By Ben Ratner

The biggest irony of the Trump Administration’s attack on environmental safeguards is that it will undermine a central promise of his candidacy: supporting boots on the ground, American jobs in growth sectors. One prime example? The emerging service industry that puts people to work finding and fixing harmful natural gas leaks.

American workers in the methane mitigation industry keep the product, methane (the main ingredient in natural gas), in the pipes and out of the sky. That’s a win for workers, who receive technology training, competitive wages, and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s a win for surrounding communities, as methane emission reductions also help keep smog-forming pollutants out of the air they breathe. It’s a win for oil and gas operators, which make operations more efficient and improve safety. And it’s a win for the climate, since methane is 84 times more potent in the near term than carbon dioxide.

In other words, if winning were more than a campaign slogan, supporting America’s methane mitigation industry would be an obvious opportunity to seize. Unfortunately, President Trump’s anti-jobs approach to undermining methane safeguards does just the opposite.

In attempting to justify rollbacks, the Trump Administration trotted out the familiar argument that environmental safeguards cost jobs. But in reality, the opposite is often true.

Datu Research, in a new report commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund, studied the leak detection and repair service industry by speaking with employers and workers in states like Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Texas. Importantly, Datu found that “rules cutting methane emissions create jobs cutting methane emissions”.

Safeguards requiring methane leak detection and repair increase market demand for those services, thus supporting opportunities for workers including high school graduates to get trained in infrared camera inspection technology.

In fact, mitigation firms reported as much as 30% growth in states with methane regulations. And, companies interviewed by Datu reported plans to grow their workforce by as much as 15% annually.

In other words: More methane safeguards = More leak detection jobs. Fewer methane safeguards = Fewer leak detection jobs.

For an Administration allegedly committed to job creation, it’s baffling why President Trump would move to put such valuable American jobs at risk. All the more so when you consider that 55% of leak detection service companies are small businesses – the growth engine of the America.

Yet, where the Trump Administration falls down, state leaders can stand up for good jobs and a healthy environment.

One immediate opportunity arises in Pennsylvania, where Governor Tom Wolf has committed to cut methane emissions from new and existing sources. With four methane mitigation businesses already headquartered in Pennsylvania, and 11 companies operating in the state, Pennsylvania is poised for significant growth.

Or take New Mexico, a state that unfortunately leads the nation in unemployment rate, but where small businesses like Dexter – who employs a majority Native American leak detection and repair crew to cut methane waste – offer needed job growth. As oil and gas production continues to heat up in the resource-rich Permian Basin, New Mexico’s leaders will have the opportunity and obligation to establish the policy environment in which industry operates responsibly and more methane mitigation jobs are created.

As governors and state legislatures square their energy mix with the dual needs of job creation and environmental protection, supporting an industry that makes oil and gas cleaner should be an easy answer.

American workers don’t want potential jobs to slip through their fingers like lost methane into the atmosphere. After all, that’s not what winning looks like.

By Ben Ratner

The biggest irony of the Trump Administration’s attack on environmental safeguards is that it will undermine a central promise of his candidacy: supporting boots on the ground, American jobs in growth sectors. One prime example? The emerging service industry that puts people to work finding and fixing harmful natural gas leaks.

American workers in the methane mitigation industry keep the product, methane (the main ingredient in natural gas), in the pipes and out of the sky. That’s a win for workers, who receive technology training, competitive wages, and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s a win for surrounding communities, as methane emission reductions also help keep smog-forming pollutants out of the air they breathe. It’s a win for oil and gas operators, which make operations more efficient and improve safety. And it’s a win for the climate, since methane is 84 times more potent in the near term than carbon dioxide.

In other words, if winning were more than a campaign slogan, supporting America’s methane mitigation industry would be an obvious opportunity to seize. Unfortunately, President Trump’s anti-jobs approach to undermining methane safeguards does just the opposite.

In attempting to justify rollbacks, the Trump Administration trotted out the familiar argument that environmental safeguards cost jobs. But in reality, the opposite is often true.

Datu Research, in a new report commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund, studied the leak detection and repair service industry by speaking with employers and workers in states like Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Texas. Importantly, Datu found that “rules cutting methane emissions create jobs cutting methane emissions”.

Safeguards requiring methane leak detection and repair increase market demand for those services, thus supporting opportunities for workers including high school graduates to get trained in infrared camera inspection technology.

In fact, mitigation firms reported as much as 30% growth in states with methane regulations. And, companies interviewed by Datu reported plans to grow their workforce by as much as 15% annually.

In other words: More methane safeguards = More leak detection jobs. Fewer methane safeguards = Fewer leak detection jobs.

For an Administration allegedly committed to job creation, it’s baffling why President Trump would move to put such valuable American jobs at risk. All the more so when you consider that 55% of leak detection service companies are small businesses – the growth engine of the America.

Yet, where the Trump Administration falls down, state leaders can stand up for good jobs and a healthy environment.

One immediate opportunity arises in Pennsylvania, where Governor Tom Wolf has committed to cut methane emissions from new and existing sources. With four methane mitigation businesses already headquartered in Pennsylvania, and 11 companies operating in the state, Pennsylvania is poised for significant growth.

Or take New Mexico, a state that unfortunately leads the nation in unemployment rate, but where small businesses like Dexter – who employs a majority Native American leak detection and repair crew to cut methane waste – offer needed job growth. As oil and gas production continues to heat up in the resource-rich Permian Basin, New Mexico’s leaders will have the opportunity and obligation to establish the policy environment in which industry operates responsibly and more methane mitigation jobs are created.

As governors and state legislatures square their energy mix with the dual needs of job creation and environmental protection, supporting an industry that makes oil and gas cleaner should be an easy answer.

American workers don’t want potential jobs to slip through their fingers like lost methane into the atmosphere. After all, that’s not what winning looks like.

Written by Mark R. Burns

In the fossil-fuel-friendly quarters of financial firms and energy companies, more than a few pints of beer were no doubt raised in celebration on March 28th. That’s when President Trump signed an executive order to begin the rollback of America’s Clean Power Plan.

And yet, odds are that many of those beers were produced by Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, the world’s largest brewer, which announced, on that very same day, its plan to get all of its electricity from renewable sources by the year 2025.

Now I’ll drink to that.

No Coal-Powered Buds

Controlling more than 500 brands of suds (including Budweiser, Beck’s, and Corona), AB InBev produces over 140 billion pints of beer annually. With 200,000 employees based in more than 50 countries worldwide, it sees renewable energy as good for its bottom line and good for the planet.

So do corporate giants Apple, Mars, Microsoft, Google, Levis Strauss, Staples, IKEA, Wal-mart, General Electric, Proctor & Gamble, Kellogg’s, L’Oreal USA, Target and more than 145 other companies who signed the Obama administration’s American Business Act on Climate Change.

Sweet Science

Edward Hoover, senior manager of Corporate Communications for Mars, maker of M&Ms, Skittles and Twix, retweeted his company’s response to the president’s order:

It would appear that the President who purports to have a deep understanding of the business world is way behind the curve – or, headed in the opposite direction – when it comes to the smart business approach to renewable energy.

The Private Sector Commits

RE100 companies, which describes itself as “a collaborative, global initiative of influential businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity” points out that “the private sector accounts for around half of the world’s electricity consumption. Switching this demand to renewables will accelerate the transformation of the global energy market and aid the transition to a low carbon economy.” Many of the US companies who signed the ABA on Climate Change in 2015 as well as other global companies have signed on to RE100, committing to specific – or somewhat specific – timelines by which they will have switched to renewables.

Of course, even amenable companies might need regulatory inducements to move them along on a schedule that recognizes the critical state of climate change. The market alone cannot substitute for effective government policy.

No Long-Term Victory for Coal

There’s no putting a positive spin on the President’s approach to climate change. But as far as coal is concerned, the economics of coal-powered electricity are continuing to falter. Natural gas, more abundant and cheaper to produce (and yes, presenting its own set of serious problems for our health), has edged out coal as a power producer and as an export. Coal mining jobs were seriously in decline before Obama’s CPP (which, by the way, hasn’t been fully implemented yet), due not only to market forces, but also to automation. Those thousands of jobs Trump promised during his campaign are not coming back.

States are Leading

Additionally, as reported by Reuters, “85 percent of U.S. states are on track to meet the targets [of the CPP],” that according to Bill Becker, director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a group of state and local air pollution control agencies.

Ultimately, whatever boost deregulation gives to the production side of the coal industry, it will do little to benefit the supply side of the equation. While its last gasp may not be imminent, no executive action can halt the inevitable market forces arrayed against coal.

Still, this is no time for complacency. In the meantime, the reboot of coal will pump millions more tons of green-house gases into our atmosphere, leaving our families gasping for clean air.

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

The Texas electricity market is evolving. Low prices have helped natural gas become the dominant electricity generation resource, surpassing coal for the first time. The state’s unique competitive wholesale market, along with recently built transmission lines, have led to exciting opportunities for the rapid development of wind and solar generation. But in looking at the […]

By Lenae Shirley

The Texas electricity market is evolving. Low prices have helped natural gas become the dominant electricity generation resource, surpassing coal for the first time. The state’s unique competitive wholesale market, along with recently built transmission lines, have led to exciting opportunities for the rapid development of wind and solar generation. But in looking at the cost of various fuel sources and Texas’ energy future, confusion about electricity subsidies needs to be addressed.

Yes, wind and solar power have recently benefitted from the federal Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit. That said, it’s important to recognize that natural gas and coal generation have enjoyed state and federal incentives for a century, and continue to do so.

The tax benefits for wind and solar generation are not the same as those for fossil fuel generation, but each plays a similar role: Tax benefits affect the final cost of electricity.

Indirect subsidies

As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, a subsidy is:

A grant of money made by government in aid of the promoters of any enterprise, work or improvement in which the government desires to participate, or which is considered a proper subject for government aid, because such purpose is likely to be of benefit to the public."

Therefore, a reduction in state or federal taxes owed is a subsidy. And if one or more production costs receives a tax break, the end product has been subsidized as well. For example, if natural gas-fired and coal-fired electricity receives a tax break on production and delivery (inputs that affect their cost), the fuel used to create power and the resulting electricity have been subsidized. That represents an indirect subsidy.

Unlike natural gas and coal, wind and solar generation convert free resources – wind and sunlight – into electricity. Here, the “fuel” input to a generation facility to make electricity is free and constantly renewable. Thus, any subsidy for wind or solar generation is direct; rather than focusing on the fuel, cost is reduced on the generation infrastructure.

Thus, renewable power is supported by direct subsidies, and fossil-fuel generation is supported by indirect subsidies. In fact, in the 2015 report “United States – Progress Report on Fossil Fuel Subsidies,” the federal government identified 11 federal fossil fuel tax provisions, or subsidies, including: Expensing of intangible drilling costs; Percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells; Domestic manufacturing deduction for fossil fuels; Two-year amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures; Exception to the passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties.

Natural gas tax exemptions

Because natural gas and coal are finite resources, the federal and state governments administer a “severance tax” for extracting them from the ground. But there are several exemptions – or ways to alleviate that tax – on both the state and federal levels. By significantly lowering the cost of natural gas production, these exemptions reduce the cost of – subsidize – natural gas-fired electricity.

In Texas alone, there are three different exemptions to the severance tax on natural gas, on top of federal tax breaks. Texas also has numerous other tax exemptions for natural gas (unrelated to the severance tax), all of which represent indirect subsidies, including a Low-Producing Well Exemption and Certified Exemptions for Natural Gas Production taxes, like the Two-Year Inactive Well Exemption, the High-Cost Gas Reduced Tax Rate, and the Flared Gas Exemption.

Coal is subsidized

During the 1970’s energy crises, the federal government prohibited building new gas-fired generation. As a result, coal-powered plants around the nation received a big boost. And since electric utilities were government-granted monopolies, the cost of constructing new coal plants was paid for by captive ratepayers. 

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry.

The coal industry currently receives federal tax breaks from numerous provisions, including those provided by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as Amortization of Certain Pollution Control Facilities, Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal, and an Energy Production Credit (for refined coal and Indian Coal).

At the state level, coal plants also financially benefited when Texas transitioned to a competitive electric wholesale market in 2002. When the utilities originally purchased or built these coal plants, the utilities had a monopoly on generation service, assuring them full cost recovery. To make the transition to the competitive market more palatable, owners of coal-fired generation (and other generators) received compensation – above market value – for the cost of their existing power plants. The utilities were given 10 years to recover these legacy costs through mandatory charges that all customers had to pay. Compensation for legacy costs are another form of financial aid for Texas coal that subsidized the cost of electricity.

Century-old, permanent tax breaks

Another factor to consider is the amount of time these tax provisions have been in effect in the U.S. Although tax credits for renewable generation first became available 25 years ago with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the natural gas industry has received tax breaks for over a century, starting with deductions for Intangible Drilling Costs in 1913.

Because renewable projects have been in existence for only one fourth the time as fossil fuel activities, wind and solar subsidies are part of R&D for new energy advancements. In other words, the tax benefits currently available to renewable energy projects should be compared to the subsidies given to fossil fuel projects at the early R&D stage, not the established fossil fuel industry as it is now.

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry. Additionally, fossil fuel subsidies remain permanent in the federal tax code. Renewable tax credits are scheduled to be phased down and out in just a few years, and they have had to contend with repeated changes to their federal support mechanisms. While tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry have remained consistent, renewable subsidies have experienced seven changes in merely a decade.

Impact on electricity cost

Clearly, there are tax subsidies that benefit the electric generation industry in a variety of ways. Although natural gas and coal subsidies are given at the time of exploration or production, the effect they have on lowering fuel costs for a gas or coal generator is valuable. They reduce the total cost of making electricity from those resources, just as an investment tax credit does for renewable generation.

Some tax benefits may be easier to calculate than others, but all subsidies – whether for natural gas, coal, or renewable power – reduce the final cost of the electricity used by customers. There should be no confusion about that.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

As more details emerge about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget cuts, it’s becoming clearer that the public’s health could well take one of the worst hits.  Trump has proposed a 31% cut to the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), paired with similarly deep reductions in staff.  The details are laid out in a March 21, 2017, internal memo from EPA’s Acting Chief Financial Officer.

Among the biggest cuts are to the Agency’s research, both research it conducts and that undertaken by labs and universities it helps fund.  EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) would see its funding cut nearly in half, from $483 million to $250 million in 2018. The axe would fall across the full spectrum of EPA’s research:  air, climate, and energy; human health risk assessment; safe and sustainable water; sustainable communities; homeland security; and chemical safety.  EPA’s extramural STAR grant program would be entirely eliminated.

Scroll through Attachment A of the memo and you’ll see program after program proposed to be eliminated or slashed.  But there is a notable exception, on p. 9 of the Attachment:  an apparent increase for an item labeled “OCSPP / EPM / Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction,” accompanied by this explanation:  “This program change increases $13,834K in non-pay resources in support of the new work required under the updated TSCA law.”

On one level, this seems like a bright spot in an otherwise dismal document, though it appears that the increase is in anticipation of the fees that the new TSCA authorizes EPA to collect from industry to help offset up to 25% of program costs.  Still, unlike most of the rest of the Agency, the program’s base budget is proposed to remain essentially intact.

No doubt this reflects the strong bipartisan support that led to last year’s passage of the Lautenberg Act and the continuing need for the chemical industry to be able to point to a viable federal chemical safety program in order to restore public and market confidence and seek to temper state and market action to restrict dangerous chemicals.  (I’ve recently blogged, however, about the mixed signals being sent by the industry; see here and here.)

While this may seem like good news, the notion that EPA could somehow neatly carve out one program area and keep it functioning well when the carving knives are rampantly slashing everything around it is, well, preposterous.  

A functioning TSCA office at EPA is highly dependent on many other functions within the Agency.  I’ll just name two here for starters, both of which are housed within ORD and are proposed for near or total elimination under Mr. Trump’s proposed budget:

• EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) would be zeroed out (see references to IRIS on pages 19 and 21 of Attachment A of the budget memo). Yet EPA’s ability to conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA would be severely curtailed by the loss of both expertise and capacity that resides in the IRIS program.  IRIS conducts hazard characterizations of chemicals, providing hazard values that other EPA offices combine with exposure information to characterize risk.  Of the risk evaluations underway for the first 10 so-called TSCA Work Plan chemicals, more than half have completed IRIS hazard assessments on which the TSCA office plans to build (these include asbestos, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,4-dioxane, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane, and tetrachloroethylene), and for another IRIS has initiated an assessment (hexabromocyclododecane).
  While IRIS has had its share of criticism in the past, major improvements have been made, leading the National Academy of Sciences to applaud the program for embracing and quickly acting on its earlier recommendations.
• EPA’s ToxCast and related initiatives. Major cuts are proposed to EPA’s “Chemical Safety for Sustainability” research program: a 44% reduction in budget and 22% cut in staffing (see references to “Chemical Safety and Sustainability” [sic] on page 20 of Attachment A of the budget memo).  This program has been shepherding the development of high-throughput testing and other predictive toxicology methods and computational tools that hold enormous promise to provide far more information on chemicals than has been possible in the past, and to do so at far less expense and with the use of far fewer laboratory animals.  The need to further develop these approaches has been embraced by the entire spectrum of TSCA stakeholders, from industry to health and environmental organizations to animal welfare groups.   Given the large number of chemicals regulated under TSCA for which major data gaps exist, the TSCA reform legislation enacted last year has numerous provisions that call on EPA to advance the development and use of these methods.

In addition, cross-cutting functions that would suffer deep budget cuts are essential for a functioning TSCA office.  For example, effective and equitable enforcement is critical to ensure not only that requirements are met, but also that companies in compliance are not put at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies that aren’t.  Yet the enforcement office is cut by 23 percent, rewarding the cheaters, rather than the large majority of businesses who work to comply with the law.

I cite these examples to illustrate how utterly impossible – and how short-sighted and counterproductive – it is to cut to the bone the core functions of EPA and then pretend that a “TSCA island” can still somehow thrive or even survive.

My EDF colleague Jack Pratt summed up in a single sentence just how crazy this approach is:  “You can’t burn down my house, and then expect me to cook you dinner because the kitchen is still standing.”

 

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. As more details emerge about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget cuts, it’s becoming clearer that the public’s health could well take one of the worst hits.  Trump has proposed a 31% cut to the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), paired with similarly deep reductions in staff.  […]

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

As more details emerge about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget cuts, it’s becoming clearer that the public’s health could well take one of the worst hits.  Trump has proposed a 31% cut to the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), paired with similarly deep reductions in staff.  The details are laid out in a March 21, 2017, internal memo from EPA’s Acting Chief Financial Officer.

Among the biggest cuts are to the Agency’s research, both research it conducts and that undertaken by labs and universities it helps fund.  EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) would see its funding cut nearly in half, from $483 million to $250 million in 2018. The axe would fall across the full spectrum of EPA’s research:  air, climate, and energy; human health risk assessment; safe and sustainable water; sustainable communities; homeland security; and chemical safety.  EPA’s extramural STAR grant program would be entirely eliminated.

Scroll through Attachment A of the memo and you’ll see program after program proposed to be eliminated or slashed.  But there is a notable exception, on p. 9 of the Attachment:  an apparent increase for an item labeled “OCSPP / EPM / Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction,” accompanied by this explanation:  “This program change increases $13,834K in non-pay resources in support of the new work required under the updated TSCA law.”

On one level, this seems like a bright spot in an otherwise dismal document, though it appears that the increase is in anticipation of the fees that the new TSCA authorizes EPA to collect from industry to help offset up to 25% of program costs.  Still, unlike most of the rest of the Agency, the program’s base budget is proposed to remain essentially intact.

No doubt this reflects the strong bipartisan support that led to last year’s passage of the Lautenberg Act and the continuing need for the chemical industry to be able to point to a viable federal chemical safety program in order to restore public and market confidence and seek to temper state and market action to restrict dangerous chemicals.  (I’ve recently blogged, however, about the mixed signals being sent by the industry; see here and here.)

While this may seem like good news, the notion that EPA could somehow neatly carve out one program area and keep it functioning well when the carving knives are rampantly slashing everything around it is, well, preposterous.  

A functioning TSCA office at EPA is highly dependent on many other functions within the Agency.  I’ll just name two here for starters, both of which are housed within ORD and are proposed for near or total elimination under Mr. Trump’s proposed budget:

• EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) would be zeroed out (see references to IRIS on pages 19 and 21 of Attachment A of the budget memo). Yet EPA’s ability to conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA would be severely curtailed by the loss of both expertise and capacity that resides in the IRIS program.  IRIS conducts hazard characterizations of chemicals, providing hazard values that other EPA offices combine with exposure information to characterize risk.  Of the risk evaluations underway for the first 10 so-called TSCA Work Plan chemicals, more than half have completed IRIS hazard assessments on which the TSCA office plans to build (these include asbestos, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,4-dioxane, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane, and tetrachloroethylene), and for another IRIS has initiated an assessment (hexabromocyclododecane).
  While IRIS has had its share of criticism in the past, major improvements have been made, leading the National Academy of Sciences to applaud the program for embracing and quickly acting on its earlier recommendations.
• EPA’s ToxCast and related initiatives. Major cuts are proposed to EPA’s “Chemical Safety for Sustainability” research program: a 44% reduction in budget and 22% cut in staffing (see references to “Chemical Safety and Sustainability” [sic] on page 20 of Attachment A of the budget memo).  This program has been shepherding the development of high-throughput testing and other predictive toxicology methods and computational tools that hold enormous promise to provide far more information on chemicals than has been possible in the past, and to do so at far less expense and with the use of far fewer laboratory animals.  The need to further develop these approaches has been embraced by the entire spectrum of TSCA stakeholders, from industry to health and environmental organizations to animal welfare groups.   Given the large number of chemicals regulated under TSCA for which major data gaps exist, the TSCA reform legislation enacted last year has numerous provisions that call on EPA to advance the development and use of these methods.

In addition, cross-cutting functions that would suffer deep budget cuts are essential for a functioning TSCA office.  For example, effective and equitable enforcement is critical to ensure not only that requirements are met, but also that companies in compliance are not put at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies that aren’t.  Yet the enforcement office is cut by 23 percent, rewarding the cheaters, rather than the large majority of businesses who work to comply with the law.

I cite these examples to illustrate how utterly impossible – and how short-sighted and counterproductive – it is to cut to the bone the core functions of EPA and then pretend that a “TSCA island” can still somehow thrive or even survive.

My EDF colleague Jack Pratt summed up in a single sentence just how crazy this approach is:  “You can’t burn down my house, and then expect me to cook you dinner because the kitchen is still standing.”

 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

As more details emerge about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget cuts, it’s becoming clearer that the public’s health could well take one of the worst hits.  Trump has proposed a 31% cut to the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), paired with similarly deep reductions in staff.  The details are laid out in a March 21, 2017, internal memo from EPA’s Acting Chief Financial Officer.

Among the biggest cuts are to the Agency’s research, both research it conducts and that undertaken by labs and universities it helps fund.  EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) would see its funding cut nearly in half, from $483 million to $250 million in 2018. The axe would fall across the full spectrum of EPA’s research:  air, climate, and energy; human health risk assessment; safe and sustainable water; sustainable communities; homeland security; and chemical safety.  EPA’s extramural STAR grant program would be entirely eliminated.

Scroll through Attachment A of the memo and you’ll see program after program proposed to be eliminated or slashed.  But there is a notable exception, on p. 9 of the Attachment:  an apparent increase for an item labeled “OCSPP / EPM / Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction,” accompanied by this explanation:  “This program change increases $13,834K in non-pay resources in support of the new work required under the updated TSCA law.”

On one level, this seems like a bright spot in an otherwise dismal document, though it appears that the increase is in anticipation of the fees that the new TSCA authorizes EPA to collect from industry to help offset up to 25% of program costs.  Still, unlike most of the rest of the Agency, the program’s base budget is proposed to remain essentially intact.

No doubt this reflects the strong bipartisan support that led to last year’s passage of the Lautenberg Act and the continuing need for the chemical industry to be able to point to a viable federal chemical safety program in order to restore public and market confidence and seek to temper state and market action to restrict dangerous chemicals.  (I’ve recently blogged, however, about the mixed signals being sent by the industry; see here and here.)

While this may seem like good news, the notion that EPA could somehow neatly carve out one program area and keep it functioning well when the carving knives are rampantly slashing everything around it is, well, preposterous.  

A functioning TSCA office at EPA is highly dependent on many other functions within the Agency.  I’ll just name two here for starters, both of which are housed within ORD and are proposed for near or total elimination under Mr. Trump’s proposed budget:

• EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) would be zeroed out (see references to IRIS on pages 19 and 21 of Attachment A of the budget memo). Yet EPA’s ability to conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA would be severely curtailed by the loss of both expertise and capacity that resides in the IRIS program.  IRIS conducts hazard characterizations of chemicals, providing hazard values that other EPA offices combine with exposure information to characterize risk.  Of the risk evaluations underway for the first 10 so-called TSCA Work Plan chemicals, more than half have completed IRIS hazard assessments on which the TSCA office plans to build (these include asbestos, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,4-dioxane, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane, and tetrachloroethylene), and for another IRIS has initiated an assessment (hexabromocyclododecane).
  While IRIS has had its share of criticism in the past, major improvements have been made, leading the National Academy of Sciences to applaud the program for embracing and quickly acting on its earlier recommendations.
• EPA’s ToxCast and related initiatives. Major cuts are proposed to EPA’s “Chemical Safety for Sustainability” research program: a 44% reduction in budget and 22% cut in staffing (see references to “Chemical Safety and Sustainability” [sic] on page 20 of Attachment A of the budget memo).  This program has been shepherding the development of high-throughput testing and other predictive toxicology methods and computational tools that hold enormous promise to provide far more information on chemicals than has been possible in the past, and to do so at far less expense and with the use of far fewer laboratory animals.  The need to further develop these approaches has been embraced by the entire spectrum of TSCA stakeholders, from industry to health and environmental organizations to animal welfare groups.   Given the large number of chemicals regulated under TSCA for which major data gaps exist, the TSCA reform legislation enacted last year has numerous provisions that call on EPA to advance the development and use of these methods.

In addition, cross-cutting functions that would suffer deep budget cuts are essential for a functioning TSCA office.  For example, effective and equitable enforcement is critical to ensure not only that requirements are met, but also that companies in compliance are not put at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies that aren’t.  Yet the enforcement office is cut by 23 percent, rewarding the cheaters, rather than the large majority of businesses who work to comply with the law.

I cite these examples to illustrate how utterly impossible – and how short-sighted and counterproductive – it is to cut to the bone the core functions of EPA and then pretend that a “TSCA island” can still somehow thrive or even survive.

My EDF colleague Jack Pratt summed up in a single sentence just how crazy this approach is:  “You can’t burn down my house, and then expect me to cook you dinner because the kitchen is still standing.”

 

By Lenae Shirley

The Texas electricity market is evolving. Low prices have helped natural gas become the dominant electricity generation resource, surpassing coal for the first time. The state’s unique competitive wholesale market, along with recently built transmission lines, have led to exciting opportunities for the rapid development of wind and solar generation. But in looking at the cost of various fuel sources and Texas’ energy future, confusion about electricity subsidies needs to be addressed.

Yes, wind and solar power have recently benefitted from the federal Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit. That said, it’s important to recognize that natural gas and coal generation have enjoyed state and federal incentives for a century, and continue to do so.

The tax benefits for wind and solar generation are not the same as those for fossil fuel generation, but each plays a similar role: Tax benefits affect the final cost of electricity.

Indirect subsidies

As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, a subsidy is:

A grant of money made by government in aid of the promoters of any enterprise, work or improvement in which the government desires to participate, or which is considered a proper subject for government aid, because such purpose is likely to be of benefit to the public."

Therefore, a reduction in state or federal taxes owed is a subsidy. And if one or more production costs receives a tax break, the end product has been subsidized as well. For example, if natural gas-fired and coal-fired electricity receives a tax break on production and delivery (inputs that affect their cost), the fuel used to create power and the resulting electricity have been subsidized. That represents an indirect subsidy.

Unlike natural gas and coal, wind and solar generation convert free resources – wind and sunlight – into electricity. Here, the “fuel” input to a generation facility to make electricity is free and constantly renewable. Thus, any subsidy for wind or solar generation is direct; rather than focusing on the fuel, cost is reduced on the generation infrastructure.

Thus, renewable power is supported by direct subsidies, and fossil-fuel generation is supported by indirect subsidies. In fact, in the 2015 report “United States – Progress Report on Fossil Fuel Subsidies,” the federal government identified 11 federal fossil fuel tax provisions, or subsidies, including: Expensing of intangible drilling costs; Percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells; Domestic manufacturing deduction for fossil fuels; Two-year amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures; Exception to the passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties.

Natural gas tax exemptions

Because natural gas and coal are finite resources, the federal and state governments administer a “severance tax” for extracting them from the ground. But there are several exemptions – or ways to alleviate that tax – on both the state and federal levels. By significantly lowering the cost of natural gas production, these exemptions reduce the cost of – subsidize – natural gas-fired electricity.

In Texas alone, there are three different exemptions to the severance tax on natural gas, on top of federal tax breaks. Texas also has numerous other tax exemptions for natural gas (unrelated to the severance tax), all of which represent indirect subsidies, including a Low-Producing Well Exemption and Certified Exemptions for Natural Gas Production taxes, like the Two-Year Inactive Well Exemption, the High-Cost Gas Reduced Tax Rate, and the Flared Gas Exemption.

Coal is subsidized

During the 1970’s energy crises, the federal government prohibited building new gas-fired generation. As a result, coal-powered plants around the nation received a big boost. And since electric utilities were government-granted monopolies, the cost of constructing new coal plants was paid for by captive ratepayers. 

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry.

The coal industry currently receives federal tax breaks from numerous provisions, including those provided by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as Amortization of Certain Pollution Control Facilities, Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal, and an Energy Production Credit (for refined coal and Indian Coal).

At the state level, coal plants also financially benefited when Texas transitioned to a competitive electric wholesale market in 2002. When the utilities originally purchased or built these coal plants, the utilities had a monopoly on generation service, assuring them full cost recovery. To make the transition to the competitive market more palatable, owners of coal-fired generation (and other generators) received compensation – above market value – for the cost of their existing power plants. The utilities were given 10 years to recover these legacy costs through mandatory charges that all customers had to pay. Compensation for legacy costs are another form of financial aid for Texas coal that subsidized the cost of electricity.

Century-old, permanent tax breaks

Another factor to consider is the amount of time these tax provisions have been in effect in the U.S. Although tax credits for renewable generation first became available 25 years ago with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the natural gas industry has received tax breaks for over a century, starting with deductions for Intangible Drilling Costs in 1913.

Because renewable projects have been in existence for only one fourth the time as fossil fuel activities, wind and solar subsidies are part of R&D for new energy advancements. In other words, the tax benefits currently available to renewable energy projects should be compared to the subsidies given to fossil fuel projects at the early R&D stage, not the established fossil fuel industry as it is now.

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry. Additionally, fossil fuel subsidies remain permanent in the federal tax code. Renewable tax credits are scheduled to be phased down and out in just a few years, and they have had to contend with repeated changes to their federal support mechanisms. While tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry have remained consistent, renewable subsidies have experienced seven changes in merely a decade.

Impact on electricity cost

Clearly, there are tax subsidies that benefit the electric generation industry in a variety of ways. Although natural gas and coal subsidies are given at the time of exploration or production, the effect they have on lowering fuel costs for a gas or coal generator is valuable. They reduce the total cost of making electricity from those resources, just as an investment tax credit does for renewable generation.

Some tax benefits may be easier to calculate than others, but all subsidies – whether for natural gas, coal, or renewable power – reduce the final cost of the electricity used by customers. There should be no confusion about that.

By Lenae Shirley

The Texas electricity market is evolving. Low prices have helped natural gas become the dominant electricity generation resource, surpassing coal for the first time. The state’s unique competitive wholesale market, along with recently built transmission lines, have led to exciting opportunities for the rapid development of wind and solar generation. But in looking at the cost of various fuel sources and Texas’ energy future, confusion about electricity subsidies needs to be addressed.

Yes, wind and solar power have recently benefitted from the federal Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit. That said, it’s important to recognize that natural gas and coal generation have enjoyed state and federal incentives for a century, and continue to do so.

The tax benefits for wind and solar generation are not the same as those for fossil fuel generation, but each plays a similar role: Tax benefits affect the final cost of electricity.

Indirect subsidies

As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, a subsidy is:

A grant of money made by government in aid of the promoters of any enterprise, work or improvement in which the government desires to participate, or which is considered a proper subject for government aid, because such purpose is likely to be of benefit to the public."

Therefore, a reduction in state or federal taxes owed is a subsidy. And if one or more production costs receives a tax break, the end product has been subsidized as well. For example, if natural gas-fired and coal-fired electricity receives a tax break on production and delivery (inputs that affect their cost), the fuel used to create power and the resulting electricity have been subsidized. That represents an indirect subsidy.

Unlike natural gas and coal, wind and solar generation convert free resources – wind and sunlight – into electricity. Here, the “fuel” input to a generation facility to make electricity is free and constantly renewable. Thus, any subsidy for wind or solar generation is direct; rather than focusing on the fuel, cost is reduced on the generation infrastructure.

Thus, renewable power is supported by direct subsidies, and fossil-fuel generation is supported by indirect subsidies. In fact, in the 2015 report “United States – Progress Report on Fossil Fuel Subsidies,” the federal government identified 11 federal fossil fuel tax provisions, or subsidies, including: Expensing of intangible drilling costs; Percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells; Domestic manufacturing deduction for fossil fuels; Two-year amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures; Exception to the passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties.

Natural gas tax exemptions

Because natural gas and coal are finite resources, the federal and state governments administer a “severance tax” for extracting them from the ground. But there are several exemptions – or ways to alleviate that tax – on both the state and federal levels. By significantly lowering the cost of natural gas production, these exemptions reduce the cost of – subsidize – natural gas-fired electricity.

In Texas alone, there are three different exemptions to the severance tax on natural gas, on top of federal tax breaks. Texas also has numerous other tax exemptions for natural gas (unrelated to the severance tax), all of which represent indirect subsidies, including a Low-Producing Well Exemption and Certified Exemptions for Natural Gas Production taxes, like the Two-Year Inactive Well Exemption, the High-Cost Gas Reduced Tax Rate, and the Flared Gas Exemption.

Coal is subsidized

During the 1970’s energy crises, the federal government prohibited building new gas-fired generation. As a result, coal-powered plants around the nation received a big boost. And since electric utilities were government-granted monopolies, the cost of constructing new coal plants was paid for by captive ratepayers. 

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry.

The coal industry currently receives federal tax breaks from numerous provisions, including those provided by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as Amortization of Certain Pollution Control Facilities, Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal, and an Energy Production Credit (for refined coal and Indian Coal).

At the state level, coal plants also financially benefited when Texas transitioned to a competitive electric wholesale market in 2002. When the utilities originally purchased or built these coal plants, the utilities had a monopoly on generation service, assuring them full cost recovery. To make the transition to the competitive market more palatable, owners of coal-fired generation (and other generators) received compensation – above market value – for the cost of their existing power plants. The utilities were given 10 years to recover these legacy costs through mandatory charges that all customers had to pay. Compensation for legacy costs are another form of financial aid for Texas coal that subsidized the cost of electricity.

Century-old, permanent tax breaks

Another factor to consider is the amount of time these tax provisions have been in effect in the U.S. Although tax credits for renewable generation first became available 25 years ago with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the natural gas industry has received tax breaks for over a century, starting with deductions for Intangible Drilling Costs in 1913.

Because renewable projects have been in existence for only one fourth the time as fossil fuel activities, wind and solar subsidies are part of R&D for new energy advancements. In other words, the tax benefits currently available to renewable energy projects should be compared to the subsidies given to fossil fuel projects at the early R&D stage, not the established fossil fuel industry as it is now.

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry. Additionally, fossil fuel subsidies remain permanent in the federal tax code. Renewable tax credits are scheduled to be phased down and out in just a few years, and they have had to contend with repeated changes to their federal support mechanisms. While tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry have remained consistent, renewable subsidies have experienced seven changes in merely a decade.

Impact on electricity cost

Clearly, there are tax subsidies that benefit the electric generation industry in a variety of ways. Although natural gas and coal subsidies are given at the time of exploration or production, the effect they have on lowering fuel costs for a gas or coal generator is valuable. They reduce the total cost of making electricity from those resources, just as an investment tax credit does for renewable generation.

Some tax benefits may be easier to calculate than others, but all subsidies – whether for natural gas, coal, or renewable power – reduce the final cost of the electricity used by customers. There should be no confusion about that.

By Lenae Shirley

The Texas electricity market is evolving. Low prices have helped natural gas become the dominant electricity generation resource, surpassing coal for the first time. The state’s unique competitive wholesale market, along with recently built transmission lines, have led to exciting opportunities for the rapid development of wind and solar generation. But in looking at the cost of various fuel sources and Texas’ energy future, confusion about electricity subsidies needs to be addressed.

Yes, wind and solar power have recently benefitted from the federal Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit. That said, it’s important to recognize that natural gas and coal generation have enjoyed state and federal incentives for a century, and continue to do so.

The tax benefits for wind and solar generation are not the same as those for fossil fuel generation, but each plays a similar role: Tax benefits affect the final cost of electricity.

Indirect subsidies

As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, a subsidy is:

A grant of money made by government in aid of the promoters of any enterprise, work or improvement in which the government desires to participate, or which is considered a proper subject for government aid, because such purpose is likely to be of benefit to the public."

Therefore, a reduction in state or federal taxes owed is a subsidy. And if one or more production costs receives a tax break, the end product has been subsidized as well. For example, if natural gas-fired and coal-fired electricity receives a tax break on production and delivery (inputs that affect their cost), the fuel used to create power and the resulting electricity have been subsidized. That represents an indirect subsidy.

Unlike natural gas and coal, wind and solar generation convert free resources – wind and sunlight – into electricity. Here, the “fuel” input to a generation facility to make electricity is free and constantly renewable. Thus, any subsidy for wind or solar generation is direct; rather than focusing on the fuel, cost is reduced on the generation infrastructure.

Thus, renewable power is supported by direct subsidies, and fossil-fuel generation is supported by indirect subsidies. In fact, in the 2015 report “United States – Progress Report on Fossil Fuel Subsidies,” the federal government identified 11 federal fossil fuel tax provisions, or subsidies, including: Expensing of intangible drilling costs; Percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells; Domestic manufacturing deduction for fossil fuels; Two-year amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures; Exception to the passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties.

Natural gas tax exemptions

Because natural gas and coal are finite resources, the federal and state governments administer a “severance tax” for extracting them from the ground. But there are several exemptions – or ways to alleviate that tax – on both the state and federal levels. By significantly lowering the cost of natural gas production, these exemptions reduce the cost of – subsidize – natural gas-fired electricity.

In Texas alone, there are three different exemptions to the severance tax on natural gas, on top of federal tax breaks. Texas also has numerous other tax exemptions for natural gas (unrelated to the severance tax), all of which represent indirect subsidies, including a Low-Producing Well Exemption and Certified Exemptions for Natural Gas Production taxes, like the Two-Year Inactive Well Exemption, the High-Cost Gas Reduced Tax Rate, and the Flared Gas Exemption.

Coal is subsidized

During the 1970’s energy crises, the federal government prohibited building new gas-fired generation. As a result, coal-powered plants around the nation received a big boost. And since electric utilities were government-granted monopolies, the cost of constructing new coal plants was paid for by captive ratepayers. 

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry.

The coal industry currently receives federal tax breaks from numerous provisions, including those provided by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as Amortization of Certain Pollution Control Facilities, Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal, and an Energy Production Credit (for refined coal and Indian Coal).

At the state level, coal plants also financially benefited when Texas transitioned to a competitive electric wholesale market in 2002. When the utilities originally purchased or built these coal plants, the utilities had a monopoly on generation service, assuring them full cost recovery. To make the transition to the competitive market more palatable, owners of coal-fired generation (and other generators) received compensation – above market value – for the cost of their existing power plants. The utilities were given 10 years to recover these legacy costs through mandatory charges that all customers had to pay. Compensation for legacy costs are another form of financial aid for Texas coal that subsidized the cost of electricity.

Century-old, permanent tax breaks

Another factor to consider is the amount of time these tax provisions have been in effect in the U.S. Although tax credits for renewable generation first became available 25 years ago with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the natural gas industry has received tax breaks for over a century, starting with deductions for Intangible Drilling Costs in 1913.

Because renewable projects have been in existence for only one fourth the time as fossil fuel activities, wind and solar subsidies are part of R&D for new energy advancements. In other words, the tax benefits currently available to renewable energy projects should be compared to the subsidies given to fossil fuel projects at the early R&D stage, not the established fossil fuel industry as it is now.

Wind and solar power continue to advance in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so the continued investments are bearing fruit, as they did for the coal and natural gas generation industry. Additionally, fossil fuel subsidies remain permanent in the federal tax code. Renewable tax credits are scheduled to be phased down and out in just a few years, and they have had to contend with repeated changes to their federal support mechanisms. While tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry have remained consistent, renewable subsidies have experienced seven changes in merely a decade.

Impact on electricity cost

Clearly, there are tax subsidies that benefit the electric generation industry in a variety of ways. Although natural gas and coal subsidies are given at the time of exploration or production, the effect they have on lowering fuel costs for a gas or coal generator is valuable. They reduce the total cost of making electricity from those resources, just as an investment tax credit does for renewable generation.

Some tax benefits may be easier to calculate than others, but all subsidies – whether for natural gas, coal, or renewable power – reduce the final cost of the electricity used by customers. There should be no confusion about that.

Written by Lori Popkewitz Alper

On a cool day this past weekend, I spent some time at a friend’s house meeting their new puppy. With snow still covering a few spots on the ground, this adorable little pup couldn’t stop running in circles and digging in the snow. He joined their family a few short weeks ago and they’ve already removed over 25 ticks from his furry little body, with the number continuing to go up as the springtime temperatures rise.

If you spend time in the great outdoors, or are a pet owner, it’s hard to ignore the significant increase in the tick population over the past few years. With climate change translating to unpredictable weather patterns and warmer temperatures, the tick population is thriving and multiplying faster than ever before. Shorter, warmer winters are enabling ticks to survive for longer periods of time and flourish in new areas of the country.

The warmer temperatures are also known to cause an upsurge in mice which could be a good indicator that the tick population and Lyme disease are on the rise. Mice are known to harbor many ticks and infect the larvae that cause Lyme disease. If the mice population increases the year before it can be a good predictor that the incidence of Lyme disease the following year will continue to rise.

Ticks can attach to any part of the human body, but are often found in the groin, scalp and armpits. In most cases, a tick must be attached for 36 to 48 hours or more before Lyme disease can be transmitted. While all ticks bite and survive on blood, not all ticks carry Lyme disease. Blacklegged ticks, or deer ticks, are the main carriers of the disease which can cause a rash, fevers, arthritis, headaches, and facial paralysis

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “…the incidence of Lyme disease in the United States has approximately doubled since 1991, from 3.74 reported cases per 100,000 people to 7.95 reported cases per 100,000 people in 2014.” This year is expected to be a particularly risky year for Lyme according to Rick Ostfeld, who has studied Lyme disease for over 20 years and is an ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York.

There are a few things you can do to keep the ticks at bay and reduce the chance of developing Lyme disease.

• After you and/or your kids come in after spending time outdoors it’s always a good idea to do a thorough tick check.
• Find a safe, non-toxic, DEET-free tick repellent to apply before heading outdoors.
• Take a lint roller with you on a hike. Use it every so often to do a full sweep of your clothing.
• Wear light-colored clothing so you can easily spot a tick.
• Wear long pants and long-sleeved tops and tuck your pants into your socks if you know you’re going to be in an area where ticks could be lurking.
• If there are ticks on your clothing, throw them into the dryer on high heat.
• If you do find a tick make sure to remove it immediately and completely with a pair of tweezers.

LEARN MORE about what to do if you’ve been bitten by a tick and Lyme Disease from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LEARN MORE about ticks and climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

Each week, Delta Dispatches, the weekly podcast from Restore the Mississippi River Delta, looks at one component of coastal restoration in Louisiana. This week, Jacquess Hebert and Simone Maloz talk about nonstructural components of the 2017 Coastal Master Plan. The term “nonstructural” originated because nonstructural storm protection is considered the alternative to traditional structural flood protection (i.e. levees). Structural measures control water and keep it out or away from an area, while nonstructural measures accommodate water and make buildings and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast – Nonstructural Programs appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Each week, Delta Dispatches, the weekly podcast from Restore the Mississippi River Delta, looks at one component of coastal restoration in Louisiana. This week, Jacquess Hebert and Simone Maloz talk about nonstructural components of the 2017 Coastal Master Plan. The term “nonstructural” originated because nonstructural storm protection is considered the alternative to traditional structural flood protection (i.e. levees). Structural measures control water and keep it out or away from an area, while nonstructural measures accommodate water and make buildings and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast – Nonstructural Programs appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Each week, Delta Dispatches, the weekly podcast from Restore the Mississippi River Delta, looks at one component of coastal restoration in Louisiana. This week, Jacquess Hebert and Simone Maloz talk about nonstructural components of the 2017 Coastal Master Plan. The term “nonstructural” originated because nonstructural storm protection is considered the alternative to traditional structural flood protection (i.e. levees). Structural measures control water and keep it out or away from an area, while nonstructural measures accommodate water and make buildings and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast – Nonstructural Programs appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Written by Katy Farber

Fake news is a phenomenon of “alternative facts” that’s been sweeping the news. It continues to challenge our nation with divisive diversions.

But what about fake science?

According to the Washington Post, a fake science book aimed at our children, titled “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” has been delivered to 25,000 science teachers. Another 175,000 books will be sent in the coming weeks, and that will continue until every science teacher in the country has a copy.

This is worth repeating…

Every science teacher, across America will receive a “free” copy of a book of climate lies.

The cover seems pretty harmless, right? It has the look of a trustworthy, fact filled, well-researched textbook.

But wait. Do scientists disagree about climate change? No. There is a consensus of 97% of scientists that human-made climate change is real and that these climatic changes are warming our planet and already causing widespread health and environmental impacts.

Just this week, a new report from the American Psychological association links climate change with lung and heart disease, malnutrition and increased risk for asthma and insect-borne diseases such as Zika. This report also adds the psychological effects of human suffering caused by climate change in regards to extreme weather such as flooding and hurricanes.

How would a book that lies about science get into the classrooms of our nation’s teachers?

The Heartland Institute produced the book. This group is a well-known organization funded by the Koch brothers, among other climate deniers. According to FRONTLINE:

“The Heartland initiative dismisses multiple studies showing scientists are in near unanimous agreement that humans are changing the climate. Even if human activity is contributing to climate change, the book argues, it “would probably not be harmful, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.”

In the introduction, the book tosses climate change aside because “we have Isis beheading people.” This is a classic technique employed by disinformation campaigns  – ignore the issue or question at hand, and raise a different issue to distract from the original one.

The Washington Post article mentions Heartland’s CEO Joe Bast as saying that no one has contacted them for “expert” opinions in the last 8-12 years, until now, with the new Trump administration.

With a climate denier in the White House, “alternative science” – delivered by The Heartland Institute – aims to unravel years of environmental and public health policy.

The book ends with this:

“As this summary makes apparent, there is no survey or study that supports the claim of a scientific consensus that global warming is both man-made and a problem, and ample evidence to the contrary. There is no scientific consensus on global warming.”

What leads to this inaccurate conclusion? Two references.

Now, as someone who has just written a university dissertation with 12 pages of references, all of which were carefully selected over months of reading and study, I strongly question the validity of their sources.

The first reference leads to BBC news. But that takes you to the Heartland website, where the link is broken.

The second reference is from British journalist, Mike Hume, who writes about climate change as a social and cultural issue, and the complexity of its social history.

The book essentially has one reference, and that reference is light on scientific data or information.

Here’s where things get even messier…

I am an educator and I work with teachers. And I know that teachers are short on time, and in a high need of resources. New teachers, teachers who live in states with climate denying legislators, could use this book and present it as fact. And we know students are vulnerable to fake news that appears to be valid – they have difficulty discerning fake news from credible news sources. This is not their fault – they are children and are just learning the skills necessary to determine if information is credible.

What will children learn from a book that’s not based on scientific facts or consensus? What will children learn from a book that’s published by a climate-denying group with a budget of 5.3 million dollars?

Unless they have been taught to recognize fact from fiction, our schoolchildren will be misinformed, and may perpetuate the lies in this book.

And that is a huge problem for our democracy.

When this article posted on our Moms Clean Air Force Facebook page, there was collective outrage. Teachers shared photos of receiving the package from the Heartland Institute. Many returned the package with strong words of their own. One teacher said:

“So the question is, who do you want influencing your child’s education? Multi-million-dollar anti-science lobby and propaganda groups, or local school boards, states, teachers, parents, communities, and the scientific community?

Exactly. Parents, we must stay vigilant. We are our children’s first teachers, and we must demand that fake science has no place in the hearts and minds of our children.

Photo: Brenna Verre, FRONTLINE

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Written by Dominique Browning

In the months since his inauguration, Donald Trump has repeatedly undermined our children’s health. He has attempted to strip the EPA of funding, dismantle America’s Clean Power Plan, and disregard research on dangerous toxics that keep our food and families safe.

It’s clear that he values polluter profits over the health and wellbeing of our children.

But at the same time, we’ve witnessed an inspiring wave of activism, as people from all walks of life speak up for our children’s health and future. You’re part of that wave, and we feel buoyed by your values and your dedication every day.

Now, it’s time to MARCH.

April 29th marks one hundred days of the Trump presidency. One hundred days of disregard for our children’s health and future. One hundred days of placing polluter profits over people. But most importantly, one hundred days of fighting back.

On April 29th, families in Washington, DC, and across the country will march for climate solutions with the People’s Climate Movement, a unified effort to oppose air pollution and climate disruption and to speak up for our right to clean air, clean water, and a better future for our children.

As parents, we have a clear advantage in this fight: Motherlove. It’s the source of our passion and our power. And when we stand together, it’s an overwhelming force for change. That’s why we hope you’ll join us on April 29th.

Moms Clean Air Force will be marching in Washington, DC, and at sister marches across the country. We have joined with more than 800 partner organizations in the People’s Climate Movement and together we are working toward a massive, unprecedented turnout. That’s where you come in. Bring your family, friends, and loved ones to march for climate, jobs and justice.

If you can’t make it to D.C., you can find a sister march near you HERE.

Together we will show the world that our love is stronger than greed.

MARCH WITH MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director While picking up groceries for the week, a shopper may compare brands, prices, and nutritional information to ensure they make economical and healthy choices for their family. Unfortunately, there’s much more to our food than meets the eye – or makes the label. Approximately 10,000 food additives are allowed […]

The post The hidden – and potentially dangerous – chemicals in your diet first appeared on EDF Health.