Supreme Court curtails clean power plan

Professor of Law, Vermont Law School

In a highly anticipated but not unexpected 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2022, that the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

The ruling doesn’t take away the EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, but it makes federal action harder by requiring the agency to show that Congress has charged it to act – in an area where Congress has consistently failed to act.

The Clean Power Plan, the policy at the heart of the ruling, never took effect because the court blocked it in 2016, and the EPA now plans to develop a new policy instead. Nonetheless, the court went out of its way to strike it down in this case and reject the agency’s interpretation of what the Clean Air Act permitted.

Having said what the EPA cannot do, the court gave no guidance on what the agency can do about this urgent problem. Beyond climate policy, the ruling poses serious questions about how the court will view other regulatory programs. Continue reading

Fifty years after the first earth summit

Keith Johnson (Jamaica), Chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference (left), United Nations Secretary-General U Thant (center) and Maurice F. Strong, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (right). (UN photo).

By Peter Dykstra
Environmental Health News

In 1972, world leaders had gathered in Stockholm in an unprecedented acknowledgement that we were running into trouble. The gathering hammered out a weighty Statement of Principles. It was the first draft of an owner’s manual for planet Earth, but it left much to do.

Two decades later, the site was Rio de Janeiro. World leaders addressed the hopes for Rio:

“There are those who say economic growth and environmental protection are not compatible. Well, let them come to the United States.″ – U.S. President George H.W. Bush

″The ecological debt should be paid, not the foreign debt. Hunger must disappear, not man.” – Cuban President Fidel Castro

“We are ready to assume our share and hope other industrial countries will do the same. … We are determined to live up to our responsibilities to developing countries.” – German Chancellor Helmut Kohl

″Developed countries have a greater obligation to find solutions and to transfer technology. … Protection of the environment must respect the sovereignty and independence of each country.” – Chinese President Li Peng

Journalist George Monbiot was a tad more cynical about Rio’s rhetoric and intentions:

“It sounds lovely, doesn’t it? It could be illustrated with rainbows and psychedelic unicorns and stuck on the door of your toilet. But without any

Continue reading

World Environment Day is June 5

New video on Ethyl leaded gasoline

Science communicator Derek Muller of Veritasium posted this video on the history of Ethyl leaded gasoline on Earth Day, April 22, 2022.

The whale oil myth surfaces again

One of the oil industry’s greatest historical myths is that petroleum arrived in 1861, just in time to light up the night and, as a bonus, save the whales from the whalers.  

Even at the time it was something of a joke, as we see in this cartoon of whales celebrating the discovery of petroleum.

Oil industry historians took the joke seriously[1], and a century later, cracker barrel humor  settled in as established history.  

According to the myth:   whale oil was running out, prices were going up, and the  people wanted government intervention in the market. And yet, wisely, the government did not intervene and the free market soon found petroleum.

There’s just one problem: The myth is pure fiction. In fact, the US oil industry was created by subsidy, and not the free market.

Continue reading

Leaded gasoline centennial interdisciplinary zoom panel Dec. 9, 2021

A century of tragedy: Leaded gasoline

By Bill Kovarik 

From The Conversation, Dec. 9, 2021

On the frosty morning of Dec. 9, 1921, in Dayton, Ohio, researchers at a General Motors lab poured a new fuel blend into one of their test engines. Immediately, the engine began running more quietly and putting out more power.

The new fuel was tetraethyl lead. With vast profits in sight – and very few public health regulations at the time – General Motors Co. rushed gasoline diluted with tetraethyl lead to market despite the known health risks of lead. They named it “Ethyl” gas.

It has been 100 years since that pivotal day in the development of leaded gasoline. As a historian of media and the environment, I see this anniversary as a time to reflect on the role of public health advocates and environmental journalists in preventing profit-driven tragedy.

Lead and death

By the early 1920s, the hazards of lead were well known – even Charles Dickens and Benjamin Franklin had written about the dangers of lead poisoning.

When GM began selling leaded gasoline, public health experts questioned its decision. One called lead a serious menace to public health, and another called concentrated tetraethyl lead a “malicious and creeping” poison.

Continue reading

A brief history of gasoline

Lies about climate change are only part of the environmental history problem posed by the way that the oil and auto industries told their  stories in books, museum or bus caravans (like the one above.)  A full ‘warts and all’ history is still only barely known.  Jamie Kitman, automotive writer and attorney, created this series  for Jalopnik Magazine.

Continue reading

How big oil knew about climate change


The oil industry was aware of the risks of climate change decades ago.

By Benjamin Franta, Stanford University

Four years ago, I traveled around America, visiting historical archives. I was looking for documents that might reveal the hidden history of climate change – and in particular, when the major coal, oil and gas companies became aware of the problem, and what they knew about it.

I pored over boxes of papers, thousands of pages. I began to recognize typewriter fonts from the 1960s and ‘70s and marveled at the legibility of past penmanship, and got used to squinting when it wasn’t so clear.

What those papers revealed is now changing our understanding of how climate change became a crisis. The industry’s own words, as my research found, show companies knew about the risk long before most of the rest of the world.

On Oct. 28, 2021, a Congressional subcommittee questioned executives from Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute about industry efforts to downplay the role of fossil fuels in climate change. Exxon CEO Darren Woods told lawmakers that his company’s public statements “are and have always been truthful” and that the company “does not spread disinformation regarding climate change.”

Here’s what corporate documents from the past six decades show.

Surprising discoveries

At an old gunpowder factory in Delaware – now a museum and archive – I found a transcript of a petroleum conference from 1959 called the “Energy and Man” symposium, held at Columbia University in New York. As I flipped through, I saw a speech from a famous scientist, Edward Teller (who helped invent the hydrogen bomb), warning the industry executives and others assembled of global warming.

Continue reading

Is 45% solar by 2050 feasible?

Research Associate, University of Texas at Austin
For The Conversation

As President Joe Biden  called for major clean energy investments as a way to curb climate change and generate jobs on Sept. 8, 2021, the White House released a report produced by the U.S. Department of Energy that found that solar power could generate up to 45% of the U.S. electricity supply by 2050, compared to less than 4% today.   Joshua D. Rhodes, an energy technology and policy researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, weighed in on aspects of the plan for The Conversation.  

Why such a heavy focus on solar power? Doesn’t a low-carbon future require many types of clean energy?

The Energy Department’s Solar Futures Study lays out three future pathways for the U.S. grid: business as usual; decarbonization, meaning a massive shift to low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources; and decarbonization with economy-wide electrification of activities that are powered now by fossil fuels.

It concludes that the latter two scenarios would require approximately 1,050-1,570 gigawatts of solar power, which would meet about 44%-45% of expected electricity demand in 2050. For perspective, one gigawatt of generating capacity is equivalent to about 3.1 million solar panels or 364 large-scale wind turbines.

The rest would come mostly from a mix of other low- or zero-carbon sources, including wind, nuclear, hydropower, biopower, geothermal and combustion turbines run on zero-carbon synthetic fuels such as hydrogen. Energy storage capacity – systems such as large installations of high-capacity batteries – would also expand at roughly the same rate as solar.

One advantage solar power has over many other low-carbon technologies is that most of the U.S. has lots of sunshine. Wind, hydropower and geothermal resources aren’t so evenly distributed: There are large zones where these resources are poor or nonexistent.

Continue reading