washington––democrats and republicans had opposing views on the value of coal to the u.s. economy thursday, with democrats calling for more environmental controls and republicans stressing how essential coal is to the energy infrastructure.

democrats at the house subcommittee on energy and mineral resources hearing worried that companies that mine on federal land are not paying their fair share, and that the environmental and social consequences of coal are not being properly considered.

republicans spoke about the success of the program in job creation and how indispensable coal is to the energy infrastructure of america.

the federal coal program is a bureau of land management program that allows private companies to mine coal on federal land. the companies bid for the rights to use the land and pay the government a fee for the land and the coal extracted and a royalty on the coal that is sold. the program is predominantly found in western states like wyoming and was integral in the powering of america throughout the 20th century.

now, critics say the program needs to be modernized and reformed to reflect the true cost of relying on this part of the fossil fuel industry.

subcommittee chair rep. alan lowenthal, d-calif., said the program “ignores the effects of coal on our climate and the future of americans who are losing their livelihoods as coal disappears. these are two things that i’m most focused on.”

but arizona rep. paul gosar, the top republican on the committee, stressed the importance of coal to the u.s. economy. “coal mining is essential to american energy security, providing an affordable, reliable source of baseload power to families across the country,” gosar said. “coal mining also employs over 53,000 people, including regions of the country experiencing economic hardships, like appalachia.”

the differences in focus laid out in gosar and lowenthal’s opening statements were present throughout the hearing. for the few democrats who were present during the hearing, like rep. jared huffman, d-calif., questions environmental and social problems related to mining and the industry. most of those questions were directed at jim stock, an economics professor at harvard and a member of former president barack obama’s council of economic advisors.

“in recent research, i and co-authors estimate that 92% of the decline in coal from 2008 to 2016 is due to the decline in natural gas prices,” stock said. he added that mine closings and consolidation “demonstrate that market forces are driving the decline of coal, despite the many pro-coal actions taken by (president donald trump’s) administration.”

for republicans, the focus was on questioning hal quinn, president and ceo of the national mining association. quinn echoed gosar and other republican’s views that coal is a job creator and a significant part of the country’s energy future. he called the federal coal program a “national and economic success story” and disagreed with the 2016 obama-era decision to place a moratorium on the program.

while the differences across the aisle were clear, lowenthal articulated the shared goal of wanting to learn more and properly address the coal program moving forward. “we could do this in the same haphazard way that we’ve managed the federal coal program over the past few decades,” he said. “or we can consider phasing out the federal coal program in a reasonable, thoughtful way that protects workers, guarantees mine cleanup, and addresses climate change.”

washington — a house appropriations subcommittee grilled u.s. environmental protection agency administrator scott pruitt thursday afternoon on his deregulation agenda and spending habits.

even though pruitt is under fire amid a number of ethics scandals — including a $43,000 soundproof booth for his office, his below-market capitol hill condo rental from an energy lobbyist’s wife, and his reported retaliations against agency staff — democratic lawmakers mostly voiced concerns about what they see as the administrator’s gutting of environmental protections policies.

pruitt has announced a rollback to obama-era fuel economy standards and a proposal to repeal the clean power plan, which limits power plants’ carbon emissions. democratic lawmakers argued that would threaten public health.

“rolling back regulations that limit emissions will mean more cases of asthma in children,” said rep. betty mccollum, d-minn., the subcommittee ranking member. “that’s a fact. your approach is bad for the environment, bad for public health and bad for business.”

rep. chellie pingree, d-maine, also said her constituents experience high rates of asthma due to air pollution.

“we’re at the end of the tailpipe when it comes to the clean power plan,” pingree said. “we have ‘red alert’ days. and i have no idea why would you want to rollback limits on fuel emissions.”

but pruitt stood firm in the face of the criticism, telling lawmakers his vow to cut fuel economy standards came after a review of the previous administration’s standards, which he said were based on assumptions of market conditions that haven’t come true.

“what we don’t want to see happen is we set the standards so high that manufacturers manufacture cars that people don’t purchase,” pruitt said. “what happens is, people will stay in older vehicles, which actually increases emissions.”

the interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee is made up of seven republicans and four democrats and is chaired by rep. ken calvert, a republican from california. the two-hour hearing also focused on the epa budget, which president trump wants to cut by 30%.

“we will not support president trump’s budget or your efforts to cripple the epa with draconian cuts,” rep. mccollum said.

pruitt defended the trump administration budget, saying the agency is “stripping burdensome costs” and making “transformational change.”

republicans used their time to stand up for pruitt and his actions as epa administrator. rep. evan jenkins, r-w.va., says his state’s coal economy has greatly improved since pruitt took over last year.

“your agency is restoring hope to the people of west virginia,” jenkins said. “what a difference, candidly, an election makes. i appreciate the good work of this administration getting us back in business.”

pruitt’s job security in trump’s fluid administration has been in question recently, amid his mounting ethics scandals. but pruitt has relentlessly implemented trump’s campaign deregulation promises, and the president continues to defend pruitt at least publicly. but democrats at the hearing questioned whether he’s fit for the job.

toward the end of the hearing, mccollum, the highest-ranking democrat on the panel, looked straight at pruitt and, speaking slowly, told the embattled administrator: “mr. pruitt, i think it’s time for you to resign.”

washington—rhode island democratic sen. sheldon whitehouse delivered his 200th weekly climate change speech on the floor of the senate on march 13, nearly six years after beginning the series, which he calls “time to wake up.”

in his speech, whitehouse addressed the unwillingness of congress to act on climate change and said the fossil fuel industry has used campaign contributions to buy republicans’ silence on the issue climate change.

the junior senator from rhode island paced around the senate chamber tuesday evening as 20 of his democratic colleagues praised his years-long commitment to keeping the issue of climate change in the focus of the senate.

maine sen. angus king, an independent, compared whitehouse’s speeches to winston churchill’s warnings to the british parliament about the rising power of germany before world war ii, and drew parallels between the disinterest both of them faced.

“senator whitehouse has talked about climate change in terms of ocean acidification, temperature changes, sea level rise, drought, famine, the effects throughout the world,” king said. “often this chamber is empty, but his warnings are important and should be heeded nonetheless.”

other senators joined king in praising whitehouse’s determination, and relayed accounts of climate change taking place in their home states. highlighting anecdotes from fishermen about changes in the ocean as well as citing scientific research, democrats from states across the nation spoke in support of fighting climate change. 

after a string of supporting speeches from democratic sens. chuck schumer, elizabeth warren, tammy baldwin and others, whitehouse finally took the podium, focusing his remarks chiefly on fossil fuel lobbyists who he sayid have bought the compliance of republicans and stopped any attempt to discuss or legislate about climate change in its tracks.

“academic studies have looked at congress and confirmed that the views of the general public have statistically near zero influence here,” he said. “the fact that stands out for me at number 200 is the persistent failure of congress to even take up the issue of climate change. one party won’t even talk about it.”

whitehouse inveighed against citizens united v. fec, the landmark 2012 supreme court decision that ruled that corporations have first amendment free speech rights in political campaigns. the ruling opened the door for unlimited corporate contributions to campaign communications, which whitehouse said have been used to bribe and threaten politicians.

“since the moment of that decision, not one republican in this body has joined one serious piece of legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” he said. “our senate heartbeat of bipartisan activity was killed dead by the political weaponry unleashed for big special interests.”

jeremy symons, vice president of political affairs for the environmental defense fund applauded whitehouse’s 200th speech, and called for more leaders in the fight against climate change.

“sen. whitehouse understands the importance of dealing with climate change. it threatens our economy with trillions in costs, our national security, and our kids’ futures,” symons said. “we need more leaders who are as committed to this issue as sen. whitehouse has been – so we can go back to looking for solutions that cut pollution, encourage clean energy, and boost our economy.”

whitehouse has regularly introduced legislation to combat climate change, such as a measure introduced last year that would create a working group of government agency heads to conduct research and reform policy in order to combat the effects of climate change on america’s natural resources and wildlife. 

the executive branch, whitehouse said, is responsible for halting climate research and forbidding government scientists from discussing or even using the term “climate change.” last year, scientists at the usda were banned from using several terms related to climate change in their research, and the climate change webpage was taken down from the white house website.

still, whitehouse implored the president to reconsider his stance on the issue, pointing to a 2009 full-page ad in the new york times, imploring president barack obama to take action on climate change which was signed by then-businessman trump and his children donald jr. and eric and ivanka. 
 

please visit www.eesi.org/030212_budget for more information

realistically – individuals can do a lot of little things to help reduce their carbon footprint – like voting with their pocketbooks and all. this, however, pales in comparison to what things like big industries and power plants are pumping out. now i realize that things like passenger car exhaust contributes to a significant portion of carbon emissions, but even here there’s only so much people can do with the current state of transportation, job options, and cultural entrenchment. if you’ve got to commute, then you gotta do it. and if it’s cheaper (time-wise mostly) to drive there alone then that’s what people will be (and are) doing. time is the most valuable commodity these days, and if it’s faster to go alone by car – they’ll do it. until the systems themselves change to accommodate new methods that allow people to change effectively with them, nothing on our individual homefronts are going to change.

the truth is – national and state policy directives guide (1) government, (2) corporate, and (3) personal behavior the most. just look at the recent “hands-free” laws that took effect in oregon in jan 2010. would people really honor this directive if it weren’t enforced? no. and it is being enforced, so they ultimately will. simple as that. you see enough people getting pulled over and you’ll find religion here.

the bottom line is that until we have a strong cohesive net of state and national policies that drive this revolution, nothing significant is going to happen. people are going to continue to do whatever’s convenient during the coarse of their busy lives and that’s about it. same goes for businesses. when it comes to competition in the existing arena – you can only go green so much before it becomes burdensome and affects the bottom line.