CSIRO Chief Confirms Climate Modelling And Monitoring Jobs To Be Halved

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

News comes week after Larry Marshall announced shift in research priorities from understanding nature of climate change to adaptation and mitigation

Marshall also apologised for comparing criticism of cuts to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry against climate researchers in the 1970s. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP 

CSIRO chief Larry Marshall has provided more details on cuts to climate monitoring and modelling at the CSIRO – confirming that the number of researchers employed in two research programs would be halved.
In Senate estimates on Thursday, under questioning from Labor's Kim Carr, Marshall said 100 jobs would be cut from the oceans and atmosphere program . He said they would hire another 35 people, leaving an overall loss of 65 people.
As a result of the cuts, Marshall confirmed that the number of people working on monitoring and modelling climate change would be cut in half.
The news comes one week after Marshall announced, in an email to staff, that there would be a shift in research priorities, away from understanding the nature of climate change, and towards adaptation and mitigation.
The announcement was quickly condemned by scientists around the world, and, unusually, by the World Meteorological Organisation, which is part of the UN.
Asked about the international criticism, Marshall said he was surprised, particularly by the criticism from the US, which he said had already led a similar shift in research priorities.
"It's a matter of fact that the United States invests 75% of its dollar investment into the environmental area into mitigation and only 25% into modelling and monitoring," he said.
"Over the last decade, the investment in the US in modelling and measuring has changed hardly at all – roughly 4% a year, while in contrast, the investment in mitigation technologies has changed 40% a year."
"Given the US is playing a lead in a major shift in research priorities, this was a big part of our thinking of following that leading trend. So it surprised me to be criticised by someone who had led that trend."
Tony Haymet from Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the US said any suggestion the US was scaling back its research into measurement and observation was wrong. He said there were some large-scale investment in mitigation technologies like carbon capture and storage, but they often weren't successful.
"I certainly think we need to invest more in mitigation but it's not either or," Haymet said. "We don't know perfectly what we need to mitigate against so we need to do both."
Marshall also apologised for his statements made on the ABC on Thursday morning, when he compared the criticisms of the cuts to the lobbying by the fossil fuel industry against climate researchers in the 1970s.
"There's a lot of emotion in this debate – in fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me," he said earlier on the ABC.
Senator Carr had asked Marshall if he was aware the comparison was used by climate change deniers and was uttered by former prime minister John Howard.
"I apologise for any offence I made to anyone with my reference to religion," he said.
"It was a poor way of expressing the passion with which people feel about this," Marshall said.

Links

• CSIRO chief says row over climate science cuts 'more like religion than science'
• Australia's chief scientist says he was not warned about CSIRO climate cuts
• CSIRO chief defends climate research cuts as staff weigh up industrial action
• CSIRO climate cuts attack a national treasure when we need it most
• CSIRO climate cuts will cost Australia dear, world scientists warn government
• Senior CSIRO scientist derides chief executive's claim climate change is 'answered'
• After climate cuts at CSIRO, who should we ask about global warming impacts on Australia? Netflix?
• CSIRO confirms up to 350 job cuts, with climate research bearing the brunt

'Maybe I'm Naive': CSIRO's Larry Marshall Tries Again To Explain Deep Staff Cuts

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Trying again: CSIRO chief Larry Marshall makes an internal video that the staff union dubs a "puff piece". Photo: Supplied

CSIRO chief Larry Marshall has stepped up efforts to convince staff that the plan to slash 350 jobs will be good for the organisation, according to a transcript of an internal video leaked by disgruntled employees.
The question-and-answer style video was posted on Wednesday afternoon on the CSIRO's intranet but cannot be downloaded.
In it, Dr Marshall seeks to justify the planned cut of 100 full-time positions in the climate science unit.
"This is not a judgment call on the quality of our climate science - it's awesome! - but we've been doing that for 20 years," Dr Marshall said, according to a transcript sent to Fairfax Media.
"[It's] time to take action. Our nation needs us to do something about environmental change."
The video, along with other public comments made by Dr Marshall, are likely to move employees, who are shifting from a state of shock following last Thursday's announced cuts, to anger, Anthony Keenan, a spokesman for the CSIRO Staff Association, said.
"It's a very soft puff piece of a video," Mr Keenan said, adding that the union's council would be meeting on Monday to consider a range of options - including possible industrial action - unless management could show it was truly open to negotiations and consultation about the cuts.
"We maintain that these are only proposals - they say they are decisions," Mr Keenan said, adding that the association would argue that job losses without consultation were in breach of their enterprise agreement.
In the video, Dr Marshall focused in part on the climate science cuts, a move that has drawn international protest.
He said that some of the scientists might be able to find work elsewhere, comments that echo efforts by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and others who are trying to salvage as much research as possible.
"[It's] completely understandable that someone who's spent 20 years, for example, studying climate change, measuring climate change or modelling climate change, it's perfectly understandable that they don't want to stop doing that and we must respect that, and we must find a place for them in the rest of the innovation system, perhaps in an university," Dr Marshall said, without elaborating.
Dr Marshall has said that the 350 job losses would be made up by new hires over two years. The loss for the Oceans and Atmosphere unit - in which the main climate research sits - would be 65, Dr Marshall told ABC Radio on Thursday, without stating when the 35 new positions would be added.
"Well, maybe I'm naive [chuckles], but I actually think we can grow," Dr Marshall said, according to the transcript (see below).
"I think we can increase the impact of the organisation. I think we can increase the funding and the revenue of the organisation, but we need to be delivering the impact that our nation expects," he said.
Fairfax Media has contacted the CSIRO for comment.
Dr Marshall is due to front Senate estimates at 1.45pm on Thursday.

Full transcript of video conversation between CSIRO staff member Hannah Scott and chief executive Larry Marshall posted on CSIRO's intranet on February 10:

Hannah Scott:
Hi Larry. Thanks very much for your time today.  I've got a couple of questions and I'm going to jump straight into it if that's all right with you?
[Image shows Dr Marshall nodding his head and giving Ms Scott the thumbs-up.]
Larry Marshall:
Great.
Hannah Scott:
So over the past week we've heard the news of some changes for CSIRO. Why were these particular changes decided on?
[Image shows Dr Marshall gesticulating with his hands as he is speaking.]
Larry Marshall:
Well, it really all stems back to our strategy, which we developed last year, which fundamentally asks the question: is CSIRO a university or are we something different? Are we something more? The answer to that, and our new strategy, is we believe we can be an innovation catalyst for Australia, which means, whilst we do great inventing, we will also take responsibility for delivering that invention into an innovation, so that we'll have actual value delivery, impact delivery to our nation.
[Image shows Dr Marshall listening while Ms Scott speaks.]
Hannah Scott:
So does this mean we're stopping certain types of research; climate and science research for example?
[Image shows Dr Marshall gesticulating with his hands as he speaks.]
Larry Marshall:
Well, let's take the climate area, and just to dispel some of the misinformation in the media, we're not firing 350 climate scientists. I think that was the most extreme headline I saw. But the climate area is absolutely affected by this. The entire organisation is affected by the strategy. Some business units have responded very well to the strategy and been able to embrace it and move forward. Others have realised that they don't quite have the right people or the right skill sets to respond to the strategy, which then asks the question: can we retrain those people, or do we need to move those people out in order to bring in new people with the skills we need?
It's completely understandable that someone who's spent 20 years, for example, studying climate change, measuring climate change or modelling climate change, it's perfectly understandable that they don't want to stop doing that and we must respect that, and we must find a place for them in the rest of the innovation system, perhaps in an university, where they can continue to pursue their passion. But CSIRO's direction has changed, and in the climate area we're shifting from measurement and modelling to mitigation, because that's where we believe we can have the most impact and deliver the most benefit.
[Image shows Dr Marshall listening while Ms Scott speaks.]
Hannah Scott:
Thanks, Larry. So with these changes, does it potentially mean that CSIRO will be shying away from basic research and instead chasing the dollar?
[Image shows Dr Marshall gesticulating with his hands as he speaks.]
Larry Marshall:
[Chuckles] So chasing the dollar is not a strategic move. But we absolutely are constrained by our funding envelope. So we try to secure funding to do things that we believe will build strategic value in the company. Sometimes that customer is the federal government, state governments, industry, the public, but this funding, this revenue is not an entitlement, we have to earn that. When we get funded, whoever, the funder is, they're funding us to do something and they expect a deliverable, a result, so if we don't earn that, if we don't deliver that result they will cease funding us, and CSIRO has experienced that many times in the past. We also have to respond to shifts in global markets, as priorities shift, we have to recognise that and always be in a position where we're able to deliver the most value we can to our nation in response to those shifts.
[Image shows Dr Marshall listening while Ms Scott speaks.]
Hannah Scott:
So Larry, if we can upskill our people and get new skills in the organisation, where do you see the organisation heading? What's the ultimate vision here?
[Image shows Dr Marshall gesticulating with his hands as he speaks.]
Larry Marshall:
Well, maybe I'm naive [chuckles], but I actually think we can grow. I think we can increase the impact of the organisation. I think we can increase the funding and the revenue of the organisation, but we need to be delivering the impact that our nation expects. Again, this is not a judgment call on the quality of our climate science - it's awesome! - but we've been doing that for 20 years. It's time to take action; our nation needs us to do something about environmental change. In fact, the National Science and Research Priorities say specifically, one of our key strategic goals is to respond to environmental change, not just climate change, but all impacts on the environment, and not just measurement and modelling, but response, ie mitigation - take action. That's the major shift that we're doing. I think we can do it, and I think we'll be a stronger organisation as a result. That's not to say that we won't go through pain, I wish we didn't have to go through this, but I can promise you that we will be as open and transparent as we possibly can. Please, be patient with us; this is still a work in progress as we figure out the numbers, but you will be the first to know as we know.
[Image shows Dr Marshall listening while Ms Scott speaks.]
Hannah Scott:
Thanks Larry. Really appreciate your honest insights.

Melting Greenland Ice Changing Ocean Circulation, Earth's Gravitational Field

CBC News - Sima Sahar Zerehi

Disappearing ice cap wreaks havoc on the ocean's very structure, scientists say

Greenland is losing about 8,300 tonnes of ice per second each day — ice that is melting on land and running into the water, as well as icebergs that are being discharged into Baffin Bay said William Colgan of Toronto's York University. (William Colgan)

The melting of the Greenland ice sheet due to climate change is having an impact on ocean circulation and rising sea levels, according to new studies from university researchers across North America.
"It was well known that Greenland's ice was melting, it was well known that that melting was accelerating, and it was well known that extra melting was changing the salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean," said Tim Dixon, a Canadian professor in the department of geophysics at the University of South Florida, who recently co-authored a study published in Nature Communications.  Dixon said that when ice melts, it deposits fresh water into the ocean that dilutes the salt in the North Atlantic.
"What was not known is what effect if any that would have on ocean circulation," he said.

'In the extreme case of a breakdown in this global ocean circulation pattern, equatorial regions could become much hotter than they are today and polar regions could become much colder than they are today, and significant fractions of the globe might become unlivable,' said University of South Florida's Tim Dixon. (Tim Dixon)

Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next 50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean circulation. "The accelerated melting of Greenland is adding so much fresh water to the North Atlantic that it's starting to affect the basic ocean structure in the Labrador Sea."
But it's not just the Labrador sea that is affected.
"We think those changes are big enough that they're starting to affect the overall global circulation pattern of the ocean," Dixon said.

'Fractions of the globe might become unlivable'
Altering the circulation pattern of the ocean can have drastic long-term implications, Dixon said.
"In the extreme case of a breakdown in this global ocean circulation pattern, equatorial regions could become much hotter than they are today and polar regions could become much colder than they are today, and significant fractions of the globe might become unlivable."

'The rate of mass loss that the ice sheet is now exhibiting post 2010, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of three times higher than the rate of mass loss prior to the 1980s,' said Colgan. (William Colgan)

These changes are some of the first alarming signals of the possible effects of climate change, Dixon said.
"This is the first hint that these effects are starting a bit faster than people had imagined and implying that we need to get our act together and do something about this," he said.
"Which means we have to stop putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere."

Ice melt changing earth's gravity field
William Colgan of York University in Toronto has also been studying the rate of the Greenland ice melt and its effects on the ocean. In a recent study, published in the journal Science, he looked at historical data and compared it to new information gathered from expeditions in 2012, 2013 and 2015.

'Iqaluit will not be flooded out by rising sea level but to have the harbour in Iqaluit, which is already really shallow get shallower at 1 cm per year going forward that can also be a very damaging sequence of sea level change,' said York University's William Colgan. (William Colgan)

"The ice sheet didn't really start to accelerate and lose a lot more mass until the year 2000," he said. "The rate of mass loss that the ice sheet is now exhibiting, post 2010, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of three times higher than the rate of mass loss prior to the 1980s."  Greenland is losing about 8,300 tonnes of ice per second each day —  ice that is melting on land and running into the water, as well as icebergs that are being discharged into Baffin Bay, said Colgan.
"That's a rapid, rapid mass loss that's occurring in Greenland right now and it's actually changing the Earth's gravity field so quickly that we can detect it with satellite."
Colgan said that just like the moon pulls tides around the Earth with its gravity, by being relatively massive, Greenland pulls water towards it. As Greenland gets smaller, the ocean water flows farther away towards the equator, in what is called a gravitational far-field.

Implications for Nunavut

Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around 1 centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level rise. (Sima Sahar Zerehi/CBC)

Colgan said this change will have implications for places close to Greenland like Nunavut.
"Actually close to Greenland, sea level rise is negative,or sea level is dropping, in part because the gravitational field is weakening so quickly that the water in the ocean is migrating to more gravitationally massive places on Earth."
Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around one centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level rise.
"Iqaluit will not be flooded out by rising sea level but to have the harbour in Iqaluit, which is already really shallow, get shallower at one centimetre per year going forward, that can also be a very damaging sequence of sea level change," he said.
The melting of Greenland ice also produces more icebergs which are being discharged from the glaciers on land.
"There's actually more icebergs now being spat out into Baffin Bay and floating around as potential navigation hazards than there were 50 or even 10 years ago," said Colgan.

Links

• Melting glaciers, rising sea level slow down Earth's rotation
• New rivers forming on melting Greenland ice sheet could boost sea level rise

Global Warming: Uneven Changes Across Planet

The Guardian - Kate Ravilious

With greater melting of the sea ice, polar bears (above, off northern Alaska in 2007) find hunting for prey hard. Photograph: Dan Crosbie/PA

Less than 2C of global warming for the Earth, the target agreed by leaders at the COP21 climate conference in Paris last November, doesn't really sound too ambitious. In fact, many of us would welcome an extra couple of degrees warmth. So what is all the fuss about?
Unfortunately the warming would not occur evenly around the world. A study published recently in Nature shows what 2C of warming – a rise, of this level, above the pre-industrial global mean surface temperature – might really feel like and which regions may be hit hardest.
Some of the regional hot spots cited are the Mediterranean countries, Brazil and the US, where 2C of global warming could translate into local temperature increases of more than 3C. But the region expected to suffer most is the Arctic, where night-time temperatures are predicted to soar by 6C. "Some countries are much more exposed than others," says Rob Wilby, from Loughborough University.
The Earth has already warmed by an average of 1C, and the uneven nature of this warming is becoming clear with Arctic regions already beyond the 2C mark. Meanwhile, climate models suggest that the Mediterranean could pass the 2C level once global temperatures have risen by 1.4C.
Oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, warm much more slowly than land and are partly responsible for the uneven pattern of warming. Local factors, like loss of heat-reflecting snow in the Arctic, make a difference, too.
And it isn't just temperature: changes in rainfall are also expected to be unequally distributed, with most land areas getting more of a dousing, according to the researchers. "Recent flooding episodes in the UK give us an insight into just how vulnerable we are," says Wilby.

Links

• Record high Arctic temperatures in 2015 having 'profound effects' on region
• Sea-level rise 'could last twice as long as human history'
• Polar bears face starvation as unlikely to adapt to a land-based diet, says report

The Gutting Of CSIRO Climate Change Research Is A Big Mistake

The Guardian - John Abraham

To be able to adapt to climate change, we need scientists to project how the climate will change

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull arrives to announce his Innovation Statement at the Discovery Centre at the CSIRO in Canberra on Monday, Dec. 7, 2015. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Last week, surprise news shocked the world's scientific community. One of the most prestigious and productive scientific organizations is slashing hundreds of jobs, many related to climate change research. The organization, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO for short) is simply put, one of the best in the world. It rivals well-known groups like NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Centre for its contributions to climate science.
What does CSIRO do that is so special? Many things. For instance, they are world leaders in measuring what is happening to the planet. Their research includes ocean-going vessels and other instrumentation that measure the chemistry and temperature of the ocean; they help track where human-emitted carbon dioxide is going, how heat is building up in the oceans, and what is happening with the general health of the ocean biosystem.
CSIRO is also a modeling superpower. Their climate models form the backbone of our understanding of what changes have happened and what changes will happen because of human greenhouse gases.
But they also have deepened our knowledge about extreme weather. They've provided insights regarding how droughts, heat waves, and floods will change in the future.
All of these contributions are important not only for the understanding that they provide but also because this knowledge helps us plan for the future. If you want to know what we can do to mitigate or adapt to climate change, you need this information.
But according to CSIRO chief executive, Larry Marshall, CSIRO should shift focus. Here is the key statement he made last week:

Our climate models are among the best in the world and our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change. That question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it, and how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with?

Are you kidding me? What kind of backward logic is this? From the reports I've read, something like 350 positions will be cut from CSIRO with the heaviest cuts (over 100) coming from the climate research groups. How can you predict how to adapt if you don't know what you are going to adapt to? This doesn't make sense.
Sure, I have colleagues at CSIRO (who I also consider friends). Sure I don't want them to lose their jobs. But, the real reason this foolish move upsets me is that it forces decision-makers to fly with blinders on as they make decisions for our future. How fast will the planet warm? What will the impacts be? How will it change weather patterns? How will those weather patterns affect the Earth's biological systems? All of these questions and more will be harder to answer after these cuts.
Australia is a small country (by population). Yet, it has punched far above its weight class in research. To think that this treasure of a research organization will be gutted is just shocking.
This story has gotten a lot of press in Australia such as here and here. It is also covered in international venues such as here and petitions such as here and here. Let's hope this move is reversed before it is too late.

Links

• Row over climate science cuts 'more like religion than science' says CSIRO chief
• CSIRO climate cuts will cost Australia dear, world scientists warn government
• Senior CSIRO scientist derides chief executive's claim climate change is 'answered'
• Australia's chief scientist says he was not warned about CSIRO
• CSIRO chief defends climate research cuts as staff weigh up
• CSIRO chief compares climate change cuts backlash to oil lobby

Australian Super Funds Lose $5.6 Billion On Fossil Fuel Investments

Renew Economy - Julien Vincent

Having analysed the returns of fifteen of Australia’s largest superannuation fund options over the past two years, Market Forces estimates that those options have collectively lost over $5.6 billion on their fossil fuel investments over that time.
Our new report Burned details this analysis, and highlights the urgent environmental and moral need for super funds to divest their coal, oil and gas holdings. Click here to read the full report and download a copy.
Fossil fuels are causing massive environmental damage and driving climate change, and Australians are concerned about prospect of financially supporting the dirty coal, oil and gas industries. Despite this, the vast majority of Australian super funds remain invested in fossil fuels.
To make it as easy as possible for super fund members ensure that their money is aligned with their values, we have recently upgraded our Super Switch website. Super Switch allows users to examine their super funds’ exposure to fossil fuels, and take action to get their retirement saving out of coal, oil and gas.

Many Australian super funds have recognised spoken publicly about climate change and the risks it poses to fossil-fuel related assets. In the wider financial world, there has been a growing body of opinion to suggest that fossil fuel assets are in danger of being left stranded as the world moves to limit global warming.
Now, there is some hint that these dire warnings are being realised, as coal, oil and gas company stocks have underperformed the world index over the past two years – check out the graph, which compares the performance of coal, oil and gas company stocks to the world index throughout 2014 and 2015.
Due to their investments in these companies since January 2014, the fifteen super options we analysed lost an average of $1,109 per member. See the table below for more detailed analysis of each of the fifteen funds’ losses.

The Paris climate summit in December 2015 underscored the desperate need for global action on climate change. To have any hope of meeting the internationally agreed target of less than two degrees of temperature rise, we cannot continue to invest in companies that would expand or prolong the fossil fuel industry.
We need super funds to fully disclose their current fossil fuel holdings so that they can be held accountable for their investment decisions. We also need them to immediately divest from pure play fossil fuel companies and engage with diversified companies to encourage a swift exit from the fossil fuel sector.
Super fund members can use our new and improved Super Switch website to examine their exposure to the coal, oil and gas industries and take action to get their retirement savings out of fossil fuels.

Links

• The argument for divesting from fossil fuels is becoming overwhelming | Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian
• Carbon Capture: Has climate change made it harder for people to care about conservation? | Jonathan Franzen, New Yorker
• Is Jonathan Franzen really asking us to shrug off the destruction of our world? | Robert Manne, The Guardian
• Fossil industry faces a perfect political and technological storm | Telegraph.co.uk
• Fossil fuel industry must 'implode' to avoid climate disaster, says top scientist | The Guardian

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions

New York Times -  Adam Liptak & Coral Davenport

Steam rises from the stakes of the coal-fired Jim Bridger Power Plant outside Point of the Rocks, Wyo., in 2014. Credit Jim Urquhart/Reuters

WASHINGTON — In a major setback for President Obama’s climate change agenda, the Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups.

But the high court’s willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices.

The 5-to-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal members dissenting, was unprecedented — the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before its legal fate had been decided.
“It’s a stunning development,” Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former environmental legal counsel to the Obama administration, said in an email. She added that “the order certainly indicates a high degree of initial judicial skepticism from five justices on the court,” and that the ruling would raise serious questions from nations that signed on to the landmark Paris climate change pact in December.
In negotiating that deal, which requires every country to enact policies to lower emissions, Mr. Obama pointed to the power plant rule as evidence that the United States would take ambitious action, and that other countries should follow.

Opponents of Mr. Obama’s climate policy called the court’s action historic.

“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” said Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia, which has led the 29-state legal challenge.

“There’s a lot of people who are celebrating,” said Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer with Bracewell & Giuliani, a firm representing energy companies, which are party to the lawsuit. “It sends a pretty strong signal that ultimately it’s pretty likely to be invalidated.”

The challenged regulation, which was issued last summer by the Environmental Protection Agency, requires states to make major cuts to greenhouse gas pollution created by electric power plants, the nation’s largest source of such emissions. The plan could transform the nation’s electricity system, cutting emissions from existing power plants by a third by 2030, from a 2005 baseline, by closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired plants and increasing production of wind and solar power.

“Climate change is the most significant environmental challenge of our day, and it is already affecting national public health, welfare and the environment,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. wrote in a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject a request for a stay while the case moves forward.

The regulation calls for states to submit plans to comply with the regulation by September, though they may seek a two-year extension. The first deadline for power plants to reduce their emissions is in 2022, with full compliance not required until 2030.

The states challenging the regulation, led mostly by Republicans and many with economies that rely on coal mining or coal-fired power, sued to stop what they called “the most far-reaching and burdensome rule the E.P.A. has ever forced onto the states.”

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January unanimously refused to grant a stay.

The court did expedite the case and will hear arguments on June 2, which is fast by the standards of complex litigation.

The states urged the Supreme Court to take immediate action to block what they called a “power grab” under which “the federal environmental regulator seeks to reorganize the energy grids in nearly every state in the nation.” Though the first emission reduction obligations do not take effect until 2022, the states said they had already started to spend money and shift resources to get ready.

Eighteen states, mostly led by Democrats, opposed the request for a stay, saying they were “continuing to experience climate-change harms firsthand — including increased flooding, more severe storms, wildfires and droughts.” Those harms are “lasting and irreversible,” they said, and “any stay that results in further delay in emissions reductions would compound the harms that climate change is already causing.”

In a second filing seeking a stay, coal companies and trade associations represented by Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said the court should act to stop a “targeted attack on the coal industry” that will “artificially eliminate buyers of coal, forcing the coal industry to curtail production, idle operations, lay off workers and close mines.”

The E.P.A., represented by Mr. Verrilli, called the requests for a stay “extraordinary and unprecedented.” The states challenging the administration’s plan, he said, could point to no case in which the Supreme Court had “granted a stay of a generally applicable regulation pending initial judicial review in the court of appeals.” In a later brief, the states conceded that point.

Mr. Verrilli said judicial review of the plan, including by the Supreme Court, will be complete before the first deadline for emissions reductions in 2022.

“There is no reason to suppose that states’ duties under the rule will be especially onerous,” Mr. Verrilli wrote. “A state can elect not to prepare a plan at all, but instead may allow E.P.A. to develop and implement a federal plan for sources in that state.”

The two sides differed about whether current declines in coal mining and coal-fired power generation are attributable to the administration’s plan. “Some of the nation’s largest coal companies have declared bankruptcy, due in no small part to the rule,” a group of utilities told the justices.

Mr. Tribe added that the plan “will cause the closure of 53 coal-fired plants in 2016 and another three in 2018.”

A coalition of environmental groups and companies that produce and rely on wind and solar power said other factors were to blame for coal’s decline.

“These changes include the abundant supply of relatively inexpensive natural gas, the increasing cost-competitiveness of electricity from renewable generation sources such as solar and wind power, the deployment of low-cost energy efficiency and other demand-side measures, and increasing consumer demand for advanced energy, as well as the rising costs of coal production and the high costs of maintaining very old coal-fired plants,” they wrote.

Links

• Court Rejects a Bid to Block Coal Plant Regulations JAN. 21, 2016
• In Climate Move, Obama Halts New Coal Mining Leases on Public Lands JAN. 14, 2016
• U.S. Pledges to Ease Pain of Closing Coal Mines in Shift to Cleaner Energy JAN. 15, 2016