials are kept busy over the summer months…

Estimating Cost of Trudeau’s Carbon Tax

Posted on by Ron Clutz

We’re finally told what the carbon tax will cost us. Are you sitting down?
Kenneth Green writes in Financial Post.  Excerpts below in italics with my bolds.
Households in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year, while those in British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba will pay around $650

It took some poking and prodding and (finally) committee testimony, but now we know what the bill will be for a $50-per-tonne carbon tax, similar to one the federal Liberals plan to impose. In a report to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, University of Calgary economics professor Jennifer Winter revealed the bottom line of a $50-per-tonne carbon price.

Tax advocates say it is a small % of GDP. But it is still $10 Billion extracted from Canadian households.

Using energy-consumption data from Statistics Canada, and imputing prices from average household expenditure on transportation fuels and provincial gasoline prices, Winter calculated the impact of a a $50-per-tonne model of a carbon tax on a typical Canadian household across different provinces. Far from being painless as advertised, the costs to households will be significant.

Three provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia — will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year to comply with the $50-per-tonne carbon tax Ottawa has mandated for 2022. Nova Scotia ($1,120) and Alberta ($1,111) will have the highest bills, followed by Saskatchewan ($1,032), New Brunswick ($963), Newfoundland ($859) and Prince Edward Island ($788). The average household in Ontario will pay $707 a year to comply with the carbon tax once its fully implemented.

Who gets the lowest bill? British Columbia ($603 per year), Quebec ($662) and Manitoba ($683). Simply put, households in provinces with the lowest bills will pay just a bit more than half compared to households in the hardest-hit provinces.

But it gets worse, since most experts say carbon prices must continue to increase sharply to effectively lower emissions. At $100 a tonne, for example, households in Alberta will pony up $2,223, in Saskatchewan they’ll pay $2,065 and in Nova Scotia, $2,240. In fact, at $100 a tonne, the average price for households in all provinces is well north of $1,000 per year.

Already across Canada, particularly in the Maritimes, a significant number of households fit the definition of “energy poverty” — that is, 10 per cent or more of household expenditures are spent simply procuring the energy needed to live (to power the home and transportation). In 2016, the Fraser Institute measured energy poverty in Canada and found that when you add up the costs to power the home and cars, 19.4 per cent of Canadian households devoted at least 10 per cent or more of their expenditures to energy.

 

NOAA Climate Intrigue

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Defenders of the Federal status quo (AKA swamp denizens) are aroused over an apparent move to refocus the mission statement of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). UCS raised the alarm which was, as usual, taken up by the New York Times. At a recent Department of Commerce summit, the acting head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, proposed a new mission statement for the agency. The proposed change in wording is as follows.

The mission of NOAA has been:

  • To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts;
  • To share that knowledge and information with others; and
  • To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.

In his presentation, Rear Admiral Gallaudet suggested the mission statement would change to:

  • To observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions;
  • To share that knowledge and information with others; and
  • To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.

Comment on NOAA Mission Statement

Note the word “observe” is added to give emphasis to NOAA’s responsibility to obtain and maintain data records relating to the ocean and atmosphere. Instead of the words “changes to climate, weather, oceans and coasts,” NOAA is tasked to predict “atmospheric and ocean conditions.” This suggest a move away from climatological considerations to more immediate support for adapting to natural events. It also suggests that coastal land management is outside NOAA’s scope.

Readers will note the proposed wording drops “conserve and manage” from the mission, replaced by the more explicit “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.” The latter phase would be consistent with the larger thrust of the Commerce Department. (See Commerce priorities at end.)

Background:

September 1, 2017, Rear Admiral Gallaudet was nominated by President Trump and was warmly welcomed by scientists.

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) congratulates Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, a former oceanographer of the Navy, on his nomination to assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere. In that position, Gallaudet will serve as the second-in-command at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Gallaudet, who also served as commander of the Navy’s Meteorology and Oceanography Command, is a 32-year Navy veteran. He holds master’s and doctoral degrees in oceanography from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

“Tim’s mixture of operational expertise and scientific knowledge make him an ideal choice for this position,” said UCAR President Antonio Busalacchi. “His understanding of the vital collaborations between NOAA, private forecasting companies, and the academic community can help foster the movement of research to operational forecasting and advance the nation’s weather prediction capabilities. Furthermore, his knowledge of Earth system science and his ability to align that science with budget and programs will be essential to moving NOAA forward in the next few years.”

NOAA runs the National Weather Services, engages in weather and climate research, and operates weather satellites and a climate data center. The agency also works to better understand and protect the nation’s coasts, oceans, and fisheries.

UCAR is a nonprofit consortium of more than 100 colleges and universities focused on research and training in the atmospheric and related sciences.

September 25, 2017

In his answers to the confirmation committee’s questionnaire, Gallaudet listed the top three challenges he sees facing NOAA. He identified the first challenge as implementing the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act that Congress passed earlier this year.

“If confirmed, I would make it my top priority to meet the intent of this law, especially the aspects concerning improvement to severe weather, tornado and hurricane warnings, and satellite data collection program management. … Finally I will need to work with the NOAA Administrator as well as NESDIS and NWS leadership to focus on the NOAA satellite programs which are growing at an unsustainable rate and that have been delayed numerous times.”

October 2017

Gallaudet was confirmed and on October 11, President Trump nominated Barry Myers, chief executive of the private weather forecasting company AccuWeather, to run NOAA. The appointment breaks from the recent precedent of scientists leading the agency tasked with a large, complex, and technically demanding portfolio. Myers has a bachelor’s degree in business administration and economics, a master’s degree in business from Pennsylvania State University, and a law degree from Boston University School of Law. Myers has been an adviser to five directors of NOAA’s National Weather Service and a representative of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, according to a biography from AccuWeather. He must be confirmed by the Senate before taking the post.

December 17, 2017

In his Senate Confirmation hearing, Myers sought to assure members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee that he has a deep appreciation for NOAA’s scientific mission. In response to pointed questions from Democratic senators, Myers vowed to uphold NOAA’s scientific integrity policies and champion free and open data. And, for the first time in public since his nomination, he concurred with the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change and promised to support NOAA’s climate research portfolio. The full inquisition is described by the American Institute of Physics NOAA Nominee Barry Myers Embraces Science at Confirmation Hearing

April 11, 2018

Timothy Gallaudet testifies at Budget hearings.NOAA Budget Cuts Get Chilly Reception in Congress

In his opening statement at the April 11 hearing, Gallaudet explained that the $4.5 billion budget request for NOAA focuses on two priorities. The first is “reducing the impacts of extreme weather and water events, by implementing the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act,” which was enacted last April. The second is increasing sustainable economic contributions of U.S. fisheries and other ocean resources.

Gallaudet also touted NOAA’s successes over the last year in responding effectively to the record-setting hurricane season, saying the agency’s efforts “saved thousands of lives despite Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, [and] Maria, being three of the five most costly hurricanes in history.” He also highlighted the “perfect” recent launches of two flagship weather satellites — Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-S (GOES-S) and Joint Polar Satellite System-1 (JPSS-1).

Later in the hearing, Gallaudet described further investments NOAA is making in high-performance computing and modeling to support operational weather prediction. In describing the Global Forecast System FV3 experimental model that is being transitioned to the National Weather Service, Gallaudet said,

This model out-performed the European models for the hurricane track forecasts for the three Category 4 hurricanes that made landfall [last year]. Our goal is to regain world leadership, take number one back for our weather modeling. We’re on track to do it. We expect to do that before 2020.

Gallaudet assured Cartwright that climate is “embedded” within NOAA’s weather and water forecasting priority, explaining that it includes consideration of “scales that are in weeks to seasonal and even sub-seasonal and climate types of scales.”

Although the administration has proposed deep cuts for climate research and grant programs, including termination of the $48 million Competitive Climate Research grant program and the $6 million Arctic Climate Research Program, Gallaudet assured members that climate research would continue, “because there’s much we still don’t know.”

When Cartwright pressed further on his concerns about the White House’s treatment of climate change, Gallaudet reassured him that the White House has “not zeroed out our climate work,” pointing to the Climate Prediction Center’s publication of seasonal and long-range outlooks as well as recent collaboration between NOAA and the U.S. Navy on Arctic sea ice forecasting. In addressing similar concerns brought up by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) at the April 12 hearing, he added that the White House is “supporting much of our Arctic-related research that is driven primarily by climate change,” and that he has not been directed to eliminate or remove the phrase “climate change” from reports.

May 14, 2018

Senate Should Confirm Barry Myers to Lead NOAA

NOAA – the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – needs its leader! President Trump nominated Barry Lee Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather, to the post in mid-October. The Senate Commerce Committee has twice advanced Myers’ nomination to the full Senate. All that’s needed to fill this important job is a majority vote on the Senate floor, which both Democrats and Republicans expect to happen. Unfortunately, partisan politics keeps getting in the way, delaying the vote.

Senate offices have received more than 60 letters from individuals and organizations supporting his confirmation, including strong backing from the past four leaders of the U. S. National Weather Service who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In addition, the seafood industry has overwhelmingly advocated his confirmation with letters of support from seafood processors and others in the fisheries industry ranging from ship captains to sport fishermen.

Also, as a recognized leader in the sciences, Myers has demonstrated respect for quality-tested science when making decisions related to all areas of the agencies’ responsibilities, including the nation’s fisheries, weather, oceanographic and climate challenges.

Myers worked closely with lawmakers to help secure enactment of last year’s Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. The American Meteorological Society conferred its highest award for Excellence in Meteorology on him. He also has demonstrated a deep knowledge about NOAA and is committed to making the agency the best it can be, second to none in the world.

Prompt confirmation of Myers will benefit the public and the U.S. economy in the days, weeks and months ahead by solidifying the NOAA leadership team. With the unprecedented threat of catastrophic storms, the agency’s mission – protecting life and property and expanding American economic competitiveness – is on the line. The Senate should quickly confirm Barry Myers as NOAA administrator.

Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr. VADM USN (ret.), CEO of GeoOptics, is a former under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of NOAA.

Robert Vanasse is executive director of the National Coalition for Fishing

Overview of Strategic Plan of US Department of Commerce 2018 to 2022

Knowing that innovation is a key driver of economic advancement, we are placing an increased emphasis on the commercial opportunities of space exploration and aquaculture while our scientists are conducting foundational research in areas ranging from artificial intelligence to quantum computing. Our patent professionals are also working to improve the protection of intellectual property so that creators can profit from their inventions.

U.S. businesses must export more, and our workers deserve a level playing field. Enforcing our trade laws to ensure that trade is free, fair, and reciprocal is a top priority of the Department. We are also joining with all federal agencies in cutting red tape that drives up costs and puts American workers and businesses at a disadvantage.

To maintain America’s leadership in next-generation technologies, we are making important advances in data, cybersecurity, and encryption technology. Our economists and statisticians are improving Commerce data that American businesses and communities use to plan investments and identify growth opportunities. Every level of the Department will be engaged to ensure that we conduct the most accurate, secure, and technologically-advanced decennial census in history.

Finally, teams across the Department are working to keep Americans safe by predicting extreme weather events earlier and more accurately, preventing sensitive technology from getting in the hands of terrorists, rogue regimes, and strategic competitors, and deploying a nationwide public safety broadband network that allows better coordination among first responders.

Thank you to every employee at the Department and to our industry and government partners for your dedication to our mission.

Post by Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce

Canadian Climate Turns Against Activists

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

In olden days kings ruled by fiat, but nowadays you need the people’s consent,
disappointing to Obama and now Trudeau.

The Liberal federal government led by Justin Trudeau is running up against a deeply ingrained and widespread skepticism in the population.  In a previous post Uncensored: Canadians View Global Warming  I noted that the principle finding in a recent survey was buried in the report and hidden by the media.  Belief in man made global warming is a minority view in Canada, as shown below:
The political implications of that lack of support for climate activism are starting to become manifest.  Ed Whitcomb writes in the Ottawa Citizen Climate change politics are undermining federalism  Excerpts in italics below with my bolds and images

Prime Minister Trudeau between BC Premier John Horgan and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. The 2 provinces are at war over expanding the oil pipeline.

Canada’s largest province is about to reject the federal climate change policy. Saskatchewan never accepted it and Alberta could reject it in 2019. Maybe it’s time for reflection.

The current policy calls for the provinces to implement a federal government plan. That, however, is a contradiction of federalism, a system which reflects the fact that the feds and the provinces have different interests. Policies to deal with pollution in Ontario may be inappropriate for Newfoundland or Saskatchewan. The current federal government overlooked such differences when it decided that there was only one solution to global warming, a carbon tax, and only two acceptable ways to implement it, cap-and-trade or a carbon levy. Unfortunately, not all Canadians and provinces accept these assumptions, and the consensus is shrinking.

In 2015, Saskatchewan’s then-premier Brad Wall pointed out that his economy was far more dependent on fossil fuels than were other provinces. A carbon tax would be disproportionately costly, which was unacceptable. That dispute is going to court and no one knows what the outcome will be.

Alberta’s NDP government endorsed the federal scheme, providing the federal government got a pipeline built. That linked dealing with climate change to increasing energy production, linked reducing gas emissions to raising them. But the pipeline has not been built, and bitumen is unlikely to flow before a provincial election which could empower the United Conservative Party. The UCP is strongly opposed to the federal climate plan. It, and the incoming Ontario Conservative government, oppose carbon taxes because everyone will pay them whether or not that reduces their consumption of carbon. The two parties believe governments always spend any money that is available (and in fact Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have not returned all their carbon tax revenue to taxpayers).

Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna preaching with Justin Trudeau in the choir.

In challenging Ontario’s upcoming withdrawal from cap-and-trade, the federal government is introducing a new and very dangerous interpretation of federalism. No one questioned that Ontario’s program was within its jurisdiction. Now the federal government is saying that if Ontario repeals its own law, it will be replaced by the imposition of a federal tax exclusively within Ontario’s borders. In effect it will be a “provincial” tax, not a “national” or “federal” one applied to all Canadians.

But the federal government has no mandate to force Ontario to retain one of its own programs if its government wants to repeal it. In effect, the federal level is trying to use its taxation power to make the environment an exclusive federal responsibility.

The courts might uphold the federal government’s right to collect such a tax but the political battle could be fatal. If it can prevent Doug Ford repealing an existing Ontario law, then it can prevent other provinces repealing other provincial laws. In that case, there is no federalism, no division of power, and no independent provincial jurisdiction. Quebec could not repeal its cap-and-trade law – just the threat the separatists need to rise from their death-bed.

The federal government can forge ahead with a series of political and court battles, or it can go back to the drawing board, in which case there seem to be two options. One is co-operative federalism – namely, call a heads-of-government meeting and confirm Canada’s Paris goals; each provinces’ share of those goals; the federal right to implement policies within its jurisdiction; each province’s right to implement their own policies as they wish; and confirm that they will all co-operate to avoid duplication or contradictory policies.

The second option is for the federal government to raise its existing national carbon tax on gasoline and other forms of fossil fuel. It has full constitutional power to do so, can do it any time, the revenue can be returned to taxpayers, and it could be completely transparent. Actually, if it had done this in 2016, Canada would already be on the way to meeting its Paris goals, rather than locked in an increasingly ugly and unnecessary federal-provincial, regional, political and ideological battle.

It’s not too late to get it right but that does mean going back to the drawing board.

Ed Whitcomb is the author of Rivals for Power: Ottawa and the Provinces, the contentious history of the Canadian federation, and of short histories of all 10 provinces.

Comment:  Whitcomb does not question the climate change ideology or see the uselessness of the Paris Accord.  In the event Trudeau imposes a widely unpopular federal tax on carbon emissions, the backlash could overturn his administration.

More Good News: Ontario Reversing Carbon Tokenism

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The story comes from Bloomberg, where they regard the event as lamentable: Ontario Scraps Carbon-Reduction Plan as It Expands Elsewhere.  Excerpts below with my bolds.

Ontario will scrap the province’s cap-and-trade program and pull out of the carbon-trading market with Quebec and California even as pollution pricing expands in other regions of the world.

Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives will follow through on a campaign promise to withdraw from the environmental program that required companies to buy credits to offset pollution blamed for global warming. Premier-designate Doug Ford also said he will challenge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s authority to make local governments put a price on greenhouse-gas emissions.

The move comes as carbon-pricing programs are expanding in the U.S. even as President Donald Trump seeks to ease restrictions on coal companies. Europe already has a large regional cap-and-trade system while China, the world’s biggest polluter, has committed to a national pollution program that could open by 2020.

Ontario’s election results were largely priced into California’s carbon market. Despite Friday’s announcement, emitters in Ontario remain obligated to manage their carbon pollution until the province formally withdraws from the system, said John Battaglia, head of carbon markets at BGC Environmental Brokerage Services LP.

“The market is stable here,” Battaglia said in an interview. “We expect a bit of short-term volatility, but long term, the show will go on.” (Comment:  It is all about the show, isn’t it?)

Ontario’s PCs will be sworn in June 29 after defeating the Liberals in an election earlier this month. Ending what Ford called a job-killing carbon tax was one of his major commitments during the campaign. Ontario will also quit the Western Climate Initiative, Ford said Friday from Toronto.

Trudeau Plan

“Eliminating the carbon tax and cap-and-trade is the right thing to do and is a key component in our plan to bring your gas prices down by 10 cents per liter,” Ford said in a statement.

But the move may not spare Ontario from a carbon price. Trudeau’s government is bringing in carbon pricing rules to cover all provinces and a “backstop” for local governments that don’t come up with their own plans this year.

“Ontario is going to still have an obligation under the federal architecture and the cost of meeting that obligation could be higher,” said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. “The costs of the cap-and-trade program are small on retail gasoline rates.”

Another wheel comes off the Ontario Green Energy bus.

Ontario Voters Sack Climate-Obsessed Premier

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A number of posts here (linked at bottom) described how Ontario’s liberal government spent taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money like drunken sailers looking to score in International circles.  It seems chickens do come home to roost, and those politicians are out in a landslide.  The story from CBC (warmists all) is Ontario vote will hamper prime minister’s efforts on climate change (Ya think?) Excerpts below with my bolds.

Voters in the province of Ontario have sent a stinging rebuke to the ruling Liberal Party reducing it to a rump, and they voted massively for populist Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservatives. Ford has promised to take Ontario out of its carbon cap-and-trade agreement with California and the province of Quebec, and he is against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to oblige all provinces to levy a carbon tax.

“Now what you have is Doug Ford leading…the biggest province in the country…Now as premier of Ontario, he has one of the largest voices in the country when it comes to issues on the environment, the economy—all of these things that the premiers of the country and the prime minister have to sit down and talk about. Doug Ford now has the biggest voice at that table,” says Jordan Press, parliamentary reporter with The Canadian Press.

‘How do you meet..international agreements?’

“In much the same way that he (Trudeau) has an issue dealing with (U.S. President) Donald Trump on the environment, now Justin Trudeau faces a domestic issue as well, that how do you meet those international agreements that you have promoted. How do you continue to be that progressive leader on the world stage when at home, you are facing opposition to some of your plans,” asks Press.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna with Justin Trudeau in the choir.

Less tax, cheaper beer promised

During the election campaign, Ford promised to cut taxes, reduce gasoline prices by 10 cents a litre, reduce the high price of electricity and offer beer for one dollar a bottle. He was criticized for not providing a clear plan for how he would pay for these promises. The province of Ontario already carries a massive debt load.

But people seem to have appreciated his promise to defend “the little guy” and ignored a lawsuit launched by his brother’s widow alleging Ford mismanaged the family’s business costing millions from the estate.

Some people compare Ford to Trump and debate about that will likely be vigorous long into the future.

In the final tally, Progressive Conservatives were elected in 76 ridings and the New Democratic Party took 40. After ruling for 15 years, the Liberal Party lost official party status and the funding that comes with it by winning only seven seats. The Green Party took one.

Former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.

Background

Electrical Madness in Green Ontario

Ontario Jammed by Rent-Seekers and Ratepayers

Ontario Climate Policy Refugees

Ontario Coal Phase-out: All Pain, No Gain

Another wheel flies off Ontario’s green energy bus

US House Votes Down Social Cost of Carbon

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

The House GOP on Friday took a step forward in reining in the Obama administration’s method of assessing the cost of carbon dioxide pollution when developing regulations.

The House voted 212-201, along party lines, to include a rider blocking the use of the climate change cost metric to an energy and water spending bill.

The amendment offered by Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert bars any and all funds from being used under the bill to “prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation that relies on the Social Carbon analysis” devised under the Obama administration on how to value the cost of carbon. (Source Washington Examiner, here)

To clarify: the amendment in question defunds any regulation or guidance from the federal government concerning the social costs of carbon.

Background: 
The Obama administration created and increased its estimates of the “Social Cost of Carbon,” invented by Michael Greenstone, who commented on the EPA Proposed Repeal of CO2 emissions regulations.  A Washington Post article, October 11, 2017, included this:

“My read is that the political decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan was made and then they did whatever was necessary to make the numbers work,” added Michael Greenstone, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who worked on climate policy during the Obama years.

Activists are frightened about the Clean Power Plan under serious attack along three lines:
1. No federal law governs CO2 emissions.
2. EPA regulates sites, not the Energy Sector.
3. CPP costs are huge, while benefits are marginal.

Complete discussion at CPP has Three Fatal Flaws.

Read below how Greenstone and a colleague did exactly what he now complains about.

Social Cost of Carbon: Origins and Prospects

The Obama administration has been fighting climate change with a rogue wave of regulations whose legality comes from a very small base: The Social Cost of Carbon.

The purpose of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that impact cumulative global emissions. The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change. From the Technical Support Document: -Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis -Under Executive Order 12866

A recent Bloomberg article informs on how the SCC notion was invented, its importance and how it might change under the Trump administration.
How Climate Rules Might Fade Away; Obama used an arcane number to craft his regulations. Trump could use it to undo them. (here). Excerpts below with my bolds.

scc-working-group

In February 2009, a month after Barack Obama took office, two academics sat across from each other in the White House mess hall. Over a club sandwich, Michael Greenstone, a White House economist, and Cass Sunstein, Obama’s top regulatory officer, decided that the executive branch needed to figure out how to estimate the economic damage from climate change. With the recession in full swing, they were rightly skeptical about the chances that Congress would pass a nationwide cap-and-trade bill. Greenstone and Sunstein knew they needed a Plan B: a way to regulate carbon emissions without going through Congress.

Over the next year, a team of economists, scientists, and lawyers from across the federal government convened to come up with a dollar amount for the economic cost of carbon emissions. Whatever value they hit upon would be used to determine the scope of regulations aimed at reducing the damage from climate change. The bigger the estimate, the more costly the rules meant to address it could be. After a year of modeling different scenarios, the team came up with a central estimate of $21 per metric ton, which is to say that by their calculations, every ton of carbon emitted into the atmosphere imposed $21 of economic cost. It has since been raised to around $40 a ton.

Trump can’t undo the SCC by fiat. There is established case law requiring the government to account for the impact of carbon, and if he just repealed it, environmentalists would almost certainly sue.

There are other ways for Trump to undercut the SCC. By tweaking some of the assumptions and calculations that are baked into its model, the Trump administration could pretty much render it irrelevant, or even skew it to the point that carbon emissions come out as a benefit instead of a cost.

The SCC models rely on a “discount rate” to state the harm from global warming in today’s dollars. The higher the discount rate, the lower the estimate of harm. That’s because the costs incurred by burning carbon lie mostly in the distant future, while the benefits (heat, electricity, etc.) are enjoyed today. A high discount rate shrinks the estimates of future costs but doesn’t affect present-day benefits. The team put together by Greenstone and Sunstein used a discount rate of 3 percent to come up with its central estimate of $21 a ton for damage inflicted by carbon. But changing that discount just slightly produces big swings in the overall cost of carbon, turning a number that’s pushing broad changes in everything from appliances to coal leasing decisions into one that would have little or no impact on policy.

According to a 2013 government update on the SCC, by applying a discount rate of 5 percent, the cost of carbon in 2020 comes out to $12 a ton; using a 2.5 percent rate, it’s $65. A 7 percent discount rate, which has been used by the EPA for other regulatory analysis, could actually lead to a negative carbon cost, which would seem to imply that carbon emissions are beneficial. “Once you start to dig into how the numbers are constructed, I cannot fathom how anyone could think it has any basis in reality,” says Daniel Simmons, vice president for policy at the American Energy Alliance and a member of the Trump transition team focusing on the Energy Department.

David Kreutzer, a senior research fellow in energy economics and climate change at Heritage and a member of Trump’s EPA transition team, laid out one of the primary arguments against the SCC. “Believe it or not, these models look out to the year 2300. That’s like effectively asking, ‘If you turn your light switch on today, how much damage will that do in 2300?’ That’s way beyond when any macroeconomic model can be trusted.”

Another issue for those who question the Obama administration’s SCC: It estimates the global costs and benefits of carbon emissions, rather than just focusing on the impact to the U.S. Critics argue that this pushes the cost of carbon much higher and that the calculation should instead be limited to the U.S.; that would lower the cost by more than 70 percent, says the CEI’s Mario Lewis.

Still, by narrowing the calculation to the U.S., Trump could certainly produce a lower cost of carbon. Asked in an e-mail whether the new administration would raise the discount rate or narrow the scope of the SCC to the U.S., one person shaping Trump energy and environmental policy replied, “What prevents us from doing both?”

See Also:

Six Reasons to Rescind Social Cost of Carbon

SBC: Social Benefits of Carbon

drain-the-swamp

Good News! Skeptical Ontario.

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Ontario provincial elections are June 7, and a recent poll illuminates how liberals intent on saving the planet have turned the electorate into single issue voters.  The story comes from Global News: Climate change is the issue of our times — unless you’re an Ontario voter

This site has several posts describing how the electrical system has been mangled by green ideologues, and they have no one but themselves to blame.
Link to play Global video:  https://globalnews.ca/video/embed/4232314/

The article is written by a hand-wringing climatist, upset that the social proofs are failing at voters’ wallets.

One of the signature policies of the incumbent Liberal Party is leadership on climate change. And, since most of us care about helping the world’s climate, this should be a winning issue for the Liberals.

Not in Ontario though. At least not now. That’s because the effects of the Liberal’s approach to dealing with carbon, including changes to hydro rates and carbon pricing, has helped to galvanize a potential winning coalition around Doug Ford and the PC Party.

For many voters this no longer about helping the climate, it’s about increasing taxes, affordability, and government mismanagement.

What’s also happened in this election is that the emphasis in the phrase “carbon tax” has moved from the “carbon” to the “tax.” And, since voters are more concerned about taxes than climate today, the cure for too many seems worse than the disease. This is especially the case for voters who are more pessimistic about the economy.

Evidence of how public views have aligned against the Liberal’s management of the climate issue emerges when you ask Ontarians if the carbon tax is just a tax grab: 72 per cent agree.

This includes 85 per cent of PC voters, 72 per cent of NDP voters, and even 54 per cent of Liberal voters.

Another 68 percent of Ontario voters also agree that a carbon tax is nothing but a pointless gesture that won’t help the earth’s climate.

When you add it up then, carbon pricing has become a political millstone around the neck of the Ontario Liberal Party in this election.

This won’t end with the Ontario election. That’s because the Trudeau Liberals, like the Wynne Liberals, have made carbon pricing a cornerstone issue for their mandate.

Based on what we’re now seeing, this issue could also represent an electoral liability for the federal Liberals in Ontario. And, the situation won’t be helped by a Premier Doug Ford who has vowed to fight the pending federal climate tax if he is elected on June 7.

Are people finally seeing the light?

Museum Offends Warmists: Tweetstorm Ensues

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Correction January 9, 2018:
My terminology in the title is off.  The event is more properly called a “twitstorm.”

Wonderful example of leftist conspiracy ideation explodes when warmists are exposed to historical truth.  At the American Museum of Natural History in New York a plaque in place for 25 years has been attacked as though it were a Confederate statue. The whole story comes from a sympathetic source, the Verge:
The climate change misinformation at a top museum is not a conservative conspiracy.

The article describes a  fine dust-up of political correctness.  (Excerpts below in italics with my bolds.)

Over the weekend, Twitter users — including some climate scientists — were upset by a plaque at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, which seems to be spreading misinformation about climate change. The panel, titled “Recent Climatic Changes and Extinctions,” misstates the role that human emissions of greenhouse gases play in causing global warming. It also says that, although we’re currently living in one of Earth’s warm periods, “there is no reason to believe that another Ice Age won’t come.” But it turns out, the panel was put up 25 years ago, according to the museum, so it contains outdated information that reads very differently today.

From an exhibit on Recent Climatic Changes and Extinctions:

The Offensive Text on the Plaque

Images of the sign were first tweeted by environmental economist Jonah Busch, and were shared over 2,000 times. Busch tweeted that the panel is at the David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing, which was funded by right-wing philanthropist and fossil fuel magnate David H. Koch, and asked the museum to “separate this panel from its donor’s interest.” The tweet sparked outrage among scientists and the general public: “Dear @AMNH I bring my young kids to visit regularly because science & natural history is fascinating, inspiring and fun,” one tweet read. “Please do not misguide their curious minds. If we can’t even trust the AMNH to give us the facts who can we? Very sad.”

But the sign is actually located in the Hall of Advanced Mammals in the Lila Acheson Wallace Wing of Mammals and Their Extinct Relatives, and was installed “many years before David Koch supported the Dinosaur Halls,” says Kendra Snyder, a spokesperson for the AMNH, in an email to The Verge. Busch says he didn’t realize that hall was separate from the dinosaur wing because both are on the same floor. Because some of the permanent exhibitions at the AMNH were funded by Exxon as well as the Koch brothers, which are known funders of climate deniers, “it makes it that much harder to give them the benefit of the doubt,” Busch tells The Verge. But Snyder says that at the AMNH, “scientific and educational content is determined by scientists and educators. That is not the role of donors.”

The sign reflects the scientific data available at the time, Snyder says, adding that today, that same information is “clearly subject to misinterpretation.” “If that label copy were written today it would likely come with a different context and emphasis, including more recent scientific data,” Snyder says. “This happens sometimes in permanent halls and we do review existing content — this is a case where we will do that.”

The journalist adds her spin to the story:
The dinosaur wing at the AMNH still bears his name. But the plaque in question is not in that wing, according to Snyder. The sign explains what causes ice ages, Earth’s cyclical periods when temperatures drop and glaciers spread. The sign says that, “There is no reason to believe that another Ice Age won’t come. In the past, warm cycles lasted about 10,000 years, and it’s been that long since the last cool period.” But that’s probably wrong, based on what we know today. Because we pump heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the world is warming up — and that is messing up Earth’s cycles of cold and warm spells. In fact, our CO2 emissions will delay the onset of the next ice age by at least 100,000 years.

The sign in the dinosaur wing also says that, “Human-made pollutants may also have an effect on the Earth’s climatic cycle.” Today, using the word “may” is misleading: the role our greenhouse gas emissions play in causing climate change is well established. Virtually all scientists agree that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are to blame for the warming up of our planet. In fact, the entire world — except the United States — is working together to cut emissions in order to curb global warming.

Summary

Such a tragedy that a supposedly safe space like a museum would mention cooling in the future. Our CO2 emissions prohibit anything but a warmer future.  Human CO2 ensures that the next ice age is postponed almost indefinitely, and that should be on a big sign that everyone can see. And wishy-washy words like “may” have no place in the world as warmists know it.

Can anything in the building be trusted?  Everyone be vigilant! (sarc/off)