{"id":35494,"date":"2017-01-22T02:16:52","date_gmt":"2017-01-21T15:16:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nofibs.com.au\/?p=35494"},"modified":"2019-04-16T13:31:09","modified_gmt":"2019-04-16T03:31:09","slug":"resistance-and-hope-in-the-face-of-trump-climatedenial-takvera","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/resistance-and-hope-in-the-face-of-trump-climatedenial-takvera\/","title":{"rendered":"Resistance and hope in the face of Trump #climatedenial – @takvera"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Photo:

Photo: blockading redgate at President Trump’s inauguration Photo<\/a> by Charlie Furman\/twitter @DigitalCharlie<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

Despite the climate denialism in a Trump administration, it will be difficult to stop the zero carbon transition already underway and driven by economic forces, with action by citizens, businesses and states. <\/p>\n

As the minutes ticked past midday with Trump’s inauguration on January 20, the whitehouse.gov website was swept clean of anything climate related<\/a>. Obama’s record in this area has been officially archived<\/a> and Trump’s pages announce an America First Energy Plan<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The plan re-affirms that “Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.” This is the only mention of the word climate on the page.<\/p>\n

Bobby Magill at Climate Central<\/i> has written a detailed article on: Decoding Trump\u2019s White House Energy Plan<\/a> which he accuses of being “replete with misinformation and specious claims about climate and energy policy”.<\/p>\n

Reversing President Obama’s many achievement’s in climate action will not be easy to achieve, although there may be some early wins. <\/p>\n

Defending present policy action will require resistance by communities on the ground, by state governments, businesses and through legal means.<\/p>\n

Update: If resistance fails, 4 to 8 years of inaction by the United States would mean possibly a 15 to 20-year setback and firmly put the world on the path well over 3C degrees of global warming, according to two climate scientists: Ben Sanderson, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, and Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich, Switzerland in an article published<\/a> at Yale Climate Connections<\/em> on 21 January 2017. <\/p>\n

\nKilling Obama’s climate plan not so easy<\/h3>\n

Getting rid of Obama’s Climate Action plan, enacted through executive order for the EPA to implement, may not be so easy. <\/p>\n

The EPA’s directives are already being challenged by 27 of the 50 states in court. The Trump administration could order the Justice Department to stop defending it, or could seek a “voluntary remand” asking the court to send the rule back to the Environmental Protection Agency for review.<\/p>\n

But the problem with both of these actions is that west coast states lead by California, and New England states lead by New York, along with environmental NGOs, are likely to defend the rule, tying up abolition in legal procedure for perhaps years.<\/p>\n

Trump could order the EPA not to enforce the rule. But it is highly likely lawsuits would also follow.<\/p>\n

Issuing a new regulation “withdrawing” the Clean Power Plan, might also be tested in the courts, holding up any change.<\/p>\n

From another direction the Our Children’s Trust legal case<\/a> is proceeding forward. It passed another hurdle in November 2016 defeating a motion to dismiss<\/a> supported by the Federal Government and Fossil Fuel Industry. The Legal case based upon the public trust doctrine through the courts may be very important for ensuring the Trump administration takes action.<\/p>\n

\nOil pipelines mired in controversy<\/h3>\n

On oil pipelines Trump could invite TransCanada Corp to resubmit its application to build the Keystone XL pipeline. But the price of oil is lower now and TransCanada has put effort into alternative routes. The Canadian government under Justin Trudeau, while still supportive of exporting tar sands oil, is also committed to slow phase out of fossil fuels under the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n

Trump could sign an executive order approving the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota and reversing Obama’s order, but water protectors lead by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe are prepared for major resistance to stop this project threatening their water quality.<\/p>\n

\nCost of carbon abolition<\/h3>\n

Much of the economic cost-benefit analysis for minimising harm through climate action used in a variety of programs is based upon the “Social Cost of Carbon”. By eliminating the use of this calculation in Federal programs the Trump administration could make it difficult to justify certain actions.<\/p>\n

Currently the expert panel has determined the current cost of carbon at $US36 per tonne, with this rising to $US50 by 2030.<\/p>\n

\nMoratorium on coal leasing on Federal land<\/h3>\n

Trump could overturn a three year moratorium on coal leasing on federal land. Both China and USA placed three year moratoriums on new coal<\/a> at the start of 2016. <\/p>\n

This was done by the US Department of Interior to evaluate whether the government adequately priced the value of coal extracted from public land on behalf of the taxpayer. I think there was also an element of diplomacy in matching the Chinese moratorium.<\/p>\n

The problem with reversing the moratorium is that coal use is in structural decline, both domestically in the United States, and in the coal export market.<\/p>\n

\nLast minute methane and clean water rules under threat<\/h3>\n

Some last minute rules by the Obama administration may well be overturned fairly quickly. This includes a Bureau of Land Management Methane Rule and regulations under the Streams Protection Act which ensures clean water for communities in mountain top coal removal areas. Under the Congressional Rule Act Congress have the power to rescind regulations within a 90 day period with a simple majority. The Republicans have a simple majority in both houses of Congress.<\/p>\n

\nArctic and Atlantic Deep sea drilling put off-limits by Obama<\/h3>\n

Reversing Obama’s December announcement on the ban of offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic continental shelves<\/a> would also be extremely difficult according to some US law academics<\/a>. Obama used the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, and although the law has never been tested, would seem to be a one way conservation power of the president that could only be reversed by an act of Congress. Note that the areas withdrawn under the executive action does not include the 3 mile offshore zone of the coast administered under state law.<\/p>\n

Obama also designated around 1.6 million acres of federal lands in Utah and Nevada as national monuments, using the Antiquities Act, also difficult to overturn.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis decision helps jump-start the resistance to Trump\u2019s promised attacks on our environment.\u201d said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe whole world is watching Trump fill his cabinet with climate deniers. Putting offshore oil and gas off limits is the best way President Obama can protect our climate future,\u201d said Miyoko Sakashita from the Center for Biological Diversity in a media statement<\/a>. \u201cWe wish Mr. Obama had extended protections to other areas, like the Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico, that have largely been off limits to drilling, but we\u2019re geared up resist Trump\u2019s attempts to drill, baby, drill.” <\/p>\n

Greenpeace have lead many campaigns in the Arctic against fossil fuel exploration and development. Annie Leonard of Greenpeace USA<\/a> told Democracy Now<\/i> endorsed Obama’s announcement saying it was an “absolutely fantastic thing on a number of fronts” as it matched the science and made activist sense. But she also warned that we need to fight to defend such conservation measures to ensure it never gets overturned. <\/p>\n

\n“This law specifically gives presidents the right to withdraw land from use. Any president could withdraw the land from use. It does not give the president the authority to put that land back into use. So Obama has withdrawn the land. In order to reverse it, there would need to be an act of Congress to actually put the land back into use. <\/p>\n

“I\u2019m sure that Trump is going to try. The American Petroleum Institute is already trying to undermine this pledge. But it would be a very difficult and unprecedented act to reverse it. <\/p>\n

“No president has ever been able to reverse some land that has been protected in this way. So, while it\u2019s not permanent\u2014you know, there is nothing in U.S. politics that\u2019s permanent\u2014it\u2019s pretty darn close. And ultimately, it\u2019s up to us. It\u2019s up to people power. It\u2019s up to the engaged citizens that got this protected. It\u2019s up to us to continue to protect it and make sure that it never does get overturned.” said Annie Leonard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nParis Agreement<\/h3>\n

Donald Trump on the campaign trail said he would pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement within 100 days of taking office.<\/p>\n

After the election he softened his stance<\/a> telling The New York Times<\/i> that he would keep an open mind about the deal.<\/p>\n

Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State is Rex Tillerson, former CEO of ExxonMobil, has many conflicts of interest. This includes ExxonMobil’s ambitions to drill in Russia arctic zone. At his confirmation hearing, Tillerson was quite relaxed in saying that the United States should stay in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, to have a seat at the negotiating table. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s important that the US maintain its seat at the table,\u201d Tillerson told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations during his confirmation hearing on January 11. The threat of global warming is real and \u201crequires a global response\u201d, he added. \u201cNo one country is going to solve this on its own.\u201d reported<\/a> Scientific American<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The question then arises will Tillerson’s view win out in the Trump Administration, full of people who deny anthropogenic climate change. <\/p>\n

If the United States does maintain it’s presence, how likely is it to play a blocking or obstructionist role to try and undermine the Agreements rules and frameworks that are being formulated over the next two years?<\/p>\n

Brad Plummer in Vox<\/i> raises a number of pertinent questions on the United States climate policy and the Paris Agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nReasons for optimism<\/h3>\n