Trump to roll back use of climate change in policy reviews - source

[webfact]

Trump to roll back use of climate change in policy reviews - source

By David Shepardson

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, U.S., March 10, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Dimensions800 x 533

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to release a wide-ranging executive order to reduce the role that climate change plays in policy decisions, according to a Trump administration official who reviewed a draft of the order.

 

The move could alter how U.S. agencies weigh regulations on a broad array of industries, from drilling, coal mining and auto manufacturing to refining.

 

The official on Tuesday confirmed a Bloomberg News report that the executive order will instruct the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to overhaul their use of the "social cost of carbon," an Obama-era policy that seeks to quantify potential economic damage from climate change for the purposes of drafting regulation.

 

White House spokeswoman Kelly Love declined to discuss the timing of an executive order on energy. "We have nothing to announce at this time," she said.

 

Under rules put in by place by former President Barack Obama, the current cost of carbon in policy decisions is $36 per tonne, which will rise to $50 by 2030. The Trump order would direct regulators to use a "discount rate" that would dramatically reduce, or eliminate, that cost.

 

Discount rates are used to come up with a net present value of something whose benefits and costs will be distributed over time. In the case of carbon, the impact of emissions on the earth's climate can take several years to appear.

 

Under some scenarios referenced in the executive order, carbon could have a zero or "negative value," the source said. The source said that the order may be an initial step to ultimately phasing out the carbon evaluation entirely.

 

The executive order could be issued as soon as this week, the source said, and may include other energy-specific measures, like a requirement for the EPA to conduct a review of regulations that could harm energy production.

 

Reuters and others have reported previously that Trump planned to target Obama-era green regulations, including a federal coal mining ban and an initiative forcing states to cut carbon emissions.

 

The Department of Interior under Obama had issued a moratorium on coal leasing on federal land in 2015 as it sought to review the program and evaluate whether the government adequately priced the value of coal extracted from public lands on behalf of taxpayers.

 

The Clean Power Plan was Obama's centrepiece initiative to combat climate change, requiring states to slash emissions of carbon dioxide. But it was never implemented due to legal challenges launched by several Republican states.

 

The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, said last week he is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change and said he wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 is a harmful pollutant that should be regulated.

 

The Obama administration's carbon cost estimates were first issued in 2010 and have been used to analyse rules directly targeting carbon dioxide emissions, like car and truck emissions standards. They have also been used to cover rules on indirect emissions, like one to control mercury and other air pollutants from power plants.

 

(Reporting by David Shepardson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-15

[boomerangutang]

Who is surprised that Trump and his anti-science dummies are against what 97% of climate scientists claim?  Plus, with millionaires and billionaires around him, some of whom making big bucks from fossil fuels, it makes sense (lots of cents) for ignorant elder white men to keep denying what's going on.

 

Note:  there are groups of young Americans and Canadians who are backing up on hard drives; with as much scientific CC data as possible, because Trump is determined to wipe the data from existence.  In Trump's view:  if the data no longer exists, then the problem is gone.

 

 

[stevenl]

Also here China will be overtaking the US very, very shortly. And this damage, on both the environmental front and the economic front, can not be undone.

sent using Tapatalk

[SOTIRIOS]

...right on....!!!

 

...read the facts and stop the rhetoric....

 

...global warming is a farce.....and competing with the space program and the military budgets for funds...

 

...while over 1/3 of the American population uses food stamps....and has little or no medical coverage....

[edwinchester]

6 minutes ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...right on....!!!

 

...read the facts and stop the rhetoric....

 

...global warming is a farce.....and competing with the space program and the military budgets for funds...

 

...while over 1/3 of the American population uses food stamps....and has little or no medical coverage....

I prefer to trust the vast majority of the world's leading climate experts who say climate change is real and happening thanks.

[darksidedog]

I am surprised that many climate Naysayers actually believe the world isn't flat.

This is further proof that Donald has no concern for the people who misguidedly voted for him, and is simply out to make the super rich, richer, and the planet a more polluted place.

Edited March 15, 2017 by darksidedog

[gabruce]

39 minutes ago, edwinchester said:

I prefer to trust the vast majority of the world's leading climate experts who say climate change is real and happening thanks.

On the other hand, it's also reasonable to go with real science.

[ricklev]

51 minutes ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...right on....!!!

 

...read the facts and stop the rhetoric....

 

...global warming is a farce.....and competing with the space program and the military budgets for funds...

 

...while over 1/3 of the American population uses food stamps....and has little or no medical coverage....

Interesting!  What's the relationship between climate change, food stamps and people with medical coverage?

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...right on....!!!

 

...read the facts and stop the rhetoric....

 

...global warming is a farce.....and competing with the space program and the military budgets for funds...

 

...while over 1/3 of the American population uses food stamps....and has little or no medical coverage....

Over the next 10 years Trumpcare is going to give back to the richest Americans over 270 billion dollars in taxes over  that subsidize Obamcare.  If you put a stop to that, it will more than pay for any expenses incurred by any climate change influenced policy decisions.

[mike324]

2 hours ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...right on....!!!

 

...read the facts and stop the rhetoric....

 

...global warming is a farce.....and competing with the space program and the military budgets for funds...

 

...while over 1/3 of the American population uses food stamps....and has little or no medical coverage....

 

Perhaps decrease that big military budget and you can give everyone healthcare and free education for a couple of years, the US is spending too much on the military and plans on increasing it even more under Trump and wants to send more troops overseas....talk about priorities

[smotherb]

3 hours ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...right on....!!!

 

...read the facts and stop the rhetoric....

 

...global warming is a farce.....and competing with the space program and the military budgets for funds...

 

...while over 1/3 of the American population uses food stamps....and has little or no medical coverage....

It's really difficult to give any credence to what you say. For example, the US population is over 325 million http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/. Do the math; what would 1/3 of the population be?

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, smotherb said:

It's really difficult to give any credence to what you say. For example, the US population is over 325 million http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/. Do the math; what would 1/3 of the population be?

It's more like 1/7 of the population. Probably a little less since this info comes from july 2016.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/trump-43-million-americans-food-stamps/

[jerojero]

Yes, let Republican dominated Congress decide if CO2 is harmful to the planet. Forget the vast majority of scientists and scientific evidence proven the harm. Carry on, idiot Republicans, go on, kill our planet thank you very much.

[ricklev]

I've never met anyone or read anyone that believes climate change is not real and also believes that health care or food security are human rights which the US government should attempt to provide to the poor.   And I've never met anyone who believes climate change is not real and also supports legalized abortion.  Etc.  

 

Maybe someone here can prove me wrong?

Edited March 15, 2017 by ricklev

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, ricklev said:

I've never met anyone or read anyone that believes climate change is not real and also believes that health care or food security are human rights which the US government should attempt to provide to the poor.   And I've never met anyone who believes climate change is not real and also supports legalized abortion.  Etc.  

 

Maybe someone here can prove me wrong?

Of course everyone believes climate changes. it has been doing so since the planet was formed and will continue to do so till the sun engulfs it.

The debate is whether man changed it or if other factors did so, and whatever the reason for the change can mankind change it to something else. 

It is worth knowing that the technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere exists, but is not being developed due to lack of government funding. Seems governments like the taxes more than reducing atmospheric carbon.

Re the OP, I believe Trump said he would stop using it for policy before the election, so just carrying out a campaign policy promise.

As I shall not be commenting further on this Trump thread, do not take my silence to indicate agreement with whatever follows.

 

BTW I don't support man made climate change theory and I do support legalised abortion.

[Rigby40]

Stefan Molyneux made a couple videos along with a couple well informed guests, to say the least, as to why man made climate change is totally bogus.

I do find it quite entertaining though how mostly lefties, who hate religion(specifically Christianity), get triggered when people don't believe in their specific dogmatic beliefs. 

Oh and to the one guy who said they have never met anyone who doesn't believe in man made climate change but also believes in legalized abortion, i'm one of those people who is skeptical of man made climate change and is pro choice. Step outside of your bubble once in a while, mate.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Rigby40

[ricklev]

Thanks for schooling me! 

Edited March 15, 2017 by ricklev

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course everyone believes climate changes. it has been doing so since the planet was formed and will continue to do so till the sun engulfs it.

The debate is whether man changed it or if other factors did so, and whatever the reason for the change can mankind change it to something else. 

It is worth knowing that the technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere exists, but is not being developed due to lack of government funding. Seems governments like the taxes more than reducing atmospheric carbon.

Re the OP, I believe Trump said he would stop using it for policy before the election, so just carrying out a campaign policy promise.

As I shall not be commenting further on this Trump thread, do not take my silence to indicate agreement with whatever follows.

 

BTW I don't support man made climate change theory and I do support legalised abortion.

"The debate is whether man changed it or if other factors did so, " between laymen, yes. The scientific community has finished this debate a long time ago already, and concluded it is for a big part man made.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

Stefan Molyneux made a couple videos along with a couple well informed guests, to say the least, as to why man made climate change is totally bogus.

I do find it quite entertaining though how mostly lefties, who hate religion(specifically Christianity), get triggered when people don't believe in their specific dogmatic beliefs. 

Oh and to the one guy who said they have never met anyone who doesn't believe in man made climate change but also believes in legalized abortion, i'm one of those people who is skeptical of man made climate change and is pro choice. Step outside of your bubble once in a while, mate.

Yes, that is the problem with some, they don't see the difference between beliefs and science. Religions are beliefs, man made climate change is accepted by the scientific community.

[ricklev]

Now I'm wondering if smoking cigarettes strongly increases the likelihood of getting lung cancer and why I believe that is true?  

[Berkshire]

This would be comically hysterical if it wasn't so incredibly sad.  America is going to lose its place as the world leader in environmental awareness and protection, not to mention killing innovations in alternative energy and conservation.  And for what?  To protect the fossil fuel industry?  Trump and his supporters should be ashamed of themselves. 

[Rigby40]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, that is the problem with some, they don't see the difference between beliefs and science. Religions are beliefs, man made climate change is accepted by the scientific community.

Just because something is believed to be true by the scientific community doesn't make it so. 

Continental drift, the heliocentric solar system, genetic inheritance and many other theories were contested long before they were proven true the same is true for theories proven false.

[stevenl]

30 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

Just because something is believed to be true by the scientific community doesn't make it so. 

Continental drift, the heliocentric solar system, genetic inheritance and many other theories were contested long before they were proven true the same is true for theories proven false.

Agreed. So let's wait till the earth is really gone.

[Jingthing]

trump being trump.

Americans made a big mistake and now the planet pays for it.

Sorry to the world for the idiocy of my countrymen that allowed the orange demagogue to become president. 

[simple1]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

trump being trump.

Americans made a big mistake and now the planet pays for it.

Sorry to the world for the idiocy of my countrymen that allowed the orange demagogue to become president. 

To me it is more astounding the ongoing support by his admirers of the Trump Administration's idiocracy.

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...right on....!!!

...read the facts and stop the rhetoric....

...global warming is a farce.....and competing with the space program and the military budgets for funds...

...while over 1/3 of the American population uses food stamps....and has little or no medical coverage....

 

The same people who believe Trumpsters and his false science, also believe Obama was not an American .....at least for 5 years, until Trump said 'forget what I said about Obama.'  ....then half Trumpsters kept on believing it, and half wondered 'maybe Obama is American.'

 

          Anti-science Trumpsters also believe that Trump had the largest crowd ever for an inauguration, that HRC bused 3 million illegal voters to California and Maine, that jobless numbers were much higher than reported by gov't, and that Obama personally tapped Trump's telephone at Trump Tower.

 

         In sum, Trumpsters are deeply immersed in believing any & all sorts of BS that come out of Trump's mouth or tweets.

 

6 hours ago, gabruce said:

On the other hand, it's also reasonable to go with real science.

                Many scientists do real work.  Have you seen the videos of them trudging for miles in Arctic to check a gauge, or camping out for weeks to video the retreat of a glacier?   I respect real scientists for doing real work.  In sharp contrast, there are people I have contempt for;  top of the list are people who cheat and lie their way to riches:   Top of the list are Madoff and Trump, not in that order.

[sujoop]

Related: Trump also seeks to rescind 'clean water act' rules imposed on golf courses etc which have small creeks and wetlands adjacent, which is of course strongly supported by wealthy golf and country club owners who quote: 'are wary of being forced into expensive cleanups on their fairways'...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/teed-off-critics-trump-water-rule-helps-golf-150135246.html

 

"Obama designated many small creeks and wetlands as protected under the Clean Water Act. Golf course owners like Trump oppose the Obama rules, arguing that water features on golf courses would be subjected to costly controls and possible fines for violating pollution limits. Environmentalists, and some hunting and fishing groups, say keeping those humble waterways intact and clean is essential to the larger downstream waters they feed."

 

 

Trump: Making the environment toxic again, bigly
 

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by sujoop

[nuakmuaynina]

Sorry just LOL at people who don't believe in climate change. 

 

The effects of pollution are obvious, for all those that don't believe lets send you to a  room with cars spilling fumes, power stations emitting smoke etc and other gasses and see how long you live....

 

 

[yardrunner]

9 hours ago, edwinchester said:

I prefer to trust the vast majority of the world's leading climate experts who say climate change is real and happening thanks.

No doubt climate change occurs, the question should be more about the causes and how much mankind is to blame, three or four ice ages was that because man was not affecting the planet. NO because their were inter-glacial events when the ice sheets receded and those were after the human population had been decimated by the advancing glaciers.

Then there was the carboniferous era when the coal measures were laid down and temperatures were far warmer than today but man had not appeared on the scene

[edwinchester]

1 hour ago, yardrunner said:

No doubt climate change occurs, the question should be more about the causes and how much mankind is to blame, three or four ice ages was that because man was not affecting the planet. NO because their were inter-glacial events when the ice sheets receded and those were after the human population had been decimated by the advancing glaciers.

Then there was the carboniferous era when the coal measures were laid down and temperatures were far warmer than today but man had not appeared on the scene

Totally agree with you on the question and would say again that the vast majority of climate experts agree that the huge increase of carbon dioxide release in recent years is the main driver of present changes.