Obama-Era Moratorium on Federal Coal Leasing Axed by Appeals Court
A federal appeals panel has thrown out a moratorium on new coal mine leases on public lands.
The Feb. 21 ruling by a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit overturns an August 2022 decision from Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District of Montana, which reinstated a 2016 Obama administration moratorium.
Initially, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a first-of-its-kind moratorium on all new coal leases on federal land in 2016 under Secretary Sally Jewell. A year later, Secretary Ryan Zinke, who succeeded Ms. Jewell, rescinded the moratorium.
Current DOI Secretary Deb Haaland then revoked Mr. Zinke’s order shortly after taking office in 2021. But according to the appeals court ruling, when Secretary Haaland rescinded Mr. Zinke’s order, it didn’t reinstate the original 2016 moratorium on coal leasing.
Environmental groups continued litigating Mr. Zinke’s order ending the moratorium, which led to the 2022 ruling. At the time, the DOI said it wanted to complete a thorough environmental analysis of the effects of burning coal from public lands before making a decision to formally reinstate the moratorium.
“The district court reasoned that the Haaland Order’s failure to reinstate the coal leasing moratorium from the Jewell Order meant that the Zinke Order still remains in partial effect. That is incorrect,” the appeals court ruling said (pdf).
While appellees may be dissatisfied with the government’s position that the Haaland Order did not revive the Jewell Order’s moratorium, this does not provide a basis for concluding that a challenge to the defunct Zinke Order is live.”
The National Mining Association (NMA), along with the States of Montana and Wyoming, led the successful appeal, and all applauded the judge’s decision. In a media statement, NMA President and CEO Rich Nolan said it was a victory for American energy because energy projects can now move forward.
“This is a victory for American-mined energy and we are pleased with the court’s recognition of the need to dismiss this irreparably flawed ruling,” he said.
Sen. Hawley Touts Ban on Imports of Critical Minerals Mined by Slave and Child Labor
“With this ruling, important projects can once again advance and support the production of affordable, reliable power to the grid, while creating jobs and economic development across the country,” Mr. Nolan added.
********************************************
Chicago’s Legal Battle Against Big Oil
The city of Chicago has filed a lawsuit against five major oil and gas companies, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that these companies have engaged in climate deception by misleading consumers about the dangers of climate change associated with their products. The lawsuit claims that these companies have known about the harmful effects of their products on the climate for decades and have actively concealed this information from the public.
“The climate change impacts that Chicago has faced and will continue to face — including more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events and shoreline erosion — are felt throughout every part of the city and disproportionately in low-income communities,” the city said in its lawsuit.
Supporters of the lawsuit argue that the oil and gas industry has a moral and legal responsibility to address the harm caused by their products and that the lawsuit is an important step in holding these companies accountable for their actions. They link climate change to the burning of fossil fuels and argue that the industry has to inform consumers about the risks associated with their products.
Critics of the lawsuit argue that it is misguided and that the responsibility for addressing climate change should not be placed solely on the shoulders of the oil and gas industry. They point out that these companies have taken steps to reduce their emissions and invest in renewable energy, and that the lawsuit could have unintended consequences, such as increasing the cost of energy for consumers.
The lawsuit claims Chicago faces “more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events and shoreline erosion” due to the actions of these companies. However, available data contradicts this narrative. Weather records show no significant increase in extreme temperatures or precipitation, and flooding projections predict minimal impact for Chicago.
Let’s look at the facts. What does weather.gov say about Official Extreme Weather Records for Chicago, IL?
The highest temperature was in 1934, the warmest month was July 1955, the wettest year was 2008, and the greatest 24-hour precipitation was in 1987.
Surely, there have been more days above 95°F in Chicago, IL recently. Below is a figure from the Fifth National Climate Assessment that shows a decrease of nearly 6 days annually above 95°F in Chicago, IL today relative to 1901-1960.
This figure shows the observed change in the number of (a) hot days (days at or above 95°F) over the period 2002–2021 relative to 1901–1960. Figure credit: Project Drawdown, Washington State University Vancouver, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.
What are the outlooks for Chicago, IL in terms of flooding risk? Below is a figure from Nature Climate Change that suggests an increase of about 0-5% in average annual loss related to flooding by 2050.
In fact, the Fifth National Climate Assessment has predicted a change of only 0-10% in total precipitation on heaviest 1% of days.
In terms of coastal erosion, there has been little change in the water level of Lake Michigan in response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric GHGs.
The observational data is clear, Chicago is not facing any threats from climate change. Not in extreme temps, flooding or coastal erosion. So then why the lawsuit?
This is a clear attempt to recoup money from failed climate-related policies that are costing taxpayers billions. For example, the city of Chicago said it’s spending $188 million on climate projects in low-income communities.
In this audacious quest for climate dollars, it appears that adherence to scientific evidence is an optional extra. The city’s actions raise the question: Is the battle against climate change being co-opted as a convenient facade for financial mismanagement?
Chicago’s lawsuit, rather than being a noble fight for environmental justice, seems more like a high-stakes gamble with taxpayer money, betting against the oil giants in hopes of a lucrative payout. In the end, it’s the citizens who are left asking whether their city’s leadership is fighting for the planet, or merely fighting to cover up its fiscal blunders.
https://principia-scientific.com/chicagos-legal-battle-against-big-oil/
***************************************************Saskatchewan Premier Says Dropping Carbon Tax on Home Heating Helped With Inflation
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says dropping the carbon tax on home heating helped Saskatchewan have the third-lowest inflation rate in the country last month.
In January’s inflation numbers, released Feb. 20, Statistics Canada said the inflation rate for Saskatchewan was 1.9 percent, well below the national average of 2.9 percent.
“In Saskatchewan, the collection of the carbon levy ceased in January 2024, contributing to the province’s year-over-year price decline of natural gas (-26.6%),” StatCan said.
Mr. Moe was quick to point that out on X.
“The Trudeau carbon tax was over a quarter of the cost of natural gas in SK,” Mr. Moe wrote. “If the feds are actually serious about fighting inflation, they would scrap the carbon tax on everyone and everything.”
In a news release, Saskatchewan Crown Investments Minister Dustin Duncan added: “Imagine the significant impact it would have on gas prices, grocery prices and everything else we produce and transport in Canada if the federal government scrapped the carbon tax. Instead, they are fully committed to another carbon tax increase on April 1.”
Saskatchewan stopped collecting carbon tax on home heating after the federal government paused carbon taxes on home heating oil, which is primarily used in the Atlantic provinces, but refused to extend the carve-out to other types of heating fuels. The federal government says that Saskatchewan’s pause is against the law.
According to StatCan, a variety of factors played a role in January’s numbers.
The January Consumer Price Index report points out there was an overall drop in natural gas prices of 16.4 percent across the country, along with an overall drop in gasoline prices of 4 percent.
One prominent economist said while dropping the carbon tax on home heating in Saskatchewan likely had some effect, there are other items that played a bigger role in inflation.
“It’s true, but the impact probably will be relatively small because home heating is only just part of the carbon tax impact. It also affects transportation costs and a whole bunch of other things,” Dr. Jack Mintz told the Epoch Times. Mr. Mintz is President’s Fellow at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, and a distinguished fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
“It'll have some impact on reducing the cost of energy, but it’s not going to be huge,” added Mr. Mintz. “Food prices and shelter costs, and transportation are the three biggest items” in inflation.
Still, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre pointed out that Saskatchewan and Manitoba had among the lowest inflation numbers in the country—partly as a result of reducing taxes on energy.
“Notice yesterday, the lowest inflation: Manitoba, Saskatchewan,” Mr. Poilievre told a news conference in Kingston on Feb. 21. “What did they do in Manitoba and Saskatchewan? Got rid of carbon taxes. They took the carbon tax off gas in Manitoba, they took it off heat in Saskatchewan,” he said.
Manitoba had an inflation rate in January of 0.8 percent, the lowest in the country.
The Manitoba government gave credit to the provincial gas tax holiday that started on Jan. 1.
“We took action right away to give people relief at the pump,” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said in a Feb. 20 news release. “Now we see that relief helping to lower costs across the province.”
However, the news release said it was the provincial fuel tax, not the carbon tax, that was dropped.
“According to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from Statistics Canada, the gas tax holiday, which began on Jan. 1 and removed the 14-cent provincial tax on the price of gasoline, ‘directly contributed to a 0.4 per cent decrease to inflation,’” said the release. “Statistics Canada also noted Manitoba’s gasoline prices fell 20.2 per cent in January 2024 compared to January 2023,” it added.
Still, Saskatchewan’s premier is not the only one saying the low inflation number for Saskatchewan may be significant.
On Feb. 20, Sylvain Charlebois with Dalhousie University posted on X that “Saskatchewan’s experiment with the carbon tax contradicts the @bankofcanada’s assessment.”
Mr. Charlebois, who is with the Agrifood Analytics Lab, added: “After the province eliminated the tax on only nat/gas, propane, and heating oil, its inflation rate fell by 0.8 percentage points in January. This is a larger decrease than the Bank’s prediction that the C-Tax would lead to a one-time drop of 0.6 percentage points in the inflation rate, over one year.”
*************************************************
Australia: Nuclear, gas fuel consevatives' tilt at green madness
In 2004, Australian electricity bills were the fourth-lowest in the OECD. The wind and solar caper had barely begun, and coal and gas supplied 91 per cent of the National Electricity Market.
Today, after 20 years of subsidy chasing by the renewable energy industry, Australia has slipped to 10th place in the OECD rankings of end-user power prices.
Of the nine countries where electricity is cheaper, six have nuclear power stations. They are Finland, Mexico, Switzerland, South Korea, Canada and the US. Of the remaining three, the wet and hilly ones, Norway and Iceland run mostly on hydropower because that’s the way God made them. Israel, somewhat unfashionably, has stuck with coal and gas but has other things to worry about.
So much for Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s claim that the opposition is using nuclear power as a culture-war distraction. His argument collapses at the first brush with reality.
Nuclear is the only baseload alternative to fossil fuel for the inhabitants of a wide and flat brown land unless we care to drill down 40km through the Earth’s crust to tap geothermal energy, which even Bowen must concede is impractical. The minister’s forlorn grab for supporting evidence in his article in The Weekend Australian suggests he knows he is losing the argument.
Until recently, conventional wisdom held that a pro-nuclear policy would be the kiss of death for the Coalition. Yet Bowen would know how quickly public opinion is changing, even within the green movement. When voters are asked if they favour nuclear power, the numbers are usually tight.
When the pollster asks if they would consider nuclear power, however, a clear majority say yes. The readiness to consider nuclear grows when they are asked about small modular reactors, notably among younger voters.
Bowen’s foolhardy use of statistics is unnerving, given his power to call upon the resources of a sizeable government department to stop him from embarrassing himself. He writes that “by early 2025, renewable energy will surpass coal as the planet’s largest source of energy”. As the Energy Minister should know, energy differs from electricity, which accounts for just 20 per cent of global energy use, according to the International Energy Market’s latest data.
Wind and solar accounted for 2.2 per cent of the world’s energy mix in 2019 if we assume it is what the IEA means by “other”. If we include hydropower in the renewables basket, it rises to 4.8 per cent.
Oil accounts for 31 per cent, down from 44 per cent in 1971, but the gap has been filled by gas (up from 16 to 23 per cent) and nuclear (0.5 per cent to 5 per cent). Coal has remained steady at 26 per cent.
The data does not exactly leap to Bowen’s defence, even if we assume he has conflated energy with electricity. In 2019, wind, solar and biofuels generated 10.8 per cent of the world’s electricity, and hydro 15.7 per cent. Fossil thermal fuel was by far the biggest contributor at 63 per cent.
Admittedly, the IEA’s reporting is somewhat tardy, but it would take a hockey stick curve of Michael Mann-ic proportions for renewables to overtake coal by this time next year, even if it were feasible.
Bowen’s suggestion that nuclear projects fall like skittles is equally hard to substantiate. The World Nuclear Association lists 62 nuclear plants under construction in 17 countries. They include 26 in China. Some 440 more are listed as either planned or proposed, of which 196 are in China, 25 in Russia and five in Iran.
Yet Peter Dutton would be foolish to assume the argument is as good as won, or that a nuclear policy is a substitute for a convincing energy policy.
Even on the most optimistic timetable, nuclear will not be part of our energy mix before the mid-2030s and investment won’t flow without a thorough reform of the energy market.
The short answer to almost every question is gas. The Opposition Leader will have little trouble persuading his own party room, where past battles have instilled a degree of energy literacy. He should prepare for considerable opposition from his own party at the state level, however, where many Coalition MPs have formed a unity ticket with Labor and the Greens in opposition to the imagined climate emergency.
Dutton should not underestimate the quantity of the venom in the hornet’s nest he has disturbed by challenging the orthodoxy that prevails in the media, universities and government departments. As Tony Abbott discovered, these people are not prepared to surrender their dogma in this policy debate without a fight.
An even more formidable opponent will be the energy industry, where a powerful combination of virtue signalling and naked self-interest has set in.
The energy industry with few exceptions is not campaigning for fossil fuel, as renewable advocates often claim. It is busy chasing subsidies and playing with the market. It has worked out easier ways to make money than supplying customers with affordable and reliable electricity. Renewable Energy Certificates have proved be a more dependable source of revenue than the energy itself.
Labor’s planned Capacity Investment Scheme, which is supposed to underwrite 32GW of renewal energy investment, has the added appeal of letting them make money without actually turning the generation plants on. It provides an even stronger incentive to stop nuclear before it eats their lunch.
Over the past 10 years, the renewable energy industrial complex has grown in strength and sophistication. It channels tens of millions of dollars into grassroots campaigns in Australia, creating an almost bottomless war chest to fund lawfare and buy influence in politics. Renewable energy interests almost entirely underwrote the teal campaign in 2022. Dutton shouldn’t expect any of these so-called independents to back nuclear anytime soon, despite their claim to be the heroes putting integrity back into politics.
Big renewables will fight almost as hard against gas, even though quick-start-up turbines are the quickest and cheapest way to firm the supply of the intermittent energy they fitfully supply. Gas threatens their investment in batteries for the same reason nuclear threatens renewables.
The cause of common sense is not just lost. Dutton has defeated the woke Goliath once and could do so again. Corporate support for the voice, however, was mainly motivated by virtue signalling rather than crude financial self-interest.
To use the words that turned boxing announcer Michael Buffer into a household name, “get ready to rumble”.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment