Climate, Politics/Capitol Light©, is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion
 
 
Volume 1                                                                    July 25, 2019                                                                 Issue 19

This Week’s Notion: There auto be a law.

From the Washington Post:

Four automakers from three continents have struck a deal with California to produce more fuel-efficient cars for their U.S. fleets in coming years, undercutting one of the Trump administration’s most aggressive climate policy rollbacks.
The compromise between the California Air Resources Board and Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW of North America came after weeks of secret negotiations and could shape future U.S. vehicle production, even as White House officials aim to relax gas mileage standards for the nation’s cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs.

The deal reached between California and the four auto companies is truly extraordinary both in terms of why the deal came about and the position in which it puts the Trump administration. Since Day 1 of the Trump presidency, the auto industry had been hoping to re-negotiate the deal it struck with the Obama administration on auto and light truck fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) for the period 2021 through 2026.

Over the past two and a half years of the Trump administration, the auto industry has learned the meaning of the phrase be careful what you wish for; as it just might come true. The bad news came to industry representatives in late February on a conference call with the White House. They were told that the administration had cut-off any further conversations with California officials and was going ahead with its proposed Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule freezing the standards at 2020 levels.

The freeze has been called the Trump administration’s most environmentally significant regulatory rollback yet" by the Rhodium Group following its penetrating analysis of the rule’s impact on the environment. The call is not surprising. The transportation sector has surpassed electricity as the major contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere; and, Trump’s efficiency 36.9 mpg is standard is 14.5 mpg more lenient than Obama’s 51.4 mpg.

                   Climate Politics/Capitol Light© is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion.com
 
 
Volume 1                                                                      June 10, 2019                                                                Issue 7 
 
We really don’t want to talk about it. The Democratic National Committee has rejected Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s call for a primary debate strictly focused on climate change.

“This is deeply disappointing,” Inslee said. “The DNC is silencing the voices of Democratic activists, many of our progressive partner organizations, and nearly half of the Democratic presidential field, who want to debate the existential crisis of our time. Democratic voters say that climate change is their top issue; the Democratic National Committee must listen to the grassroots of the party.”
 
At least half a dozen Democratic candidates, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Michael Bennet (D-CO) and former Obama cabinet official Julián Castro, have backed the idea.

In a statement, the DNC said climate change would remain a top priority during the debates but that it hoped to ensure “vigorous discussion” on all important issues to voters like the economy, climate change, and health care. (Washington Examiner)

• It’s unclear why the DNC turned down Inslee’s request. The stated reason appears to me lame given the attention Democrats inside and outside Congress have been focusing on the climate crisis—particularly since Republicans are vulnerable on the issue.
• It’s possible that the DNC is worried that participants in such a debate would sound too socialist for the Party’s good.
• Denying Inslee’s request is one thing—but the DNC took things a step further. In his announcement of the DNC’s denial of the single-issue debate, Inslee said the organ-ization threatened not to invite him to future debates if he participated in any other climate change debate.

                       Climate Politics/Capitol Light© is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion.com
 
 
Volume 1                                                                     June 5, 2019                                                                   Issue 6 
 
It’s benighted not be knighted. Donald Trump tells Prince Charles the US has 'clean climate' and blames other countries for the environmental crisis, in a long talk with the prince. China, India, Russia, many other nations, they have not very good air, not very good water, and the sense of pollution. If you go to certain cities … you can’t even breathe, and now that air is going up…They don’t do the responsibility. (The Guardian)

Make mine a mini. This week, Joe Biden released a lengthy climate plan on his website. Though Reuters teased his policy last month as a "middle ground" approach more moderate than the Green New Deal, the proposal looks pretty aggressive and sounds almost Sanders-esque in its ambition. (The Atlantic)

He’s free to ‘steal’ my stuff.  Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden released a comprehensive proposal to combat global climate change, adding to the mix of candidates who have made rolling back dangerous emissions a central tenet of their campaigns.

However, multiple sentences in Biden's proposal appear to lift passages from letters and websites of different organizations. The copied sentences are particularly notable due to Biden's history of plagiarism, which played a major role in tanking his 1988 presidential campaign.

The potential instances of plagiarism were first flagged by Josh Nelson, the vice president of CREDO Mobile, a telecommunications company that also aims to raise money for liberal activist groups and causes. (Business Insider)

• It should be noted that there’s a warning in this and it’s not about plagiarism. The fact that some of the loudest cries are being raised by progressives plays to the idea that they are nervous about Biden’s becoming the Democratic nominee—as opposed to one of the more liberal/progressive members of the pack.

                  Climate Politics/Capitol Light© is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion.com
 
 
Volume 1                                                                    June 3, 2019                                                                   Issue 5                                        
 
Tariff tirades. The House and Senate are back from their week of district workdays. They’ve come back to a growing list of to-do’s in an atmosphere of contention within and between both parties and between Congress and the White House.

Trump’s decision to slap a monthly five-percent tariff (up to 25 percent) on all Mexican imports beginning June 10th is consolidating Democratic opposition to the president while fracturing Republican ranks.

Mexico is the US’s third largest trading partner accounting for 14.5 percent of overall trade, i.e., exports and imports. Trump’s tariffs are expected to hit the auto and agricultural industries particularly hard. The other top four US trading partners are China, Canada, and Japan. In recent weeks Trump has either placed or threatened tariffs on all of them.

Despite what the president claims, US consumers, not the nations targeted, pay the price of his tariff tirades.

Trump’s Mexico announcement caught congressional Republicans off guard and has driven a wedge within their ranks. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has become one of Trump’s most enthusiastic fan boys, applauded the move. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is noncommittal saying only the proposal "deserves serious examination."

According to Bloomberg Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) of Iowa, whose powerful panel holds the keys to trade, tax, health, and entitlement legislation, opposes the promised Mexico levy. Other Republicans joining Grassley in opposition to the tariff are Pat Toomey (R-PA), Martha McSally(R-AZ), John Cornyn of Texas, Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Rob Portman (R-OH). Their votes will be needed to pass the USMCA—the newly negotiated treaty intended to replace NAFTA and which Trump considers essential to his legacy and re-election. The House Ways and Means Committee’s top Republican, Kevin Brady, whose state of Texas, along with other border states like Arizona will be hardest hit, has called for resolution of the Mexico “problem” before June 10th when the first tariffs will be levied. Trump has promised to raise the tariff by fiver percent each month up to a total of 25 percent unless Mexico finds a way to stop migrants from Central America coming into the US.

                                              Climate Politics/Capitol Light© is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion.com
 
 
Volume 1                                                                   May 31, 2019                                                                    Issue 4
 
Can’t be too particulate in this business. The White House's regulatory shop has wrapped up an unusually prolonged review of draft EPA technical advice pertaining to states with areas that are flunking National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulates.

The agency is working on a final version of the 2016 draft guidance designed to help regulators who want to make a case that individual power plants or other specific sources of precursor pollutants do not "contribute significantly" to fine particulate levels that exceed the national standards and could thus be exempted from added pollution control requirements.

EPA's current annual exposure standard for fine particulates is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air; the 24-hour limit is 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

It is unclear what changes, if any, EPA has made in response to public comments or when the final version will be released. Once the final draft rule is signed off on it will be posted on the internet.
 
Not the most efficient bulb in the pack. Several states are taking steps to enact stricter lightbulb efficiency standards, despite the Trump administration's efforts to roll back Obama-era regulations.

Nevada became the fourth state to bolster lightbulb standards. The new Nevada law is in line with the federal standards proposed by the Department of Energy under President Obama and set to be enacted by the same date.

Those standards were projected to save American households $180 a year on electric bills and reduce carbon emissions by 60 million metric tons, according to a study by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.