Environmental Groups Sue Over D.O.E. Report Downplaying Climate Change
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists, both environmental groups, accused the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency of 'flagrant violations' of a law that governs advisory committees.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Tuesday. It alleges that in March Chris Wright, the energy secretary, 'quietly arranged for five handpicked skeptics of the effects of climate change' to form a committee called the Climate Working Group that then wrote a report downplaying the threat of rising greenhouse gas emissions. Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, cited the report to justify a plan to repeal the legal foundation for regulating climate pollution.
But the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 does not allow federal agencies to recruit or rely on secret groups when engaging in policymaking, according to the lawsuit. The law requires that any groups developed to advise federal policy must be disclosed and that meetings, emails and other records be made public.
'This is one of the most brazen violations of federal law on one of the single most consequential issues to the lives of millions of Americans,' said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
The lawsuit alleges that the agencies 'have sought to manufacture a basis to reject' widespread scientific agreement that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary contributor to global warming, and that swift action is needed to avoid the worst consequences.
On Thursday the environmental groups filed a separate motion asking the court to block the E.P.A. from moving forward with a plan to repeal a scientific determination made by the government in 2009 that climate pollution harms public health and welfare. That assessment, known as the endangerment finding, is the basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Officials with the Department of Energy did not respond to a request for comment. An E.P.A. official said the agency does not comment on current or pending litigation.
The authors of the Department of Energy report were Steven E. Koonin, a physicist and author of a best-selling book that calls climate science 'unsettled'; Judith Curry, a climatologist who has cautioned of alarmism about warming; John Christy, an atmospheric scientist who doubts the extent to which human activity has caused global warming; Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville; and Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph in Canada.
Dr. Koonin said in an email that he is not an attorney and not qualified to offer an opinion on the lawsuit. Dr. Curry said in an email that the Climate Working Group 'provided technical information to the DOE, not policy advice.' Dr. Christy declined to comment, and Dr. Spencer and Mr. McKitrick did not respond to requests for comment.
Documents obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund under public records laws show that Dr. Koonin began contacting Trump administration officials within weeks of President Trump's inauguration. In one email exchange, Dr. Koonin reached out in February to Mr. Zeldin's chief of staff, Eric Amidon.
'I was told (through a mutual friend of mine and the Administrator's) that I should contact you to set up a meeting with Mr. Zeldin,' Dr. Koonin wrote. 'The subject is to offer technical assistance from me and colleagues in the review of the Endangerment Finding.'
Mr. Amidon replied that the agency was 'moving right along on this topic' and said he would set up a call for Dr. Koonin with E.P.A. officials. On Friday Dr. Koonin said the call never occurred, writing in an email, 'A search of my records shows no further contact with the EPA (whether by phone, video, or in person)' after the Feb. 16 email exchange.
Dr. Koonin did send Mr. Amidon a memo of what he called 'inconvenient truths' on climate change, including a claim widely rejected by mainstream scientists that 'there is no basis to conclude that human emissions enhance natural 'greenhouse' warming in any amount.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
U-turn as Trump administration agrees to keep Washington police chief in place
The Trump administration has reversed course and agreed to leave the Washington DC police chief in control of the department. Meanwhile, attorney general Pam Bondi, in a new memo, directed the district's police to co-operate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. The order came after officials in the nation's capital sued on Friday to block President Donald Trump's takeover of the capital's police. The night before, his administration had escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, essentially placing the police force under full control of the federal government. The attorney general's new order represents a partial retreat for the Trump administration in the face of intense scepticism from a judge over the legality of Ms Bondi's earlier directive, but she also signalled the administration would continue to pressure DC leaders to help federal authorities aggressively pursue immigrants in the country illegally, despite city laws that limit co-operation between police and immigration authorities. In a social media post on Friday evening, Ms Bondi criticised DC attorney general Brian Schwalb, saying he 'continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety', but she added: 'We remain committed to working closely with Mayor Bowser.' Mayor Muriel Bowser's office said late on Friday that it was still evaluating how it can comply with the new Bondi order on immigration enforcement operations. The police department had already eased some restrictions on co-operating with federal officials facilitating Mr Trump's mass deportation campaign but reaffirmed that it would follow the district's sanctuary city laws. In a letter sent on Friday night to DC citizens, Ms Bowser wrote: 'It has been an unsettling and unprecedented week in our city. Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across DC has created waves of anxiety.' She added that 'our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now', but added that if Washingtonians stick together, 'we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy – even when we don't have full access to it'. The legal battle was the latest evidence of the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department largely under the control of the Republican president's administration. Mr Trump's takeover is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. The two sides sparred in court for hours Friday before US District Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the district's lawsuit. She indicated the law is not likely to grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably gives the president more power than the city might like. 'The way I read the statute, the president can ask, the mayor must provide, but the president can't control,' said Judge Reyes, who was nominated to the bench by Joe Biden. The judge pushed the two sides to make a compromise. A lawyer for the Trump administration, Yaakov Roth, said the move to sideline Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith came after an immigration order that still held back some aid to federal authorities. He argued that the president has broad authority to determine what kind of help police in Washington must provide. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major US cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but DC has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973. Mr Trump is the first president to exert control over the city's police force since it was passed. The law limits that control to 30 days without congressional approval, though Mr Trump has suggested he would seek to extend it. Ms Bondi's Thursday night directive to place the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, in charge of the police department came after Ms Smith had told officers to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop. The Justice Department said Ms Bondi disagreed with the police chief's instructions because they allowed for continued practice of 'sanctuary policies', which generally limit co-operation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.
CNN
4 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. US District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the US government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long US Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting California: Newly proposed congressional maps released
The Brief The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has submitted a proposed map of California's redrawn congressional districts. The move by Newsom, and state Democrats, counters similar efforts underway in Texas. The new maps will likely be decided by California voters in a Nov. 4 special election. LOS ANGELES - A day after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans to redraw California's congressional districts, in response to a similar attempt by Republicans in Texas, a proposed map of the new districts was released. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee submitted the following congressional map to the California state legislature for consideration. Key points and differences Below is a breakdown of the key points of the new map from the DCCC. The submitted map is consistent with criteria laid out by the California's Citizen Redistricting Commission. It keeps districts more compact than in the current Commission-drawn map, which helps to keep more communities and neighborhoods together. It splits fewer cities than the current map (57 in submitted map versus 60 in current map). It minimizes changes to the 2020 Commission map to impact as few residents as possible. The submitted map leaves 8 districts untouched and, in 20 districts, fewer than 10% of residents are impacted. Communities of interest are protected, with necessary splits in San Jose, Sacramento, and Los Angeles (all cities that were split by the commission) done so along neighborhood boundaries and/or city council district lines. View the newly proposed congressional maps here View the current congressional maps here What they're saying "We will not stand by as Republicans attempt to rig the election in their favor and choose their voters. It's increasingly clear that Republicans will do anything to protect their narrow majority because they know they can't win on their disastrous legislative record which has raised costs and rips away healthcare for millions, all to give the ultra-wealthy a tax break," DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said in a statement. The new map will be put forth to voters in a special election, with the California legislature set to take up the issue next week to call a Nov. 4 vote. PREVIOUS COVERAGE:Newsom unveils plan for redistricting California According to Politico, if the redistricting happens, three seats that are currently considered 'safe Republican' would change to 'safe Democratic' and one more would switch to 'lean Democratic'. Those seats currently belong to Republicans Doug Lamalfa, Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, and Kevin Kiley. Reason for redistricting The backstory The move to redistrict California is a direct response to a Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump, as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority after the midterm election. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that would help them send five more Republicans to Washington, but Democrats have so far halted a vote by leaving the state to prevent their GOP colleagues from meeting Trump's demands. "We can't stand back and watch this amok or this bankruptcy disappear. We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear, district by district, all across this country, not just in Texas, but in Missouri, where J.D. Vance went just a week ago in Indiana, in places like Ohio and places like Florida. We need to stand up, not just California. Other blue states need to stand up," Newsom said during a press conference Thursday in Los Angeles. There are 435 seats in the U.S. House and Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states give legislators the power to draw maps but some, like California, rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. California Democrats already hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. The Source Information for this story came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and previous FOX 11 reports.
