Supreme Court nominee has a sparse record when it comes to environmental cases, but many public interest groups are worried
Next week, the Senate is expected to vote on whether to put Judge Neil Gorsuch on the highest court in the United States. If confirmed, Gorsuch would fill a Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia more than a year ago, a seat that senate Republicans blocked President Obama from filling last year. And a seat that will likely shape the court for decades to come. So, in a tumultuous political time, one in which environmental policies are under attack in Washington, what exactly would a Gorsuch confirmation mean for the environment?
Photo by Geoff Livingston
The answer is, well, a little tricky. Gorsuch, currently a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado, doesn’t have an extensive record when it comes to environmental law. By virtue of geography, those environmental cases that have come before him generally have had more to do with public lands than, say, federal regulations pertaining to fuel efficiency standards or power plant emissions, issues that are generally litigated in DC.
Based on those cases that have come before him, however, many environmental advocates are worried.
Denise Grab, a senior attorney with the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, agrees that there could be some cause for concern for public interest groups, particularly with respect to procedural issues.
“One of the potential biggest concerns for environmental groups who are looking at [Gorsuch’s] record are some of his rulings on standing and other procedural rulings,” Grab says. “He has in previous cases required an atypically high bar” for environmental groups to have their cases heard.
Standing is a legal principle that requires a person or group to show they are sufficient impacted by the issue at hand to bring a suit in the first place. It requires showing some kind of concrete injury. Some kinds of injury are easy to establish — damage to your property causes economic harm, for example. Harm suffered due to lack of enforcement of the Clean Air Act or the Endangered Species Act is less straightforward, though environmental groups routinely, and successfully, make the case.
Gorsuch has also argued against the right of public interest groups to intervene in cases, a common practice that allows environmental organizations to join the defense when government regulations are being challenged. The …more
Pending Nebraska permit could prove a deal-breaker; Environmentalists and Indigenous groups promise direct action, legal resistance
On March 23, ironically almost 27 years to the day following the historic Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, Donald Trump issued a presidential permit to Canadian company TransCanada for its controversial Keystone XL pipeline, formally restarting a fight over the pipeline that first kicked off when it was first proposed in 2008.
Photo by Jow Brusky
Those opposing the pipeline had scored a major victory in November 2015 when President Obama rejected the project saying it wouldn’t help the economy or increase the United States’ energy security. A change in leadership, however, has fueled a move away from clean energy and fighting climate change and to the embrace of a fossil fuel-driven economic agenda.
After campaigning on the issue and subsequently loading his government with climate change deniers and a former oil company executive, it was little surprise that President Trump turned back the climate clock to revisit Keystone XL. Just four days after taking office, he signed an executive order fast tracking Keystone XL, giving secretary of state and former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson 60 days to make a decision on the pipeline.
The 1,179-mile long pipeline is expected to transport 830,000 barrels of bitumen per day from the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to an existing pipeline in Steele City, Nebraska, from where the crude will be moved to it refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.
However, it’s unlikely that work on the pipeline will begin anytime soon. The project faces further battles on a number of different fronts, including opposition from environmentalists and Indigenous groups based on their treaty rights, court challenges to the secretary of state review, as well as at the grassroots resistance in the state of Nebraska.
“The President approved it this morning and turned to the CEO of the Canadian company supposed to build it and asked, ‘When does construction start?’” Bill McKibben, co-founder of the environmental group 350.org, said during a March 23 teleconference. “And the answer to that is never. This is going to be fought at every turn.”
The argument against the pipeline can be broken down to a few simple words: too much risk for too little reward. (The …more
Fossil fuels to the fore as president signs orders to review clean power plan, lift ban on coal leases and discard expert thinking on true cost of carbon emissions
Update, 12:45 p.m. March 28: Trump signed the executive order that will trigger a review of the Clean Power Plan, President Obama's signature policy to address climate change, late this afternoon. This article has been updated to reflect this development.
Donald Trump launched a major assault on Barack Obama’s climate change legacy on Tuesday with a series of orders that undermine America’s commitment to the Paris agreement.
Asked by The Guardian if Trump accepted the science of manmade climate change, a senior White House official replied: “Sure, yes, I guess, I think the president understands the disagreement over the policy response and you’ll see that in the order … We’re taking a different path.”
Alisdare Hickson / Flickr
Trump will sign executive orders and presidential memoranda that suspend, rescind or review several measures that were central to Obama’s effort to combat global warming. They include a review of the clean power plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants.
Trump, who has called global warming a “hoax,” has criticized the power-plant rule and others as placing an unnecessary burden on American workers and the struggling US coal industry.
The official acknowledged the orders’ effects would not be immediate, especially in view of legal challenges. “I would bet a good deal I’m sure there’ll be litigation … Whether that’s three years, two years or one year, I don’t know. It’s going to take some time.”
The US agreed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent by 2025 compared to 2005 levels under the Paris agreement. Obama’s clean power plan is the chief policy designed to lower US emissions. In 2015 it was billed as the strongest action ever on climate change by a US president but criticized for targeting coal-fired power plants.
Richard Lazarus, an environmental law expert at Harvard University, said: “It was launched before Paris for a reason. Everyone knew if the United States didn’t make a serious commitment, Paris wouldn’t happen. It’s now an open question how the rest of the world is going to respond if the United States eliminates a linchpin of its commitment.”
Trump will also aim to wipe out Obama’s climate action …more
Conservationists are working to recast perceptions of native pollinators in the wake of controversial culls
Earlier this year I visited Mauritius, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean famous for its powdery white sand beaches and beautiful seascapes. Lying within the tropical belt, sunsets in Mauritius sneak up quickly and end suddenly. They also coincide with a special event every evening: the ghostly silhouettes of Mauritian fruit bats beginning their nightly forays across the island’s tropical forests. Like shadows, the bats’ twilight migrations are magical and otherworldly. These might also be at risk due to ongoing culls of the vulnerable species. Local conservationists are working hard to ensure the evening spectacle is maintained for decades to come.
photo by Jacque De Speville
With wings that can span two-and-a-half feet, Mauritian fruit bats are huge. Also known as the Mauritian flying fox, these mega-bats are the largest endemic mammal on Mauritius. The bats used to live on the nearby island of Reunion, but became extinct there at the beginning of the nineteenth century due to deforestation and hunting. The remaining population on Mauritius is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Mauritian fruit bats forage long distances every night and feed on a variety of fruits, both native and non-native. As they traverse the island, they disperse seeds in their droppings, which in turn help spread and germinate new fruit trees. Additionally, the fruit bats’ nightly travels help pollinate many of the plants they feed on, bolstering fruit production. As Mauritius’s only endemic mammal, the bats play a vital role in the health of the island’s native trees and plants, many of which are threatened and endemic as well.
However, in spite of the multiple ecosystem services the bats provide, many local farmers perceive them as pests and raiders of their fruit trees, particularly mango and litchi crops. (There is little evidence that the bats cause more damage to the island's fruit trees than factors such as weather, over-ripening, or birds.) The Mauritian government has taken a similar position, asserting that fruit bat populations have grown large enough for the species to become a pest, and that action is necessary to maintain ecological balance and protect economically important agricultural operations..
From California to British Columbia, environmentalists are gearing up for an epic fight against fossil fuel infrastructure
Despite a string of victories in the last few years limiting the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure on the West Coast, Donald Trump’s presidency shows it was never going to be easy to defeat the oil and gas industry.
In two months, Trump has moved to revive the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipeline routes that had been blocked by the Obama administration, expedite environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, and reverse fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. He is expected to reverse environmental regulation policies established under President Obama, including the Clean Power Plan, and will not likely adhere to the commitments of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Photo courtesy of Backbone Campaign
Republicans in Congress have followed suit, voting to kill two regulations passed in the waning days of the Obama administration: the Stream Buffer Rule, which prohibits coal companies from dumping toxic waste into an estimated 6,100 miles of streams; and a Bureau of Land Management rule that directs energy companies to capture natural gas from drilling operations on public lands rather than allowing them to burn or vent it into the atmosphere, where it’s heat-trapping potential is 84 times that of carbon dioxide.
For now, the situation is “scary,” says Mia Reback, a climate justice organizer with 350 PDX in Portland, Oregon. At the same time, she said, Trump has sparked “a groundswell of people coming into the climate justice movement who are looking to strategically and thoughtfully take action to create political change.” At her organization alone, orientation attendance has increased tenfold since the election.
All along the West Coast, environmentalists are gearing up for an epic fight. Advocates of a clean energy economy talk of building a “thin green line” from California to British Columbia to protect and improve on gains against the spread of fossil fuel infrastructure so that the production, use, and export of oil, coal, and natural gas steadily decline.
The fronts in this war are multiplying—along pipelines and rail lines, in the courts and media, through finance and all levels of government—even as an emboldened fossil fuel industry tries to roll back gains for climate justice and revive …more
Our public lands, now under siege, offer space for quiet reflection, contemplation, and renewed faith in our agency
After three days wandering off trail along the Continental Divide, we reached the beating heart of wild America. Before us: the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, an elk’s bugle from the point farthest from a paved road in the lower-48. Less than halfway into our weeklong, eighty-mile journey through northwest Wyoming, we’d already encountered more wildlife than we had seen in years of backcountry travel.
Photo by Tim Lumley
It was our layover day, time to climb to the sacred source of the Yellowstone and trade our fifty-plus pound packs for something a little lighter. I’d dreamed of this moment. The previous night’s thunderstorm — the type that makes you wonder if you’ll live to see another day — had left me sleepless and on edge.
Blue skies beckoned beyond our frost-covered tent. We struck out with high hopes across wide-open terrain. It wasn’t long before the tables turned. At a saddle before our final push, a brown giant peered down at us, only a hundred yards upslope. Our hearts pounded. Hump distinctly visible, the bear woofed, turned, and ambled out of sight. It was the fourth grizzly of the trip. We scanned for additional critters. Should we continue?
* * *
Many Americans would wonder what my wife and I were doing on that remote mountainside, dozens of miles from pavement, no one to call for help. But here in the West — and everywhere public lands are found — we feel the pull of empty spaces on the map. In the wild, our terror is our joy. Our isolation is our freedom. Refugees from modern civilization, we search for spiritual renewal, exercising our God-given quads in pursuit of our inalienable rights. For some, an experience like this might happen once-in-a-lifetime. For others, it’s a weekly ritual.
Our American birthright is 640-million acres of public land that belong to you and me. On April 15 — tax day — we make a mortgage payment on this land. Every time we fill a glass of water, cast a fly, or bask in alpine splendor, we reap the rewards of ownership.
As Westerners, public lands are where many of us live life to the fullest. Republican or Democrat, if we are lucky enough to enjoy these corners of wild America, our prized memories often harken …more
Report says move to cleaner energy in China and India is discouraging the building of coal-fired units
The amount of new coal power being built around the world fell by nearly two-thirds last year, prompting campaigners to claim the polluting fossil fuel was in freefall.
The dramatic decline in new coal-fired units was overwhelmingly due to policy shifts in China and India and subsequent declining investment prospects, according to a report by Greenpeace, the US-based Sierra Club, and research network CoalSwarm.
Photo by Coal Power Plant
The report said the amount of new capacity starting construction was down 62 percent in 2016 on the year before, and work was frozen at more than a hundred sites in China and India. In January, China’s energy regulator halted work on a further 100 new coal-fired projects, suggesting the trend was not going away.
Researchers for the groups said a record amount of coal power station capacity was also retired globally last year, mostly in the US and EU, including Scotland closing its last one.
One of the reasons for the fall in new plants was that too much capacity had been built in recent years, particularly in China.
Tim Buckley, director of energy finance studies at the IEEFA, a pro-green energy thinktank, said the falling demand for coal power in China and India and plans to curtail new power stations shows that the world has overestimated the need for the fossil fuel.
The report, which tracked power stations through publicly available information, company reports, and satellite imagery, said 65GW of new coal-fired units had started construction between January 2016 and January 2017, down 62 percent on the 170GW the year before. Most coal power stations are around 1GW or greater in capacity.
Lauri Myllyvirta, a Beijing-based energy analyst at Greenpeace and author of the report, said the fall in China was largely down to government policy to clean up air pollution and encourage clean energy. That policy shows no sign of stopping — at the weekend, Beijing ordered its last coal-fired power plant to close in a bid to improve the capital’s air quality.
Myllyvirta said that in India the decline was down to slower-than-expected growth in energy demand, and renewable energy projects being installed rapidly.
Paul Massara, the former chief executive of RWE Npower …more