#clean coal agency

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a new proposal Thursday to cut greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of power plants burning coal or natural gas, two of the top sources of electricity across the United States. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), criticizing the “radical” proposal, issued his own scorched earth ultimatum on Wednesday ahead of the announcement.

Manchin, chair of the Senate Energy Committee and the top recipient of contributions from the oil and gas industry during the 2022 election cycle, vowed Wednesday to oppose every one of President Joe Biden’s nominees for the EPA “until they halt their government overreach.”

“This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability,” Manchin wrote in a statement released Wednesday.

The EPA proposal would require most fossil fuel-fired power plants to slash their greenhouse emissions by 90% between 2023 and 2040. The EPA projects the emissions reduction would deliver up to $85 billion in climate and health benefits over the next two decades by heading off premature deaths, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, school absences and lost workdays.

“Alongside historic investment taking place across America in clean energy manufacturing and deployment, these proposals will help deliver tremendous benefits to the American people — cutting climate pollution and other harmful pollutants, protecting people’s health, and driving American innovation,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement issued Thursday.

By 2035, the Biden administration aims to shift all electricity in the U.S. to zero-emission sources including wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower, Roll Call reported. In a written statement, Manchin warned the administration’s “commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security.”

Manchin is up for reelection during the 2024 election cycle, but he has not yet announced whether he will run.

Last month, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) announced his campaign for Manchin’s seat. The Democrat-turned-Republican is among the most popular governors in the country and leads a state former President Donald Trump won by nearly 40 percentage points in 2020.

Manchin has hammered the Biden administration in recent weeks for its implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the president’s signature climate change bill that the Democratic senator was instrumental in shaping.

“Neither the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law nor the IRA gave new authority to regulate power plant emission standards. However, I fear that this Administration’s commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security and I will oppose all EPA nominees until they halt their government overreach,” Manchin said in his Wednesday statement.

What Manchin did not disclose in his statement, however, is that the EPA proposal would jeopardize one West Virginia coal facility that’s particularly lucrative for Manchin’s family business, Enersystems Inc., POLITICO reported. Enersystems delivers waste coal to the Grant Town power plant, which was reportedly already struggling financially, troubles that are expected to deepen with the strict new climate proposal.

Manchin personally received $537,000 from Enersystems last year, according to POLITICO’s analysis of personal financial disclosures filed with the U.S. Senate, and he has been paid more than $5 million by the company since he was first elected in 2010. His son, Joe Manchin IV, now runs Enersystems. The Senator’s campaign has also benefited from political contributions from Enersystems, OpenSecrets reported last year.

“This is going to make it harder for them to stay around. You won’t find written anywhere in the rule that this is supposed to be putting coal plants out of business, but just do the math,” Brian Murray, director of the Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability at Duke University, told POLITICO.

In 2020, Manchin’s home state of West Virginia generated about 90% of its power from coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, less than 20% of the energy generated nationally comes from coal. Many states, including neighboring Virginia, are phasing out coal by replacing it with natural gas.

While the U.S. may show signs of moving away from coal, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told the Senate Energy Committee earlier this month that the country was not prepared to abandon coal and maintain a reliable energy system.

“Coal is more dependable than gas and yes, we need to keep coal generation available for the foreseeable future,” said Commissioner Mark Christie.

Manchin took another swipe at the EPA on Thursday during an energy committee hearing on permitting reform, when he accused the agency of preventing the development of carbon capture technology by denying companies the permits they need to trap captured carbon underground.

“Don’t tell me that you’re going to invest in carbon capture sequestration when we can’t get a permit to basically sequester the carbon captured,” Manchin said. “This is the game that’s being played. I know it, they know I know it, and we’re not gonna let them get away with it.”

[reasonsforhope]

"The sleeping giant of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stirred.

In the past month, an avalanche of anti-pollution rules, targeting everything from toxic drinking water to planet-heating gases in the atmosphere, have been issued by the agency. Belatedly, the sizable weight of the US federal government is being thrown at longstanding environmental crises, including the climate emergency.

On Thursday [May 18, 2023], the EPA’s month of frenzied activity was crowned by the toughest ever limits upon carbon pollution from America’s power sector, with large, existing coal and gas plants told they must slash their emissions by 90% or face being shut down.

The measure will, the EPA says, wipe out more than 600m tons of carbon emissions over the next two decades, about double what the entire UK emits each year. But even this wasn’t the biggest pollution reduction announced in recent weeks.

In April, new emissions standards for cars and trucks will eliminate an expected 9bn tons of CO2 by the mid-point of the century, while separate rules issued late last year aim to slash hydrofluorocarbons, planet-heating gases used widely in refrigeration and air conditioning, by 4.6bn tons in the same timeframe. Methane, another highly potent greenhouse gas, will be curtailed by 810m tons over the next decade in another EPA edict.

In just a few short months the EPA, diminished and demoralized under Donald Trump, has flexed its regulatory muscles to the extent that 15bn tons of greenhouse gases – equivalent to about three times the US’s carbon pollution, or nearly half of the entire world’s annual fossil fuel emissions – are set to be prevented, transforming the power basis of Americans’ cars and homes in the process...

If last year’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with its $370bn in clean energy subsidies and enticements for electric car buyers, was the carrot to reducing emissions, the EPA now appears to be bringing a hefty stick.

The IRA should help reduce US emissions by about 40% this decade but the cut needs to be deeper, up to half of 2005 levels, to give the world a chance of avoiding catastrophic heatwaves, wildfires, drought and other climate calamities. The new rules suddenly put America, after years of delay and political rancor, tantalizingly within reach of this...

“It’s clear we’ve reached a pivotal point in human history and it’s on all of us to act right now to protect our future,” said Michael Regan, the administrator of the EPA, in a speech last week at the University of Maryland. The venue was chosen in a nod to the young, climate-concerned voters Joe Biden hopes to court in next year’s presidential election, and who have been dismayed by Biden’s acquiescence to large-scale oil and gas drilling.

“Folks, this is our future we are talking about, and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for real climate action,” [Michael Regan, the administrator of the EPA], added. “Failure is not an option, indifference is not an option, inaction is not an option.” ...

It’s not just climate the EPA has acted upon in recent months. There are new standards for chemical plants, such as those that blight the so-called "Cancer Alley" the US, from emitting cancer-causing toxins such as benzene, ethylene oxide and vinyl chloride. New rules curbing mercury, arsenic and lead from industrial facilities have been released, as have tighter limits on emissions of soot and the first ever regulations targeting the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkylsubstances (or PFAS) in drinking water.” ...

For those inside the agency, the breakneck pace has been enervating. “It’s definitely a race against time,” said one senior EPA official, who asked not to be named. “The clock is ticking. It is a sprint through a marathon and it is exhausting.” ...

“We know the work to confront the climate crisis doesn’t stop at strong carbon pollution standards,” said Ben Jealous, the executive director of the Sierra Club.

“The continued use or expansion of fossil power plants is incompatible with a livable future. Simply put, we must not merely limit the use of fossil fuel electricity – we must end it entirely.”"

-via The Guardian (US), 5/16/23

[indizombie]

The war, and consequent rising gas prices, forced Indonesia to reduce ballooning subsidies aimed at keeping fuel prices and some power tariffs in check. But this was a very “hurried reform” and doesn’t address the challenge of weaning the world’s largest coal exporter off fossil fuels and reaching its 2060 net zero goal, said Anissa. R. Suharsono, of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Coal exports have increased nearly 1.5 times between April and June, compared to 2021, in response to European demand and Indonesia has already produced over 80% of the total coal it produced last year, according to government data. The country needs to nearly triple its clean energy investment by 2030 to achieve net zero by 2060, according to the International Energy Agency, but Suharsono said it wasn’t clear how it was going to meet those targets. “There are currently no overarching regulations or a clear roadmap,” she said.

‘What the war in Ukraine means for Asia’s climate goals’, Associated Press

[zvaigzdelasas]

China’s massive rollout of renewable energy is accelerating, its investments in the sector growing so large that international climate watchdogs now expect the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions to peak years earlier than anticipated—possibly as soon as this year[!!!].

China installed 217 gigawatts worth of solar power last year alone, a 55% increase, according to new government data. That is more than 500 million solar panels and well above the total installed solar capacity of the U.S. [...]

Wind-energy installation additions were 76 gigawatts last year, more than the rest of the world combined. That amounted to more than 20,000 new turbines across the country, including the world’s largest, [...]

The low-carbon capacity additions, which also included hydropower and nuclear, were for the first time large enough that their power output could cover the entire annual increase in Chinese electricity demand [!!!!], analysts say. The dynamic suggests that coal-fired generation—which accounts for 70% of overall emissions for the world’s biggest polluter—is set to decline in the years to come, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency and Lauri Myllyvirta, the Helsinki-based lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.[...]

Its rapid emissions growth long provided fodder for critics who said Beijing wasn’t committed to fighting climate change or supporting the Paris accord, the landmark climate agreement that calls for governments to attempt to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial temperatures. Now, analysts and officials say Beijing’s efforts are lending momentum to the Paris process, which requires governments to draft new emissions plans every five years.

“An early peak would have a lot of symbolic value and send a signal to the world that we’ve turned a corner," said Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at the Oslo-based Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.

In 2020, Chinese leader Xi Jinping pledged that the country’s emissions would begin falling before 2030 and hit net zero before 2060, part of its plan prepared under the Paris accord. He also said China would have 1,200 gigawatts of total solar- and wind-power capacity by the end of this decade. The country is six years ahead of schedule: China reached 1,050 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity at the end of 2023, and the China Electricity Council forecast last month that capacity would top 1,300 gigawatts by the end of this year.[...]

Transition Zero, a U.K.-based nonprofit that uses satellite images to monitor industrial activity and emissions in China, says the official data are “broadly aligned and consistent" with theirs.[...]

[M]oving China’s timeline for an overall emissions peak forward could shave off around 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Celsius of projected global warming if emissions started to decline next decade, analysts say.[...]

The most certain variable in the equation is the breakneck pace of China’s renewable-energy rollout, which analysts expect will continue to add 200 to 300 gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity a year. The investments in renewable energy have become a major driver of the Chinese economy. The country’s clean-energy spending totaled $890 billion last year, up 40%. [...]

The adoption of electric vehicles is happening so rapidly that analysts say peak gasoline demand in China was already reached last year[!!!].

10 Feb 24

[batboyblog]

The United States is experiencing scorching new levels of heat fueled by climate change this summer, with dozens of people dying in the West, millions sweating under heat advisories and nearly three-quarters of Americans saying the government must prioritize global warming.

But as the Republican Party opens its national convention in Milwaukee with a prime-time focus on energy on Monday night, the party has no plan to address climate change.

While many Republicans no longer deny the overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is warming, party leaders do not see it as a problem that needs to be addressed.

“I don’t know that there is a Republican approach to climate change as an organizing issue,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a conservative research group focused on energy. “I don’t think President Trump sees reducing greenhouse gases, using the government to do so, as an imperative.”

When former President Donald J. Trump mentions climate change at all, it is mockingly.

“Can you imagine, this guy says global warming is the greatest threat to our country?” Mr. Trump said, referring to President Biden as he addressed a rally in Chesapeake, Va., last month, the hottest June in recorded history across the globe. “Global warming is fine. In fact, I heard it was going to be very warm today. It’s fine.”

He went on to dismiss the scientific evidence that melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are causing seas to rise, threatening coastal communities around the world. He said it would result in “more waterfront property, if you’re lucky enough to own.” And he lapsed into familiar rants against windmills and electric vehicles.

At the televised debate with Mr. Biden in June, Mr. Trump was asked if he would take any action as president to slow the climate crisis. “I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it,” Mr. Trump responded, without answering the question.

Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, later declined to clarify the former president’s position or discuss any actions he would take regarding climate change, saying only that he wants “energy dominance.”

The United States last year pumped more crude oil than any country in history and is now the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas.

A clear majority of Americans, 65 percent, wants the country to focus on increasing solar, wind and other renewable energy and not fossil fuels, according to a May survey by the Pew Research Center. But just 38 percent of Republicans surveyed said renewable energy should be prioritized, while 61 percent said the country should focus on developing more oil, gas and coal.

“Their No. 1 agenda is to continue producing fossil fuels,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences and the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A&M University. “Once you understand their main goal is to entrench fossil fuels regardless of anything else, everything makes sense.”

The party platform, issued last week, makes no mention of climate change. Instead, it encourages more production of oil, gas and coal, the burning of which is dangerously driving up global temperatures. “We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL,” it says, referring to oil as “liquid gold.”

By contrast, Mr. Biden has taken the most aggressive action of any president to cut emissions from coal, oil and gas and encourage a transition to wind, solar and other carbon-free energy. He has directed every federal agency from the Agriculture Department to the Pentagon to consider how climate change is affecting their core missions.

If Mr. Biden has taken an all-of-government approach to fighting climate change, Mr. Trump and his allies would adopt the opposite: scrubbing “climate” from all federal functions and promoting fossil fuels.

Mr. Trump and his allies want to end federal subsidies for electric vehicles, battery development and the wind and solar industries, preferring instead to open up the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling, encourage more offshore drilling and expand gas export terminals.

Project 2025, a lengthy manual filled with specific proposals for a next Republican administration, calls for erasing any mention of climate change across the government. While Mr. Trump has recently sought to distance himself from Project 2025, he has praised its architects at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, and much of the plan was written by people who were top advisers during his first term and could serve in prominent roles if he wins in November.

When pressed to discuss climate change, some Republicans say the country should produce more natural gas and sell it to other countries as a cleaner replacement for coal.

While natural gas produces less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, it remains one of the sources of the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change. Scientists say that countries must stop burning coal, oil and gas to keep global warming to relatively safe levels. Last year, at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, the United States and nearly 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels.

But if elected, Mr. Trump has indicated he would pull back from the global fight against climate change, as he did when he announced in 2017 that the United States would be the first and only country to withdraw from the Paris Agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. (The United States subsequently rejoined under Mr. Biden.)

And it’s possible he would go even further. Mr. Trump’s former aides said that if he wins in November, he would remove the country altogether from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international body that works on climate policy and created the 2015 Paris deal.

When it comes to international relations, Project 2025 calls for an end to spending federal funds to help the world’s poorest countries transition to wind, solar and other renewable energy.

The blueprint also calls for erasing climate change as a national security concern, despite research showing rising sea levels, extreme weather and other consequences of global temperature rise are destabilizing areas of the world, affecting migration and threatening American military installations.

Federal research into climate change would slow or disappear under Project 2025, which recommends dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which conducts some of the world’s leading climate research and is also responsible for weather forecasting and tracking the path of hurricanes and other storms.

NOAA, according to the authors of Project 2025, is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.” At the agency’s research operation, which include a network of research laboratories, an undersea research center, and several joint research institutes with universities, “the preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded,” the blueprint said.

Project 2025 also calls for the president to issue an executive order to “reshape” the program that convenes 13 federal agencies every four years to produce the National Climate Assessment, the country’s most authoritative analysis of climate knowledge. The report is required by Congress and details the impacts and risks of climate change to a wide range of sectors, including agriculture, health care and transportation. It is used by the public, researchers and officials around the country to inform decisions about strategies and spending.

Project 2025 also calls for the elimination of offices at the Department of Energy dedicated to developing wind, solar and other renewable energy.

Waleed Abdalati, a former NASA chief scientist who is now at the University of Colorado Boulder, said downgrading climate science would be a disservice to the nation. “That’s a loss of four years in pursuit of creative solutions,” he said.

As president, Mr. Trump tried to replace top officials with political appointees who denied the existence of climate change and put pressure on federal scientists to water down their conclusions. Scientists refused to change their findings and attempts by the Trump administration to bury climate research were also not successful.

“Thank God they didn’t know how to run a government,” Thomas Armstrong, who led the National Climate Assessment program under the Obama administration, said at the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency, adding, “It could have been a lot worse.”

Next time, they would know how to run the government, Mr. Trump’s former officials said. “The difference between the last time and this time is, Donald Trump was president for four years,” Mr. Pyle said. “He will be more prepared.”

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week - January 09, 2023

1. Top British universities offer Afghan women free courses until Taliban lift learning ban

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban announced last month that women would no longer be able to study at universities and higher education establishments. Institutions were told to implement the ban as soon as possible.

Now, a number of British universities have teamed up through FutureLearn to offer the women in Afghanistan free access to digital learning platforms. Girls and women with internet access will be able to study more than 1,200 courses from top institutions at no cost to themselves.

2. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs extends protections to LGBTQ+ state employees and contractors

Arizona’s newly elected Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) signed an executive order extending employment protections to state employees and contractors who are LGBTQ+.

As the Human Rights Campaign reports, the executive order, signed on Hobbs’s first day in office Tuesday, directs the state’s Department of Administration to update hiring, promotion, and compensation policies for all state agencies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and include provisions in all new state contracts to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

3. EU Carbon Emissions Drop To 30-Year Lows

It was supposed to be a dirty autumn and winter, with European nations scrambling to replace Russian gas with high-polluting coal. But according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, the cold seasons so far have been the cleanest in more than 30 years.

4. Critically endangered rhinoceros gives birth to calf at Kansas City Zoo on New Year's Eve

The Kansas City Zoo got a special start to the new year: A critically endangered subspecies of rhinoceros gave birth to a calf on Dec. 31, officials announced. The calf is walking, nursing and even playing with its mother, Zuri, animal specialists said.

5. Cancer Vaccine to Simultaneously Kill and Prevent Brain Cancer Developed

Scientists are harnessing a new way to turn cancer cells into potent, anti-cancer agents. A new stem cell therapy approach eliminates established brain tumors and provides long-term immunity, training the immune system to prevent cancer from returning.

link to the paper …

6. The US has approved use of the world's first vaccine for honey bees.

It was engineered to prevent fatalities from American foulbrood disease, a bacterial condition known to weaken colonies by attacking bee larvae. As pollinators, bees play a critical role in many aspects of the ecosystem.

The vaccine could serve as a "breakthrough in protecting honey bees", Dalan Animal Health CEO Annette Kleiser said in a statement. It works by introducing an inactive version of the bacteria into the royal jelly fed to the queen, whose larvae then gain immunity.

7. Cat missing for nearly 6 years reunited with owner thanks to microchip

West Sacramento woman got the surprise of a lifetime Saturday when she was reunited with her missing cat after nearly 6 years thanks to microchip. 

- - -

That's it for this week. If you liked this post you can support this newsletter with a small kofi donation:

Buy me a coffee ❤️

Subscribe for more weekly wholesome news...

[thehopefuljournalist]

Am I a little bit late for some of you? I might be. But anyways. Here's what went right around the world this past week :)

Youth climate activists won a huge climate lawsuit

Sixteens youths (aged five to 22) from Montana, US, have emerged victorious after suing state officials for violating their right to a clean environment.

In their lawsuit, they argued that Montana's fossil fuel policies contributed to climate change, which harms their physical and mental health. Montana is a major coal producer, with large oil and gas reserves. The state has rebuffed these claims, saying that their emissions were insignificant on a global scale.

Judge Kathy Seely, in a 103-page ruling, set a legal precedent for young people’s rights to a safe climate by finding in their favour. “Every additional tonne of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries".

This win marks the very first time a US court has ruled against a government for a violation of constitutional rights based on climate change. It will now be up to Montana lawmakers to bring state policies in line.

“As fires rage in the west, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a gamechanger that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.” - Julia Olson, executive director of nonprofit law firm, Our Children’s Trust, which represented the youths in this case.

Number of Mexicans living in poverty fell by millions

Thanks to a new minimum wage boost and increases to pensions, the number of Mexicans living in poverty fell by 8.9 million between 2020-2022, according to new data published by the country’s social development agency, Coneval.

Coneval’s statistics suggest that the number of people living in extreme poverty also fell – from 10.8 million in 2020 to 9.1 million last year – although that figure is still up from a pre-Covid 8.7 million recorded in 2018.

There is still a long way to go, and some critics do claim that during the current president, López Obrador's presidency has been characterized by austerity.

An organised crime group trafficking endangered species has been jailed

The Wildlife Justice Commission (WJC), a small European wildlife charity, is apparently busting kingpins behind as much as half of the world's illegal trade in pangolin scales. The traffickers began six-year jail sentences a few weeks ago.

The wildlife charity went undercover to expose three Vietnamese and one Guinean national, members of an organised crime group trafficking body parts of endangered species including rhinos. 

They were arrested in May 2022, following a four-year investigation by the WJC, and were accused of trafficking 7.1 tonnes of pangolin scales, as well as 850kg of ivory. Last month they pleaded guilty to smuggling and were jailed for six years.

All eight species of pangolin are listed as threatened animals, four critically endangered - they are protected by international law.

“There has not been a reported seizure of pangolin scales in Asia originating from Africa in more than 550 days,” said Steve Carmody, WJC’s director of programmes. “There is no clearer example of the importance of disrupting organised crime networks.”

AI gave conservationists a breakthrough

The use of AI-controlled microphones and cameras seems set to revolutionise

biodiversity monitoring in the UK following groundbreaking work by researchers at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). They used the tech to record and analyse 3,000 hours of wildlife audio captured by monitors located near London railway lines.

The computers detected dozens of bird species, foxes, deer, bats and hedgehogs, and mapped their locations.

It’s hoped the innovation will help improve conservation and habitat management on Network Rail land.

This year is best ever for UK renewable energy installations

This years looks to be the best year so far for UK renewable energy installations, with record numbers of households fitting solar panels and heat pumps.

2023 marks the first time solar panel installations have topped an average of 20,000 a month, as homeowners look to harvest energy from the sun amid rising utility bills. 

Read the full story here.

The UK’s Tree of the Year shortlist was revealed

The Woodland Trust has announced the shortlist for its annual celebration of some of the UK’s most treasured ancient trees, and for 2023 the spotlight is on the urban landscape.

“Ancient trees in towns and cities are vital for the health of nature, people and planet,” said the charity’s lead campaigner Naomi Tilley. “They give thousands of urban wildlife species essential life support, boost the UK’s biodiversity and bring countless health and wellbeing benefits to communities.”

Article published August 17, 2023

Thank you so much for reading! Let me know what interested you, and if there's any specific topic you'd like me to dig into, my DM's are always open :)

Much love!

[kp777]

By Edward Carver

Common Dreams

Sept. 12, 2024

"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Sen. Chris Van Hollen said.

United States Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Jerry Nadler on Thursday announced the introduction of legislation that would require Big Oil firms to pay into a damages fund used to address the climate crisis.

The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which Van Hollen first proposed in 2021, would levy charges on the largest companies that extract and refine fossil fuels in the U.S., based on a Superfund model. It would create a $1 trillion fund to "address harm and damages caused," with a significant proportion of the money spent on environmental justice in affected communities, Van Hollen said.

"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Van Hollen said at a press conference.

Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, indicated that the proposal was groundbreaking.

"We're thrilled to be supporting the first ever federal bill that would make polluters pay for climate damages!" Henn wrote on social media.

The new bill targets only the "heaviest hitters," as Van Hollen put it: companies responsible for at least 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the period between 2000 and 2022. The levies they face would be directly proportional to the amount of oil, gas, and coal extracted or refined, as determined by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In addition to Van Hollen and Nadler (D-N.Y.), the bicameral legislation was also introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). It has five co-sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and more than a dozen co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Many state legislatures have considered "polluters pay" climate bills in recent years, and Vermont passed one in May. Van Hollen said a federal bill "would be a big, big step forward."

The bill has the backing of many dozens of environmental organizations around the country, several of which had representatives at Thursday's press conference.

"The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for decades," Sara Chieffo, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, said at the event. "It's time they face the consequences of their deception and are held responsible for their actions that are destroying both lives and a livable, safe climate."

Phil Radford, Sierra Club's chief strategy officer, added that "for way too long, these companies have poisoned communities, spilled oil, polluted our air, caused all sorts of health problems, and gotten away with it."

"Today is an incredible moment where we are saying: No more," he said.

Advocates indicated that at least 40% of the funds would go toward environmental justice.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Yale Environment 360:

Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country with the third largest surviving area of tropical forests, has a new strongman president. Environmentalists are concerned. They fear that, after a decade during which the country’s deforestation rates have fallen by almost two-thirds, Prabowo Subianto will unleash a new ecological orgy, cutting, burning, and despoiling some of the world’s greatest rainforests.

The 72-year-old former military man, who first rose to prominence under the country’s late-20th-century dictator President Suharto, was elected by a wide margin in February and will take office in October. He has promised to double GDP growth through expanded mining and industrial development.

Indonesia is already in the midst of a mining boom. It produces half the world’s nickel, a metal vital for the batteries used in electric vehicles. The International Energy Agency says that Indonesia could up its share of total supply, while demand for the metal expected to double by 2040.

Nickel will help other countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But it does the opposite in Indonesia, where most of the metal is mined from beneath rainforests and is refined using energy from coal-burning power stations. On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, over a third of the forests now lie within nickel mining concession areas, according to a study published this month by Mighty Earth, a global advocacy group which works in the country.

Now Prabowo wants to expand mining and refining further. “By processing our natural resources domestically, I’m optimistic that we would be able to witness double-digit economic growth,” he said shortly before the election.

But at what price for the rainforests? Some environmentalists fear the worst, as mines and refineries proliferate. But there are optimists who argue that the Western investors and manufacturers that Prabowo will need to fulfil his economic promises could leverage more sustainable development. “Nickel mining is a dirty industry,” says Amanda Hurowitz, who runs Mighty Earth’s program for protecting forests from commodity trades, “but with the political will, Indonesia can clean up the nickel supply chain.”

Under departing president Joko Widodo, Indonesia has often been seen as an environmental success story. Jokowi, as the one-time slum-dwelling carpenter is widely known, slowed forest loss dramatically by banning rapacious palm-oil and pulp companies from receiving new licenses for forest clearance. He also looked to restore nature and suppress forest fires by rewetting millions of acres of peat swamps that had been drained for failed agricultural and forestry projects.

[follow-up-news]

Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a rule issued Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency. New limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric plants are the Biden administration’s most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the power sector, the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change. The rules are a key part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050. The rule was among four measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide “regulatory certainty” to the power industry and encourage them to make investments to transition “to a clean energy economy.” The measures include requirements to reduce toxic wastewater pollutants from coal-fired plants and to safely manage coal ash in unlined storage ponds. EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the rules will reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting the reliable, long-term supply of electricity that America needs.

[reasonsforhope]

"This year the world will make something like 70bn of these solar cells, the vast majority of them in China, and sandwich them between sheets of glass to make what the industry calls modules but most other people call panels: 60 to 72 cells at a time, typically, for most of the modules which end up on residential roofs, more for those destined for commercial plant. Those panels will provide power to family homes, to local electricity collectives, to specific industrial installations and to large electric grids; they will sit unnoticed on roofs, charmingly outside rural schools, controversially across pristine deserts, prosaically on the balconies of blocks of flats and in almost every other setting imaginable.

Once in place they will sit there for decades, making no noise, emitting no fumes, using no resources, costing almost nothing and generating power. It is the least obtrusive revolution imaginable. But it is a revolution nonetheless.

Over the course of 2023 the world’s solar cells, their panels currently covering less than 10,000 square kilometres, produced about 1,600 terawatt-hours of energy (a terawatt, or 1tw, is a trillion watts). That represented about 6% of the electricity generated world wide, and just over 1% of the world’s primary-energy use. That last figure sounds fairly marginal, though rather less so when you consider that the fossil fuels which provide most of the world’s primary energy are much less efficient. More than half the primary energy in coal and oil ends up as waste heat, rather than electricity or forward motion.

What makes solar energy revolutionary is the rate of growth which brought it to this just-beyond-the-marginal state. Michael Liebreich, a veteran analyst of clean-energy technology and economics, puts it this way:

In 2004, it took the world a whole year to install a gigawatt of solar-power capacity... In 2010, it took a month In 2016, a week. In 2023 there were single days which saw a gigawatt of installation worldwide. Over the course of 2024 analysts at BloombergNEF, a data outfit, expect to see 520-655gw of capacity installed: that’s up to two 2004s a day...

And it shows no signs of stopping, or even slowing down. Buying and installing solar panels is currently the largest single category of investment in electricity generation, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an intergovernmental think-tank: it expects $500bn this year, not far short of the sum being put into upstream oil and gas. Installed capacity is doubling every three years. According to the International Solar Energy Society:

Solar power is on track to generate more electricity than all the world’s nuclear power plants in 2026 Than its wind turbines in 2027 Tthan its dams in 2028 Its gas-fired power plants in 2030 And its coal-fired ones in 2032.

In an IEA scenario which provides net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by the middle of the century, solar energy becomes humankind’s largest source of primary energy—not just electricity—by the 2040s...

Expecting exponentials to carry on is rarely a basis for sober forecasting. At some point either demand or supply faces an unavoidable constraint; a graph which was going up exponentially starts to take on the form of an elongated S. And there is a wide variety of plausible stories about possible constraints...

All real issues. But the past 20 years of solar growth have seen naive extrapolations trounce forecasting soberly informed by such concerns again and again. In 2009, when installed solar capacity worldwide was 23gw, the energy experts at the IEA predicted that in the 20 years to 2030 it would increase to 244gw. It hit that milestone in 2016, when only six of the 20 years had passed. According to Nat Bullard, an energy analyst, over most of the 2010s actual solar installations typically beat the IEA’s five-year forecasts by 235% (see chart). The people who have come closest to predicting what has actually happened have been environmentalists poo-pooed for zealotry and economic illiteracy, such as those at Greenpeace who, also in 2009, predicted 921gw of solar capacity by 2030. Yet even that was an underestimate. The world’s solar capacity hit 1,419gw last year.

-via The Economist, June 20, 2024

--

Note: That graph. Is fucking ridiculous(ly hopeful).

For perspective: the graph shows that in 2023, there were about 350 GW of solar installed. The 5-year prediction from 2023 said that we'd end up around 450 GW by 2030.

We hit over 600 GW in the first half of 2024 alone.

This is what's called an exponential curve. It's a curve that keeps going up at a rate that gets higher and higher with each year.

This, I firmly believe, is a huge part of what is going to let us save the world.

[climatecalling]

We should be optimistic – however cautiously – that humans can get their act together and at least limit the damage from the climate crisis. ... Some important clean energy tech – solar energy, electric cars and battery production – is now being rolled out at a record pace, in line with what is needed to reach global net zero emissions by 2050. Under the IEA’s pathway to zero, solar and EVs could provide one-third of the global emissions cuts needed by 2030. This tells us that rapid change is possible. In the case of solar, it suggests that it can leapfrog fossil fuels as a primary energy source in the developing world, if influential countries tailor their support in that direction. The second point is that, more than ever, we have the technology. Two years ago the IEA estimated that the clean technology needed to provide nearly half the emissions reductions across the planet by 2050 was not yet available. That gap has now dropped to 35% as new technology – batteries and electrolysers, for example – has come on. It is likely to continue to fall. It means the main goal now must be rapid acceleration before 2030. That’s easier said than done, but it’s possible using proven and in most cases affordable strategies. The agency says global renewable energy capacity needs to triple, the pace of energy efficiency improvements needs to double, EVs and heat pump sales need to rise sharply, and methane emissions from fossil fuels – including leaks from coal and gas mines – need to be cut by 75% in that timeframe. For the clean tech to have the impact that’s required, the approval and development of new fossil fuels needs to stop. This is the third point. It’s consistent with what IEA chief, Fatih Birol, said when the first roadmap was released two years ago. ... The IEA now says a concerted expansion of renewable energy could cut global demand for fossil fuels by 25% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

[darkmaga-retard]

Republican states have called the United States Supreme Court to block sweeping federal regulations limiting “methane emissions.”

It’s the latest legal challenge to the Biden-Harris administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA has pursued an aggressive regulatory agenda targeting oil and gas producers to comply with the globalist green agenda.

The agency claims the plan would reduce methane emissions by up to 80% within a decade.

The Biden-Harris climate agenda has faced pushback from the Supreme Court before.

Most notable was the 2022 case West Virginia v. EPA, in which the court ruled that the EPA cannot force power plants nationwide to shift away from using coal.

In their emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, 24 Republican states blasted the methane rule as a repeat of the EPA’s past efforts to “revolutionize” the Clean Air Act.

“Given its effort to revolutionize that unassuming provision to shut down power plants in favor of other sources of generation, and then to impose an impossible-to-meet standard to achieve that same result, EPA’s use of this provision to attack unlawfully the oil and gas industry comes as no surprise,” the states wrote.

The EPA’s methane reduction plan gives states an “unrealistic” two-year window to regulate hundreds of thousands of existing facilities, the states said.

[female-malice]

Late on Saturday, as members of Congress scrambled to strike a deal for legislation that would raise the nation’s debt ceiling, they agreed to a total non sequitur in the text they would release the next day. After a series of late-in-the-game interventions by lobbyists and energy executives, the draft bill declared the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline to be “required in the national interest.” It wasn’t really germane to the debt ceiling, at least not in the literal sense. But then again, it wasn’t any ordinary pipeline.

Building the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 303-mile conduit to deliver fracked gas from West Virginia to southern Virginia, has been a top priority for Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia since the project was announced in 2014. The problem, for him and the project’s other supporters, is that it has been fiercely opposed by grass-roots groups and landowners living in the project’s path for just as long. Construction on the project was recently stalled after federal judges found that regulatory agencies had repeatedly failed to comply with environmental laws.

By forcing through this pipeline, the Biden administration rounded out the ransom sought by Republicans holding the global economy hostage and paid off a debt of its own to Mr. Manchin for his crucial vote last year for the Inflation Reduction Act.

But if the Senate passes the bill the House passed on Wednesday, an insidious piece of misinformation will be enshrined in federal law: the claim that the pumping, piping and burning of more fossil fuels is — despite all scientific evidence and common sense to the contrary — a climate solution.

Natural gas is predominantly made up of methane, a climate-warming superpollutant that is responsible for about a third of the warming the world has experienced to date. If completed, the M.V.P. will be a very large and long-lived methane delivery device. At the wells that feed it and along the way, some of that methane will inevitably leak into the atmosphere, where each molecule will exert 86 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide over 20 years. At the end of the line, the methane will be burned in power plants and furnaces, producing carbon dioxide. Taken together, by one estimate, the M.V.P. would generate yearly emissions equivalent to what’s produced by 26 coal plants.

And yet the bill’s text asserts — in a brazen stroke of climate gaslighting — that the pipeline will “reduce carbon emissions and facilitate the energy transition.”

Businesses and governments have long claimed gas was a bridge to a clean energy future, a transition fuel that would tide us over until renewables were ready for prime time. But now that wind, solar and battery storage are indeed quite ready and, in many places, cheaper than gas, the jig is up. That makes the M.V.P. a project in search of a rationale: There are cheaper sources of gas available via existing pipelines, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that demand for gas in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions will continue to drop off in the years and decades ahead.

Though the assertions that the pipeline is necessary and good for the climate defy logic, the political calculus is clear enough. Congressional Democrats and President Biden want to reward Mr. Manchin, who is weighing whether to run in what is sure to be a tough re-election fight in 2024.

Mr. Manchin was also a supporter of another large gas pipeline that would have originated in his state: the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which I have been reporting on since 2019. The two pipelines were twins, announced on the same day in 2014 and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the same day in 2017. They would have crossed similarly steep and landslide-prone Appalachian terrain. But the Atlantic Coast Pipeline was canceled in 2020 after years of tenacious grass-roots resistance and legal challenges.

Mr. Manchin seems determined to rescue the M.V.P. from this fate. And with it, his gas industry and power utility donors — whose lobbyists helped him in the final hours of debt ceiling deal making — will be able to further strengthen their hold on the energy system.

White House officials have said that the project would probably have secured the remaining federal permits regardless. But the provision authorizes all necessary permits and bars further judicial review of any of them — thus neutering an essential tool for ensuring that infrastructure projects comply with existing laws and regulations. It’s the legislative equivalent of overturning the Scrabble board in a fit of pique when you’re losing a game fair and square.

For many of those living in the project’s path, who watched as its construction has so far triggered over 500 recorded violations of water quality and other regulations, it’s a terrible betrayal. But it also sets a dangerous precedent. It is safe to assume this won’t be the last time this tactic is pursued to shield fossil fuel projects from judicial review or scientific scrutiny if they happen to be deemed by their developers and political allies to be in the national interest.

Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia has cited this risk in explaining his opposition to the M.V.P. provision. When Mr. Manchin succeeded in getting a similar carve-out attached to the continuing budget resolution to fund the government last September, Mr. Kaine refused to vote for it. “If the M.V.P. owners are unhappy with a court ruling, they should do what other litigants do and appeal,” he said. “Allowing them to fundamentally change federal law to achieve their goal would surely encourage other wealthy people and companies to try the same. I won’t participate in opening that door to abuse and even corruption.”

Mr. Kaine, along with other Democratic members of the Virginia congressional delegation, remains opposed; this week he said he’s against any debt-ceiling bill that exempts the M.V.P. from judicial review. Meanwhile one of the lead Republican negotiators told reporters this week the pipeline provision is a “huge win” for his party because it puts “Democrats on record supporting a conventional energy project that removes or ties the hands of the judiciary.”

Democratic leaders will surely bristle at the suggestion that they are helping the gas industry obstruct the transition to clean energy. After all, they passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history, and protected its raft of clean energy incentives from cuts in the debt ceiling deal. It’s clear that the deal makers regard themselves as the grown-ups in the room, making the tough trade-offs needed to avert financial catastrophe. But when the stakes are this large, one need not grant them that deference.

There’s always a political “crisis” gathering on the near horizon that will supersede concerns about the climate — that will cause us to look away from the dizzying rise of methane concentrations, currently spiking to levels not seen in over 800,000 years, a trend tracking with the worst-case climate scenarios.

This is what it looks like to shuffle along toward climate chaos, one misguided compromise at a time.

[animeraider]

Project 2025 will kill you. Yes, you. Sections 11-15 (of 30)

So I've been reading Project 2025 so you don't have to, and I'm going to report on everything I find that is alarming, which is a lot. Part One can be found here. Part Two can be found here.

Section 11 - Department of Education

"Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated."

That's the first sentence in this whole section. I think that pretty much says it all.

All student loans and grants are to be moved to the private sector. Move education for military families to the Defense Department and for Washington D.C. to Congress. I imagine that also applies to protectorates like Guam and Puerto Rico but the document actually doesn't say.

Put all education funding under State Control. You should really ask a child living in Florida how that's working out. Reject Gender Identity and Racial studies. Eliminate executive orders in education. I remind you that integration was done by executive order.

Transfer all Native American education to the Bureau for Indian Affairs. Transfer all adult education programs to the Department of Labor. Privatize Student Aid.

Move all civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice. Transfer all civil service employees to other agencies. Eliminate the understanding that Trans people even exist.

Eliminate any privacy regulations used to protect students from any form of abuse. Rescind all regulations in Equity in IDEA.

Eliminate all food programs for students. All of them.

Phase out income-based student loan repayment programs. Rescind all funding for the National Education Association. Consider "Critical Race Theory" to be racism. 

Here's a crazy one that takes paragraphs to unravel: Allow parents of children over the age of 18 to sue to recover any monies spent on their education. Also, allow families to "opt out" of the education system entirely and for those that do give as a tax break the funding that would have been used to educate that child directly to the parents.

Allow states to opt out of any and all federal education programs. Eliminate Parent PLUS loans. 

There is page after page of basically "end anything Obama or Biden did", but eventually it all boils down to that first sentence. Eliminate the Department of Education.

Section 12 - Department of Energy (and related commissions)

You would expect this whole document to be drill baby drill but in fact it starts with the repeal and elimination of the Biden Administration's Infrastructure Act - the single largest jobs creation bill in the last 75 years. That's followed with not only a dependence upon oil and natural gas but a declaration that the U.S. needs to be the best in the world in Science. Great for a country trying to eliminate the Department of Education.

Eliminate the office of Clean Energy, and the office of Grid Deployment. Yep, they don't want the government looking at the power grid. 

Not only increase a reliance ("dominance") in oil and gas but nuclear power as well. 

Lots of paragraphs on focusing on science, which again - see the section on the Department of Education. Lots of contradictions here. Increase the level of private sector disposal of nuclear waste. What could possibly go wrong?

Fund a rebuilding of the country's nuclear arsenal. New warheads and testing. Eliminate Carbon Capture programs and Carbon offsets. Pursue much more coal, including coal waste as fuel. Increase fossil fuels. 

End the government's focus on green energy and renewables. Eliminate efficiency standards for appliances. In fact, they put this paragraph in the document twice on consecutive pages. 

"End Grid planning and focus instead on reliability." I shit you not, that's a whole topic in here. Say goodbye to grid upgrades and hello to more Texas-style outages. They then spend several pages repeating everything I've already told you about. 

Eliminate the Department of Energy's ability to make loans. Eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency. Looks like that better battery for your Tesla is going to have to wait.

Eliminate the Clean Energy Corps. Privatize the Energy Information Administration. Stop all funding for "climate reparations" - i.e. paying for the damage caused by oil production in underdeveloped nations.

Drill in Alaska (of course). Claim the Arctic Circle for the same purpose. Take an "America First" approach at the Office of Technology. 

Accelerate cleanup of all "Superfund" sites (except for Hanford in Washington State - which is where the U.S. government has stored Plutonium Waste for many years) with a goal of completing all work by 2035. That sounds good on the surface but in most of these sites there is a reason that it needs to go slow: fast work actually makes the contamination WORSE and spreads it further. Eliminate some regulations specific to the Hanford site.

Get all active Nuclear Waste stored at Yucca Mountain already.

As long as we're talking about nuclear stuff again, let's make more nukes. Abandon the Test Ban Treaty. Divest certain programs at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore to refocus on nuclear energy and weaponry. Several pages are spent rehashing the need to get rid of renewables

Refocus transmission of electrical to the state level. I mean, why can't we all be Texas? Eliminate all questions about oil and gas pipelines to only consider the need for the fuels, not environmental or any other concerns. 

Eliminate the guidance of "as low as reasonably possible" for nuclear exposure when considering renewing the licensing for existing nuclear power plants or building new ones. 

Fuck, this was a nightmare to get through. but guess what's next?

Section 13 - Environmental Protection Agency

This whole section was written by Mandy M. Gunasekara, a former Chief of Staff at the EPA under the Trump Administration who in 2023 was kicked off the ballot in Mississippi when she ran for Public Service Commissioner - because she didn't live there.

Let's start that in the mission statement that it blames the lead poisoning crisis in Flint Michigan on The Obama Administration, which is so obviously incorrect that it boggle belief. It also states that every expansion of the EPA since 1972 is unnecessary.

Eliminate the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Eliminate the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance. Eliminate the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education. "Relocate" the Office of Children’s Health Protection and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization - although the document does say where to relocate these agencies to.

Review the grants program to ensure that taxpayer funds go to organizations focused on tangible environmental improvements free from political affiliation (there are no such groups). 

This document goes on for more than 30 pages and makes the same faulty assumptions and rewrites historical data so often that it should be considered a work of fiction. But the key thing is unchanged: That everything that the EPA has done in terms of rulings and regulations since 1972 should be repealed.

Where I grew up you could see the air in 1972. It was grey. That's what they want to go back to.

Section 14 - Department of Heath and Human Services

This whole section was written by The Heritage Foundation. In the first two sentences it proclaims the COVID-19 Pandemic as over (which it isn't) and that life expectancy has decreased since the end of the Pandemic - which we do not yet know as the timing is too recent for statistical analysis. It's a lie.

No more abortions. Ever.

Prioritize families over everyone else. By the way, that's "traditional" families. Mother, father, children, church.

Remove the ability to declare emergencies and provide guidelines for outbreaks of diseases that contradict the political agenda of the administration. Move the recommendations of the CDC on how to treat anything into a separate political agency.  The entire document assumes that the CDC is faulty and corrupt, and not that the people using the CDC to make policy are. This is also a lie.

Remove Generic drugs from Medicaid. Make Abortion pills a controlled substance, with the ultimate goal of making them illegal at the same degree as Meth and Cocaine.

Eliminate chickenpox, Hepatitis, and MMR vaccines that originate from studies and science from fetal tissue. That's all of them, by the way. Also, eliminate vaccine mandates of any kind - you know, the type that for a while eliminated chicken pox, small pox, the mumps, measles and so on and could have been used to eliminate COVID. I notice that all of these are on the rise in the US. Even motherfucking POLIO is back.

Eliminate all research that uses science from Fetal Tissue. Eliminate all science funding and research that involves the fluidity of human sexuality. There are men and there are women and they are born that way. Period.

Several paragraphs are about "Woke" policies, and they encourage an end to diversity in conferences and studies.

When it gets to the Medicare section there is paragraph after paragraph about the bureaucracy of Medicare and how much time doctors have to spend on paperwork. This is a common fallacy that has been around for decades - yes, there is paperwork and there is a lot of it, but it's still LESS PAPERWORK THAN REQUIRED BY PRIVATE INSURERS. 

The truth is that bureaucratic waste in Medicaid is about 2%, where in the private industry it varies from 5% to 10%.

Eliminate the ability to negotiate drug prices under Medicare. 

As for Medicaid, paragraph after paragraph is dedicated to the elimination of problems that don't actually exist, plus adding work requirements to eligibility and actually taking away from states the ability to make programs flexible - which seems like an oxymoron until you realize that most waivers for various programs under Medicaid are for Democratic Party controlled states that are allowed to use these funds to treat the LGBTAI+ community and allow for abortion access.

Under the Affordable Care Act there is an awful lot of focus on redesigning medical care into a Concierge Medicine approach, which most people would not be able to afford. The document calls this stronger health care (true) and more affordable (patently false). It would also eliminate all of the cost controls in the system. There is no language saying that they want to eliminate the ACA, but they certainly would render it useless.

Prohibit travel for Abortion care.

Defund Planned Parenthood, which as I like to tell people is NOT a chain of abortion clinics but is a chain of Doctor's Offices with an emphasis on women's care. Withdraw Medicaid funds from any state where abortion is legal.

Deny gender affirming care for anyone with Medicaid or Medicare. Again, men and women are the only two genders and they are determined at birth.

Rescind all COVID-19 Mask and Vaccination guidelines, and pay damages to anyone displaced (i.e. fired) for not following those guidelines.

Institute work requirements for all recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Most of the verbiage about the prevention of teenage pregnancies is to deter things that aren't happening. Adoptions should be funneled through religious organizations. Crazily enough, the document in the same paragraph also acknowledges that there are 4 times more children awaiting adoption than people who want them, although I believe the actual ratio is closer to 7 to 1.

Move the office of Refugee Settlement to the Department of Homeland Security. Looking back at that document, there is no indication that DHS actually wants this.

Allows for parents who do not have custody of their children to receive a child-tax credit anyway. It actually specifically calls out that it wants the ability to allow deadbeat dads to take the tax credit.

Encourage bad marriages to stay together as a requirement of government assistance. Allow faith-based organizations who distribute this aid to discriminate as they see fit. Implement a national campaign that is pro-father propaganda. You know, to keep marriages together. Think of the poor men.

Eliminate Head Start.

Criminalized Physician assisted suicide, which is legal in 10 states according to this document. Remove requirements that telemedicine be local to the patient. I should point out that this would eliminate the ability to recommend hospitalizations, as these doctors wouldn't have admitting privileges where the patients actually are.

Allow hospitals, doctors and physicians to not provide abortion related care of any kind because of religious beliefs, even in states where it is legal and protected.

No more funding for condoms. No more funding for "Morning-after" pills (which they call "the week after pills" in this section). Withdraw all support for gender affirming/transitioning guidance. 

Stop teaching the medical procedures used in abortion care. I repeat, hinder the educational skills of every doctor in America.

The entire section on Indian Health Care (and why can't they ever use the phrase "Native Americans"?) is full of lies and I won't dignify them. 

Sunset all HHS regulations, which Trump tried last time around.

More bullshit about violations of human rights that never happened (mostly involving twitter and Facebook). They don't want the department to push back against lies on social media.

More verbiage that the administration needs to be Pro-Life and anti-Trans care. This is like the fifth or sixth time in this document so far, making it one of the longer ones I've gone through. This is followed by a series of paragraphs that are mostly lies about the COVID Pandemic, complaining about things that never happened.

It's full of lies.

Restrict and/or rescind funding to any country that supports abortion care. Prohibit overseas personnel from providing care that is in contradiction with administration policy. That's right, overseas care is now a political decision.

The entire rest of the document - several pages - is about how the only civil rights violation in health care is that providers of care of certain religions are not allowed to discriminate in their health care decisions, and that such discrimination should be allowed.

To summarize: No abortions, no gender affirming care, no contraceptives, stay in abusive marriages, no good health care for poor people, let churches discriminate, and lie every third sentence (or more often).

Section 15 - Department Housing and Urban Development

Woohoo! This section was written by Dr. Ben Carson! This of course means it's the shortest section in the whole damn thing, clocking in at all of 14 pages, 4 of which are footnotes.

Also, unlike previous chapters, the first 4 pages are only about what the department does who what the department posts and responsibilities are, and has no policy directives save for the basic concept that the department needs an overhaul.

Replace all career officers with political appointees. Issue an executive order making the HUD Secretary a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S, to counter the Chinese threat that they are buying to much real estate in the U.S. Seems highly reminiscent of the same language used against Japan in the 1980's.

Reverse all protections for LGBTQIA+ persons implemented under the Biden Administration. Reverse all property appraisals done under the Biden Administration, because you know they did them all wrong. Eliminate any programs that have any mention of Climate Change. Eliminate the use of special-purpose credit authorities. Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.

Non-citizens, even those households who are comprised of both citizens and non-citizens, are to be denied housing assistance. Anyone with mental issues or drug assistance issues need to be treated before considered for housing. 

"Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers." That's the EXACT wording.

Finally, create an office of CFO for the department, who will do most of the work. Not bad for the laziest cabinet secretary in all history.

14 pages, only 6 of which are policy, all of which is designed to not actually do anything.

Next posting will cover the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, and the  Department of Veteran Affairs.

[plethoraworldatlas]

The Green Bank for Rural America has won a $500 million federal award to advance clean energy technology projects in the 13-state Appalachian region and in “energy communities” with a connection to the coal industry.

The green bank expects to leverage private capital to finance $2.25 billion in 2,750 clean energy projects, including distributed solar and storage projects. Other eligible project types under the federal award program are new or renovated buildings with low carbon emissions, and projects supporting zero-emission transportation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a total of $6 billion in awards to five green banks through the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, all of which “will flow to low-income and disadvantaged communities,” said a White House press release.

Each of the five green banks receiving the awards will allocate the funds to community lenders, primarily to make loans to projects. A small portion of funds will be used to provide technical assistance to those lenders. The Green Bank for Rural America will provide technical assistance on topics including structuring contracts with local utilities for the sale of solar or wind power.

The Green Bank for Rural America expects to provide capitalization funding to about 100 participating community lenders and investors serving rural areas, with most funding provided in commitments of $10 million or less, and a few commitments ranging up to $50 million. The bank, established by Appalachian Community Capital, will be structured to be a self-sustaining entity.

The support to community lenders will not only finance near-term deployment of climate and clean energy projects, the White House said, but also build the lenders’ capacity to “finance projects at scale for years to come.”

The green bank expects to leverage private capital to finance $2.25 billion in 2,750 clean energy projects, including distributed solar and storage projects. Other eligible project types under the federal award program are new or renovated buildings with low carbon emissions, and projects supporting zero-emission transportation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a total of $6 billion in awards to five green banks through the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, all of which “will flow to low-income and disadvantaged communities,” said a White House press release.

Each of the five green banks receiving the awards will allocate the funds to community lenders, primarily to make loans to projects. A small portion of funds will be used to provide technical assistance to those lenders. The Green Bank for Rural America will provide technical assistance on topics including structuring contracts with local utilities for the sale of solar or wind power.