Mondays Overnight Energy & Environment – Welcome!,The latest news and information on energy, environment, and everything in between. Subscribe here thehill.com/newsletter-signup.
Today we are looking at the International Panel on Climate Changes’ latest report, the Supreme Court hearing arguments against and for the EPAs powers, and another oil giant divesting from Russia.
Rachel Frazin was the editor of The Hill. Zack Budryk was the vice-president. Send us tips: [email protected]And [email protected]. Follow us on Twitter: @RachelFrazinAnd @BudrykZack.
Lets jump in.
Climate change could have deadly consequences, warns report
A new report by a United Nations climate panel warns of the dangers of climate change, both now and in the near future. It also finds that they are worse than scientists thought.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its report, warned of the health risks from climate change. This included heat exposure and mental health issues.
What does it mean? According to the report, extreme heat events have already caused deaths across the globe. It also stated that extreme heat events have been increasing globally since 2014, when the IPCC published an equivalent report. This could be attributed to climate change.
The panels identified major additional risks in the years ahead, particularly between 2040-20100.
A summary of the findings shows that climate change and related extreme events will significantly increase the likelihood of premature deaths and ill health in the near- and long-term.
The panel raised concerns about heat waves and food-borne and waterborne diseases, as well pests like the mosquitoes. It warned of an increase in the risk of certain types of mosquito-borne diseases, which could put additional billions at risk by the end century.
It warned of an increase in mental health issues like anxiety and stress.
What else? The report warned that some of these effects are worse than expected.
The summary stated that climate change impacts are more severe than previously estimated. It also highlighted significant damages to ecosystems, irreversible losses, and shifts in the timing of seasons.
Camille Parmesan, one the reports’ authors, said that adverse effects were more widespread than expected and being more severe than expected at the current 1.09 degree Celsius. This refers to the current level in warming compared with pre-industrial levels.
Parmesan stated that the world is now seeing effects it did not anticipate at the current level. He said that there are diseases emerging in new areas, and the first extinctions due to climate change.
You can read more about the report here.
SCOTUS wrestles with EPA’s reach
Monday’s Supreme Court debate was about how to define the reach and authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This case had profound implications for the agency’s ability to address a major contributor to climate change.
Monday’s argument was about the scope of EPA’s authority to regulate pollution from power plants. It was also up for debate whether the authority extends beyond plant sites and covers other aspects of the U.S. Energy sector.
Although the 6-3 conservative majority court didn’t clearly telegraph a decision in the case. However, several conservative justices of the courts seemed to be concerned about whether the more broad interpretation of EPA authority went beyond Congress’s power.
Some conservatives, such as Justice Samuel Alito
Samuel AlitoThe shirking Congress in front of the Supreme Court Overnight Energy & Environment Germany uses Nord Stream 2 for Russia Stock conflicts weaken the trust in the judiciary branch too, raised the so called major questions doctrine. TheAccording to the judicial interpretation method, agency actions with transformative economic or political effects require Congress’ clear delegation of power. SomeConservatives suggested that this explicit statement was not made by lawmakers.
Alito suggested that if EPA was deemed authorized to regulate climate changes writ large it would be difficult for them to imagine any limits to their power.
This statute requires EPA that it considers several factors. They are not incommensurable [with climate change]Alito told the U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. How much weight do you give to climate change’s effects, which some believe is a matter for civilizational survival and the cost to jobs?
The other side: The courts liberal justices were generally skeptical of arguments for a narrower interpretation of EPA authority, which were advanced by a number states, including West Virginia and the coal industry.
The state and the companies argued that the statute directs EPA performance standards for polluting sources. This means that it regulates within power plants only, so-called “inside the fence measures”, and not reshaping and promoting a shift towards cleaner energy sources.
Justice Elena Kagan
Elena KaganJackson could galvanize force on Supreme Court, legal specialists say. The Congress is hiding before the Supreme Court. The three Republicans that voted to confirm Brown Jackson as appeals court judge MOREThe opposition argued that regulations at the power plant could also have the effect of changing the composition of our power system, making coal generation more expensive or less feasible.
If that is what EPA wants to do, I have a bunch of source-by-source regulations that would allow them the ability to answer all of those questions. Kagan stated that it doesn’t have to be related to the fence-free, non-fence way of looking at things.
Learn more about the arguments.
GET ON THE LIST
Stay on top of the news cycleWithThe Hills new Evening ReportThe Daily News, with the top stories of the day as well as a glimpse ahead to tomorrow.
Shell joins BP for Russia divestment
The oil company announced Monday that Shell would end all joint ventures with Gazprom, the Russian majority state-owned oil firm Gazprom, in response to the invasion by Ukraine.
Shell will also sell its 27.5 per cent Sakhalin II liquefied gas facility and its 50percent stake in Salym Petroleum Development. Shell will also cease its involvement with Nord Stream 2, which was designed to transport natural gas between Russia and Germany.
Germany decertified the pipeline as a result of the invasion. It is unclear when it will resume operations.
Shell owned 10% of the pipeline. As of late 2021, Russia had $3 billion in noncurrent assets.
CEO Ben van Beurden stated that he was shocked by the deaths in Ukraine and that it was caused by a senseless act military aggression, which threatened European security.
Our immediate concern is the safety and well-being of our people in Ukraine. We also support our Russian friends. We will discuss the business implications with other governments around the globe, including the importance for Europe and other markets to have secure energy supplies, in compliance of relevant sanctions.
This announcement comes just days after another major oil company, BP announced its own divestment of its 20 percent stake at Rosneft.
Learn more about the announcement.
WHAT WAS READING
- Exxons Bank, Russia, among those Hit by Sanctions over UkraineBloomberg)
- Mass. Massachusetts.E&E News)
- UN plastic treaty to tackle packaging design and production – draft resolutionReuters)
- Some environmentalists oppose the creation a Maine Space Corporation (Maine Public)
ICYMI
And last but not least, something completely offbeat and offbeat: Keep calm
This is it for today. Thanks for reading. Check out The HillsEnergy & Environment PageFor the most recent news and coverage. We look forward to seeing you Tuesday.