{"id":18774,"date":"2022-04-11T15:57:10","date_gmt":"2022-04-11T15:57:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=18774"},"modified":"2022-04-11T15:57:10","modified_gmt":"2022-04-11T15:57:10","slug":"policy-news-april-11-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2022\/04\/11\/policy-news-april-11-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News: April 11, 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this issue:<\/strong><\/h2>\n

5 Takeaways from U.N. report on how world can still stop climate change<\/a>
\n<\/b>Report finds there is no hope of slowing global warming without a radical shift to electrical energy and carbon removal.<\/p>\n

Congress<\/strong><\/a>
\nSenate committee approves conservation funding bill.<\/p>\n

Executive Branch<\/strong><\/a>
\nUSFWS issues rare emergency rule listing the Dixie Valley toad as an endangered species.<\/p>\n

Courts<\/a>
\n<\/strong>Supreme Court reinstates Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation.<\/p>\n

States<\/strong><\/a>
\nMaryland General Assembly passes major climate legislation.<\/p>\n

International<\/a>
\n<\/strong>Diplomats fail to reach agreement in international biodiversity talks.<\/p>\n

Scientific Community<\/strong><\/a>
\nDepartment of Energy Office of Science encourages researchers to apply for supplemental funding to collaborate with scientists impacted by the war in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

Federal Register opportunities<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a>5 takeaways from U.N. report on how world can still stop climate change<\/h2>\n

By Karl Mathiessen, Zia Weise and Joshua Posaner, PoliticoPro, 4\/4\/2022<\/em><\/p>\n

BRUSSELS \u2014 The world can avoid the worst consequences of climate change, but emissions need to peak by 2025, the U.N.\u2019s climate science panel said in a major new report on Monday.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future,\u201d said Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chair Hoesung Lee.<\/p>\n

It was a familiarly stark report card on the world\u2019s progress on cutting emissions from the IPCC, which has been monitoring climate change since 1988. Despite the panel\u2019s regular reports about the consequences of burning fossil fuels, between 1990 and 2019 global emissions rose 54 percent and they are still rising.<\/p>\n

This latest report looks at mitigation \u2014 or what the world can do to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It\u2019s the third chapter in the IPCC\u2019s mammoth sixth assessment report, part of a series of studies that summarize the state of climate science and the planet released roughly every seven years.<\/p>\n

Although there\u2019s a broad consensus on the science of climate change, that\u2019s not the case with politics. The report\u2019s release was delayed thanks to a brutal fight over the wording in the summary \u2014 the bit that is most easily understood by the media and the public \u2014 led by India and Saudi Arabia, according to one researcher.<\/p>\n

Despite that scrap, the takeaway remains constant \u2014 there is no hope of stopping global warming at the Paris Agreement limits of 1.5 or 2 degrees without a radical reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and electrifying many of the things that currently run on fossil fuels. That could mean up to $4 trillion worth of coal, oil and gas infrastructure could become worthless by the middle of the century, the report said.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s a difficult argument to make as Europeans scramble to find new sources of oil and gas to end its dependency on Russia and the U.S. and others eye ramping up their production to fill the gap.<\/p>\n

\u201cInvesting in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness,\u201d said U.N. Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres. \u201cSuch investments will soon be stranded assets \u2014 a blot on the landscape, and a blight on investment portfolios.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here are five key messages from the final report.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Halting at 1.5 degrees will be decided in Beijing<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Stopping warming at the lower 1.5-degree limit of the Paris Agreement is a pipe dream unless emissions peak in the coming three years and fall by almost half from 2019 levels by 2030, the scientists said. Even 2 degrees becomes unlikely without a peak by 2025.<\/p>\n

    Although the report doesn\u2019t single out any country, China is responsible for almost one-third of annual emissions and can do more than any other nation to make 1.5 degrees possible, according to several experts and diplomats consulted by POLITICO.<\/p>\n

    Currently, China\u2019s emissions are slated to grow until sometime \u201cbefore 2030.\u201d Its coal consumption is only planned to begin to drop after 2026.<\/p>\n

    The EU, the U.S. and the U.K. have all piled pressure on Beijing in the past year to commit to a firm peaking date close to the middle of the decade. On Monday, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said countries \u201cwith targets not yet aligned with a 1.5-degree trajectory must increase their ambition.\u201d China\u2019s response has been that other big emitters like the EU and U.S. \u2014 which have huge past emissions but where pollution is falling \u2014 should do more, faster.<\/p>\n

    But China\u2019s influence on emissions is so large that it tends to dictate the trajectory. Between 2019 and 2021, total CO2 emissions from outside China fell by 570 million tons, but China\u2019s emissions grew by 750 million tons and drove annual emissions to their highest level ever in 2021, according to the International Energy Agency. An average Chinese citizen now produces more CO2 emissions than a European \u2014 although far less than an American.<\/p>\n

    But there has been \u201cno sign\u201d that China\u2019s government intends to shift the country\u2019s policy, said Byford Tsang, a senior policy adviser with the E3G think tank<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Capturing carbon is a must<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Countries will also have to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to keep global warming in check.<\/p>\n

      Carbon dioxide removal \u2014 which encompasses methods ranging from natural processes like planting trees to technological solutions like direct air capture \u2014 is \u201cunavoidable\u201d to reach net-zero emissions, the authors said. Sequestering CO2 would counterbalance \u201chard-to-abate\u201d emissions from sectors like aviation or agriculture.<\/p>\n

      But CDR doesn\u2019t come without side effects, the scientists acknowledge, and the effectiveness and feasibility of existing methods varies greatly. The only method currently deployed at scale \u2014 reforestation \u2014 is vulnerable to reversal, threatened by logging and wildfires, and could impact food production if trees replace crops.<\/p>\n

      Other methods, like tech to suck carbon out of the air or intervening in marine systems to boost the sequestration potential of oceans, are less vulnerable to reversal and don\u2019t pose the same land issues, but most are in their infancy.<\/p>\n

      Some of those techniques would allow the extended use of fossil fuels, which is why they are backed by industry and extracting countries, but the idea is strongly opposed by climate campaigners.<\/p>\n

      Even mentions in the report of \u201cspeculative technologies that prolong the use of fossil fuels\u201d indicate it had been \u201cwater[ed] down\u201d by governments in the final approval process, said Nikki Reisch, director of the climate and energy program at the Center for International Environmental Law.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Failure to act means tough choices in the future<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The scientists earmarked the years by which the world must reach net-zero emissions of all greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n

        The IPCC said 1.5 degrees required hitting net-zero CO2 by 2050-2055. But for all other greenhouse gases (which include methane, nitrogen oxides and f-gases) it gave a surprising range, saying that if efforts accelerate rapidly in the next few years, they could continue to be emitted at low and decreasing levels until 2100, long after previous estimates.<\/p>\n

        If there is a failure to make that change in the coming few years, then humanity will face a choice: Accept that warming will stabilize at a higher mark such as 1.6 or 1.7 degrees or try to cool the planet back down through the massive use of CDR. Neither are good options as both mean greater damage from floods, storms, fires, extreme heat and rising seas, the IPCC said in February.<\/p>\n

        \u201cThe choices available to us are no longer ideal,\u201d said Kristina Dahl, a principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an NGO.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Governments need to help people cut consumption<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          The world needs to slash its overall energy consumption, something that has the potential to deliver \u201csignificant\u201d emissions cuts, the scientists write.<\/p>\n

          For governments, that means investment in tech-based solutions for more energy efficiency and infrastructure improvements to nudge people toward greener options \u2014 as well as the politically thorny business of getting people to change their habits, like shifting to a plant-based diet.<\/p>\n

          The scientists said actions taken at the individual level could \u201crapidly\u201d cut emissions from the residential, commercial, industrial and transport sectors \u2014 which dominate global emissions. But they placed the onus on governments to play their part by implementing policies that enabled or nudged citizens toward choices that are good for the climate.<\/p>\n

          \u201cMany people care,\u201d said Linda Steg, an author and expert in the psychology of climate change from the University of Groningen. \u201cYet they may face barriers to act, which can be removed by actions, for example, by industry, businesses and governments.\u201d<\/p>\n

          The authors outline a win-win situation \u2014 a world with insulated housing that helps people keep cool or warm and with compact cities requiring less commuting and more street space for cycling and walking isn\u2019t just better for the planet, but also human wellbeing, they write. Whether that argument will convince European governments \u2014 currently reluctant to call on their citizens to use less fuel and energy even with a war next door \u2014 remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Batteries are the answer for clean vehicles<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            The scientists back electric vehicles as the best option for making deep cuts to road emissions. Some automakers still tout hydrogen and synthetic fuels, principally as it will allow the continued sale of combustion engine models. But the report is clear that such fuel options, at present limited in commercial scale, are better suited to ships and planes where the weight of batteries makes it difficult to shift to electric.<\/p>\n

            \u201cElectric vehicles powered by low emissions electricity offer the largest decarbonisation potential for land-based transport,\u201d the scientists agreed, adding that \u201celectrification could play a niche role for aviation and shipping for short trips.\u201d The EU is currently considering a total ban on sales of new combustion engine cars and vans from 2035.<\/p>\n

            Those goals are helped by shifts in commuting and homeworking patterns, as well as more efficient industrial supply chains and the gradual deployment of automated cars, the IPCC said.<\/p>\n

            Zack Colman contributed to this report.<\/em><\/p>\n

            <\/a>Congress<\/h2>\n

            International:\u00a0<\/strong>The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a\u00a0hearing<\/a>\u00a0about ratifying the Kigali Amendment, an international agreement to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons. The agreement needs 67 votes in the Seante to be ratified by the U.S. Committee Ranking Member James Risch (R-ID) announced support for the agreement and said the deal could garner enough votes among Senate Republicans to pass. The agreement was originally negotiated during the Obama administration.<\/p>\n

            Conservation:<\/strong>\u00a0The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to advance the Recovering America\u2019s Wildlife Act (S. 2372<\/a>). This bill provides $1.4 million annually to states, tribes and territories for wildlife conservation. The committee approved major amendments to the bill during the hearing\u00a0<\/a>in which the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation competitive grant program would provide some of the funding for the program and so would several U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs.<\/p>\n

            Fisheries:<\/strong>\u00a0Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) said that he will delay work on overhauling the Magnuson Stevens Act until after Alaska elects a new congressperson to replace the late Rep. Don Young (R-AK). Young died in March 2022. After a two-year listening session, Huffman introduced a bill overhauling the nation\u2019s fishing laws (H.R. 4690<\/a>), which, among other provisions, would incorporate climate change into fishery management. The House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing for that bill, along with another fishery management bill from Young (H.R. 59<\/a>). The Magnuson Stevens Act is the main law governing U.S. fisheries.<\/p>\n

            NSF<\/strong>: House and Senate leaders announced the members of the conference committee for legislation reauthorizing the Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Science Foundation, among provisions addressing jobs and competiveness. The Senate legislation is the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (S. 1260<\/a>) and the House bill is the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 3593<\/a>). Both bills increase authorized funding for the National Science Foundation but differ on the exact amounts (see ESA Policy News, March 28, 2022<\/a>). It is worth noting that authorizing bills set guidelines for appropriators to fund the programs and agencies under its jurisdiction, but it does not actually allocate funds. The conference committee will work to resolve the differences between the bills before sending the legislation back to the House and Senate. Over 100 lawmakers were named to the conference committee, see the list of House<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Senate<\/a>\u00a0lawmakers.<\/p>\n

            Legislative updates:<\/u><\/p>\n