SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
natural resources defense council
'Terrifying': Leak Shows Industry Plot to Worsen Methane Emissions—If Trump Wins
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely."
Oct 18, 2024
A key oil and gas industry group has devised a plan to dismantle Biden-era climate regulations, including on methane emissions, according to an investigation published Friday in The Washington Post.
The American Exploration and Production Council, a trade group of 30 oil and gas producers, aims to reverse a series of regulations the Biden administration has made, including the institution of a methane fee, the Post reported, based on AXPC documents that were leaked to Fieldnotes, a climate research group.
AXPC represents Big Oil companies including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, whose executives Republican nominee Donald Trump has aggressively sought out for contributions in his bid to return to the White House, even making a quid pro quo offer—deregulation in return for $1 billion in campaign cash—during a gathering at Mar-a-Lago in April.
David Doniger, senior adviser to the NRDC Action Fund, which is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Post that Trump had "promised to grant their wishes" and the leaked documents, which Doniger reviewed at the paper's request, revealed their "wish list."
Paasha Mahdavi, director of the Energy Governance and Political Economy Lab at University of California at Santa Barbara, noted the comprehensiveness of AXPC's plans, which he also reviewed.
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely," Mahdavi told the Post. "They want government to stop regulating climate issues and stop thinking about climate risks."
Mahdavi said the AXPC documents showed that member companies were acting out of step with their own public climate pledges.
"They talk a lot about climate ambitions while doing something different inside their companies," he said. "If you are aligned with the Paris agreement, you cannot be part of a trade association trying to roll back these emissions regulations. Those two things are inconsistent."
Elizabeth Kolbert, an environmental writer at The New Yorker, said the plans were not surprising but were "still terrifying."
The oil and gas industry's plan for a Trump presidency involves pouring more methane into the atmosphere. Unsurprisingly, but still terrifying. https://t.co/RsVjiMefZH
— Elizabeth Kolbert (@ElizKolbert) October 18, 2024
Aspects of the AXPC plans had already been released publicly, including its goals to increase the production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The leaked documents included a confidential survey of member companies showing that nine out of the 19 companies that responded had increased methane flaring between 2021 and 2023. Natural gas flaring is a longstanding but highly polluting industry disposal method. The survey also showed that the total amount of flaring across the companies increased by 20% from 2022 to 2023.
Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide, though not as long lasting in its effects. Methane emissions are responsible for about 20-30% of climate warming since the 1700s, scientists estimate—second only to carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels are a major source of those methane emissions, along with modern agricultural practices and other causes.
In March, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its methane rule, which is projected to reduce emissions of the gas by up to 80% over 14 years. A group of Republican-led states and fossil fuel interests have challenged the rule in federal court. The case that's ongoing, though the plaintiffs' bid for an emergency injunction on the rule from the U.S. Supreme Court failed, so the regulation remains in effect.
The documents also show a number of other orders and regulations in the industry's crosshairs. One is a sweeping executive order issued in the first week of the Biden administration to establish a "whole-of-government" approach to tackling the climate crisis; it includes goals to limit drilling on federal land and decarbonize the grid. AXPC also seeks to undo an executive order that requires companies to disclose climate-related financial risks.
Other items in the AXPC roadmap include lifting the Biden administration's pause on LNG exports and undoing a rule requiring the climate to be taken into account in major infrastructure projects. The group also wants to see an executive order that promotes fossil fuel production.
AXPC spokesperson Mark Bednar, who previously worked for then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, told the Post that "our board documents make clear that our priorities are the same regardless of who is in the White House."
Yet the plan, which runs in contradiction to Democratic Party aims, will only be actionable if Trump returns to power.
Trump has phoned oil and gas executives regularly in recent months "to hear their wishes and raise campaign cash," the Post reported. As a group, AXPC hasn't contributed to the Trump campaign, but leaders of its member companies are Trump donors and fundraisers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), which released a major report this week showing that the world's nations were not on track to achieve crucial climate goals, has documented the dangerous rise in global methane emissions—making the agency a target of the fossil fuel industry.
At a fundraiser this summer, fossil fuel executives told Trump he should push for Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, to be replaced, according to the Post, citing an anonymous attendee.
ExxonMobil distanced itself from the leaked documents, telling the Post that it doesn't agree with all AXPC positions and that it has sharply reduced its methane emissions and supports the methane fee.
ConocoPhillips didn't reply to a request for comment by the Post but has said in filings that it supports the AXPC's position on methane.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Sigh of Relief' as Supreme Court Gives EPA Another Temporary Win
"Fossil fuel interests lost, and clean air won," one group declared.
Oct 16, 2024
The climate movement on Wednesday welcomed a victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, the third temporary win for the Biden administration's environmental policies this month.
Although the right-wing justices have a record of rulings that have alarmed environmental and public health groups, the high court declined to block an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule intended to limit power plants' planet-heating pollution as a legal challenge to the April policy plays out.
"Given its rulings in recent years undercutting environmental protections, the refusal of the majority on the Supreme Court to block this vital rule is a victory for common sense. This warrants a sigh of relief from the millions of Americans experiencing the impact of the climate crisis," said Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Today's ruling rejects the latest abuse of the Supreme Court's shadow docket by industry and some state attorneys general. The high court made the right call," she continued. "The Supreme Court evidently saw through their phony arguments."
"Power producers don't need immediate relief from modest standards that kick in eight years from now. And states have plenty of time to begin their planning process," Hankins stressed. "Now the case goes back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is moving quickly to decide the merits of this case. We will be helping to defend the standards there. The climate crisis demands that we do."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, similarly said that "the climate crisis is actually an emergency affecting tens of millions of people across the globe every day. Today the court rejected the big polluters' attempt to seek an emergency stay based on their trumped-up allegations. We are in the middle of what will be the hottest year on record, with devastating and deadly extreme storms occurring regularly."
"The EPA's carbon pollution standards for power plants set reasonable targets for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution, allowing years for them to meet those goals. The Supreme Court's decision rejected the big polluter arguments against slashing carbon pollution and paved the way for less climate pollution in the future," Alt added. "Of course, the fight isn't over. The D.C. Circuit must still rule on the merits. We support the EPA's authority to set commonsense pollution protections to slash climate pollution and protect our kids and communities from climate change and other dangerous air pollution."
The decision came after the justices in early October rejected industry-backed petitions to issue injunctions on new Biden administration rules for methane and mercury. However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in Wednesday's decision due to financial conflicts and Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted the emergency request from GOP-led states and groups to block the rule.
Additionally, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the states and groups "have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges," but there is no need for emergency action at this time "because the applicants need not start compliance work until June 2025," so "they are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm" before a final decision.
As The New York Timesreported Wednesday:
The dispute was the latest bid by Republican-led states to undercut the Biden administration's ambitious climate agenda. The challenge carries similarities to a case the Supreme Court considered in the term that ended in July. Three states, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, joined with industry groups to challenge an EPA proposal aimed at limiting the flow of air pollution across state lines, asking the Supreme Court to intervene even as the challenge continued to be litigated in lower courts.
In June, the justices paused the proposal, known as the "good neighbor" plan, which requires factories and power plants in the West and Midwest to cut ozone pollution that makes its way into Eastern states.
Although green groups are pushing to preserve the April policy, some have argued that the Biden administration should have gone further with its actions to combat the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
Climate Justice Alliance interim executive director KD Chavez said Wednesday that while the group applauds the path the latest Supreme Court decision "charts for what can be construed as a coal phaseout, this rule is still riddled with loopholes that give a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry to continue operations and experiment on frontline communities by exposing them to the dangers and health effects of unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage."
"The rule does not go far enough to push the needle towards a fossil fuel phaseout and a just transition for the energy sector, the communities where energy projects are sited, and the workers who could tap into renewable energy jobs," Chavez emphasized. "Frontline communities deserve more, and given this rule won't be applied until next year, we will continue to work to ensure stronger power plant regulations that meet the growing threat of climate catastrophe we all currently face."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill 'Is Taken Straight From Project 2025'
"You thought Project 2025 was just a threat after the election? It's actually happening *right now,*" said one climate campaigner.
Jul 26, 2024
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that campaigners linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreamsreported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular