ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT | TRUMP RULES How Rollbacks at Scott Pruitt’s E.P.A. Are a Boon to Oil and Gas

This is an article that was in today’s New York Times.    Folks we are  in a situation here that requires us, as a Nation, to work harder than ever or our children and grandchildren will inherit a desolate wasteland!!!!

Deadhead1155

PS I had to do a lot of copy and pasting to post this so I apologize if there are rough spots.

 

Devon Energy’s Beaver Creek gas plant outside Riverton, Wyo. The company was prepared to install sophisticated equipment to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollution. Since Scott Pruitt assumed the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency, the company has pulled back fom it’s proposals. Ryan Dorgan for the New York Times

 

FREMONT COUNTY, Wyo. — In a gas field here in Wyoming’s struggling energy corridor, nearly 2,000 miles from Washington, the Trump administration’s regulatory reversal is crowning an early champion.

Devon Energy, which runs the windswept site, had been prepared to install a sophisticated system to detect and reduce leaks of dangerous gases. It had also discussed paying a six-figure penalty to settle claims by the Obama administration that it was illegally emitting 80 tons each year of hazardous chemicals, like benzene, a known carcinogen.

But something changed in February just five days after Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general with close ties to Devon, was sworn in as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Devon, in a letter dated Feb. 22 and obtained by The New York Times, said it was “re-evaluating its settlement posture.” It no longer intended to move ahead with the extensive emissions-control system, second-guessing the E.P.A.’s estimates on the size of the violation, and it was now willing to pay closer to $25,000 to end the three-year-old federal investigation.

Devon’s pushback, coming amid an effort to ease a broad array of federal environmental rules, is the first known example under the Trump administration of an accused polluter — which has admitted violating the law — backing away from a proposed environmental settlement. It is already being hailed by other independent energy companies as a template for the future.

“Not in our wildest dreams, never did we expect to get everything,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, a Denver-based association of independent oil and gas companies. “We were kind of used to getting punished.”

The extraordinary about-face reflects the onset of an experiment in President Trump’s Washington that is meant to fundamentally reorder the relationship between government and business. Across the federal government, lobbyists and lawyers who once battled regulations on behalf of business are now helping run the agencies they clashed with.

Mr. Trump and his team believe that loosening the regulatory grip on business will help the economy, create jobs and allow Americans “to share in the riches,” as he said during the campaign. But in the energy field, environmentalists, Democrats and even some in the industry fear the efforts will backfire, harming health and safety without creating much economic benefit.

The E.P.A. has not yet made a public response to Devon’s new posture, and Mr. Pruitt declined to comment for this article. But the new approach follows a series of important victories for the energy industry in Washington that could reshape environmental policy on a national scale and undermine the Obama administration’s campaign to combat climate change.

In just the last three months, with Mr. Pruitt in charge, the E.P.A. postponed a long-planned rule requiring companies like Devon to retrofit drilling equipment to prevent leaks of methane gas — a major contributor to climate change — and to collect more data on how much of the gas is spewing into the air.

The Interior Department, meanwhile, announced this month that it would reconsider a separate rule limiting the burning of unwanted methane gas from wells drilled on federal and Indian lands, a process called flaring. That announcement came the same day the Senate narrowly rejected industry calls to repeal the same rule.

Interior officials have also announced their intention to repeal or revise a contentious rule requiring companies like Devon to take extra steps to prevent groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, a drilling technique in which chemicals and water are forced into rock formations.

Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund are outraged by these moves, and have vowed to fight any rollbacks in court.

”Devon is doing to the oil and gas industry what Donald Trump did to the Republican Party, pushing the whole agenda into a world of extremes,” said Mark Brownstein, a vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund.

The rollbacks cap a carefully coordinated campaign over the last eight years led in part by Devon, which is based in Oklahoma City and is the nation’s eighth-largest natural gas producer, and Mr. Pruitt, who served six years as Oklahoma attorney general before Mr. Trump named him E.P.A. chief.

Regulatory Rollbacks Devon Stands to Profit From

  1. Oil, coal and gasroyaltiesrule

The Interior Department rule would have closed a loophole that allowed companies like Devon to pay lower royalties on coal, oil and gas produced on federal land.

On Feb. 27, the department delayed the rule.

  1. Methaneemissions reportingrequest

An E.P.A. request would have required Devon and other companies to provide detailed information on methane emissions from all their facilities, to allow the agency to learn more on emissions levels and how best to control them.

On March 2, the agency withdrew its request.

  1. Newfrackingstandards

Bureau of Land Management rule required oil and gas companies to take steps to protect groundwater and disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands. The industry complained it could cost as much as $20 million a year.

On March 15, the government told a federal court that the rule would be revised or withdrawn.

  1. Methane leaksrule

The E.P.A. rule would have required oil and gas companies, including Devon, to retrofit drilling equipment to prevent leaks of methane, and other hazardous gases, from all new wells and equipment.

On April 19, the agency postponed the rule.

  1. Methane flaringrule

The Interior Department rule would have required Devon to curb the burning of unwanted methane from wells drilled on federal and Indian lands, a process called flaring.

On May 10, the Senate rejected industry calls to repeal the rule. But the Interior Department that same afternoon announced it intended to “suspend, revise or rescind” the rule.

The New York Times

Devon and Mr. Pruitt, while he was still attorney general out West, teamed up to block new federal rules imposed by the Obama administration that required fossil fuel companies to more closely monitor oil and gas wells for leaks, and disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracking. Devon also poured millions of dollars a year into lobbying — and hundreds of thousands into campaign contributions to Mr. Pruitt and other Republicans — as it pushed regulators and lawmakers in Washington to do away with the restrictions.

For Devon and its industry allies, the turnaround is as startling as it is long-sought.

“We are so used to not being able to move an agenda forward that it has been very surprising how quickly things have changed,” Ms. Sgamma said.

In Riverton, Wyo., a frontier city of dusty roads and squat brick buildings a half-hour drive from where Devon operates its gas field, a fossil fuel revival could not come quickly enough.

Well-paying jobs in oil and gas — drilling wells, managing roustabouts — are fast disappearing, as production in the state declines because of a slump in energy prices. Government agencies are bracing for cuts to basic services, including children’s health programs and security at the county jail, because of declining tax revenues from fossil fuel companies.

Against that backdrop, Mr. Trump’s defiant promises to free fossil fuels from their regulatory shackles have resonated here and across Wyoming, the country’s second-biggest energy producing state after Texas. Mr. Trump scored his biggest margin of victory in Wyoming, beating Hillary Clinton by 46 percentage points.

In Fremont County, home to Riverton, seven in 10 voters chose Mr. Trump; in Campbell County, the heart of Wyoming coal country, it was nine out of 10. And there is a palpable disdain toward outsiders — especially those in Washington — who local officials say are quick to vilify fossil fuels without a full understanding of local economic realities.

“At the end of the day, we all just want to make sure we can prosper and raise our families,” said Holly Jibben, a local councilwoman, a former rig worker and a mother. “When oil and gas profits, everybody profits.”

 

A Mutually Beneficial Friendship

The invitation to lunch at the towering new Devon Energy Center in downtown Oklahoma City came to Mr. Pruitt in June 2012 — 18 months into his tenure as Oklahoma’s top law enforcement official — from Larry Nichols, a co-founder of what had become the city’s biggest independent oil and gas company.

Mr. Nichols and his father, John, had created Devon in 1971, starting with four employees and a negative net worth of several million dollars, while sharing a receptionist at an office building not far from their new tower, an early company history says.

Now, there was no denying Devon had reached extraordinary heights.

The Devon tower, 50 stories high, was unlike anything ever built in Oklahoma. It was an Empire State Building of this fossil-fuel town, visible from miles away. It could even be seen far west of Oklahoma City, out toward the 430,000 acres in the center of the state where Devon’s rigs were drilling new wells.

Devon was riding a tremendous boom in oil and gas production in the United States that was fueled by the revolutionary new technologies that it had helped establish, like so-called coal-bed natural gas, which uses advanced drilling techniques to extract methane gas from underground coal deposits.

There was just one complication threatening Devon’s ascent. President Barack Obama, unable to move many of his environmental goals through Congress, had adopted a new slogan: “We Can’t Wait,” a blunt statement that he intended to start using his executive powers to combat climate change.

That’s where Mr. Pruitt came in.

“We’ll meet Scott in the lobby when he checks in at our concierge desk,” William F. Whitsitt, then the head of Devon’s fast-growing public relations and lobbying operations, wrote in an email to Mr. Pruitt’s executive assistant.

Mr. Pruitt, a folksy, deeply religious former state legislator and minor-league baseball team general partner who was largely unknown on the national political stage, had won an upset victory in 2010. He had vowed to challenge Washington’s intervention in Oklahoma’s affairs.

“There’s a mentality emanating from Washington today that says, ‘We know best,’” Mr. Pruitt said during the campaign, which was supported by a donation from Mr. Nichols, as well as Devon’s political action committee. “It’s a one-size-fits-all strategy, a command-and-control kind of approach, and we’ve got to make sure we know how to respond to that.”

 

Devon, historically, had been a minor player in Washington. But that changed in the first year of the Obama presidency, when Devon’s spending on lobbying jumped nearly 350 percent to $2.5 million. Devon brought on a team of politically connected lobbyists, including Anthony Ferate, known as A. J., a lawyer with close ties to Mr. Pruitt, as well as Rebecca Rosen, a former Capitol Hill staff member who had worked on the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

The first major target was an E.P.A. data-collection effort that had determined methane emissions caused by oil and gas operations were much larger than Devon’s own calculations. Air pollution from the then-booming oil and gas industry was now being blamed for extreme declines in air quality in rural areas of Wyoming and Utah. One sparsely populated stretch of northeastern Utah had a worse ozone problem than Los Angeles during the peak of the energy boom.

Devon initially participated in a voluntary program to capture leaking methane, or close off leaks, but was so suspicious of the Obama administration’s intentions that it dropped out.

And indeed, the administration soon announced a major expansion of federal regulations aimed at cutting overall industry methane emissions by 45 percent. The oil and gas industry estimated just one of the new rules could cost more than a $800 million a year in new compliance costs.

Devon, furious, turned to Mr. Pruitt for help in pushing back.

“Just a note to pass along the electronic version of the draft letter to Lisa Jackson at E.P.A.,” said one early request for help in 2011 from Devon to Mr. Pruitt. Devon suggested that Mr. Pruitt follow up with Mr. Ferate, the company’s Washington lobbyist and a fund-raiser for Republican causes, if he had questions.

Mr. Pruitt did just as Devon asked, sending along the draft letter to Ms. Jackson, on his own stationery and under his signature, with only a few word changes.

The interventions by Devon also targeted the Interior Department and its Bureau of Land Management, which controls 260 million acres of public land and leases out large chunks to oil and gas companies for drilling, including the land here in Fremont County.

The bureau was pushing ahead with plans to require that Devon and other companies take extra steps to prevent chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing from contaminating groundwater, including a demand that Devon disclose the ingredients in millions of gallons of chemical-laced water it pumped into the federally managed land.

Devon has a total of about 1,500 wells on bureau-controlled land, representing about 15 percent of its oil and gas production.

Devon and Mr. Pruitt called the rules redundant in letters to federal officials, including the secretary of the Interior and Mr. Obama, while they also worked to challenge them in court and in Congress.

Devon made targeted contributions to sympathetic Republican lawmakers, who introduced legislation to block the rules or collected signatures among their colleagues on letters pressing federal agencies to back down. Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, was a particular favorite of Devon, as he repeatedly co-sponsored bills with names like “Fracturing Regulations Are Effective in State Hands Act” that would block federal intervention.

 

Each of the pieces of this campaign fell into place as planned. But Mr. Obama and his aides were hardly about to fold.

“Every day this was not attended to was a day we got closer to the tipping point — when it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent the kind of climate change damage we are worried about,” said Janet McCabe, who led the air pollution enforcement division at the E.P.A. under Mr. Obama.

ADVERTISEMENT

Devon Energy, Ms. McCabe said, was among the most determined opponents of the agency’s work, far more so, for example, than international giants like Shell.

“In any regulated industry, there are companies that are more aggressive than others in pushing back at every turn and trying to stop the policy,” she said. “Devon was one of those.”

The Lifeblood of Riverton, Wyo.

Riverton’s mayor, John Baker, known as Lars, turned carefully onto a dirt road that winds through Devon’s sprawling oil and gas fields just outside the city limits, a source of both pride and frustration in a frontier town the “Marlboro Man,” Darrell Winfield, once called home.

Since the early 1900s, oil and gas have been pulled from the ground here, a vast stretch of arid plains in a valley that runs down from Yellowstone National Park — an almost lunar landscape dotted with dry clumps of sagebrush, and rock formations adorned with the petroglyphs etched by Native American tribes, which have inhabited the area for centuries.

But production from the area’s wells had slowed over recent decades, and Devon, known for its emphasis on new technologies, had a solution: It would inject carbon dioxide into the ground, putting pressure on underground oil deposits and pushing them to the pump.

The new method would allow Devon to ramp up production at the site from 100 barrels a day to 5,000, the company said. Statewide, drilling surged, with gas production more than doubling from 2000 to 2010.

The roaring minerals economy filled state coffers with billion-dollar annual surpluses and brought jobs that kept the unemployment rate for much of that decade below the national average.

“It was gangbusters,” said Mr. Baker, a former weed and pest control man, who points out the oil and gas rigs as fondly as he does the local flora and fauna, like the Indian paintbrush plant that was just starting to show its red flowers.

Mr. Baker is not alone. In Riverton, a city of 11,000, the fading road signs — Gas Hills, Oil Field Road — underline the importance of fossil fuels. Local officials talk of companies like Devon as good corporate citizens.

For the last six Thanksgivings, Devon has helped a local group give food baskets to the needy. For years, the company has also donated to youth educational programs at local state parks.

But even as production was rising, tensions were brewing with Washington. The Obama administration had made cracking down on fugitive emissions from oil and gas sites a national priority.

By 2014, Devon stood accused by the E.P.A. of releasing 80 more tons a year of the harmful gases from its Beaver Creek plant in Wyoming than its permit allowed. The extra emissions amounted to a fifth more than the company’s stated emissions of 361 tons in 2013, the most recent year for which data is available.

This class of chemicals — known as volatile organic compounds — is extremely potent and is blamed for helping create blankets of smog. Several of the chemicals are known carcinogens.

 

“You can smell it in the air,” said John Fenton, a former Devon contract worker turned environmentalist who monitors oil and gas facilities scattered across Fremont County using an infrared camera.

At Devon, Mr. Fenton repaired heating equipment and did general maintenance jobs. He later worked elsewhere in the gas fields welding pipes for as much as $50 an hour. But he stopped when wells started cropping up close to residential areas, including about 200 feet from his Fremont County ranch. His neighbors’ water turned black. His wife, Catherine, complained of losing her senses of smell and taste.

“These companies are emboldened by this remoteness to not do anything,” he said.

But Mr. Fenton’s concerns have not gained wider traction. Residents fret mostly about the crackdown on energy companies under Mr. Obama, which coincided with a downturn in oil and gas production brought on largely by a glut in the market and lower energy prices. That has made his tough approach a scapegoat for the downturn, and it is difficult to overstate the animosity toward federal environmental agencies.

Wyoming was one of around two dozen states that sued to block regulations imposed by the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Obama’s effort to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. On the campaign trail, Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and the state’s sole member of the House of Representatives, repeatedly called for a reduction in the size and authority of the E.P.A.

“The E.P.A. is the evil empire here,” said Steven R. Peck, publisher of The Ranger, Fremont County’s daily newspaper. “But the regulatory game hasn’t changed as much as the oil and gas industry itself,” he said.

“People think, ‘If we could just drill more wells a year,’” he said, “but we also need clean energy and jobs.”

In Riverton, empty houses dot the city. The unemployment rate hovered around 7 percent earlier this year before dropping in March to 6.4 percent as seasonal jobs kicked in. The area’s largest private employers are casinos.

“Everything’s gone down, down,” said Frenchie Warren, 59, a member of the Arapaho tribe, who sat killing time one recent afternoon on a bench next to a Shell gas station.

Mr. Warren lost his $23-an-hour job at the SST Energy Corporation earlier this year after he mangled his hand in a chain, he said. He is bitter toward Washington politicians, who he said were squeezing the life out of Riverton.

“They aren’t helping us,” Mr. Warren said. “If I had a gun, I’d shoot them.”

 

Tacking Hard in Another Direction

They gathered in the Rachel Carson Green Room at the E.P.A.’s headquarters in Washington, about 75 agency employees in a high-ceiling conference room named after the famed environmentalist whose book “Silent Spring” helped inspire the modern environmental movement.

Mr. Pruitt, who a few days earlier had been confirmed as the new E.P.A. administrator, stood on the stage and tried to calm the nerves of the agency’s staff in the room, as well as thousands more watching remotely.

“You don’t know me very well,” Mr. Pruitt said. “In fact, you don’t know me hardly at all other than maybe what you’ve read in the newspaper and seen on the news. … I look forward to sharing the rest of the story with you as we spend time together.”

Catherine McCabe, the outgoing acting administrator, presented Mr. Pruitt with a baseball cap that featured the agency’s iconic logo of a blooming flower surrounded by a sphere that represents blue sky, green earth and blue-green water.

But it quickly became clear that a new day had arrived at the E.P.A. as Mr. Pruitt offered a hint of his priorities at the agency. “I believe that we as an agency and we as a nation can be both pro-energy and -jobs, and pro-environment,” he said. “That we don’t have to choose between the two.”

Within weeks, the dismantling of the Obama-era rules was set in motion, first through broad proclamations from the White House as Mr. Trump signed executive orders, and later through specific administrative actions by Mr. Pruitt.

In April, Mr. Pruitt notified the oil and gas industry that he was granting its wish to at least temporarily suspend the agency’s new rule. “American businesses should have the opportunity to review new requirements, assess economic impacts and report back, before those new requirements are finalized,” he said in a statement then.

Devon Energy was poised to be a major beneficiary of the changes.

Killing the methane rule would save Devon an estimated $430,000 a year in the four states where it operates wells, according to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund, although if industry estimates of the actual costs are accurate, the savings may be much higher.

A month earlier, Mr. Pruitt had squelched a request from the E.P.A. that 15,000 oil and gas companies nationwide collect data on methane emissions to help the agency fine-tune its regulations. Devon and other companies feared the data would be used to justify even tighter controls, so Mr. Pruitt canceled the requirement.

Devon has other allies on the Trump team.

A Devon lobbyist, Michael Catanzaro, resigned from his post and now is the top White House adviser on energy policy. His lobbying disclosure report filed on Jan. 19 — the day before Mr. Trump was sworn in — lists his lobbying work for Devon as targeting “methane emissions from oil and gas production.”

Ms. Rosen, the former Romney campaign worker who until late last year was Devon’s top in-house lobbyist in Washington, was spotted walking into transition team meetings hosted by Mr. Trump’s advisers after the election.

The industry also has important allies in Congress, like Senator John A. Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which oversees the E.P.A. and the Interior Department.

On the day the Senate voted, 54-46, to move ahead with Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation, Mr. Barrasso walked off the Senate floor and headed to Charlie Palmer Steak, just across the street from the Senate side of the Capitol. Mr. Barrasso would not say who his guests were, but campaign finance records show that within roughly a month of that event, donations came in from Devon, as well as Chevron, Shell, Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Barrasso has collected more than $500,000 in contributions from the oil and gas industry in the last two years.

 

Some Democrats in Congress have questioned whether Mr. Pruitt is taking actions explicitly to benefit Devon and other financial supporters.

In a letter last month, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, and three other Senate Democrats pressed Mr. Pruitt to explain why he canceled the data-collection effort on methane — suggesting it might be a favor to industry friends.

After a barrage of such questions, Mr. Pruitt agreed in early May to recuse himself from taking part in the agency’s response to the lawsuits he had filed as attorney general, including one challenging the E.P.A.’s methane rule.

Oil and gas companies are hoping that Mr. Pruitt’s business-friendly approach will extended to enforcement issues. Devon was first targeted by the E.P.A. in 2014, after it was accused of illegally discharging 80 tons a year of volatile organic compounds into the Wyoming air. The company had been close to reaching a settlement with the federal government.

Devon disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on Feb. 15, that negotiations with the E.P.A. “may result in a fine or penalty in excess of $100,000.”

But two days after that disclosure, Mr. Pruitt was confirmed as E.P.A. administrator, and by the next week, Devon was changing its tune.

 

Instead of the proposed leak-detection system, the company was now planning to replace an older gas-fired compressor with an electrically powered unit, reducing volatile organic compound emissions by about 5 tons a year. Devon also says that, after revisiting aspects of the case, it now “does not believe that a six-figure civil penalty is justified.”

Tim Hartley, a Devon spokesman, acknowledged that the company had laid out a shift in its negotiating position. But he attributed the change to “simple economics.”

The plant, he said, was marginal and had been considered for shutdown, and adopting a sophisticated leak-detection program there was not economically feasible, especially at a difficult time for the oil and gas industry. Devon’s stock surged after Mr. Trump won the election, but has since dipped as oil prices have remained depressed.

The cost of the leak-detection program would amount to about 20 percent of the plant’s annual operating budget, the company said in its letter.

Mr. Hartley said that the violations stemmed from a misinterpretation of complicated regulations and that Devon had not intentionally circumvented the rules. He said that Devon had not contacted Mr. Pruitt about the case.

The E.P.A. has not yet made public the investigation, or its decision on a settlement. Andrew Mutter, a spokesman for the agency’s Colorado regional office, which covers Wyoming, said that talks on the matter remained active. The Justice Department attorney in charge of the case did not return requests for comment.

Mr. Hartley declined to comment on the effects for Devon of the wider regulatory rollback, saying it would be “pure speculation” to consider how the company might benefit.

But Ms. Sgamma, the president of the Western Energy Alliance, which includes Devon, said that Devon is among several independent oil and gas companies now taking a tougher stand with the E.P.A.

“I am not going to settle with you now, when this new administration has such a different philosophy,” she said, explaining the new approach. “It makes sense to do a wait-and-see.”

Correction: May 20, 2017

An earlier version of this article misidentified James Lankford as a senator of Utah. He is a senator of Oklahoma.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THIS ARTICLE, HERE IS THE DIRECT LINK:   https://nyti.ms/2qFkqUb

Advertisements

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change

New York Times:     By JUSTIN GILLIS NOV. 28, 2015

The issue can be overwhelming.

The science is complicated. Predictions about the fate of the planet carry endless caveats and asterisks.

We get it.

And so, as the Paris climate talks get underway, we’ve provided quick answers to often-asked questions about climate change. You can submit your own questions here.
1. How much is the planet heating up?
1.7 degrees is actually a significant amount.
As of this October, the Earth had warmed by about 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, when tracking began at a global scale. That figure includes the surface of the ocean. The warming is greater over land, and greater still in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica.

The number may sound low, but as an average over the surface of an entire planet, it is actually high, which explains why much of the land ice on the planet is starting to melt and the oceans are rising at an accelerating pace. The heat accumulating in the Earth because of human emissions is roughly equal to the heat that would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs exploding across the planet every day.

Scientists believe most and probably all of the warming since 1950 was caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. If emissions continue unchecked, they say the global warming could ultimately exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit, which would transform the planet and undermine its capacity to support a large human population.

2. How much trouble are we in?
For future generations, big trouble.
The risks are much greater over the long run than over the next few decades, but the emissions that create those risks are happening now. Over the coming 25 or 30 years, scientists say, the climate is likely to resemble that of today, although gradually getting warmer. Rainfall will be heavier in many parts of the world, but the periods between rains will most likely grow hotter and therefore drier. The number of hurricanes and typhoons may actually fall, but the ones that do occur will draw energy from a hotter ocean surface, and therefore may be more intense, on average, than those of the past. Coastal flooding will grow more frequent and damaging.

Longer term, if emissions continue to rise unchecked, the risks are profound. Scientists fear climate effects so severe that they might destabilize governments, produce waves of refugees, precipitate the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in Earth’s history, and melt the polar ice caps, causing the seas to rise high enough to flood most of the world’s coastal cities.

All of this could take hundreds or even thousands of years to play out, conceivably providing a cushion of time for civilization to adjust, but experts cannot rule out abrupt changes, such as a collapse of agriculture, that would throw society into chaos much sooner. Bolder efforts to limit emissions would reduce these risks, or at least slow the effects, but it is already too late to eliminate the risks entirely.

3. Is there anything I can do?
Fly less, drive less, waste less.
There are lots of simple ways to reduce your own carbon footprint, and most of them will save you money. You can plug leaks in your home insulation to save power, install a smart thermostat, switch to more efficient light bulbs, turn off the lights in any room where you are not using them, drive fewer miles by consolidating trips or taking public transit, waste less food, and eat less meat.

Perhaps the biggest single thing individuals can do on their own is to take fewer airplane trips; just one or two fewer plane rides per year can save as much in emissions as all the other actions combined. If you want to be at the cutting edge, you can look at buying an electric or hybrid car, putting solar panels on your roof, or both.

If you want to offset your emissions, you can buy certificates, with the money going to projects that protect forests, capture greenhouse gases and so forth.

In the end, though, experts do not believe the needed transformation in the energy system can happen without strong state and national policies. So speaking up and exercising your rights as a citizen matters as much as anything else you can do.
4. What’s the optimistic scenario?
Several things have to break our way.
In the best case that scientists can imagine, several things happen: Earth turns out to be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently believed; plants and animals manage to adapt to the changes that have already become inevitable; human society develops much greater political will to bring emissions under control; and major technological breakthroughs occur that help society both to limit emissions and to adjust to climate change.

The two human-influenced variables are not entirely independent, of course: Technological breakthroughs that make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels would also make it easier to develop the political will for rapid action.

Scientists say the odds of all these things breaking our way are not very high, unfortunately. The Earth could just as easily turn out to be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than less. Global warming seems to be causing chaos in parts of the natural world already, and that seems likely to get worse, not better. So in the view of the experts, simply banking on a rosy scenario without any real plan would be dangerous. They believe the only way to limit the risks is to limit emissions.

5. What’s the worst-case scenario?
There are many.
That is actually hard to say, which is one reason scientists are urging that emissions be cut; they want to limit the possibility of any worst-case scenario coming to pass. Perhaps the single greatest fear is a collapse of food production, accompanied by spiraling prices and mass starvation. Even with runaway emissions growth, it is unclear how likely this would be, as farmers are able to adjust their crops and farming techniques, to a degree, to adapt to climatic changes. Another possibility would be a disintegration of the polar ice sheets, leading to fast-rising seas that would force people to abandon many of the world’s great cities and the loss of trillions of dollars worth of property and other assets. Scientists also worry about other wild-card scenarios like the predictable cycles of Asian monsoons becoming less reliable. Billions of people depend on the monsoons to supply them with water for crops. So any disruptions to monsoons would have catastrophic consequences to those populations.

6. ​Will a tech breakthrough help us?
Even Bill Gates says don’t count on it, unless we commit the cash.
As more companies, governments and researchers devote themselves to the problem, the chances of big technological advances are improving. But even many experts who are optimistic about technological solutions warn that current efforts are not enough. For instance, spending on basic energy research is only a quarter to a third of the level that several in-depth reports have recommended. And public spending on agricultural research has stagnated even though climate change poses growing risks to the food supply. People like Bill Gates have argued that crossing our fingers and hoping for technological miracles is not a strategy — we have to spend the money that would make these things more likely to happen.

7. How much will the seas rise?
The real question is not how high, but how fast.
The ocean is rising at a rate of about a foot per century. That causes severe effects on coastlines, forcing governments and property owners to spend tens of billions of dollars fighting erosion. But if that rate continued, it would probably be manageable, experts say.

The risk is that the rate will accelerate markedly. If emissions continue unchecked, then the temperature at the earth’s surface could soon resemble a past epoch called the Pliocene, when a great deal of ice melted and the ocean rose something like 80 feet compared to today. A recent study found that burning all the fossil fuels in the ground would fully melt the polar ice sheets, raising the sea level by more than 160 feet over an unknown period.

With all of that said, the crucial issue is probably not how much the oceans are going to rise, but how fast. And on that point, scientists are pretty much flying blind. Their best information comes from studying Earth’s history, and it suggests that the rate can on occasion hit a foot per decade, which can probably be thought of as the worst-case scenario. A rate even half that would force rapid retreat from the coasts and, some experts think, throw human society into crisis. Even if the rise is much slower, many of the world’s great cities will flood eventually. Studies suggest that big cuts in emissions could slow the rise, buying crucial time for society to adapt to an altered coastline.
8. Are the predictions reliable?
They’re not perfect, but they’re grounded in solid science.
The idea that Earth is sensitive to greenhouse gases is confirmed by many lines of scientific evidence. For instance, the basic physics suggesting that an increase of carbon dioxide traps more heat was discovered in the 19th century, and has been verified in thousands of laboratory experiments.

Climate science does contain uncertainties, of course. The biggest is the degree to which global warming sets off feedback loops, such as a melting of sea ice that will darken the surface and cause more heat to be absorbed, melting more ice, and so forth. It is not clear exactly how much the feedbacks will intensify the warming; some of them could even partially offset it. This uncertainty means that computer forecasts can give only a range of future climate possibilities, not absolute predictions.

But even if those computer forecasts did not exist, a huge amount of evidence suggests that scientists have the basic story right. The most important evidence comes from the study of past climate conditions, a field known as paleoclimate research. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. A hundred miles inland from today’s East Coast, seashells can be dug from ancient beaches that are three million years old. These past conditions are not a perfect guide to the future, either, because humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the air far faster than nature has ever done.

9. Why do people question climate change?
Hint: ideology.
Most of the attacks on climate science are coming from libertarians and other political conservatives who do not like the policies that have been proposed to fight global warming. Instead of negotiating over those policies and trying to make them more subject to free-market principles, they have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.

This ideological position has been propped up by money from fossil-fuel interests, which have paid to create organizations, fund conferences and the like. The scientific arguments made by these groups usually involve cherry-picking data, such as focusing on short-term blips in the temperature record or in sea ice, while ignoring the long-term trends.

The most extreme version of climate denialism is to claim that scientists are engaged in a worldwide hoax to fool the public so that the government can gain greater control over people’s lives. As the arguments have become more strained, many oil and coal companies have begun to distance themselves publicly from climate denialism, but some are still helping to finance the campaigns of politicians who espouse such views.

10. Is crazy weather tied to climate change?
In some cases, yes.
Scientists have published strong evidence that the warming climate is making heat waves more frequent and intense. It is also causing heavier rainstorms, and coastal flooding is getting worse as the oceans rise because of human emissions. Global warming has intensified droughts in regions like the Middle East, and it may have strengthened the drought in California.

In many other cases, though, the linkage to global warming for particular trends is uncertain or disputed. That is partly from a lack of good historical weather data, but it is also scientifically unclear how certain types of events may be influenced by the changing climate.

Another factor: While the climate is changing, people’s perceptions may be changing faster. The Internet has made us all more aware of weather disasters in distant places. On social media, people have a tendency to attribute virtually any disaster to climate change, but in many cases there is no scientific support for doing so.
11. Will anyone benefit from global warming?
In certain ways, yes.
Countries with huge, frozen hinterlands, including Canada and Russia, could see some economic benefits as global warming makes agriculture, mining and the like more possible in those places. It is perhaps no accident that the Russians have always been reluctant to make ambitious climate commitments, and President Vladimir V. Putin has publicly questioned the science of climate change.

However, both of those countries could suffer enormous damage to their natural resources; escalating fires in Russia are already killing millions of acres of forests per year. Moreover, some experts believe countries that view themselves as likely winners from global warming will come to see the matter differently once they are swamped by millions of refugees from less fortunate lands.

12. Is there any reason for hope?
If you share this with 50 friends, maybe.
Scientists have been warning since the 1980s that strong policies were needed to limit emissions. Those warnings were ignored, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have since built up to potentially dangerous levels. So the hour is late.

But after 20 years of largely fruitless diplomacy, the governments of the world are finally starting to take the problem seriously. A deal that is likely to be reached in Paris in December will commit nearly every country to some kind of action. Religious leaders like Pope Francis are speaking out. Low-emission technologies, such as electric cars, are improving. Leading corporations are making bold promises to switch to renewable power and stop forest destruction. Around the world, many states and cities are pledging to go far beyond the goals set by their national governments.

What is still largely missing in all this are the voices of ordinary citizens. Because politicians have a hard time thinking beyond the next election, they tend to tackle hard problems only when the public rises up and demands it.

Still have a question about climate change? You can submit one here.

All the News That’s fit to Print

Hello and welcome back to my blog, Eyes of the World. I was on the road for a whirlwind trip from the East Coast to the West Coast and back for about a week. Upon my return to the frigid temperatures in the east, I delved into catching up at work just now have found some time to catch up with you folks.

Now I over the decades I have never been a follower of Larry King, but thanks to Howard Stern (no I no longer listen to him) I am aware of Mr. Kings style of writing in his syndicated column. So to try and be concise, i will borrow from him. Sprinkling links to articles where I can, if I can figure out how to. Enough. Lets get to the meat of the subjects. (most from yesterdays NY Times as that is what I had time to read)

What ever happened to the ‘N’ in wireless technology? Everything I see and go to buy promote that the product is b,g, n compatible but I am yet to find anything that actually works in the N range. I know that this refers to speed that data is transmitted wirelessly but hey it has been a decade now since they began touting it and where the heck is it? Please remember that ‘G’ is still half the speed of wired ethernet.

We have become a Nation of Part-time employees. Both my son and his fiance have had their hours cut at work to below what is required for their employers to offer benefits. Both health and retirement. My other son cannot find a job as no one is hiring. Go to retail stores, and unless it is Christmas time there is usually only 2 registers open at the check out. The Government in this Country is turning this nation into a third world Country. I say vote them out and do it now. From Washington to Main St. we need change and we need it yesterday. Why the company that I work for has even gone and changed the pay structure for it’s sales force. In essence, now we have taken a pay cut, and have to work longer to earn what we did last year. But, my expenses continue to rise. Their attitude is, that with millions of people out of work, if you don’t like it, we can replace you with someone younger and willing to work 18 hour days 7 days a week. And they don’t need the health care that you old farts need.

Hospital Chain Said to Scheme to Inflate Bills (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/business/hospital-chain-said-to-scheme-to-inflate-bills.html?_r=0)
Hmm not really surprising with all that is going on with Health Reform within this Country. I have experienced this myself. Some years ago I had both knees scoped. I was in the outpatient part of the hospital from noon to 6pm.  The bill came to $44,000 (all doctors, meds, and anesthesia combined) and the insurance company paid $17,000. When I went to the surgeon for my follow up visit I brought the statement with me. He said that basically the insurance company paid what the surgery was worth, but if the Hospital and all involved billed for what it was actually worth than they would have gotten around $8,000. So they had to inflate the bill to get what they really wanted. This is common and runs rampant in the system. Read the article above and see just how bad things are and imagine just how bad it will become in the near future.

Industry awakens to Threat of Climate Change (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html)  Ok so it may not be for the best reasons, but this shows that industry is now willing to admit that something is wrong and must alter the way that they do business to keep doing business. And keep profits up. Whatever works.

Arrest made in ’78 Lufthansa Robbery (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/arrests-in-cold-case-investigation-including-78-lufthansa-heist.html) This one caught my eye because I love stories about the mob, and Goodfella’s was one of my favorite movies. My father-in-law used to say that if the Mob ran the country there would be no deficit. I will add to that no crime either. Remember the Star Trek when they went back to a planet, or was it back in time, when the mobs ran the world?  To this day I watch the Godfather Trilogy and Goodfella’s every year. “I knew it was you all along Fredo.”

Huge Super Pac is Moving Early to Back Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/politics/biggest-liberal-super-pac-to-fund-possible-clinton-bid.htmlThe woman hasn’t even announced her intentions yet (does she really?) but already the $millions are building up.

Fined Billions Bank will give Dimon a Raise (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/morgan_j_p_chase_and_company/index.htmlHoly shit. Read the article.

Microsoft Earnings Illustrate Move to Devices and Services from Software (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/technology/holiday-sales-help-push-profit-up-at-microsoft.html) I admit, I am an Android guy and am even using Linux on one of my computers. I loathe Windows 8, considered buying a Chromebook but may have to bite the bullet and get a Windows computer or tablet. Really I do most of my computing on my android phone and android tablet.

Walmart Creates Fund to Support U.S. Manufacturing (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/business/walmart-creates-10-million-fund-to-stimulate-american-manufacturing.html) And if they buy American, how will they live up to their mantra “lowest prices, guaranteed”?

Every Great Nation has had it’s downfall, we are living through the beginning of ours.

Well that’s it for now. So much happened in a week that it is hard to catch up in one blog. Most importantly though Spring Training begins in 20 days and this year there will be no A Rod. Finally.

See you in the funny papers.