What Will Happen If The U.S. Withdraws From The Paris Climate Agreement

Fast Company - Adele Peters

Trump's EPA transition leader says the administration will soon move to leave the groundbreaking climate agreement. How will that work, and what will it mean for clean energy in America, and the fate of the world?

Photo: Jesse Gardner via Unsplash

After reviving the Keystone XL Pipeline, pushing for the Dakota Access Pipeline, and temporarily banning refugees from entering the U.S., Trump may soon move on to one of his next campaign promises: pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.
Myron Ebell, who led the transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency, predicts that Trump will withdraw from the deal, and might do it within days.

Photo: Jordan Donaldson via Unsplash

To be clear, Ebell is not currently part of the administration, so his prediction is that of an outsider. When Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, was asked about the Paris deal in his confirmation hearings, he said that the U.S. would be "better served by being at that table than leaving that table.

"They could potentially do something even faster just by ignoring rules and stopping to participate."

During the campaign, Trump promised to "cancel" the Paris agreement. After the election, he claimed that he would keep an "open mind" about climate change. Given that he's surrounded himself with climate deniers who want nothing more than to gut the deal, his campaign promises seem more likely than his post-election nod at thoughtful restraint.
The landmark agreement saw 190 countries make pledges to stabilize emissions to limit climate change. The U.S. pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
It's not simple to withdraw—the U.S. already ratified the agreement, so it would have to wait three years before announcing a withdrawal, and then it would take another year before the process was finished. But the agreement falls under an earlier 1992 treaty—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—and if the U.S. withdrew from that instead, it would only take a year. And all that assumes that the administration cares about laws.
"They could potentially do something even faster just by ignoring rules and stopping to participate," says Andrew Light, a distinguished senior fellow in the climate program at the World Resources Institute, who was also part of the climate team in the State Department leading up to the agreement.
If the U.S. withdraws from the Paris agreement, or simply doesn't make an effort to meet its pledged (but voluntary) targets, that will have several consequences beyond those on the climate itself—including impacts on the economy and security.
By 2030, renewable energy is estimated to be a $6 trillion market. Without the federal government behind it, U.S. companies may fall behind the rest of the world.
"I think if the U.S. withdrew, then it would probably make it much harder for [U.S. renewable energy companies] to sell their products around the world, because they've got competition," says Light.

"We're effectively taking ourselves out of the clean energy economy."

China is investing $360 billion in renewable energy over the next few years, which will create 13 million new jobs. Other countries may decide to penalize the U.S. if it fails on the Paris agreement. "They could do that by lowering tariffs, for example, from other countries that would be trying to sell clean energy technologies," he says.
Beyond the Paris agreement, the government also plays a big role in helping the renewable energy sector succeed in selling to the rest of the world and creating more U.S. jobs, though instruments like the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Without that investment, "we're effectively taking ourselves out of the clean energy economy," Light says.
Before the inauguration, 530 companies and 100 investors wrote an open letter to the new administration asking for support of low-carbon policies, investment in the low-carbon economy, and continued participation in the Paris agreement.

"I think if the U.S. completely pulls away from this, we're going to see a diplomatic blowback. It's going to be significant."

"Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk," they wrote. "But the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness."
Withdrawing from the Paris agreement would also affect the U.S. relationship with other countries. "To create the first climate agreement we were really pushing lots of leaders to really get on board and get this thing done," says Light. "I think if the U.S. completely pulls away from this, we're going to see a diplomatic blowback. It's going to be significant, and it will impact a lot of areas that this administration will care about a lot more than climate change, especially on trade and national security issues."
In the longer term, failing to reduce emissions now will lead to spending trillions of dollars dealing with the damage caused by climate change. It will also lead to greater security threats as climate impacts create new political instability.
All hope is not lost: Even if the federal government rejects the Paris agreement, cities, states, and businesses can potentially make enough progress to come close to the Paris target of 26% to 28% reductions. By 2050, the longer-term goal of the U.S. was to reduce emissions 80%, in line with some recommendations to avoid catastrophic climate change.
"I think there's a good chance that between what states and cities are doing, and what businesses are doing, that we can hit somewhere maybe on the lower end of that range by 2025," says Light. "But unless we have an administration that continues ambitious action starting in 2020, I think it's going to be really difficult for us to get back on track so that we hit any lower by 2030."

Links

• The Paris Climate Deal Is A Good Start—But Probably Not Good Enough
• U.S. will change course on climate policy, says former EPA transition head
• How A Trump Presidency Would Ruin The Long-Term Future
• What Did Confirmation Hearings Tell Us About Trump’s Priorities on Climate Change?
• Federal Investment Is Key to Growth of Clean Energy Industry
• New G7 Report Highlights Climate Change and Fragility as a Foreign Policy Priority

State Renewable Energy Targets 'Will Be Vital To Meet Emissions Goals'

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

RETs are the only policy tool left to shift Australia’s electricity sector away from fossil fuels, RepuTex modelling shows

Under current policies, state RETs will become essential to Australia’s carbon reduction efforts, a report has found. Photograph: Steven David Miller/Getty Images/Nature Picture Library

State-based renewable energy targets are becoming essential drivers of Australia’s carbon reduction framework and, based on current policy settings, will be vital for Australia to meet its 2030 emissions targets, according to a report by the energy consultancy RepuTex.
The finding comes amid attacks on state-based renewable energy targets by the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and his ministers, who have called for them to be scrapped.
According to modelling by RepuTex, since the federal government has excluded the electricity sector from the so-called “safeguard mechanism” and ruled out any sort of carbon trading, state and federal RETs are the only policy tool left to shift the sector away from fossil fuels.
The government has released projections showing that under current policies emissions would continue to rise to 2020 and 2030, leaving no chance for Australia to meet its 2030 targets.

Renewable energy targets in the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria would have an effect equivalent to that of raising the federal RET to 35% by 2030, from its current target of 23% by 2020, the RepuTex report found.
Combined state and federal RETs would amount to fulfilling 20% of Australia’s 2030 abatement task, it said.
“In the absence of a federal policy framework, state actions are likely to drive large-scale emissions reductions,” said RepuTex’s executive director, Hugh Grossman. “We would therefore see the states as the dominant driver of the national energy and climate debate.”
Grossman said the reliance on renewable energy targets to achieve the transformation was far from ideal, since it didn’t provide certainty to the market and wouldn’t put downward pressure on prices. “We consider not implementing an emissions intensity scheme a policy failure,” he said.
Next week Turnbull is expected to outline new vehicle emissions standards which, using a best-case-scenario, Reputex estimated could account for 7% of the government’s abatement task by 2030.
Assuming the government doubles its nearly empty emissions reduction fund, and accounting for expected reductions from synthetic greenhouse gases, RepuTex found the government would have left more than 40% of its abatement task unaddressed.
“With an EIS off the table, and no extension of the RET, the government has a limited number of policy levers to meet its 2030 target,” Grossman said.
As a result, a tightening of the last remaining lever, the “safeguard mechanism”, would be needed, the report said. The safeguard mechanism sets emissions caps – or “baselines” – for polluting industries, with the exception of the power sector.
RepuTex found that to fill the abatement gap, the government would need to reduce the baselines by between 1% and 3% each year.
Grossman described meeting those tightened baselines as a “modest task for industry”. “This reinforces the zero-sum nature of Australian climate policy – the exclusion of one policy lever is fine – but losses will need to be balanced elsewhere in the economy,” he said.

Links

• ERM Power criticised for choosing $123m fine over renewable energy certificates
• 'No plans' to cut renewable energy target, Josh Frydenberg says
• Barnaby Joyce won't rule out dumping Renewable Energy Target
• Emissions trading backflip a recipe for price rises, say business groups
• Australia's energy transmission industry calls for carbon trading
• Australian unions call for 'just transition' from coal-generated electricity
• Renewable energy: get your story straight, ACT tells Coalition
• Letter signed by 154 Australian experts demands climate policy match the science

Coal Could Get Clean-Energy Subsidy Under New Turnbull Focus

Fairfax - Mark Kenny

Malcolm Turnbull has opened the possibility of using clean-energy subsidies to build new-generation, coal-fired power stations as he branded Labor's heavy focus on renewables "mindless", and a recipe for more expensive, less reliable electricity.
Flagging a policy switch sure to provoke anger from anti-coal environmentalists, but set to please fossil-fuel enthusiasts in the Coalition partyroom, Mr Turnbull said technological advances had made new coal-fired generators viable as a potential foundation in the overall energy mix.

'Clean coal' makes a comeback
New technology means coal will play a role in electricity generation long into the future, says Malcolm Turnbull. Courtesy ABC News 24.

"The next incarnation of our national energy policy should be technology agnostic - it's security and cost that matter most, not how you deliver it," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.
This called for a policy approach that was non-ideological, using "all of the above technologies" - coal, wind, solar, pumped hydro, and improved battery storage.

Malcolm Turnbull has flagged a policy switch that is sure to provoke anger from anti-coal environmentalists. Photo: Brendan Esposito

"Storage (battery) has a big role to play, that's true, but we will need more synchronous baseload power and, as the world's largest coal exporter, we have a vested interest in showing that we can provide both lower emissions and reliable baseload power with state-of-the-art, clean-coal-fired technology," he said.
And in a clear sign that the politics of the change will be packaged in retail terms - ie, what it would mean for ordinary consumers and businesses - he declared: "The battlelines have been drawn - it is clear that the Coalition stands for cheaper energy."
The comments came in a scene-setting speech in which the Prime Minister drew his battlelines of 2017 as the push for lower business taxes, cheaper and more reliable energy, and more affordable childcare funded through the abolition of Family Tax Benefit subsidies.
While he did not repeat Tony Abbott's moral declaration that coal is "good for humanity", he arrived at a similar position from a practical standpoint, observing that Australia was not playing to its natural advantages of plentiful gas, and abundant coal.
"Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, has invested $590 million since 2009 in clean-coal technology research and demonstration, and yet we do not have one modern High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE), coal-fired power station, let alone one with CCS (carbon capture and storage)"," he said.
"Increasing gas supply in Australia is vital for our energy future and vital for industries and jobs, but state bans on onshore gas development will result in more expensive and less reliable energy."
The option of redirecting federal subsidies from exclusively renewable energy projects to encourage investment in new, coal-fired power generators, is among "several ideas" being considered as part of a wide review of policy.
A number of countries, including Japan, currently use either supercritical (SC) and ultra-supercritical (USC) coal-fired generators, which work with black coal and higher temperatures to produce more energy per tonne but with lower emissions than their predecessors.
Under pressures from both political flanks, Mr Turnbull used the speech, his first set-piece political address for the year, to propose a new approach to climate and energy policy in which the metrics are energy affordability, energy security, and the lowest achievable emissions.
Senior ministers are now actively discussing a plan in conjunction with Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel, who is undertaking a review of energy markets.
"He and others and a group of cabinet ministers are working with the Prime Minister now on a set of proposals, to provide, if you like, a more systemic approach to all of this," revealed Industry Minister Arthur Sinodinos, speaking on Sky News.
The policy shift puts the government on a collision course with the opposition and the environmental lobby over climate policy, reviving the carbon tax wars of recent years.
Mr Turnbull also used the podium to slam the Labor states for pursuing unrealistic renewable energy targets while opposing onshore gas exploration, sayingf: "Nothing will more rapidly de-industrialise Australia and deter investment more than more and more expensive, let alone less reliable, energy."
He offered to lead new Commonwealth/state discussions in a bid to see those moratoriums lifted.
Mr Turnbull's speech followed just one day after that of the Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who used his Press Club opportunity to defend Labor's ambitious 2030 target for Australian renewable energy consumption of 50 per cent.
He said the 50 per cent target would generate new jobs for scientists, technicians, and blue-collar workers alike.
The government argues the costs to the economy would be prohibitive, leaving consumers out of pocket, while driving up business costs and risking investment and jobs.
An independent assessment by the Australian Energy Market Regulator put the potential cost of the 50 per cent RET at some $48 billion.
In his speech, Mr Turnbull revealed he had asked the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to work together "on a new funding round for large-scale storage and other flexible capacity projects, including pumped hydro".
If it occurs, the role-change of using the CEFC to subsidise new private investment in coal-fired power, would be a startling variation from the policy pursued by Tony Abbott, who tried unsuccessfully to scrap what he had dubbed as "Bob Brown's bank".

Links

• Coalition's renewable energy target won't last forever, says Turnbull
• Malcolm Turnbull says coal, CSG and renewables vital for energy future
• Barnaby Joyce backs Government funding coal-power stations following Malcolm Turnbull's Press Club address
• Turnbull's coal embrace will leave critics cold

Most Australians Oppose Government's $1bn Adani Loan For Coal Railway Line

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

More than half of Liberal voters also oppose plan to loan Indian company $1bn to build a rail line between proposed Carmichael coalmine and Abbot Point

A protest in Melbourne against the proposed Carmichael coalmine, which scientists say should not go ahead if the Great Barrier Reef is to be protected from the impacts of climate change. Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

Three-quarters of Australians, including most Liberal voters, oppose the government giving a $1bn loan to Adani to build a rail line between its proposed Carmichael coalmine and the Abbot Point shipping terminal.
The government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund (Naif) granted Adani “conditional approval” for a $1bn loan in December last year.
The rail line, if built, would allow Adani to build the country’s biggest coalmine and open up the Galilee Basin to further mines by linking them to an export terminal.
Coral scientists have argued the coal needs to stay in the ground if the Great Barrier Reef is to be protected from the impacts of climate change.
The government has argued there is no definite link between the coal from the Adani mine being burned and climate change, and the resources minister, Matthew Canavan, has said the mine would “be a good thing for the environment”.
But a ReachTel poll of 2,126 people across Australia conducted on 12 January, commissioned by GetUp, found 74.4% of respondents said “no” when asked whether “lending $1bn to an offshore mining company to build a coal rail line is a good use of public money”.
Just 16.2% of respondents thought it was a good use of public money, with 9.5% saying they didn’t know.
The opposition was strong regardless of voting intention, with 53.7% of those who said they would vote Liberal opposing the loan. Just over 80% of “undecided” voters, 85.5% of Labor voters and 89.9% of Greens voters said the loan was a bad use of public money.
A previous survey of people living in the region that would host the mine found two-thirds opposed public money being used to support the mine.
Analysis from Greenpeace has suggested the rail project does not meet the requirements for a loan under the scheme, since it will not be “of public benefit” and it is not clear Adani will be able to repay the loan.
GetUp’s Miriam Lyons said: “A mere 16% of Australians think this is a good way to invest public money. While we see hospitals and schools starved of resources, the government sees fit to hand over a billion bucks to build Adani’s shiny new train.”
Lyons called on Malcolm Turnbull to stop the loan going ahead.
“Prime minister Turnbull’s not even playing for his own team – only 32% of Liberal voters agree with this use of public money,” she said.

Links

• George Christensen backs $1bn federal loan for Adani railway line
• Australia must choose between coal and coral – the Great Barrier Reef depends on it
• Adani's Carmichael coal rail line may not be eligible for government funding
• $1bn for the Adani coalmine? Ordinary Australians understand economics better than Turnbull
• Opposition to public funding for Adani rail link outweighs support, poll finds
• George Christensen backs $1bn federal loan for Adani railway line
• Anti-coal protesters rally in Melbourne against Adani loan proposal – video
• Bob Katter raises funding for Galilee basin railway in talks with Turnbull
• Abbot Point coal terminal expansion given approval by Greg Hunt
• Coal from Carmichael mine 'will create more annual emissions than New York'

Prince Charles May Raise Climate Change During Trump's Visit To Britain

The Guardian - Robert Booth

Some in Whitehall are urging the prince to challenge US president’s pledge to abandon 2015 UN climate change deal

Royal sources say Prince Charles will not lecture the US president but has not ruled out tackling him on the issue of climate change. Photograph: Richard Stonehouse/Getty Images

Donald Trump’s state visit to Britain this year was never likely to fit the mould of previous trips undertaken by his predecessors, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The US president’s rumoured wish to play nine holes on the Queen’s private golf course at Balmoral and the question of how he might explain his 2012 tweet defending the sale of topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge made sure of that.
But the tour is now looking even more likely to generate controversy as Prince Charles emerged as a possible challenger to the president’s views on climate change and faith issues.
The Guardian understands from royal sources that the prince will not lecture Trump in relation to their starkly divergent views of what needs to be done to tackle global warming but has not ruled out addressing the topic. This poses a challenge not just for the president, who has threatened to “cancel” the United Nations climate change deal signed in Paris in 2015 and who has described climate change as “created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”. It is also a conundrum for the British government scrambling to work out how to address Trump’s radical programme and how to make use of a sometimes controversial advocate for climate action.
Charles is being urged by some in Whitehall to use his decades-long experience in environmentalism to challenge Trump’s pledge to abandon the deal, as part of “harmonised” efforts with the UK government to keep the carbon-cutting treaty on track.
But other UK officials are reported to be concerned that the likely meeting between the men has become a “risk factor” for the visit. Another potentially controversial issue that could arise is religion Prince Charles’s history of trying to promote better interfaith relations contrast with Trump’s actions to block travellers from Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
An anonymous source, described as being close to Trump, said this weekend that the president would not put up with being lectured by the prince, according to the Sunday Times. The source warned against the two men meeting at all.
That appears unlikely. Under the normal choreography of a state visit, Charles is likely to have several opportunities to spend time with Trump. Although details of the visit have yet to be finalised, the Prince of Wales would typically welcome Trump where he is staying, possibly the US ambassador’s residence in Regent’s Park, central London. They would then travel together to Horse Guards Parade from where there is normally a formal procession down the Mall to Buckingham Palace for the leader to be greeted by the Queen. That would be followed by a lunch, attended again by Charles.
A state dinner provides another opportunity for interaction and Charles also invites most leaders to afternoon tea at Clarence House. Whether this will happen with Trump is yet to be decided, and is said to depend on how much time is available. Barack Obama did not take tea on his last state visit, but China’s president, Xi Jinping, did.
In parts of Whitehall Charles is now considered to be “an extremely good asset” in helping to maintain the integrity of the UN climate change treaty. He has been “gently primed” to assist diplomatic efforts on the issue, a senior Whitehall source said and there is “a sympathetic hearing” between Clarence House and the government on climate change, with Charles’s views considered “absolutely in line with government policy”.
“It has taken a lot of work by some of us to get him into that place, but what he is doing now is extremely helpful to us,” the source said.
Last week, while Trump issued executive orders to revive oil pipeline projects and told carmakers that environmental regulation was “out of control”, Charles stepped up his own warnings on the environment. In a foreword to a Ladybird book on climate change published on Thursday and co-written by the prince, he described climate change as “the wolf at the door” and said action “must be urgently scaled up and scaled up now”.
One royal aide said Charles “would find a meeting [with Trump] on this subject [climate change] extremely useful” but also made clear that while the agenda might or might not include climate change, the mode of delivery would not be confrontational or hectoring.
“If anything, he is a helpful and honest broker on so many issues,” said one source. The source explained that Charles is usually in listening mode for the first 30 minutes of meetings with heads of state and only towards the end would consider offering thoughts about how problems that had been raised might be addressed.
Another source close to the prince said it would be difficult for him to be very direct with Trump. “He has to retain political neutrality, which is why he is always walking something of a tightrope on this subject,” the source said.
However, the same source added: “It is fair to say he considers the world to be in great peril because of climate change, system degradation and resource depletion and he feels it is necessary for him to use his position to say something about that.”
Some in Whitehall hope that far from causing Trump to “erupt”, as one anonymous US source suggested at the weekend, the US president may in fact be more engaged by Charles expressing views about the need for urgent action on climate change than a politician, in part because of Trump’s admiration of wealth and British royalty.
Trump reportedly told Theresa May in November that his Scottish mother, Mary MacLeod, was “a big fan of the Queen”.
“Trump is the sort of person who loves the panoply surrounding wealth and royalty,” said a senior government source. “He loves reflecting the glory of the royal family. He is pressing for a state visit so he can go and have a meal in Buckingham Palace and he wants to play golf on the Queen’s golf course.”
Environmental campaigners have also backed Charles’s ability to influence the new US president, in part by rallying other countries including Brazil, China and India to stand by the deal, thereby putting indirect pressure on Trump.
“He has an international outreach and he is respected in the US,” said Nick Molho, executive director of the Aldersgate Group, an alliance of businesses, politicians and campaign groups pushing for a sustainable economy. “He has the benefit of being a step removed from everyday politics and I think that is important. It allows him to have more authority and to be a more engaging figure.”
Charles told the 2015 UN climate change conference in Paris: “The moment has arrived to take those long-awaited steps towards rescuing our planet and our fellow man from impending catastrophe.” He has also previously acknowledged the importance of US policy on climate change. In a 2015 speech he told an audience in Washington DC: “America’s impact is profound and it is my, and many others’, fervent hope that you will continue to inspire others both at home and on the global stage.”
In recent years, Charles has focused his campaigning and convening efforts on the fight against climate change. He runs his own international sustainability unit from Clarence House, which describes itself as a trusted forum for “key actors from governments, the private sector and civil society”.

Links

• Donald Trump and Prince Charles 'in diplomacy row over climate change' ahead of President's first UK visit
• Trump's team fears climate change differences with Prince Charles could flare up in state visit
• Donald Trump to avoid Prince Charles during State Visit due to views on climate change
• Prince Charles pens Ladybird book on climate change

Donald Trump To Withdraw From Paris Agreement, 'Change Course' On Climate Change, Says Adviser

Fairfax - Nick Miller

London: The man who wrote the Trump administration's environment action plan says the environmental movement is "the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world" and said the United States was about to change course on climate policy, including withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
Myron Ebell, who led the Environmental Protection Agency transition for the new administration, said he gave the president three pathways for withdrawing from the 2015 Paris agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, at least one of which could be done "right now".

President Donald Trump has pledged to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Photo: Bloomberg

He also said the president had been clear he wanted to abolish the EPA - though it might survive as a channel for pollution clean-up grants to states.
And he hinted at an end to emission standards for US vehicles, through abolishing the EPA's 'endangerment finding', which had given it powers to protect the public from the health threat posed by greenhouse gases.
Mr Ebell worked for Mr Trump's transition team delivering a detailed plan on how the president could deliver on his campaign promises.
Mr Ebell was in London as a guest of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British think tank that promotes climate change scepticism. His role on Trump's transition team ended with the inauguration and he said he never met Mr Trump, but had taken his lead from his campaign promises.
"What the Trump transition did was to try to write departmental or agency plans to fulfil and implement every single one of the promises and commitments that Mr Trump made as a candidate," Mr Ebell said.
"There were a number of very clear, black and white promises. He said he will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, he will defund UN climate programs, at the EPA he will potentially withdraw or repeal all of the Obama administration rules regarding greenhouse gas emissions including the so-called Clean Power Plan.

Mr Ebell said the US would change course on climate policy. Photo: Reuters

"He will undo president Obama's climate action plan… the United States will clearly change course on climate policy and that's the first piece of good news."
Mr Trump's pick for secretary of state Rex Tillerson told senators at his confirmation hearing in January that the risk of climate change did exist, and the US needed a "seat at the table" in international discussions.

Myron Ebell advised Mr Trump during the transition. Photo: AP

But Mr Ebell said the president had given a clear promise to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and "the president would be odds-on favourite to win any disagreement (with Mr Tillerson) over climate policy".
"I don't think there's any doubt that (Mr Trump) thinks global warming is not a crisis. It does not require drastic and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."
He said there were three ways for the US to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The first was to announce that president Obama's signature was withdrawn from Paris.
Another would be to announce that it was a treaty, not an agreement, and send it to the Senate for ratification "so it will be dead".
The third would be to withdraw from the framework convention itself – the 1992 international agreement to seek a global consensus on climate change mitigation.
"My personal viewpoint is by far the cleanest is to withdraw from the framework convention," Mr Ebell said. "I would say do it right now."
Mr Ebell said Mr Trump's election was a "rejection by the American people of what they are told by the bi-coastal urban elite (and) the chattering classes".
"The people of America have rejected the 'expert-ariat' and I think for good reason."
Though he conceded there was evidence for man-made climate change he did not believe climate science's consensus that it would have dangerous consequences for the planet.
He was dismissive of renewable energy and said Mr Trump would make the US the planet's biggest producer of oil and gas.
He said Mr Trump would end the capture of government by 'special interests'.
"Our special interest is freedom. The enemies of freedom come in many guises and one of the most insidious and dangerous in the modern world is the regulatory regime that we now suffer under.
"A large part of that is due to the environmental movement which in my view is the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world."
Mr Ebell said more than half the EPA's budget already went to state grants for infrastructure and clean-up projects.
"(Mr Trump's) interest is really that the EPA goes back to its core missions … I would expect that in terms of his desire to radically shrink the EPA's bureaucracy you may actually see more money going into state grants."
He said he hoped that the EPA's 'endangerment finding' under the Clean Air Act would be undone, which would lead to the scrapping of greenhouse gas emission rules.

Links

• Trump 'will definitely pull out of Paris climate change deal'
• President Trump Prepares to Withdraw from Groundbreaking Climate Change Agreement
• Trump adviser predicts US will quit Paris climate accord
• Green movement 'greatest threat to freedom', says Trump adviser

3 Things You Need To Know About The Science Rebellion Against Trump

National Geographic -  Laura Parker | Craig Welch

The new president's first moves on science spur a Twitter war and prompt a march.

Ice is melting in much of the Arctic thanks to rising global average temperatures. The new presidential administration is facing heat over its early response. Photograph by Paul Nicklen, National Geographic Creative

The Trump administration was merely minutes old when all references to climate change disappeared from the White House website. Later that day, the National Park Service Twitter account was briefly shutdown because the new president was miffed about a retweet of side-by-side aerial photographs that clearly showed the crowd at former President Obama's 2009 inauguration was larger than the crowd at President Trump's.
Trump was so peeved, he personally ordered acting Park Service director Michael Reynolds in a phone call to come up with additional photographs that would prove the media "had lied in reporting the attendance had been no better than average," the Washington Post reported. Reynolds sent more photos to the White House. But they did not show larger crowds.
So began an unprecedented rebellion inside government agencies that quickly transformed from a duel about presidential popularity into the fate of the government's work on climate change.
By the end of Week One, public affairs officials in agencies where climate scientists work had received directives aimed at silencing them—at least temporarily. The Environmental Protection Agency was ordered, Reuters reported, to take down its climate change page from its website—although that order was shelved in the backlash that followed. Grants and contracts at EPA were also frozen, although there are reports that that edict may also be rescinded.
"Taken together, what we've seen over the first five days is completely unprecedented," says Peter Gleick, a water scientist and co-founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. "I have seen nothing like it in my lifetime and I've been around for a while."


Climate Change 101 With Bill Nye

The Trump administration is hardly the first new executive branch to attempt to influence scientific research that contradicts political party orthodoxy. Under President George W. Bush, Interior Department officials sometimes overruled agency scientists working on endangered species issues. The Obama administration was accused by scientists of underreporting damage from the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and at times required public-relations chaperones when scientists talked to the press.
But the speed and ferocity with which controls on science appeared in the opening days of the Trump administration set off the fury on Twitter and inspired scientists from Maine to California to join a scientists' march on Washington.
More than a dozen "rogue" unofficial Twitter accounts launched to voice resistance to the orders. Some claimed to be tweeting on behalf of unidentified federal scientists at the Park Service, NASA, the U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agriculture and Health and Human Services Departments—although no one knows for sure the identities of the people posting the tweets.
Scientists are not known for waging political protest en masse. But they have become so alarmed by what has played out, they are taking a page from the Women's March in Washington that drew an estimated 470,000 protesters, with protests in at least 80 other countries the day after Trump was sworn into office.
"The situation seems more uncertain than ever," says Bethany Wiggin, a University of Pennsylvania humanities professor who directs the Penn Library Data Refuge and has been leading the effort to collect and preserve federal climate and environmental data.

A former NPS employee tweeted climate change information on an official Badlands National Park Twitter account this week, in defiance of a Trump order. Photograph by Annie Griffiths, National Geographic Creative

"We hear there is a gag order and then there is a claim that the gag order has been revoked, and then it is denied that it was ever made. Everything seems incredibly in flux," Wiggin says. "What seems certain is that we have an anti-science administration and an anti-factual and anti-research administration that does not understand what it needs to do."
David Doniger, director of climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says he's less concerned about the Twitter war than efforts to expunge climate information from government websites.
"The most dramatic thing is the turn from full acceptance of climate science to this calculated waffling from all the Cabinet nominees who testified on the Hill," he says. "They are all saying, 'the climate is changing, we just don't know whether it is human influence or how much. That still amounts to climate denial."
Whether intended or not at the start-up of the Trump administration, the question of how the president handles climate change has now become an urgent question to settle. Doniger says the point isn't that EPA contracts were frozen, it's what happens next: "What will be more telling is how they change what's contracted for and what tasks the agency is going to be allowed to do and not be allowed to do."
Below are three takeaways from the tumultuous first week:

Muzzling Agencies Inspires A Scientists' March On Washington
Doubters of science in general date back to Galileo. Climate scientists have been an outspoken voice for as long as the government has been studying climate science.
But instructions to limit communications to the public that were passed on to public affairs officials at the EPA, Agriculture Department, and, according to the Washington Post, the National Institutes of Health, have fed fears that the Trump administration will attempt to filter climate science through a political lens.
"Attacks on climate change are nothing new," Gleick says. "They have always come from the fringe, peripheral groups and individuals. Now it looks as though marginal groups have control of the steering wheel."
Meanwhile, the march, which began as a suggestion on Facebook, has blossomed into a full-force organisational effort, with a web page and activists working to set it up. A date will be announced possibly next week. The March for Science Twitter account has 288,000 followers.
"This has just developed in the last 48 to 72 hours. It's really snowballing," says Jacquelyn Gill, one of the march organisers and a University of Maine paleoecologist who studies how extinction affects biodiversity. "What prompted this is the idea that climate science in particular will be targeted. It's not about cost-cutting. The entire United States science and medical research budget is less than two percent of the federal budget. This is clearly agenda driven."

Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma's attorney general, appears at a confirmation hearing before Congress as Trump's pick for the head of the EPA. Conservationists have criticised Pruitt's record. Photograph by Gabriella Demczuk, The New York Times, Redux

The Park Service Became The Unlikely Hero Of The 'Rebellion'
The Park Service is one of the least controversial and most popular federal agencies because its primary task is to take care of the nation's parks. But in the wake of the flap about the size of the inauguration crowd, a former Park Service employee at the Badlands National Park in North Dakota defied President Trump—setting off a broader resistance that quickly spread to other federal agencies.
The Badlands former employee, who still had access to the Park Service's official Twitter account, posted tweets about rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. One of three posts said: "Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. #climate."
By the time those posts were deleted on January 24, the Badlands Twitter account had some 60,000 new followers.
Then, a new account was born—AltUSNatParkService—which used the Park Service logo and identified itself as the "Unofficial #Resistance team of U.S. National Park Service." As of Friday morning, it had 1.24 million followers.
There are now more than a dozen alt-agency Twitter accounts, all posting a combination of climate science facts and taunts at Trump. Although these rogue accounts claim to represent agency employees, it is impossible to confirm who set the accounts up and is actively tweeting.
A Park Service employee who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being fired told National Geographic that agency workers are concerned that there will be reprisals from the administration, which has been embarrassed by the public show of resistance to the commander in chief—even though it is impossible to determine if the alt-sites are operated by actual government employees or internet trolls. But, the employee said, one tweet in particular posted on the alt-Park Service account suggests the account may indeed be operated by at least one rebellious Park Service employee because it refers to the White House by its official name, President's Park, because the residence is part of the national park system—a tidbit not widely known outside the Park Service.
"Reports of an unidentified orange haired mammal close to President's Park," the tweet says. "Possibly invasive species. DC animal services have been notified." (Read about the new species of moth named after President Trump.)

A Glimmer Of Hope?
It's still early and missteps are not uncommon as new administrations get up and running. The contract freeze at the EPA may, in the end, turn out to be "a tempest in a teapot," Doniger says. Although signals so far have put the scientific community on red alert, it may be too early to reach any conclusion other than the administration's start-up is in disarray.
Despite less-than-compelling testimony about climate change from both Rex Tillerson and Scott Pruitt, Trump's picks to lead the State Department and EPA, a glimmer of hope shone through that at least one of the newcomers understands what's at stake. Billionaire banker Wilbur Ross, the administration's nominee to head the Commerce Department, outlined his views in a letter to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat whose home state of Florida is one of the most vulnerable places to sea-level rise on Earth.
While Ross, who lives part of the year in Palm Beach County, Florida, echoed his fellow Cabinet colleagues in demurring on the cause of climate change, he agreed to focus on addressing the impacts. "Science should be left to the scientists," Ross said.

Links

• Tiny Moth With Yellow 'Hairdo' Named After Trump
• Why Trump Can't Make Coal Great Again
• The Global Dangers of Trump's Climate Denial