SIGN UP! If you’d like to continue receiving Washington Examiner’s Daily on Energy newsletter, SUBSCRIBE HERE: http://newsletters.washingtonexaminer.com/newsletter/daily-on-energy/

BEEF AND CATTLE LOBBY RAMPS UP FIGHT AGAINST ‘STUPIDITY’ OF THE ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’: The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is actively lobbying against the “Green New Deal” ahead of other industry groups, many of which are taking a wait-and-see approach to the progressive wishlist, because of the risk that it could entail a crackdown on cows.

The cattlemen see the Green New Deal as the latest battle in a veritable war on cows that goes back 15 years, featuring skirmishes at the United Nations and in the 2008 climate debate in Washington, blaming the livestock industry for exacerbating the effects of climate change.

“What we have seen time and time again — and the Green New Deal is just another iteration of that — is accusations with no facts, no figures, no credible science behind it, and we have finally gotten to the point where we’re done with the stupidity,” Colin Woodall, the cattlemen’s senior vice president of government affairs, told John in an interview.

The Green New Deal was introduced this month as a resolution in both chambers of Congress. A fact sheet published on the website of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman proponent of the Deal — later taken down — called for getting rid of cows as part of a sweeping set of proposals to achieve rapid emissions reduction.

Woodall says his group has been meeting with both Democrats and Republicans, especially those who are from states without a sizable livestock industry, in pushing back against the Green New Deal.

The trade group has been asking lawmakers to say where they stand on placing restrictions on, or even eliminating, livestock for beef and dairy production.

Where do all the cows go? “If we stop eating meat, and we stop eating dairy, there are still going to be a lot of cattle that are going to be alive,” Woodall asserts. “So, are they going to round up those cattle and de-populate them? I doubt that would be a popular decision.”

He also points out that 40 percent of the land in the country is grassland, which is best suited for raising cattle and not doing much else.

The pushback: Woodall said that two points in particular about Green New Dealers’ intentions for livestock were resonating with lawmakers on Capitol Hill:

First, where is the food going to come from? Second, what would the Green New Deal agenda mean for standards of living?

How much or how little? The group asserts that the rearing of livestock produces only around 2 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and thus should just be left out of the discussion about addressing climate change.  

What the EPA says: The Environmental Protection Agency says 9 percent of climate-causing greenhouse gas emissions came from agriculture, which includes “cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.”

The EPA data shows that agriculture and livestock are the lowest producer of emissions of any industry it tracks.

By comparison, the electricity industry produced 28.4 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2016, and the transportation sector produced 28.5 percent as the leading producer of emissions in the country.

It all goes back to the UN: One of Woodall’s group’s biggest detractors is the United Nations, which put out a report in 2006 finding that “cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation.”

Translation: Depending on how you measure it, the carbon pollution from cows and livestock is around 9 percent, but other pollutants that are far worse for the climate than carbon dioxide are generated by the industry.

“It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2,” the report shows. Most of those emissions comes from manure.

Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers John Siciliano (@JohnDSiciliano) and Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe). Email [email protected] for tips, suggestions, calendar items and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email and we’ll add you to our list.  

SCANDALOUS ABRAMOFF SUMMONED TO TAKE ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL: After serving jail time for one of the biggest lobbying scandals in a generation, Jack Abramoff is back in action fighting against the Green New Deal, of course.

Abramoff has reportedly been called in to wield his lobbying magic as chairman of a new political action committee, or PAC, meant to go up against the progressive Democratic agenda.

“These socialists are so confused, and their messaging is getting worse by the minute,” Abramoff said at a fundraising event for the new Protect American Values PAC, E&E reported.

“They seem to think that cows and airplanes are a threat to our future. Sounds to me like they have been infected by Mad Cow Disease!” he said in a follow-up email with the news group.

The subject line of the email: “More cows, less Democrats.”

CONSERVATIVES BATTLE OVER MEMBERSHIP FOR PELOSI’S CLIMATE COMMITTEE: Republicans and conservatives are clashing over which House Republicans should be appointed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, D-Calif., new climate change committee, a decision Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is expected to announce as soon as next week.

The GOP representation on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis will be an early demonstration of the party’s approach to the contentious issue in the lead-up to the 2020 election.

Some groups are pushing for Republicans to use the committee, which is mostly symbolic and has no power to write legislation, to shape Democratic-led climate policy such as the Green New Deal in a more conservative direction.

Duking it out: “We can win on this issue with better conservative ideas,” Jeremy Harrell, policy director of ClearPath, a conservative group supportive of clean energy, told Josh.

But other conservative groups that are skeptical of climate change and government policies to confront it want Republicans to approach the climate committee with a wrecking-ball mentality.

“I have my fingers crossed that the minority leader will appoint a ranking member and most of the other members of the select committee who represent the views of the majority of the conference — that is, climate realists who oppose carbon taxes,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Josh.

Striking a balance: Observers familiar with the process say McCarthy is taking a middle-ground approach to choosing climate committee members.

“Our conference is known for having diverse opinions. I would not anticipate this committee being about stacking members from one group or another,” a person familiar with McCarthy’s thinking told Josh.

McCarthy is responsible for recommending six of the 15 members, including a ranking member.

The main contenders: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a longtime skeptic, is gunning for the top Republican position, with the support of groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

But Republican clean energy groups are pushing for GOP leaders to select members such as Reps. Garret Graves of Louisiana and Francis Rooney of Florida, both of whom represent coastal districts vulnerable to sea level rise and are more active on climate change issues.

Read Josh’s full report here.

WHITE HOUSE CLIMATE NATIONAL SECURITY PANEL TO BE LED BY PHYSICIST WHO HAS ARGUED CARBON EMISSIONS ARE GOOD FOR THE PLANET: The White House is to launch a committee challenging the consensus that climate change jeopardizes national security — led by an official who doesn’t believe carbon emissions are harmful for the planet.

William Happer, National Security Council senior director, will head the Presidential Committee on Climate Security, which will be set up by an executive order from Trump, according to the Washington Post and other outlets.

Happer, who previously taught physics at Princeton University but is not a climate scientist, has argued that carbon emissions that scientists say causes global warming are good for the planet. In 2014, he told CNBC that the “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

The purpose of the committee would be “to advise the President on scientific understanding of today’s climate, how the climate might change in the future under natural and human influences, and how a changing climate could affect the security of the United States,” according to a National Security Council discussion paper.

Fighting his own government, again: The national security and intelligence communities within Trump’s government say climate change threatens national security.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats listed climate change as a security threat in a worldwide threat assessment last month.

The assessment stated,“Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.”

The Defense Department issued a report to Congress last month finding climate change is a “national security” issue that could leave military bases vulnerable to coastal flooding and wildfires fueled by drought.

BROKEN EPA NEGOTIATIONS WITH CALIFORNIA ON FUEL RULES COULD SPARK LAWSUITS:The Trump administration said Thursday that it had broken off negotiations with California over fuel efficiency standards, assuring that the Trump administration’s plan to weaken Obama-era rules will be stalled in court — and possibly affecting acting administrator Andrew Wheeler’s confirmation vote to continue leading the agency.

The Senate could vote as soon as next week on Wheeler’s confirmation, where he is expected to have the Republican votes to be confirmed.

But Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, accused Wheeler on Wednesday of not abiding by a promise in his confirmation hearing to negotiate faithfully to reach a deal with California, and automakers, on fuel efficiency standards.

“After Mr. Wheeler’s emphatic insistence at his confirmation hearing that ‘nobody wants a 50-state deal more than I do,’ the end of these talks send a clear message that, sadly, Mr. Wheeler has been unable to keep his word,” Carper said in a statement.

Trump’s stance: The Trump administration has proposed freezing Obama-era fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks, instead of raising them each year. It has also proposed revoking a waiver that California has, and other states follow, allowing it to impose fuel efficiency rules tougher than the federal one. California and other states have already sued to keep the waiver, but more lawsuits will likely follow if EPA finalizes the rule in a similar form.

Automakers, who prefer flexibility in the Obama rules, not an outright rejection, consider the Trump plan too extreme. Wheeler has said EPA plans to introduce a final rule by the end of March, hoping to maintain a common set of rules California would agree to follow, allowing automakers certainty with the markets they sell to.

Accusations of fake compromise: But Carper suggested he has heard from automakers that the Trump administration is considering modifying its fuel efficiency proposal so the standards rise 0.5 percent per year rather than being frozen through 2026, which he — and California — does not consider a faithful compromise.

“The administration broke off communications before Christmas and never responded to our suggested areas of compromise — or offered any compromise proposal at all,” Stanley Young,  a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, said in a statement. “We concluded at that point that they were never serious about negotiating, and their public comments about California since then seem to underscore that point.”

EPA CONFIRMS POWER SECTOR EMISSIONS INCREASED IN 2018: The EPA confirmed Wednesday that carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector rose by 0.6 percent last year, after years of reductions.

EPA officials downplayed the rise in emissions, highlighting declines in other type of pollution.

The agency reported nitrogen oxide emissions fell 3.8 percent and sulfur dioxide emissions fell 5.9 percent.

“These data show that America is enjoying ever cleaner air as our economy grows, and the U.S. continues as a global leader in clean air progress,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bill Wehrum.

The finding of higher power sector carbon emissions came as electricity generation increased by 5 percent in 2018.

It’s not only the power sector: Carbon emissions rose last year in across all sectors, previous reports have found.

The Energy Information Administration has said emissions across all sectors increased 2.8 percent in 2018 — the largest year-to-year rise since 2010. But the agency said emissions will decline again in 2019 and 2020.

That report followed one by the Rhodium Group that projected U.S. carbon emissions rose 3.4 percent in 2018 after three years of decline, even as a record number of coal plants retired.

Those reports attributed the higher emissions from last year to an unusually hot summer and cold winter, and increased manufacturing activity.

RUNDOWN

Politico How a top EPA regulator’s law firm profited from the fight to roll back air rules

Reuters Venezuela gets fuel from Russia, Europe but the bill soars

Washington Post Eight years after Fukushima’s meltdown, the land is recovering, but public trust is not

New York Times Oil companies may be complicit in atrocities in South Sudan, UN panel says

Bloomberg Man-made climate change causes its first mammal extinction

SPONSOR MESSAGE: 
Separating Fact from Fiction – GAIN Launches Fact Checker Site
The spread of misinformation about energy infrastructure projects is unfortunately not a new phenomenon. The GAIN Coalition recently launched a new website dedicated to countering targeted attacks of coordinated disinformation campaigns by so-called environmental activists. Through fact checking and original reporting, GAINFactChecker.org will provide straightforward, evidence-based analysis in order to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of pipeline infrastructure.