The Wall Street Journal reports the President will continue his push on climate action in his State Of The Union address next week.

The GOP-dominated House in particular is against passing any policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But even without Congress’s cooperation, the Executive Branch has a wide array of regulatory tools at its disposal to tackle the problem, particularly the Clean Air Act.

The President surprised almost everyone by devoting so much of his second inaugural address to climate, framing the issue in moral terms, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” This raised expectations for the SOTU address.

Now the Wall Street Journal reports:

President Barack Obama in next week’s State of the Union speech will lay out a renewed effort to combat climate change that is expected to include using his authority to curb emissions from existing power plants, people who have talked to the administration about its plans said.

The Environmental Protection Agency has already proposed rules, set to be finalized this spring, to limit carbon pollution emitted from new power plants to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity. This would make the construction of new coal-fired power plants effectively impossible.

Mr. Obama is likely to signal he wants to move beyond proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules on emissions from new power plants and tackle existing coal-fired plants, people familiar with the administration’s plans said….

“You will ultimately see a proposal from EPA to regulate existing power plants,” one person familiar with the matter said. “How he talks about it in the State of the Union could be anything from, ‘We’ve taken important steps and we need to take more,’ to ‘We need to make more [progress] and the next one on the chopping block is existing sources’” of carbon emissions.

No final decisions about what the president will propose next Tuesday appear to have been made.

President Obama has already committed to reducing carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and the Energy Information Administration recently concluded we’re already at 9 percent below today. But further aggressive steps will be needed to prevent losing those gains and to close the rest of the gap.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA would be required to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act if it found that those emissions endangered public health and the environment. The agency came to that exact conclusion in 2009 — indeed, they did so in 2008 under President Bush, but he blocked making the endangerment finding.

EPA scientists noted that the climate change associated with carbon emissions will, for instance, increase the dangers posed by extreme weather, such as drought and floods, will worsen air pollution, and will boost the frequency, intensity, and duration of heat waves, with all the attendant threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

That in turn led to the EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon pollution from new power plants, and during the comment period for the proposal the agency received more than 3 million comments in favor of reducing carbon pollution from both new and existing power plants — a record for an EPA rule proposal. But up until now, the EPA hasn’t moved to reduce emissions from power plants already in operation.

Other steps the Executive Branch could take unilaterally to protect the environment and public health include adopting the “Tier 3″ standard the EPA is working on to further reduce smog, using public lands and waters to promote clean energy projects, establishing more stringent renewable energy standards for utilities, and nixing the Keystone XL pipeline.

According to a former administration official who spoke with the Wall Street Journal, the President has been “pushing the team to get very specific about how to achieve the goals he set on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.” Obama will deliver the State of the Union speech next Tuesday, February 12.

By Adam James

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners recently held a session titled “Getting It Right: Gas, coal, and the Future Generation Resources Mix.” In an embarrassingly one-sided panel discussion featuring David Carroll, President and CEO of the Gas Technology Institute and Mark McCollough, Executive Vice-President of Generation at American Electric Power, the verdict came in:

The future of the American generation mix should (prominently) feature natural gas and coal.

Put a pin in that for a second, and you may also be interested to note that the word “climate” did not come up once in the entire session.

Why is one of the most powerful groups of energy regulators in the United States having a conversation about the future of energy in American that doesn’t include consideration of climate change? This is by no means an unintelligent group. They are used to optimizing for economic and environmental concerns. They have a wide range of legal and regulatory experience, and access to the best scientific data available. They should be a high priority target for local environmental activists for education and influence. And yet….

In the generation game, it is a simple fact that if you don’t mention climate, renewables are just another special interest. Although they are rapidly reaching cost competitiveness (in fact, they are competing on an even footing in some markets), renewables have one crucial selling point: They are zero-carbon, and as a result, do not contribute to climate change.

Regulators will play a massive role in shaping the conditions under which new generation projects get built — and as two panelists emphatically noted, the risks associated with investing billions of dollars in projects that span 30 or more years are huge. They called for certainty about the policies that would govern these future projects. Regulators have a responsibility to get educated about the science of climate change, and create the appropriate disincentives for high-carbon generation. In other words, if costs really are going to be the bottom line, regulators should begin by translating the “externalities” from high carbon generation, that means gas and coal, into the cost analysis and decision making process around approving new plants. If climate change is never mentioned, though, and you write off the costs of pollution and climate change as non-factors, fossil fuels will continue to win the day.

Read more

News outlets reported this morning that President Obama will name Sally Jewell, CEO of the outdoor company REI, as his next Secretary of the Interior.  As the Washington Post wrote, Jewell:

…has earned national recognition for her management skills and support for outdoor recreation and habitat conservation.  In 2011 Jewell introduced Obama at the White House conference on “America’s Great Outdoor Initiative,” noting that the…outdoor-recreation industry supports 6.5 million jobs.

The Department of the Interior is the agency responsible for the management of 700 million acres of public lands onshore, in addition to nearly a billion acres offshore.  It oversees areas important to American culture and history, like national parks and national seashores, in addition to a significant amount of fossil and renewable energy development like solar energy and offshore wind.

Jewell, if confirmed by the Senate, embodies the true meaning of conservation in the 21^st century.  At the helm of a $2 billion dollar company, she understands the economic value of conservation that requires it to be on equal ground with energy development on public lands.  This type of leadership is particularly important in a time of changing climate.

But a steady chorus is growing to encourage a better balance between energy development and conservation when it comes to public lands and
waters.  In fact, just yesterday, former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt called on the current administration to permanently protected one acre for every one leased for oil and gas development.  He noted that:

So far under President Obama, industry has been winning the race as it obtains more and more land for oil and gas. Over the past four years, the industry has leased more than 6 million acres, compared with only 2.6 million acres permanently protected.  This lopsided public land administration in favor of the oil and gas industry cannot continue.

There are a number of important and controversial decisions regarding public lands and waters that are upcoming.  But the nomination of Sally Jewell seems to indicate a recognition that other uses of public lands and waters like scenery, conservation, clean air and water, and their role in adaptation to climate change are just as important—especially economically—as energy development.

Columbia Journalism Review published the sorry statistics:

Thank goodness an understanding of science is not more important in people’s lives today than it was in 1989.

Actually, the situation is even worse than those numbers indicate. They are really for daily newspapers in the U.S. that run weekly science and health sections.

As a 2006 Shorenstein Center analysis cited by CJR points out, of the remaining science sections in 2005:

… more than two-thirds focus primarily on health in their titles, up from about 50 percent in 1992. In comparison, the sections that self-identify as “science” dropped from 30 percent in 1992 to 12 percent in 2004. The rest—18 percent today versus 21 percent in 1992—were listed as a combination of “health” and “science.”

The Washington Post is a classic example. This is the section they run every Tuesday.

And a quick look at the paper or their web page makes clear that the word “health” is first for a reason — the overwhelming majority of stories are health related and not aimed at  educating the public about science in general.

If only the media had a clue that the story of the century is also about the greatest threat to human health (see, for instance, this 2009 post, The Lancet’s landmark Health Commission: “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”).

Related Posts:

• With science journalism “basically going out of existence,” how should climate scientists deal with well-funded, anti-science disinformation campaign?
• Silence Of The Lambs 3: Media Coverage Of Climate Mixed In 2012, But Still Down Sharply From 2009

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a much-speculated presidential contender, has been hailed as the future of the Republican Party. But at a BuzzFeed event on Tuesday night, Rubio showed no signs that the new GOP is any different from the old. In fact, Rubio sounded exactly like Mitt Romney when he discussed the scientific consensus on climate change.

Rubio said he has “seen reasonable debate” over whether humans are causing climate change:

MARCO RUBIO: Anything that we would do on [climate change] would have a real impact on our economy, but probably, if it was only us doing it, a very negligible impact on the environment….

The U.S. is a country, not a planet. On the other hand if we unilaterally impose these things on the economy it will have a devastating impact. There has to be a cost benefit analysis to everyone of these principles people are pushing on. The benefit is difficult to justify when it’s only us doing it, no one else is doing it.

BEN SMITH: Do you see global warming as a threat to Florida?

RUBIO: The climate is always changing, that’s not the question. The question is if man made activity is what’s contributing the most to it. I know people said there’s a significant scientific consensus on that issue, but I’ve actually seen reasonable debate on that principle.

Romney made similar remarks on the campaign trail, when he said “we don’t know what’s causing climate change.”

However, Rubio gets the math wrong on the costs of climate change, especially in a state as vulnerable as Florida: One study shows that worsening extreme weather would cause Florida to lose up to $345 billion by the end of the 21st century from tourism losses, hurricane damages, real estate losses, and increased costs of electricity generation. By comparison, climate action imposes little cost.

So far, Republican attempts to “rebrand” the GOP show a party repackaging old policies in name only. Rubio’s recent record includes dabbling in creationism, voting against the Violence Against Women Act, and a poor attempt to moderate his anti-LGBT record.

Oil company executives, from left, ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron Chairman and CEO John Watson, ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva, Shell Oil President Marvin Odum, and BP America chairman and president Lamar McKay testify on Capitol Hill in Washington.

By Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman

Time magazine reported in December that “2012 will go down as most expensive year ever for gas.” The Energy Information Administration determined that gasoline averaged $3.63 per gallon — a dime per gallon more than the previous record set in 2011. The Energy Information Administration reported that high gasoline prices were due to high crude oil prices — “with crude oil accounting for 66 percent of the retail cost of gasoline.”

Not surprisingly, higher gasoline prices took a bigger bite out of families’ budgets in 2012. According to data recently released by the Energy Information Administration:

Gasoline expenditures in 2012 for the average U.S. household reached $2,912, or just under 4 percent of income before taxes. … this was the highest estimated percentage of household income spent on gasoline in the last decade, with the exception of 2008, when the average household spent a similar amount. Although overall gasoline consumption has decreased in recent years, a rise in average gasoline prices has led to higher overall household gasoline expenditures.

Where does all of this money go? Into the pockets of Big Oil, of course. While higher gasoline prices caused families pain at the pump, they were a boon to the world’s five largest oil companies. BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell made a combined $118 billion in profits in 2012, or an average of almost $500 in profit for every one of the nearly 250 million passenger vehicles on the road in the United States. This huge 2012 haul follows the big five oil companies’ record profit of $137 billion in 2011.

Below we dig a little deeper into the big five’s latest earnings — including how they spent them — and explain why companies this profitable should not be receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks, especially when conservatives plan severe cuts in vital middle-class programs, including Medicare, education, and cancer research.

Read more

A new report from the World Resources Institute has concluded that while the U.S. is not currently on track to meet its international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020, the Obama Administration has the tools to reach that target. [WRI]

• Without new action by the U.S. Administration, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will increase over time. The United States will fail to make the deep emissions reductions needed in coming decades, and will not meet its international commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
• The U.S. EPA should immediately pursue “go-getter” emissions reductions from power plants and natural gas systems using its authority under the Clean Air Act. These two sectors represent two of the top opportunities for substantial GHG reductions between now and 2035.
• The U.S. Administration should pursue hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reductions through both the Montreal Protocol process and under its independent Clean Air Act authority. Eliminating HFCs represents the biggest opportunity for GHG emissions reductions behind power plants.
• U.S. states should complement federal actions to reduce emissions through state energy efficiency, renewables, transportation, and other actions. States can augment federal reductions.
• New federal legislation will eventually be needed, because even go-getter action by federal and state governments will probably fail to achieve the more than 80 percent GHG emissions reductions necessary to fend off the most deleterious impacts of climate change.

A White House official has confirmed that President Barack Obama will today nominate Sally Jewell, president and CEO of the outdoor and recreational retailer REI, to be the next Secretary of the Interior. [Politico]

Greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants fell 4.6 percent in 2011 from the previous year as plants burned less coal, according to a new report by the Environmental Protection Agency. [HuffPo]

BP has deemed the $34 billion in claims by states and local governments for economic and property damages from the Macondo oil spill to be “substantially” overstated. [Reuters]

The Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington State “has not been a well-planned, well-managed or well-executed major capital construction project.” [NYTimes]

Data from freight railroad operators showed a major decline in the amount of coal transported by train in the U.S. in 2012. Most of the coal burned by U.S. power plants is shipped via rail, so the drop clearly reflects broader market trends. [Climate Central]

A new multimedia show and exhibit in the Compton-Goethals Art Gallery at The City College of New York is dedicated to educating the public about climate change and data. [Climate Central]

A study from the Department of Agriculture just concluded that rising temperatures could cost farmers millions as they battle new pests, faster weed growth, and endure smaller yields as climate change continues. [USA Today]