SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times and HuffPost and many others report on EPA abruptly blocking three agency scientists from giving talks on climate change - specifically in the context of a Rhode Island event, with the subject of discussing a report on current conditions in Narragansett Bay and future threats that include climate change.
The New York Times (the origin)
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.
John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation.
Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change. Many said they were surprised by the E.P.A.'s last-minute cancellation, particularly since the agency helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued on Monday.
...
Monday's conference is designed to draw attention to the health of Narragansett Bay, the largest estuary in New England and a key to the region's tourism and fishing industries. Rhode Island's entire congressional delegation, all Democrats, will attend a morning news conference. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, an outspoken critic of Mr. Pruitt, will be among the speakers.Scientists there will unveil the report on the state of the bay, which E.P.A. scientists helped research and write. Among the findings will be that climate change is affecting air and water temperatures, precipitation, sea level and fish in and around the estuary.
The HuffPost article provides some context:
The researchers were booked to appear Monday in Providence at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed workshop, an event highlighting the health of New England's largest estuary, where temperatures have risen 3 degrees Fahrenheit and water has risen up to seven inches over the past century.
...
The move comes days after the EPA scrubbed dozens of links from its website to materials that helped local governments deal with the effects of climate change. Administrator Scott Pruitt has said he does not believe greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels cause climate change, and has scrapped or proposed eliminating numerous regulations to reduce emissions. Two weeks ago, he proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, the federal government's primary policy for slashing utilities' output of planet-warming gases.
...
The sudden cancellations on Sunday inflame concerns that the agency is muzzling scientists to further the White House's political interests.
I have a hunch Rhode Island isn't included in Trump's list of American places to be "made great again".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @03:20AM (7 children)
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 27 2017, @05:33AM (1 child)
So if I attempt to kick you in the head and miss, no harm no foul since I didn't actually give you a skull full of steel-toed workboot? Pretty sure that's not how it works.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:37PM
Assault is a crime and further, you have no justifiable reason to kick me in the head. Meanwhile lobbying is legal (and should be legal by the First Amendment which explicitly grants the right to petition government for redress!), and they have a justifiable interest in these things that they have lobbied for.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @06:37AM (4 children)
The original claim was: "Fossil Fuel industries fully control the federal government, and many of the most powerful statehouses." The discussion was about the fossil fuel lobby, not about climate change. The quotes that were offered concern state measures to hamper renewable energy. They speak directly to the original claim.
The quote which uses the word "tax" comes from a New York Times opinion piece [nytimes.com] which in turn refers us to NewsOK [newsok.com]:
The governor did sign that into law [npr.org]. You're correct when you say it's not a tax. It's a charge requested by the electric utilities and imposed by the state government. The money goes from the ratepayers to the utilities, not to the government. However, you've ignored the pertinent fact that the state government approved the charge, which favors the operators of fossil-burning stations over small producers that are often wind or solar. Whether it's a tax or a fee is irrelevant.
That New York Times opinion piece also cites a story [bizjournals.com] about Ohio Senate Bill 310 [ohiomfg.com], introduced by Troy Balderson. Ohio had mandated that 2.5% of electricity come from renewable sources, including 0.12% from solar energy, with those amounts increasing over time. Balderson's bill sought to freeze those amounts for two years. The governor had said he would veto it.
It isn't the best example, because it didn't have enough lobbying support to pass. That's not the same as having none. Another article [theguardian.com] mentioned in that NYT opinion piece says ALEC "sponsored at least 77 energy bills in 34 states" in 2012. They're still active in that area. For instance, at their 2016 meeting, John Eick [alec.org] gave four speeches to four meetings of the Energy, Environment and Agriculture subcommittee.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:32PM (3 children)
You have a very broad definition of "fossil fuel industry". The electricity utilities also have renewable sources as well (hydro and wind power in particular). What is missed here is that it is the distributed nature of these sources not that they are non-fossil fuel that is the threat to the utilities. And the utilities would still have this interest and influence even if they were purely non-fossil fuel sources. Thus, it is in error to attribute this to fossil fuel industry when instead it is a typical threat of a distributed system to a more centralized one with political influence.
Quite the exercise of fossil fuel strength there. A bill that would slightly favor fossil fuel use isn't getting anywhere.
I'm not sure how we've gone from "fossil fuel industry fully controls" to "fossil fuel industry lobbies", but I have never claimed that they don't lobby for their interests. Instead, it's the pretense that the fossil fuel industry fully controls the federal government and various state governments that I called in question. I believe these examples you give provide further support since lobbying failures in particular are a strong bit of counterevidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:47AM (2 children)
>I'm not sure how we've gone from "fossil fuel industry fully controls" to "fossil fuel industry lobbies", but I have never claimed that they don't lobby for their interests.
You wrote of "an indication that it didn't have lobbying support," that's how.
>Instead, it's the pretense that the fossil fuel industry fully controls the federal government and various state governments that I called in question.
The secretary of state worked for Exxon from the time he graduated from college until taking his current office.
The president has moved to lift limits [donaldjtrump.com] on carbon dioxide releases from coal power plants:
A moratorium on new leases for coal mining on federal land has been lifted [denverpost.com].
The Congressional Research Service recently wrote of [archive.org] "a long line of attempts by
Members, primarily in the House, to limit EPA’s authority to implement GHG emission requirements for power plants." The same report says:
Yes, 27 states actually sued to prevent cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases, and the Supreme Court issued a stay.
"Fossil [f]uel industries fully control the federal government, and many of the most powerful statehouses" was the original claim. The more I look into it, the less exaggerated it seems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:30AM
And it didn't pass. Meaning it didn't have lobbying support from an entity that "fully controls" the situation, because otherwise that wouldn't have been a possible outcome.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:33AM
Pushback is not "fully control". The EPA abused its power here. Congress should be the ones deciding GHG emission requirements.