Time - Justin Worland
'We are standing here to fight and protect everything that we love'
A group of young Americans suing the federal government to demand
increased efforts on climate change won a notable battle Thursday, as a
federal court rejected the government’s request to dismiss the case.
The ruling paves the way for the 21 plaintiffs—who range in age from 9
to 20—to take their case to trial in federal court. A ruling in their
favor could be a landmark decision on climate change, though it would
almost certainly be appealed to a Supreme Court that is set to become
more conservative in the wake of Donald Trump’s win.
“We are standing here to fight and protect everything that we
love—from our land to our waters to the mountains to the rivers and
forests,” Xiuhtezcatl Martinez,
a 16-year-old plaintiff in the case told supporters after a hearing in
Eugene, Ore. this fall. “This is the moment where we decide what kind of
legacy we are going to leave behind for future generations.”
The case rests on the legal argument that climate change threatens
the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right to life and liberty.
Julia Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs and executive director of Our
Children’s Trust, argued in court that the federal government has
understood the threat of climate change for decades and knowingly put
the lives of future generations in danger. The current measures in place
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient and not aligned
with current science, she argued.
The lawsuit awkwardly puts President Obama’s Justice Department in a
position arguing that the children do not have standing to sue—even
though Obama himself has made climate action a priority. Sean Duffy, a
lawyer for the Justice Department, acknowledged in a September hearing
that climate change poses an urgent threat but dismissed the idea that
individual citizens could sue the federal government over the issue. The
federal government has no means to address the complaint, Duffy argued.
Quin Sorenson, a lawyer representing industry interests including the
American Petroleum Institute, supported that argument and added others.
But in the hearing Judge Ann Aiken appeared not just sympathetic to
the children—most of whom were seated in the front of the courtroom—but
also downright hostile toward the challengers. Aiken seemed to suggest
that the court could play a role bringing the federal government to the
table with environmental activists to negotiate an agreement.
“I would think the government would want the help of the courts to
push the good work it’s doing,” she told Duffy. “There is so much common
ground.”
Of course, that common ground will like evaporate as soon as Trump takes office in January. Trump repeatedly rejected
the science of man-made climate change as a candidate and promised to
undo many existing regulations. A lawsuit forcing policymakers to the
table to take action on climate change would be a game-changing—if
unlikely—victory for climate change activists at an otherwise dark
moment.
This week’s victory is only a preliminary step forward for the novel
lawsuit. The case now faces an actual trial and whatever decision
emerges will inevitably be appealed, perhaps as far as the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Court ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that
the EPA needs to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. But
the Court has changed since then and will continue to change with Trump
in office.
Links
12/11/2016
What Does A Trump Presidency Mean For Climate Change?
The Verge - Angela Chen
Sea levels are rising, but he's trying to bring coal back
Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has called climate change a "Chinese hoax," so it's no wonder climate scientists are freaking out about what will happen to the environment in the years to come.
Trump has already threatened to pull America out of the landmark Paris climate change accord, eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, repeal environmental regulations, and cut climate funding. He proposed an incoherent energy plan aimed at reviving the coal industry. It's difficult to know which of these promises Trump will follow through on, but climate scientists warn that his plan is a disaster that would create lasting harm to everything from global biodiversity to food availability.
Possibly the most disastrous move would be preventing the United States from following the Paris agreement, the landmark climate change deal that commits almost every country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"We don't have the luxury of remaining silent because decisions about whether the US is in or outside of Paris climate agreement may affect all of us — they literally affect the kind of world that we're going to leave behind for future generations," says climate researcher Benjamin Santer, a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Even if every country keeps its Paris accord promises, we're still on track for dangerous levels of global warming. And if America does flout its obligations, it'll seriously hurt international momentum around the issue, especially if other countries follow suit.
The coal industry is not coming back
It would actually take Trump four years to officially withdraw from the accord, but in the meantime he can simply not enforce its guidelines while repealing climate change regulation put in place under the Obama administration, like the Clean Power Plan. With a Republican legislature and a Supreme Court opening waiting to be filled, Trump's plans will face little resistance.
Trump has also talked about abolishing the EPA, and he's already picked a climate change skeptic to lead the EPA transition. The abolition or gutting of the EPA could especially hurt people who live in places with high pollution, says Mark Cane, a professor of earth science at Columbia University. For an example of what a country without an EPA looks like, says Santer, look at China: "Look at what a country looks like without rigorous environmental protection, where the population has to endure significant local air pollution that's responsible for literally tens of thousands of additional deaths."
Trump's energy plans are also cause for alarm. He wants to bring back coal mining, he says to restore coal jobs. This is simply not going to happen, says Steven Cohen, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute. The coal industry is not coming back, for reasons that have nothing to do with climate: natural gas is now far cheaper.
And a push toward coal would "be an enormous step backward with huge health implications," since coal is responsible for thousands of premature deaths per year, says Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Coal is a dangerous form of energy from start to finish: one way to mine it is by removing the tops of mountains, which destroys ecosystems and groundwater.
Coal is also the dirtiest fossil fuel, emitting air pollution and high levels of carbon dioxide. "We can't be dinosaurs and trying to revive coal is making us dinosaurs," says Santer. "We can't imagine that by going back to some time in the past, we solve the problems we're facing today, that's not a solution. What happens to dinosaurs? They die out."
Rising sea levels are a huge threat
The president-elect's goal of being completely "energy independent" is also ludicrous, adds Cohen. It's not realistic to be completely self-sustaining in today's global economy. In fact, being "energy independent" can be risky because if something happens to our refineries, we have no other sources. Not to mention claims that we're dependent on the Middle East for oil mostly aren't true. If anyone is dependent, it's Europe being dependent on Russia, Cohen adds.
If Trump makes good on all his promises, climate change will continue unchecked. There will be staggering losses of biodiversity, more extreme weather events like drought and hurricanes, hotter temperatures, and melting Arctic sea ice. Rising sea levels are one of the most pressing dangers, according to Santer. Sea levels are projected to rise by several feet by the end of the century; that would be devastating for the US East Coast and other places around the world. "Several feet of global sea level rise? That's a different planet," says Santer.
For his part, the thing that keeps Emanuel awake at night is the relationship between armed conflict and food and water shortages. "When climate change brings about food and water shortages — which, arguably it's already doing — that promotes migration pressures that increases the probability of armed conflict," he says, "which in a nuclear world is a very, very dangerous thing."
Rampant climate change will affect everything from international trade to food politics. Intense rainfall can lead to flooding and damage to infrastructure and severe droughts, according to Jason Smerdon, a Columbia University climate scientist. Animals aren't safe, either; climate change has already destroyed so many habitats that researchers speculate that we're already living through the sixth extinction.
Looking to the future, there are a few ways that the damage could be limited. First, the government is still a system of checks and balances, and even though Republicans will soon control all three branches, there's a chance someone could object to Trump's most extreme proposals. Democrats will still have the option of a filibuster.
"Donald Trump is not the CEO of the United States and he doesn't have the power that he's used to having in his own company," says Cohen. "So you're going to see very quickly that if he wants to get anything to happen, there are a whole bunch of stakeholders and a lot of the things that he said he's going to do he won't be able to do."
Though Trump has attacked wind and solar energy, Emanuel, the MIT climate scientist, hopes that Trump may change his tune if he sees the US falling behind economically. "I tend to try to pull the rabbit of optimism out of the black well of despair, and I think that when the president and Congress realize that we are going to be left behind in the transformation of a 6-trillion-per-year global energy market, things will change rapidly," he says. "The rest of the world understands that we have to innovate clean energy and whoever innovates fastest and best is going to get a strong edge in this colossal energy market."
And even if Trump has his way, that global growth in clean energy will continue. Emanuel hopes the election will shake up the international community and make them see that they can no longer look to the United States for leadership in this area.
"Renewables are here to stay and they are already employing millions of Americans and that's going to continue irrespective of decisions made by the Trump administration," says Santer, the National Academy of Sciences climate researcher. "Now they can either make it easier for the rise of renewables and for a transition to a low-carbon energy future, or this administration can make that much more difficult."
Links
Sea levels are rising, but he's trying to bring coal back
 |
| Photo by Aishath Adam/Getty Images |
Trump has already threatened to pull America out of the landmark Paris climate change accord, eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, repeal environmental regulations, and cut climate funding. He proposed an incoherent energy plan aimed at reviving the coal industry. It's difficult to know which of these promises Trump will follow through on, but climate scientists warn that his plan is a disaster that would create lasting harm to everything from global biodiversity to food availability.
Possibly the most disastrous move would be preventing the United States from following the Paris agreement, the landmark climate change deal that commits almost every country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"We don't have the luxury of remaining silent because decisions about whether the US is in or outside of Paris climate agreement may affect all of us — they literally affect the kind of world that we're going to leave behind for future generations," says climate researcher Benjamin Santer, a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Even if every country keeps its Paris accord promises, we're still on track for dangerous levels of global warming. And if America does flout its obligations, it'll seriously hurt international momentum around the issue, especially if other countries follow suit.
The coal industry is not coming back
It would actually take Trump four years to officially withdraw from the accord, but in the meantime he can simply not enforce its guidelines while repealing climate change regulation put in place under the Obama administration, like the Clean Power Plan. With a Republican legislature and a Supreme Court opening waiting to be filled, Trump's plans will face little resistance.
Trump has also talked about abolishing the EPA, and he's already picked a climate change skeptic to lead the EPA transition. The abolition or gutting of the EPA could especially hurt people who live in places with high pollution, says Mark Cane, a professor of earth science at Columbia University. For an example of what a country without an EPA looks like, says Santer, look at China: "Look at what a country looks like without rigorous environmental protection, where the population has to endure significant local air pollution that's responsible for literally tens of thousands of additional deaths."
Trump's energy plans are also cause for alarm. He wants to bring back coal mining, he says to restore coal jobs. This is simply not going to happen, says Steven Cohen, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute. The coal industry is not coming back, for reasons that have nothing to do with climate: natural gas is now far cheaper.
And a push toward coal would "be an enormous step backward with huge health implications," since coal is responsible for thousands of premature deaths per year, says Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Coal is a dangerous form of energy from start to finish: one way to mine it is by removing the tops of mountains, which destroys ecosystems and groundwater.
Coal is also the dirtiest fossil fuel, emitting air pollution and high levels of carbon dioxide. "We can't be dinosaurs and trying to revive coal is making us dinosaurs," says Santer. "We can't imagine that by going back to some time in the past, we solve the problems we're facing today, that's not a solution. What happens to dinosaurs? They die out."
Rising sea levels are a huge threat
The president-elect's goal of being completely "energy independent" is also ludicrous, adds Cohen. It's not realistic to be completely self-sustaining in today's global economy. In fact, being "energy independent" can be risky because if something happens to our refineries, we have no other sources. Not to mention claims that we're dependent on the Middle East for oil mostly aren't true. If anyone is dependent, it's Europe being dependent on Russia, Cohen adds.
If Trump makes good on all his promises, climate change will continue unchecked. There will be staggering losses of biodiversity, more extreme weather events like drought and hurricanes, hotter temperatures, and melting Arctic sea ice. Rising sea levels are one of the most pressing dangers, according to Santer. Sea levels are projected to rise by several feet by the end of the century; that would be devastating for the US East Coast and other places around the world. "Several feet of global sea level rise? That's a different planet," says Santer.
For his part, the thing that keeps Emanuel awake at night is the relationship between armed conflict and food and water shortages. "When climate change brings about food and water shortages — which, arguably it's already doing — that promotes migration pressures that increases the probability of armed conflict," he says, "which in a nuclear world is a very, very dangerous thing."
Rampant climate change will affect everything from international trade to food politics. Intense rainfall can lead to flooding and damage to infrastructure and severe droughts, according to Jason Smerdon, a Columbia University climate scientist. Animals aren't safe, either; climate change has already destroyed so many habitats that researchers speculate that we're already living through the sixth extinction.
Looking to the future, there are a few ways that the damage could be limited. First, the government is still a system of checks and balances, and even though Republicans will soon control all three branches, there's a chance someone could object to Trump's most extreme proposals. Democrats will still have the option of a filibuster.
"Donald Trump is not the CEO of the United States and he doesn't have the power that he's used to having in his own company," says Cohen. "So you're going to see very quickly that if he wants to get anything to happen, there are a whole bunch of stakeholders and a lot of the things that he said he's going to do he won't be able to do."
Though Trump has attacked wind and solar energy, Emanuel, the MIT climate scientist, hopes that Trump may change his tune if he sees the US falling behind economically. "I tend to try to pull the rabbit of optimism out of the black well of despair, and I think that when the president and Congress realize that we are going to be left behind in the transformation of a 6-trillion-per-year global energy market, things will change rapidly," he says. "The rest of the world understands that we have to innovate clean energy and whoever innovates fastest and best is going to get a strong edge in this colossal energy market."
And even if Trump has his way, that global growth in clean energy will continue. Emanuel hopes the election will shake up the international community and make them see that they can no longer look to the United States for leadership in this area.
"Renewables are here to stay and they are already employing millions of Americans and that's going to continue irrespective of decisions made by the Trump administration," says Santer, the National Academy of Sciences climate researcher. "Now they can either make it easier for the rise of renewables and for a transition to a low-carbon energy future, or this administration can make that much more difficult."
Links
- Trump has no idea what he's doing when it comes to climate change
- Sea levels rising at unprecedented rate could displace millions of people by end of the century
- You can now calculate how much Arctic sea ice you're destroying with your CO2 emissions
- The world's best effort to curb global warming probably won't prevent catastrophe
- We're finally factoring in climate projections when we declare a species 'threatened'
- Will Trump slash public funding for scientific research?
- Trump's NASA looks good for human space exploration and terrible for Earth science
Quentin Bryce In High-Powered Group Calling For Coal Power To Be Phased Out
The Guardian - Katharine Murphy
Former governor general joins academics and business leaders urging Turnbull government to decarbonise energy market
The former governor general Quentin Bryce is part of a high-powered group of academics, business leaders, financiers and energy providers urging the Turnbull government to extend and expand the national renewable energy target and create a market mechanism to govern an orderly phase out of coal-fired power in Australia.
Representatives of the group came to Canberra on Monday to meet the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, armed with an eight-point plan to drive a sequenced decarbonisation of the national energy market.
The intervention follows weeks of political attacks by the Turnbull government on state-based renewable energy schemes and the government's continuing refusal to say whether it will use a planned review of its Direct Action policy next year to overhaul an emissions reduction framework experts say is woefully inadequate.
The leadership forum on energy transition, led by the Australian Conservation Foundation and hosted by the University of New South Wales, has used the resumption of parliament to call on the Turnbull government to establish national rules, policies, regulations, markets and a basis for investment to drive an orderly transition away from coal-fired power.
As a first step, the group says the government needs to update Australia's national electricity objective "to include a clear goal to accelerate Australia's energy transition towards net zero emissions before 2050, to fulfil our domestic policy objectives and international commitments".
It says the government should consider creating an emissions intensity standard to govern the regulated closure of highly emissions intensive power stations and legislate a market mechanism that would allow a rational sequence of closures, where the dirtiest power stations close first.
It says an alternative to a market mechanism would be an age-based regulation that tightens over time, ensuring the oldest coal-fired power stations closed first.
The group is also calling on the government to extend and expand the large-scale element of the renewable energy target scheme beyond 2020 and introduce economy-wide complementary laws, such as a carbon price, to make companies pay for their pollution.
As well as calling for a rational policy framework to ensure Australia complies with its Paris emissions reduction targets, and investors are given the policy certainty they need to bring on low-emissions technologies, the eight-point plan also emphasises the importance of transitional assistance for coal communities and help for low-income earners by way of compensation for higher power prices.
The group is chaired by Ian Jacobs, the vice chancellor of UNSW, and includes Geoff Cousins, the president of the ACF, Bryce, Jillian Broadbent, the chairwoman of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, David Thodey, the chairman of the CSIRO, financier Mark Burrows, company director and sustainability adviser Sam Mostyn and Martijn Wilder, lawyer and the chairman of the Australian renewable energy agency.
The intervention is part of positioning by a number of stakeholders ahead of the Direct Action review in 2017, and it runs in parallel to a review being led by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, of the national energy market, for state and federal energy ministers. It also follows confirmation last Thursday that the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in Victoria's Latrobe valley will close next March.
The Finkel review was preceded by a pitched political battle between the Turnbull government, which launched a rhetorical assault on state-based renewable energy targets after a statewide power blackout in South Australia in September, and state governments, who argue the commonwealth will not be able to meet its international emissions reduction targets without the state RETs.
The South Australian government has signalled it will use the framework of the Finkel review to argue for an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector – a form of carbon trading.
A coalition of major business and energy users have already urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a strategic response to the decarbonisation challenge and have warned investment is at risk.
Links
Former governor general joins academics and business leaders urging Turnbull government to decarbonise energy market
 |
| Quentin Bryce is calling for an expansion of the national renewable energy target as part of the decarbonisation of the market. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP |
Representatives of the group came to Canberra on Monday to meet the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, armed with an eight-point plan to drive a sequenced decarbonisation of the national energy market.
The intervention follows weeks of political attacks by the Turnbull government on state-based renewable energy schemes and the government's continuing refusal to say whether it will use a planned review of its Direct Action policy next year to overhaul an emissions reduction framework experts say is woefully inadequate.
The leadership forum on energy transition, led by the Australian Conservation Foundation and hosted by the University of New South Wales, has used the resumption of parliament to call on the Turnbull government to establish national rules, policies, regulations, markets and a basis for investment to drive an orderly transition away from coal-fired power.
As a first step, the group says the government needs to update Australia's national electricity objective "to include a clear goal to accelerate Australia's energy transition towards net zero emissions before 2050, to fulfil our domestic policy objectives and international commitments".
It says the government should consider creating an emissions intensity standard to govern the regulated closure of highly emissions intensive power stations and legislate a market mechanism that would allow a rational sequence of closures, where the dirtiest power stations close first.
It says an alternative to a market mechanism would be an age-based regulation that tightens over time, ensuring the oldest coal-fired power stations closed first.
The group is also calling on the government to extend and expand the large-scale element of the renewable energy target scheme beyond 2020 and introduce economy-wide complementary laws, such as a carbon price, to make companies pay for their pollution.
As well as calling for a rational policy framework to ensure Australia complies with its Paris emissions reduction targets, and investors are given the policy certainty they need to bring on low-emissions technologies, the eight-point plan also emphasises the importance of transitional assistance for coal communities and help for low-income earners by way of compensation for higher power prices.
The group is chaired by Ian Jacobs, the vice chancellor of UNSW, and includes Geoff Cousins, the president of the ACF, Bryce, Jillian Broadbent, the chairwoman of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, David Thodey, the chairman of the CSIRO, financier Mark Burrows, company director and sustainability adviser Sam Mostyn and Martijn Wilder, lawyer and the chairman of the Australian renewable energy agency.
The intervention is part of positioning by a number of stakeholders ahead of the Direct Action review in 2017, and it runs in parallel to a review being led by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, of the national energy market, for state and federal energy ministers. It also follows confirmation last Thursday that the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in Victoria's Latrobe valley will close next March.
The Finkel review was preceded by a pitched political battle between the Turnbull government, which launched a rhetorical assault on state-based renewable energy targets after a statewide power blackout in South Australia in September, and state governments, who argue the commonwealth will not be able to meet its international emissions reduction targets without the state RETs.
The South Australian government has signalled it will use the framework of the Finkel review to argue for an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector – a form of carbon trading.
A coalition of major business and energy users have already urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a strategic response to the decarbonisation challenge and have warned investment is at risk.
Links
- Hazelwood closure: Daniel Andrews pledges $266m for Latrobe valley
- As climate disaster looms, Malcolm Turnbull needs to stop appeasing and start leading
- Australian unions call for 'just transition' from coal-generated electricity
- Coal-fired power stations: Senate committee to examine how best to close them
- Chief scientist to lead review into Australia's energy security
- Renewable energy: get your story straight, ACT tells Coalition
- Josh Frydenberg plays down Climate Change Authority call for tougher emissions limits
- Linking Adani coalmine to social uplift in India ridiculous, says conservationist
- Peabody's Australian mines in jeopardy despite minister's advice, says lawyer
- Josh Frydenberg targets Labor candidates opposed to new coalmines