A new analysis of solar and wind under the IRA, a historic White House science integrity scandal, some recommended weekend readings, plus a goal of the week
Regarding that "incredible achievement", that 1.5 GT reduction in GHG emissions in 2030 nets 0.75 additional GT in the atmosphere as the other half is sequestered in the biosphere and the oceans. The current ~35 GT of industrial CO2 yields ~+2 ppm of CO2. A doubling of CO2 (currently ~420 ppm) yields ~1.1C of warmth. For the year 2030, we then have an impact of (0.75/35)*2 = 0.0429 ppm; and (0.0429/420) * 1.1 = +0.0001122 C temperature reduction. I know that in reality the trends are not linear, but this ridiculously small impact illustrates the futility of the Prosperity Reduction Act. Extend that out 70 years to 2100 and we will have saved the planet from warming an incredible 0.008C! Lomborg plugged the numbers into the MAGICC model which yields a savings of 0.016 C. The achievement would be incredibly harmful.
My concern is that there is growing sense of entitlement and privilege among the progressive side, such that rules don’t apply and if there is an issue, the media will run cover. Simply saying “I regret” is viewed as enough.
Roger, you said “no one seems to care.”Many of us care, but we don’t belong to the Official Science Establishment nor the media so our voices are not heard.
Roger, in your new role, you are very reliable source of advanced science in English and a good crystal ball into the modest future. Your point about the revolving door, conflicts of interest, and laissez faire among climate believers is spot on. The $45 million and $190 million that the EPA paid to Harvard, Syracuse, Charles Driscoll and grantees from Science Advisory Board is a classic example.
It is good to be with you on Substack. You are a informational secret weapon.
I wrote a piece about EPA in the Gina McCarthy era that points out several examples of lapsed ethical politics.
Here is a partial list of some of the during the the longstanding cozy relationship between government grant-makers and grantees--like universities, environmental groups and college professors--making the EPA blind to even the most obvious conflict of interest, which leads me to recommend that there should be full disclosure for all people and organizations using federal dollar.
The lop-sided appointments by the previous EPA for its Clean Air Committees: The Scientific Advisory Committee Particulate Matter Review Panel where 24 of the 26 members received over $190 million in direct or indirect grants and the the Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Panel 17 of the 20 members received over $192 million.
There were very close (some would say inappropriately close) relationships that the EPA staff had with the researchers from Harvard, Syracuse and other contributors to the Dr. Charles Driscoll Health Study Team. This study was used to justify $37 billion of dollars allegedly saved in “indirect health benefits’ in the first iteration of the Clean Power Plan. While Dr. Driscoll claimed that the study was independent and objective, it was revealed that the study’s researchers had received $45 million in EPA grants. In addition, there is a trail of emails from the research team and the EPA before, during and after the study was completed.
* During hearings in Congress (2013, 2014, 2015), Gina McCarthy admitted that “Clean Power Plan" had no measurable climate impact: One hundredth of a degree. But she claimed the Clean Power Plan was symbolically important.
* The EPA did an original Cost/Benefit analysis of the Clean Power Plan, with the annual cost of $10 billion (many experts deemed far too low) and an annual benefit of about $9 million, but justified the Clean Power Plan by claiming $37 billion of “indirect health benefits,” annually.
* She applauded the EPA’s role in the banning the use of DDT and helped engineer a global ban, but she did not mention that without DDT to kill disease carrying mosquitos millions and millions of children and adults have died of malaria in Africa.
* After the Colorado toxic spill, there was a hush over the climate industry/major media about the EPA’s “1 million-gallon toxic mine spill” on August 5 (which was later changed to 3 million gallons by the EPA.) In fact, the EPA did not give the States of Colorado and New Mexico any warning for the 24 hours. EPA regional director Shaun McGrath was quoted as saying, “some of our early comments may have sounded cavalier about the public-health concern and the concern for the wildlife.”
* Even after a second toxic spill in October, no one at the EPA was ever disciplined or prosecuted. In the end, the EPA gave out small compensation to the Native American tribes, and none to local tourism and ranching. One can only imagine the financial penalties if a private company had caused the spill.
* In the federal Flint, MI water investigation, the report finds that “the State of Michigan and EPA equally at fault.” Furthermore, there is evidence that the local EPA knew about the Flint lead in the water problems for over 9 months and you as Director knew about the Flint problem at least 4 months before it became a disaster.
* The EPA "improperly" withheld Pebble Mine documents with regard to its decision to prematurely restrict the Pebble Mine project in Alaska and prompted a Federal Judge to express "no confidence" in the EPA's ability to decide which documents it should release or redact publicly.
* While the EPA argued the Clean Power Plan was the reason for the recent emissions reduction, Ken Colburn, a former state air regulator with the Regulatory Assistance Project, said, "If anything, the Clean Power Plan is not the cause of changes sweeping the power markets. What you're already seeing is a power sector transformation operating in such a way that it's actually cleaning up the grid anyway, a phenomenon that appears to be occurring even earlier than we expected," he said.
* According to a New York Times article, the “E.P.A. broke law with social media push for WOTUS, auditors found.” The EPA used Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and even a more innovative tool known as Thunderclap. In total, their campaign reached 1.8 million people. The other questionable PR efforts included an asthma ad campaign and Mercury and Air Toxic (MATS) PR campaign.
* While she continues to discuss the current attack on science and EPA transparency, her tenure at the EPA is fraught with climate change dogma and lack of transparency. To this day, she has kept access to her inter-office, inter-agency, and outgoing EPA communications shrouded in mystery.
Regarding that "incredible achievement", that 1.5 GT reduction in GHG emissions in 2030 nets 0.75 additional GT in the atmosphere as the other half is sequestered in the biosphere and the oceans. The current ~35 GT of industrial CO2 yields ~+2 ppm of CO2. A doubling of CO2 (currently ~420 ppm) yields ~1.1C of warmth. For the year 2030, we then have an impact of (0.75/35)*2 = 0.0429 ppm; and (0.0429/420) * 1.1 = +0.0001122 C temperature reduction. I know that in reality the trends are not linear, but this ridiculously small impact illustrates the futility of the Prosperity Reduction Act. Extend that out 70 years to 2100 and we will have saved the planet from warming an incredible 0.008C! Lomborg plugged the numbers into the MAGICC model which yields a savings of 0.016 C. The achievement would be incredibly harmful.
My concern is that there is growing sense of entitlement and privilege among the progressive side, such that rules don’t apply and if there is an issue, the media will run cover. Simply saying “I regret” is viewed as enough.
Roger, you said “no one seems to care.”Many of us care, but we don’t belong to the Official Science Establishment nor the media so our voices are not heard.
Roger, in your new role, you are very reliable source of advanced science in English and a good crystal ball into the modest future. Your point about the revolving door, conflicts of interest, and laissez faire among climate believers is spot on. The $45 million and $190 million that the EPA paid to Harvard, Syracuse, Charles Driscoll and grantees from Science Advisory Board is a classic example.
It is good to be with you on Substack. You are a informational secret weapon.
I wrote a piece about EPA in the Gina McCarthy era that points out several examples of lapsed ethical politics.
Here is a partial list of some of the during the the longstanding cozy relationship between government grant-makers and grantees--like universities, environmental groups and college professors--making the EPA blind to even the most obvious conflict of interest, which leads me to recommend that there should be full disclosure for all people and organizations using federal dollar.
The lop-sided appointments by the previous EPA for its Clean Air Committees: The Scientific Advisory Committee Particulate Matter Review Panel where 24 of the 26 members received over $190 million in direct or indirect grants and the the Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Panel 17 of the 20 members received over $192 million.
There were very close (some would say inappropriately close) relationships that the EPA staff had with the researchers from Harvard, Syracuse and other contributors to the Dr. Charles Driscoll Health Study Team. This study was used to justify $37 billion of dollars allegedly saved in “indirect health benefits’ in the first iteration of the Clean Power Plan. While Dr. Driscoll claimed that the study was independent and objective, it was revealed that the study’s researchers had received $45 million in EPA grants. In addition, there is a trail of emails from the research team and the EPA before, during and after the study was completed.
* During hearings in Congress (2013, 2014, 2015), Gina McCarthy admitted that “Clean Power Plan" had no measurable climate impact: One hundredth of a degree. But she claimed the Clean Power Plan was symbolically important.
* The EPA did an original Cost/Benefit analysis of the Clean Power Plan, with the annual cost of $10 billion (many experts deemed far too low) and an annual benefit of about $9 million, but justified the Clean Power Plan by claiming $37 billion of “indirect health benefits,” annually.
* She applauded the EPA’s role in the banning the use of DDT and helped engineer a global ban, but she did not mention that without DDT to kill disease carrying mosquitos millions and millions of children and adults have died of malaria in Africa.
* After the Colorado toxic spill, there was a hush over the climate industry/major media about the EPA’s “1 million-gallon toxic mine spill” on August 5 (which was later changed to 3 million gallons by the EPA.) In fact, the EPA did not give the States of Colorado and New Mexico any warning for the 24 hours. EPA regional director Shaun McGrath was quoted as saying, “some of our early comments may have sounded cavalier about the public-health concern and the concern for the wildlife.”
* Even after a second toxic spill in October, no one at the EPA was ever disciplined or prosecuted. In the end, the EPA gave out small compensation to the Native American tribes, and none to local tourism and ranching. One can only imagine the financial penalties if a private company had caused the spill.
* In the federal Flint, MI water investigation, the report finds that “the State of Michigan and EPA equally at fault.” Furthermore, there is evidence that the local EPA knew about the Flint lead in the water problems for over 9 months and you as Director knew about the Flint problem at least 4 months before it became a disaster.
* The EPA "improperly" withheld Pebble Mine documents with regard to its decision to prematurely restrict the Pebble Mine project in Alaska and prompted a Federal Judge to express "no confidence" in the EPA's ability to decide which documents it should release or redact publicly.
* While the EPA argued the Clean Power Plan was the reason for the recent emissions reduction, Ken Colburn, a former state air regulator with the Regulatory Assistance Project, said, "If anything, the Clean Power Plan is not the cause of changes sweeping the power markets. What you're already seeing is a power sector transformation operating in such a way that it's actually cleaning up the grid anyway, a phenomenon that appears to be occurring even earlier than we expected," he said.
* According to a New York Times article, the “E.P.A. broke law with social media push for WOTUS, auditors found.” The EPA used Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and even a more innovative tool known as Thunderclap. In total, their campaign reached 1.8 million people. The other questionable PR efforts included an asthma ad campaign and Mercury and Air Toxic (MATS) PR campaign.
* While she continues to discuss the current attack on science and EPA transparency, her tenure at the EPA is fraught with climate change dogma and lack of transparency. To this day, she has kept access to her inter-office, inter-agency, and outgoing EPA communications shrouded in mystery.