In the Dark Days of White House / EPA Action on Climate Change, Here are 7 Encouraging Trends for You from Amy Augustine at Ceres

Horrible headlines now coming out on the developments at the White House regarding climate change, global warming, and related issues as campaign rhetoric is fitted, however clumsily or mean-spirited, to public governance to attempt to match ill-advised campaign promises.

The reality is that there are a number of very encouraging developments, trends that hold great promise for those of us who are not climate change deniers and think that global warming is a hoax coming from China to disadvantage American companies!

The Ceres staff members have long been engaging with, monitoring and advising (the rest of us) on critical issues in the areas of Corporate Sustainability – Responsibility – Citizenship – Environmental Management — and of course, the paths to more sustainable investing.

Amy Augustine, the senior director of corporate programs at Ceres, shares with us in our Top Story the seven trends she sees continuing to drive corporate sustainability in 2017.  Our view is that this could be a “hinge year” for the United States in terms of focus on climate change, global warming, societal issues, environmental management and host of related issues therein.  (As in. “the hinge of history” with things going this way or that, the before and after.)

Amy observes:  “Bold leadership, as well as individual collective action from influential companies and investors, is critical to ensure continued progress in achieving the ambitions of the historic Paris Climate Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

The seven trends are encouraging: (1) U.S. corporate sector support for U.S. clean energy policy is accelerating;  (2) investor expectations continue to rise that public companies will disclose information on more climate change risks and opportunities. (Remember, the US SEC in 2010 reminded boards of companies that they have the responsibility to oversee risk, and that climate change is clearly a risk.  But that was yesterday, under the former Administration…today is the era of climate denial in the White House.)

Trend 4 is the focus on Water Risk — large-cap companies operating in water-stressed areas are not waiting for government action to conserve  protect water sources.  Amy Augustine cites the efforts of such responsible enterprises as General Mills, Gap and Pepsico engaging with policymakers in California to urge on stronger water management measures.

What about Trend 3 – and 5, 6 and 7?  The details are waiting for you in the Top Story (link below). Amy’s concluding comment is…”No doubt, company actions on all of these (7 trends fronts) will continue to evolve and hopefully accelerate; such leadership is more essential than ever.”

At G&A Institute, we’re doing our part to report on both sides of the hinge — the great things that have been accomplished in the “good days” of the past decade, and the threatening things that are proposed or (positions) adopted in these not-so-good-days at US EPA, the White House or in the Congress.  Do check out the second in the newsletter, our comments in G&A’s Sustainability-Update Blog on the latest moves by the President and EPA Administrator to attempt to roll back the rich legacy of the prior administration.  (You can sign up to receive updates as these are posted.)  Let us have your thoughts as well!

And, we invite you to download “Trends Converging,” the book prepared in 2016 by G&A Chair Hank Boerner, which sets out important information about where are as the climate change deniers/destroyers go to work in Washington DC to undo the progress made.  Click here to download the digital copy.

Top Story

7 Trends That Will Drive Corporate Sustainability in 2017
(Wednesday – March 22, 2017)
Source: Triple Pundit – As we confront a new political climate that is inspiring both uncertainty and rising citizen action, I am more convinced than ever that business must play a critical role in achieving a sustainable, equitable and clean-energy…

Climate Change Risk? Nah – The Deniers & Destroyers Are At Work – White House Attempts to Roll Back Obama Legacy

Deniers/Destroyers are at work – at US EPA — the White House — hoping/wishing for rollback of rich Obama legacy positions on climate change issues…

by Hank Boerner – Chairman, Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

March 28, 2017

In classic-CNN style we bring you !!!BREAKING NEWS!!! – the Climate Change Deniers and Environmental Regulatory Protection Destroyers are at work in Washington DC today.

You’ve heard the news by now: President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator E. Scott Pruitt are preening and pompously strutting as they announce the important beginnings of what they want (and hope!) to be the rollback of important environmental and public health protections of the Obama Administration … you know, the “job killers” that were at work putting coal miners out of business.

At least that’s some of the twisting, grasping, pretzel-elian logic that underpins the actions taken today (which in turn tells the Trump loyal voting base that yes, still another campaign promise is being carried out on their behalf).

During his early months in office, President Barack Obama signed important Executive Orders that addressed climate change issues and global warming challenges — and please here do note that these and other Presidential EOs are always based on (1) the existing statutes enacted by Congress and (2) the authority of the Office of the President.

You remember some of the key statutes involved in these issues  — The Clean Air Act (CAA); The Clean Water Act; (CWA) the foundations laid by the all-empowering National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) …and other landmark legislation sensibly reached on a bipartisan basis over the decades since American rivers burst into flames.

Today, President Donald Trump signed [a very brief] EO with a flourish — the “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” Executive Order.

The action orders the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin the [legal] process of un-doing or re-doing the nation’s Clean Power Plan, the keystone to President Obama’s actions to address global warming. (Or “climate change” if one is skittish about being on the side of the angels on this issues.)

Here is what today’s EO covers:

  • Executive (cabinet) departments and agencies will begin reviewing regulations that potentially burden the development/or use of domestic energy sources — and then suspend, revise or rescind those that “unduly burden” the development of domestic energy resources…beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest.
  • All [Federal] agencies should take appropriate actions to promote clean air (!) and clean water (!) for the American People — oh, while following the law and the role of the Congress and the States concerning these matters. (One hopes this includes Flint, Michigan residents. We can hear great, cogent arguments in the Federal courts about all of this.)
  • Costs are to be considered — regarding “environmental improvements for the American People” — as, when “necessary and appropriate” environmental regulations are to be complied with…and the benefits must be greater than the cost.

This is encouraging, if only that it is stated to provide cover for legal challenges: Environmental regulations will be developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics!

  • All Federal agencies are to review actions that are described in the Trump Executive Order and then submit to the [White House] staffed departments and the Vice President their plan(s) to carry out the review for their agency.

Here’s The Important Deny/Destroy Actions

By swipe of pen, the President revoked these important cornerstones of the Obama Administration climate change legacy:

  • Executive Order 13653 (November 1, 2013) – “Preparing the U.S. for the Impacts of Climate Change.”
  • President Memorandum (June 25, 2013) – “Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards.”
  • Presidential Memorandum (November 3, 2015) – “Mitigating Impact on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment.”
  • Presidential Memorandum (September 21, 2016) – “Climate Change and National Security.”
  • Report of the Executive Office of the President (June 2013) – “Climate Action Plan.”
  • Report of the Executive Office of the President (March 2014) – “Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions.”
  • The Council on Environmental Quality guidance (August 5, 2016) – “Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of GhGs and Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews.”

And The Very Important Clean Power Plan…

  • A review of the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan,” to be suspended, revised or rescinded, or, new rules proposed following the steps necessary. This will affect:
  • The final rules of the Clean Power Plan (October 23, 2015) – “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units”;
  • Final Rules (October 23, 2015) – “Standards of Performance for GhGs from New, Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units;
  • Proposed Rule (October 23, 2015) – “Federal Plan Requirements for GhGs Emissions from Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed before January 8, 2015”; “Model Trading Rules: Amendments to Framework Regulations”.
  • The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases – convened by the Council of Economic Advisors and the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — is disbanded, and the documents that established the “social cost of carbon” no longer represent public policy.

Beyond these specifics, the EO also orders the Secretary of the Interior to review its rules, and any guidance given, and (if appropriate) suspend, revise and rescind these. Included:

  • Final Rule (March 26, 2015) – “Oil and Gas: Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands”;
  • Final Rule (November 4, 2016) – “General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights”;
  • Final Rule (November 14, 2016) – “Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights”;
  • Final Rule (November 18, 2016) – “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation.”

For the record: The EO is intended to (1) promote clean and safe development of “our Nation’s vast” energy sources; (2) avoid regulatory burdens that constrain production, energy growth and job creation; (3) assure the Nation’s geo-political security.

US SIF Weighs In

The influential trade association for sustainable, responsible and impact investing swiftly responded. Lisa Woll, CEO of US SIF, commented:

“On behalf of our 300 institutional members, US SIF belies the Administration should be working aggressively to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and that this Executive Order accomplishes the opposite.

“The United States is paying a high economic price from the ravages of severe drought, wildfires and storms associated with increased atmospheric levels of carbon. This is not the time to retreat from the call to protect current and succeeding generations from the catastrophic implications of further, unrestrained climate change.”

In the US SIF biennial survey of sustainable and impact investment assets, it should be noted here that U.S. money managers with US$1.42 trillion in AUM and institutional asset owners with $2.15 trillion in assets consider climate change risk in their investment analysis — that is three times the level in the prior survey in 2014.

Now — Investors – NGOs – State and local governments – social issue activists — business leaders — Federal and State courts — can push back HARD on these moves by the Trump Administration.

Otherwise, it could be drill, baby, drill — dig, baby, dig — and, hey, it’s good for us, we are assured by the Deflector-in-Chief and his merry band of wrongheaded Deniers/Destroyers in the Nation’s capital!

What do you think — what do you have to say? Weigh in our this commentary and share your thoughts – there’s space below to continue the conversation!

Climate Change Resolutions / and Investors’ Voting — “Hurricane” Coming in 2017 Shareholder Voting?

“Stormy Weather Ahead Warning”:  Climate Change Resolutions / and Investors’ Voting — “Hurricane” Coming in 2017 Shareholder Proxy Voting Season?

Guest Commentary – by Seth DuppstadtProxy Insight Limited

The United Nations‘ consensus reached in the “Paris Agreement” (COP 21), the goal to limit global temperature rise to within 2 degrees Celsius could turn shareholder support for climate change resolutions from a squall into a powerful hurricane at U.S. energy and utility companies this proxy season. says our team at Proxy Insight.

Example cited:  The BlackRock Investment Stewardship Team’s new guidance on climate risk engagement made the possibility of a Category 5 storm conceivable — if companies aren’t responsive.

During the 2016 corporate proxy season, a particularly successful subset of shareholder-sponsored climate change resolutions — known as 2 Degree Scenario (“2DS”) proposals —  averaged 37.73 percent shareholder support:

ISSUER MEETING DATE % FOR
Devon Energy Corporation 8-Jun-16 36.06
Southern Company (The) 25-May-16 34.46
Exxon Mobil Corporation 25-May-16 38.14
Chevron Corporation 25-May-16 40.76
FirstEnergy Corporation 17-May-16 31.9
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 10-May-16 42
Occidental Petroleum Corporation 29-Apr-16 48.99
Noble Energy Inc. 26-Apr-16 25.1
AES Corporation (The) 21-Apr-16 42.21

 

This was a notably high level of support for a first-round shareholder proposal — especially for climate change related. *

Example:  The proposal at Occidental Petroleum almost gained a majority with 48.99% of votes cast in support (not including abstentions).

Proxy Insight data show Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) recommended For votes for all nine 2DS resolutions, while proxy advisor Glass Lewis opposed one.

The shareholder resolutions ask companies to stress test their portfolios and report on financial risks that could occur in a low-carbon economy.

Up to 17 2DS resolutions are expected to move to vote at U.S. companies in 2017 proxy voting, according to Ceres.  (Ten will be filed at companies not having these resolutions before).  The next scheduled company voting on 2DS will be at AES Corp on April 20th. A preliminary proxy indicates Duke Energy shareholders will be voting on May 4.

*excluding non-US “Strategic Resilience for 2035” proposals (2015/16)

 TOP-10 INVESTORS (AUM) MOST FREQUENTLY SUPPORTING “2DS” CLIMATE CHANGE RESOLUTIONS

Investor For Against Abstain DNV Split
Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Legal & General Investment Management 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC. 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
AXA Investment Managers 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
APG (Stichting PF ABP) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Schroders 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
M&G Investment Management 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Aviva Investors 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Information is available at:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/climate-change-voting-calm-before-storm-seth-duppstadt

Proxy Insight is the leading provider of global shareholder voting analytics.

Visit www.proxyinsight.com for more information, where you can also sign up for a trial or contact Seth Duppstadt, SVP Proxy Insight Limited at: seth.duppstadt@proxyinsight.com  Telephone:  646-513-4141

World’s Largest Asset Manager on Climate Risk Disclosure — the BlackRock Expectations of Public Company Boards and C-Suite

by Hank Boerner – Chairman and Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

Monday, March 13, 2017 — The world’s largest asset management firm has clear expectations that corporate managements will disclose more on climate risk to their shareholder base…BlackRock speaks out.  Corporate boards and C-Suite – Important News for You….

You all know BlackRock — this the New York City-based “world’s largest asset manager guiding individuals, financial professionals, and institutions in building better financial futures…”

“That includes offerings such as mutual fund, closed-end funds, managed accounts, alternative investments, iShares ETFs, defined contribution plans…”

And — “advocating for public policies that we believe are in our investors’ long-term interests…” “…ensuring long-term sustainability for the firm, client investments and the communities where we work…”

For BlackRock, Corporate Sustainability includes: (1) human capital, (2) corporate governance (3) environmental sustainability, (4) ethics and integrity, (5) inclusion and diversity, (6) advocating for public policy, and (7) health and safety.

In terms of Responsible Investing, the BlackRock approach includes (1) investment stewardship and (2) having a sustainable investing platform (targeting social and environmental objectives AND the all-important financial return).

So it should not come as a big surprise to the boards and managements of literally thousands of public issuers that BlackRock has great expectations regarding the individual company’s (in a portfolio or hope to be) climate change disclosure practices.

What We Are Doing/How We Do it – Shared by BlackRock

Right now the BlackRock managers are sharing with other asset owners & managers their approach to sustainable investing. There are important lessons for corporate managements in these explanations:

As part of the investment process, BlackRock continues to assess a range of factors (that could impact the long-term financial sustainability of the public companies or companies).

Over the past two years, a number of projects have helped BlackRock to more fully understand climate change. BlackRock believes that climate risk (climate risk/change issues) have the potential to present definitive risks and opportunities that could or will impact long-term shareholder value.

The BlackRock team members also contributed to external initiatives such as the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) and the continued development of the voluntary reporting guidelines of the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB).

Larry Fink – the influential CEO of BlackRock — sent letters directly to the CEO’s of public companies in 2016 and then again recently (2017) that called attention to the need for the companies to help their investors better understand the ESG factors most relevant to the firm to generate value over time.

That especially includes more robust disclosure and reporting on the issues related to climate risk. (We need to keep in mind that “risk” has a companion — “opportunity,” as represented in the Chinese pictograph for a crisis.)

BlackRock’s Investment Stewardship Team meets with portfolio company managements and votes BlackRock shares at proxy voting time; if an issue is in focus and the C-suite will not make progress on the issue, the team will elevate the concern to the company’s board room. And they “may” in time vote against director nominees and for shareholders proposals that are on the right side of BlackRock’s own concerns.

Company Boards and Executives – for 2017

BlackRock engages with 1,500 companies (on average) every year. As (according to BlackRock) climate risk awareness and its engagement with companies on the issues is being advanced, and as the asset management firm’s own thinking on climate risk continues to evolve, that issue is on the table for the Investment Stewardship Team discussions with company managements in 2017.

Companies “most exposed” to climate risk will be encouraged as part of the discussions to consider reporting recommendations coming from the FSB Task Force.

And, the board will be expected to have “demonstrable fluency in how climate risk affects the business and management’s approach to adapting to and mitigating the risk. Corporate disclosure on all of this will be key to the ongoing relationship with the investor – BlackRock (with US$5 trillion and more AUM).

Other Investment Management Peers

Tim Smith, Director of ESG Shareholder Engagement at Walden Asset Management (Boston)

Tim Smith, Director of ESG Shareholder Engagement at Walden Asset Management (Boston) and long a robust and powerful voice in the sustainable investing movement, applauded BlackRock’s shared information.

“The announcement that climate risk will be a priority in their engagements with public companies is an exceedingly important message being sent by one of your largest shareholders. That they believe climate risk is a priority reinforces the importance of the issues for senior managements of public companies. We’re hopeful that BlackRock’s announcement and engagement on climate risk will result in active support for shareholder resolutions on climate change.”

Walden and others filed their own shareholder resolution with BlackRock asking for a review of the asset manager’s corporate proxy voting process and record on climate change.

BlackRock has been accused by investment peers for its proxy voting practices. For example, Climate Wire reported in 2016 that IF BlackRock and its large institutional investment peers had supported a climate resolution filed with Exxon Mobil (this was part of the not-for-profit Asset Owners Disclosure Project) the resolution would have passed in the final vote by shareholders.

We’ll see what the 2017 BlackRock moves mean in the corporate proxy season getting underway now with continued investor focus on climate change / climate risk / global warming disclosure and reporting demands.

As corporate sustainability consultants and advisors, we at G&A Institute (and as part of our pro bono research work as the exclusive Data Partners for the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in the United States) analyzed more than 1,500 report sustainability reports in 2016 — and we are seeing an increase now in 2017 early survey results that corporate disclosure on climate risk issues is definitely on the increase.

We will soon release the results of our team’s analysis of S&P 500(r) on sustainability reporting and related issues. Recall that our analysis last year found that 81 percent of the 500 companies were doing structured sustainability reporting.

There’s more information for you here:

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/about-us/investment-stewardship/engagement-priorities

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/literature/market-commentary/how-blackrock-investment-stewardship-engages-on-climate-risk-march2017.pdf

Asset Owners Disclosure Project:  http://aodproject.net/

Tim Smith / Walden Asset Management:

http://www.waldenassetmgmt.com/team/smith-timothy

 

 

On the Cutting Board: The US EPA Budget – Staff – Programs – Grants As the Trump Administration Plans the Coming FY Budget

The media establishment in Washington, DC is closely watching the signals as well as specific action taken by the Trump Administration and the 115th Congress that could or does affect the future of key government agencies whose mission and work directly/indirectly affects the mission and work of corporate sustainability and sustainable investing professionals.

Especially In focus:  the US Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Energy; the Department of the Interior; the Securities & Exchange Commission; the Department of Defense…and others.

The news so far is not good. For the most part, as the leadership of these agencies and departments turns over and Trump appointees are coming in, a number of the new leaders actually oppose existing agency and department programs — and in some cases have expressed their intention to eliminate the agencies that they are appointed to lead!

In traditional Washington style, there are the official pronouncements and statements by “un-named officials” in the growing volume of media reports; there also Trump campaign positions being re-stated as “perspectives” in the news and commentary (editorials).

The Washington Post writers Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis for example analyzed a plan (“leaked?”) by the Trump White House to drastically cut US EPA staff, eliminate dozens of programs, and use the offset in “saved funds” to then fund increases in the defense budget.

The EPA budget would be slashed from US$8.2 billion to $6.2 billion — and with much of the funding going to state and municipal governments (grants), the impact could be even more significant for EPA core functions in protecting human health and the environment.

The Top Story this week is a good wrap up of what seems to be in store for the nation’s “top cop” on the environment, and expert opinions regarding the new administration plans as the 2017-2018 FY budget is prepared for submission to the Congress.

We also offer G&A Institute’s perspectives on this and related news stories emanating in the nation’s capital city in our blog Sustainability Update (link here: Dangerous Antics – Fiddling with the Future of US EPA and the Health and Safety of the American People)  at the bottom of this newsletter.

With climate change deniers moving into powerful positions in the Federal government — and a passel of deniers in charge at the state level — the gains made in environmental protection and in advancing sustainability are at stake.  In our news wrap up, we share “good news” and “bad news” with you every week so that you can take action.  We are staying on the top of the news to present these types of headlines / and accompanying stories for you:

White House Eyes Plan to Cut EPA Staff by One-Fifth, Eliminating Key Programs
(Thursday – March 02, 2017)
Source: Washington Post – The White House has proposed deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget that would reduce the agency’s staff by one-fifth in the first year and eliminate dozens of programs, according to details of a plan reviewed…

“Wolf” Now at the Head of EPA – No Disguises Needed to Fool the Sheep (er, We-the-People)

Is the Wolf disguised in sheep’s clothing? Nah — not to worry about any disguising — the wolf’s intentions were well signaled to us — the Denier/Destroyer-in-Chief at U.S. EPA is doing exactly what we expected him to do….

Remember from childhood days when our parent or caregiver told us the story of the “wolf in sheep’s clothing…” We were being cautioned, in one of the many of our early “life’s lessons,” to be careful about the advice we received, to look beyond the words, to watch people’s actions as well as hearing their words.

Because — often the legendary “wolf” would don sheep’s clothing (hey, that’s a great disguise) to mingle with the innocent flock of sheep (that the ravenous wolf really wanted to feed on). Watch out, sheep — and people!

This tale comes down to us in various forms came from different sources, including the Holy Bible, New Testament, with Jesus warning about false prophets. We’re reminded of this brief moral tale (a perennial fable of sorts that developed over the centuries) as we watched the nominees of the Trump Administration.

What do they have to say to pass muster at the U.S. Senate nominations hearing — and what are their real intentions — what will they in fact do while in office to harm our society?

Well, we don’t have to watch the top wolf there at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. — just down the road from the White House. The new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt let us know with both his past performance and his clearly-stated words his intentions now that he is at the helm of the US EPA ship: he is not a believer that climate change has any relationship to human activities. Like carbon emissions – GhGs to be more accurate.

Administrator Pruitt told his CNBC interviewer on a popular cable program that many investors tune in to: “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so … I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.  (Emphasis ours.)

Pruitt:  “We need to continue the debate…and the review…and the analysis.” CO2 emissions are not the primary cause, the Administrator mused.

Past Actions – Prelude to Future Actions?

Keep in mind here that this is the former Oklahoma Attorney General who sued the EPA some 13 times.

As Huffington Post’s Dominique Mosbergen put it in January 2017: “It’s a safe assumption that Pruitt could be the most hostile EPA Administrator toward clean air and safe drinking water in history.”

Oh, and on his Linked In page, pre-EPA AG Pruitt noted he was “…the leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda…”

Commented writer Mosbergen about EPA’s role in our society (and that agenda):

“The EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment by issuing regulations and enforcing the nation’s environmental laws. Under President Barack Obama, the EPA created the Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut carbon pollution from power plants. It also issued new guidance for the Clean Water Act to protect thousands of waterways and wetlands, and introduced measures to limit emissions from heavy-duty trucks and reduce smog and mercury emissions from industrial sources.”

Yes, We Can Expect Changes — Dramatic at That

Now that Administrator Scott Pruit is firmly installed by fellow Senate Republicans at the EPA — we can expect these positive, fact-based actions to rapidly change. For example, here is what his own EPA (the Agency’s official web site) says about this (today):

“Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming…”

And as posted before Election Day in October 2016: “…greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth’s surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.”

Question: Will these posts be up there next Monday morning?

These EPA positions are based in part on the National Research Council work — “Advancing the Science of Climate Warming,” published by National Academies Press.

We should keep watch on all of the EPA information channels to see the interference of the new leadership in the good work of the Agency.  Watch for fake news, of course, and counter that with FACTS.  Science is cool as reference point.

Watch for missing news — up there today – gone in the morning — too much information for the sheep.

Other Governments on the Move

Beyond the EPA Washington DC offices, of course other governments believe in environmental protection — and climate change measures!  (Think”  Paris Accord, COP 21 – now in danger in the Administrator’s hand.)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in February 2017 the above after the COP 21 Paris gathering of the world’s government leaders: “The selection of the authors for the IPCC’s 1.5oC report is the first step in the critical journey started at COP 21. This special report will facilitate this important journey by assessing the available science and highlighting the policy options available to support the achievement of a climate safe, equitable and sustainable world,” said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of Working Group II.”

Assessments of climate change by the IPCC, drawing on the work of hundreds of scientists from all over the world, enable policymakers at all levels of government in many nationsto take sound, evidence-based decisions.

They represent extraordinary value as the authors volunteer their time and expertise. The running costs of the Secretariat, including the organization of meetings and travel costs of delegates from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, are covered through the IPCC Trust Fund…”

Can we now expect that the U.S.A. — with EPA in the lead — will be absent from study and deliberations? Withdraw financial and other support from the IPCC organization?  Deny the outcomes of any research?  (Hmmm….we have to have more studies…”)

That’s what classic deniers/destroyers do in public policy circles — create & sow doubt, deny agencies their funding, change staff to hire more kool-aid drinkers, destroy enforcement capabilities  — and remove “climate change” or “global warming”references  from official web sites.

As the Republican Governor of Florida recently did — the state agencies can’t use such references (climate change?  what’s that?).

Never mind that parts of his state will be underwater with seas rising — including Mar-a-Lago, the “other” White House sitting quite near the beautiful ocean’s edge!.  Much of the Florida expensive waterfronts will move considerably far inland toward Disney World and the I-4 corridor as the oceans warm, ice shelfs recede and glaciers in Antarctica melt…and…and…

OK — we were and are warned — the dangerous wolf is in the head office and not in disguise at the EPA and the sheep (we, The People) will surely be the victims of his wrongheaded and dangerous strategies and tactics as long as he is in control.

We hear you, former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy:  “When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high.”   We miss you, for sure!

Global Warming – As the Phenomenon Ends, The Ice Begins? In Year 2060

by Hank Boerner – Chairman & Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

Keep your eye on 2060, when the Ice Age begins and Global Warming ends, say the folks at Samsung Chemical Coating (“SCC”) in The New York Times advertisement…

Did the headline grab your attention? It sure caught mine.

The headline and some of the content from a full-page advertisement appearing today in The New York Times, is signed by Samsung Chemical Coating Co. Ltd. (for the record, they’ve also said this is material “copyrighted” and not for re-distribution). This is Fair Use reporting for you.

The ad is a full page display in the well-read Science Times Section of the Times; titled: “When Global Warming Ends, about the year 2060, The Ice Age will Begin”).

There are five main messages for you from Samsung:

(1) (Perspectives About) the Beginning of Global Warming

(2) There is No Relationship Between the Amount of Carbon Dioxide Emissions and the Global Warming

(3) (About the) Ice Age Environment

(4) Large Extinction of Living Things (like all of us humans)

(5) (Message to) The US Government and Scott Pruitt, US EPA

Highlights:

Global Warming, says Samsung (SCC) management, is one of the natural phenomena that occurs at the end of inter-glacial periods. There is more explanation for you (according to the ad) in The Washington Post on February 28th of a “study” by Samsung. *

There is no relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. It’s about Earth wobbling (“precession*), certain star tracks, and seas warming and rising.

The Earth’s glaciers (today’s Big Ice) will be reduced by Year 2060 at, the end of the inter-glacial period we’re in, and then the Earth will begin to form new glaciers; earthquakes and tsunami’s will occur; radiation from the sun will pummel Earth; extreme temperatures will occur; really large hurricanes will occur.

And then – oh, boy! — the New Ice Age coming about 2060 will reach to New York City, growing ever-taller over 200 years, and everything living will become extinct!  The dead critturs will eventually drift down to decay and become coal and carbon/oil for future generations (if there any) to use. There may well be; Samsung’s paid message says creatures exposed to the sun’s radiation will mutate and new species will emerge.

Finally — Samsung, while saying that nothing can be done about the catastrophe coming, thanks to the Law of Nature (and Earth wobble, stars aligning, oceans warming, pole ice disappearing, glaciers melting and then re-forming, radiation increasing, giant storms, and more) — and so,  Scott Pruitt, US EPA Administrator, “…should review the results of ]Samsung’s] study and find ALTERNATIVE (my emphasis) MEASURES to minimize the damage of the catastrophe that will occur…”

Oh, and the future of Mankind depends on Administrator Pruitt and President Donald Trump.

A key line in the ad:  “We can say that the cause of global warming is not from carbon dioxide emissions.”

The company – it’s a a privately-owned South Korean firm, according to Bloomberg LP  — has run somewhat similar ads in the past.  * We could find no mention of “the study” in The Washington Post edition of February 28, 2017 as mentioned in today’s ad.

We got to thinking: Is this a joke? (It’s not April 1st yet.)  Someone who gave up tweeting to write more long-form messages in the wee hours of the morning?  Something unusual to get us thinking? About?

Is this a planned distraction from the more pressing issues in Washington DC — like the former President spying on the new President when he was a candidate? Something really jarring to justify the drastic cuts proposed by the new administration at the US EPA?  Is this fodder for global warming deniers?

The ad is real:  I have a printed copy right here on the desk as it appears in the NYT ScienceTimes Section!

What to you think?  Let us know….

FINALLY — there is an email in the ad if you wanted to communicate with someone:

  • Heemun Kang – scck22@hanmail.net
  • or Jimin Kang or Josung Kang

** Precession:  changes that occur as equinoxes change in successive sidereal year (Oxford: sidereal — “as determined by stars”).

Dangerous Antics – Fiddling with the Future of US EPA and the Health and Safety of the American People

by Hank Boerner – Chair & Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

The Trump Administration  — Making moves now on the US EPA to destroy its effectiveness through budget cuts and ideological attacks on its missions.

In his landmark work published in 1993 – “A Fierce Green Fire – The American Environment Movement” – former New York Times journalist Philip Shabecoff explained:  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created by President Richard Nixon (a Republican) in December 1970 (two years into his first term) as part of an overall re-organization of the Federal government. The EPA was created without any benefit of statute by the U.S. Congress.

Parts of programs, departments and regulations were pulled from 15 different areas of the government and cobbled together a single environmental protection agency intended to be the watchdog, police officer and chief weapon against all forms of pollution, author Schabecoff explained to us.

The EPA quickly became the lightning rod for the nation’s hopes for cleaning up pollution and fears about intrusive Federal regulation.

As the first EPA Administrator, William Ruckelshaus (appointed by Richard Nixon) explained to the author in 1989: “The normal condition of the EPA was to be ground between two irresistible forces: the environmental movement, pushing very hard to get [pollution] emissions no matter where they were (air, water)…and another group on the side of industry pushing just as hard and trying to stop all of that stuff…” Both, Ruckelshaus pointed out, regardless of the seriousness of the problem.

We are a half-century and more beyond all of this back and forth, and the arguments about EPA’s role and importance rage on.

Today we in the sustainability movement are alarmed at the recklessness of the Trump White House and the key Administration officials now charged with responsibility to protect the environment and public health in two key cabinet departments: The EPA and the Department of Energy.

The ripple effects of the attacks on climate change science are in reality much larger: The Department of Defense (which has declared climate change to be a major threat long-term); the Department of Interior, overseeing the nation’s precious legacy of national parks and more; the Department of Agriculture (and oversight of tens of millions of acres of farmland); the Department of Commerce; the Department of Justice..and on and on.

The destruction could start early: The Washington Post (with its ear to the ground) is closely watching the administration and reported on February 17th that President Donald Trump planned to target the EPA with new Executive Orders (between two and five are coming) that would restrict the Agency’s oversight role and reverse some of the key actions that comprise the Obama Administration legacy on climate change and related issues.

Such as: rolling back the Clean Energy Plan (designed to limit power plant GhG emissions), which required states to develop their own plan as well. And, withdrawing from the critical agreement reached in Paris at COP 21 to limit the heating up of Planet Earth (which most of the other nations of the world have also adopted, notably China and India).

The destroyers now at the helm of the EPA also don’t like the Agency’s role in protecting wetlands, rivers etc. (The Post was expanding on coverage originally developed by investigative reporters at Mother Jones.)

Mother Jones quoted an official of the Trump transition team: “What I would like to see are executive orders implementing all of President Trump’s main campaign promises on environment and energy, including withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty.”

And, in the Washington Post/Mother Jones reportage: “The holy grail for conservatives would be reversing the Agency’s ‘so-called endangerment finding,’ which states that GhG emissions harm public health and must therefore be regulated [by EPA] under the Clean Air Act.”

Think about this statement by H. Sterling Burnett of the right-wing Heartland Institute: “I read the Constitution of the United States and the word ‘environmental protection’ does not appear there.” He cheered the early actions by the Trump-ians to give the green light to the Keystone Pipeline and Dakota Access Project.

On March 1st The Washington Post told us that the White House will cut the EPA staff by one-fifth — and eliminate dozens of programs.

A document obtained by the Post revealed that the cuts would help to offset the planned increase in military spending. Cutting the EPA budget from US$ 8.2 billion to $6.1 billion could have a significant [negative] impact on the Agency.

We should remember that in his hectic, frenetic campaigning, Donald Trump-the-candidate vowed to get rid of EPA in almost every present form – and his appointee, now EPA Administrator (Scott Pruitt) sued EPA over and over again when he was Attorney General of Oklahoma, challenging its authority to regulate mercury pollution, smog (fog/smoke), an power plant carbon emissions (the heart of the Obama Clean Energy Plan).

In practical terms, the Post explained, the massive Chesapeake Bay clean up project, now funded at $73 million, would be getting $5 million in the coming Fiscal Year (October 1st on). Three dozen programs would be eliminated (radon; grants to states; climate change initiatives; aid to Alaskan native villages); and the “U.S. Global Change Research Program” created by President George H.W. Bush back in 1989 would be gone.

Important elements of the American Society have tackled conservation, environmental, sustainability and related issues to reduce harm to human health and our physical home – Mother Earth – over the past five decades: Federal and state and local governments; NGOs; industry; investors; ordinary citizens; academia.

Today, the progress in protecting our nation’s resources and human health made since rivers caught fire and the atmosphere of our cities and towns could be seen and smelled, is under attack.

The good news is that for the most part, absent some elements of society, the alarms bells are going off and people are mobilizing to progress, not retreat, on environmental protection issues.

American Industry – Legacy of Three Decade Commitment to Environmental Protection – The Commitment Must Continue

The good news to look back on and then to project down to the 21st Century and Year 2017 includes  the comments by leaders of the largest chemical industry player of the day as the EPA was launched and key initial legislation passed (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and many more)  – that is the DuPont deNemours Company.

Think about the importance of these critical arguments – which could be considered as foundational aspirations for today’s corporate sustainability movement:

Former DuPont CEO Irving Shapiro told author Philip Shabecoff: “You’ve have to be dumb and deaf not to recognize the public gives a damn about the environment and a business man who ignores it writes his out death warrant.”

The fact is, said CEO Shapiro (who was a lawyer), “DuPont has not been disadvantaged by the environmental laws. It is a stronger company today (in the early 1990s) than it was 25 years ago. Where the environment is on the public agenda depends on the public. If the public loses interest, corporate involvement will diminish…”

His predecessor as CEO, E. S. Woolard, had observed in 1989: “Environmentalism is now a mode of operation for every sector of society, industry included. We in industry have to develop a stronger awareness of ourselves as environmentalists…”

And:  remember, warned Dupont CEO Shapiro: “…if the public loses interest corporate involvement will diminish…”

Today let’s also consider the shared wisdom of a past administrator as she contemplated the news of the Trump Administration actions and intentions:

Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (2013-2017) said to the Post: “The [proposed] budget is a fantasy if the Trump Administration believes it will preserve EPA’s mission to protect public health. It ignores the need to invest in science and to implement the law. It ignores the history that led to the EPA’s creation 46 years ago. It ignores the American People calling for its continued support.”

Consider the DuPont’ CEO’s comments above … if the American public loses interest.  At this time in our nation’s history, we must be diligent and in the streets (literally and metaphorically) protesting the moves of this administration and the connivance of the U.S. Congress if our representatives go along with EPA budget cuts as outlined to date.

# # #

About “A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement,” by Philip Shabecoff; published 1993 by Harper Collins. I recommend a reading to gain a more complete understanding of the foundations of the environmental movement.

A decade ago I wrote a commentary on the 100-year evolvement of the conservation movement into the environmental movement and then on to today’s sustainability movement in my Corporate Finance Review column.  It’s still an interesting read:  http://www.hankboerner.com/library/Corporate%20Finance%20Review/Popular%20Movements%20-%20A%20Challenge%20for%20Institutions%20and%20Managers%2003&04-2005.pdf

 

 

Quo Vadis, The Peoples’ U.S. EPA — Where Now in the Trumpian Era?

by Hank Boerner – Chair/Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

February 22, 2017

Quo Vadis (where are we going) with our Environmental Protection Agency?

The leader’s baton is passed and the U.S. EPA has a new head of agency.  E. Scott Pruitt got passed the opposition mounted to his nomination by President Trump and is now the 14th Administrator of the Agency. He was the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma.

Where he mounted more than a dozen attacks in the courts against the Federal protector of land, air, water and more.  The cases are still pending; Administrator Pruitt has not yet  said he would recuse himself from the proceedings.

The lawsuits challenged EPA on various rules dealing with mercury pollution, carbon emissions, smog, protecting of waters and wetlands, and more.

The EPA Highlights outreach today proclaimed that Scott Pruitt “…believes promoting and protecting a strong and healthy environment is one of the lifeblood priorities of the government…and EPA is a vital part of that mission…”

And — “…as Administrator, Mr. Pruitt will lead EPA in a way that our future generations inherit a better and healthier environment while advancing America’s economic interests…”  We are on notice, I would say.

Meanwhile, hundreds of current and former EPA employees had urged the U.S. Senate NOT to ratify the nomination (450-plus signed on).  In Chicago, at lunch time, possibly imperiling their careers at the Agency, EPA Region 5 employees poured out of the office and into the streets at lunch time in protest.

More than two dozen environmental groups also challenged his qualifications.

The Washington Post yesterday reported that on his first day in office Administrator Pruitt “made clear that he intends to step back from what he sees as the Agency’s over-reach during the [President Barack] Obama years.  “The only authority that any agency has,” he told a noontime gathering at EPA, “is the authority given to it by Congress.  We need to respect that…”

Oh yes, Administrator Pruitt was speaking in the Rachel Carson Green Room at EPA (named for the author of Silent Spring, which helped to launch the modern environmental movement).  Perhaps someone passed along her book to the new leader.

The Administrator did say, according to the Post, that the EPA and the nation could do a better job of being both pro-energy and pro-environment.  Time will tell, we could say, as the actions and proclamations and loud and whispered orders come down from on high at EPA in the days ahead.

* * * * * * * *

for clues as to what may be ahead with Scott Pruitt at the helm, we could look to a commentary that the new EPA Administrator published on Public Utilities Fortnightly — ” The Methane Myth”  Incompetence and overreach at the EPA… (July 2012).

He wrote:  “,.,,my views on energy policy might be discounted as a simple ploy to bolster the energy industry at the expense of environmental stewardship and responsibility. That perspective would be misguided. I do strongly support energy producers and their role in the nation’s economic sustainability, but this issue isn’t about oil. Nor is it about natural gas or hydraulic fracturing. This is about a wayward federal agency arbitrarily using unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and flawed data to achieve a specific policy objective…”

And…”…The agency’s actions are at best incompetent, and at worst reprehensible. They have a very real effect on families, businesses, communities, and state economies. Without justification, they erode the states’ ability to self-regulate, and they stifle exploration of domestic energy sources, putting our national energy security at risk..”.

There’s more for you to read and process at: https://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2012/07/methane-myth?page=0%2C0

The post is by  E. Scott Pruitt – Attorney General of Oklahoma

and Chair, Republican Attorneys General Association

* * * * * * * *

One of the pioneer environmental protection associations is the NRDC – founded in 1970 as the Natural Resources Defense Council by attorneys and students.  There are now 2 million members in the group.  The group explained its opposition to AG Pruitt’s appointment in a post on its web site:

Pete Altman:  “It could be his consistent record of siding with industry over public health, frequently choosing positions which benefited companies funneling money to Pruitt’s campaign, his PAC or groups he was raising money for (see here, here and here.) Or that he’s a climate denier. Or that his record includes no positive environmental achievements—as colleague John Walke tweeted yesterday, out of more than 700 press releases from Pruitt’s office, not one touts any action to enforce environmental laws…”

NRDC and other of its peer NGOs and SRI investors and state officials will be watching the EPA actions VERY CLOSELY in the days ahead, we can say with some assurance.

* * * * * * * *

Late afternoon – Feb 22 — No sooner did I finish and post the above then the news came in —The Washington Post today (2-22-17) is reporting that “thousands of emails detail EPA head’s close ties to fossil fuel industry.”

In response to a legal action by the Center for Media and Democracy, thousands of the AG’s emails were released.  The communications highlight, the Post report says, close relationships between AG Pruitt and fossil fuel interests.

“The emails show Pruitt and his office were in touch with a network of ultra-conservative groups…many receiving backing from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, owners of Koch Industries, a major oil company…”

More in the late breaking story for you at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/?utm_term=.7f34f5c67cd1&wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

 

Terra Incognita For Climate Change Policy – “Dead Ahead” As #44 Leaves / #45 Assumes Responsibility for Public Policy

We are about to enter “uncertain terrain” or as the ancient Romans called it, terra incognita – when it comes to what [national] public policies the United States of America will / or will not pursue in the days ahead regarding the complex issues surrounding “climate change” (or dare we say…”global warming”).

Elected officials may /or may not / pay attention to, or adopt the recommendations emanating from, the Federal government’s official research and analysis bodies and those closely affiliated with the U.S. government. Politics. Worldviews. Business/vested interests. Pandering to the base. Ignorance – deliberate and otherwise. All of these can get in the way and cloud the political lens of the U.S. senator, member of the House, appointed cabinet officer (the secretary)…and higher up.

In this last week of the eight-year reign of the 44th Chief Executive, Barack Obama, the influential National Academy of Sciences (NAS) put out a report and made recommendations that contained a specific metric that we will no doubt be hearing about no matter the side of the climate change issues we are on.

The question posed is:  what is the “social cost of carbon???” The answer from NAS is $36 per ton for carbon dioxide. Remember that “monetary cost” number: $36 per ton when we do a proper cost-benefit analysis (positive, negative) on the various impacts on human societies (flood, drought; impacts on agriculture, human health, etc.). ALL have economic consequences. (The new report is an updating estimation of the social cost of carbon in 2017.)

NAS is a private, not-for-profit society established by an Act of Congress and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The society provides independent, objective advice to public sector leaders in the fields of science and technology. Consider this: Over the years some 500+ members have won the Nobel Prize.

Under the NAS banner, there are two important subgroups: The National Academy of Engineering (1964) and the National Academy of Medicine (1970).  All together, there are 6,000 experts involved from the various field. NAS says in the matters of engineering, science and medicine, Congress and the White House issue legislation (laws, which become rules) or Presidential Executive Orders based on the society’s recommendations.

The hometown newspaper of the nation’s capital published the results with an appropriate headline: “Scientists have a new way to calculate what global warming costs. Trump’s team isn’t going to like it.” (The Washington Post story by Chelsea Harvey is our featured story this week.)

And you can purchase the report from NAS / The National Academies Press in paperback (“Valuing Climate Change” – $80.00) or download a FREE PDF copy as a guest at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of-the-social-cost-of

Featured Story

Scientists have a new way to calculate what global warming costs. Trump’s team isn’t going to like it.
(Friday – January 13, 2017)
Source: Washington Post – How we view the costs of future climate change, and more importantly how we quantify them, may soon be changing. A much-anticipated new report, just released by the National Academy of Sciences, recommends major updates to a…