EPA ends sponsorship of climate leadership program

From Reuters.

August 25, 2017 / 3:17 PM / a day ago

Valerie Volcovici

s1.reutersmedia.net
FILE PHOTO: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks during an interview for Reuters at his office in Washington, U.S., July 10, 2017.Yuri Gripas

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will no longer sponsor an awards program honoring voluntary corporate actions to combat global warming, it announced on Friday, the agency’s latest move to undo Obama-era climate change programs.

Since 2012, the EPA has been the lead sponsor of the Climate Leadership Awards program and conference, which recognizes companies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their internal operations and supply chains.

In an email sent on Friday, the EPA announced it will no longer be involved in the awards or the conference.

Under Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has repeatedly expressed doubts about climate change, the EPA has moved to undo dozens of Obama-era climate regulations in what it says is an effort to ease the regulatory burden on energy and agriculture companies.

In the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2018, the EPA was the target of the largest cut – 31 percent – a figure that Republican and Democratic lawmakers opposed.

In Friday’s email, the EPA did not explain why it is eliminating the awards program, but apologized for the inconvenience of its announcement in the middle of the award application process. The awards were to be given out in Denver between Feb. 28 and March 2, 2018.

“It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that we don’t plan to fund an awards ceremony on climate change,” said Jahan Wilcox, EPA spokesman.

Read the full story here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 27, 2017 2:06 pm

“It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that we don’t plan to fund an awards ceremony on climate change,”
In many respects, it’s a rather sick practise to encourage alarmism. I don’t suppose awards have been handed out to sceptics of climate science.
It’s like sending your kid to school and being told that as he/she’s of a particular ethnic/religious background, they will never be awarded a prize.

rd50
Reply to  HotScot
August 27, 2017 4:02 pm

Certainly an award should be given to industries who supplied carbon dioxide.
Many did. The more carbon dioxide the better.
http://sealevel.info/ScientificAmerican_1920-11-27_CO2_fertilization.html

GeologyJim
Reply to  rd50
August 27, 2017 4:20 pm

Without CO2, beer and soda would always be flat
Bummer!!

Sheri
August 27, 2017 2:26 pm

Shouldn’t businesses be rewarded by their customers rather than the government? If customers like the philosophy of the business, they will likely buy there. If they are really, really impressed, they may send a letter saying so and recommend the business to others. Government needs to stay out of these things completely.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Sheri
August 27, 2017 2:54 pm

+1!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 27, 2017 5:13 pm

Janice, only “+1”?
I think you are short an exponent or two.
(But cutting of some Fed green may eliminate a CAGW exponent or two!8-)

John MacDonald
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 27, 2017 6:27 pm

I’ll help out Gunga:
+1^12
That should be lots.

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 27, 2017 10:08 pm

People tend to buy where they can afford to shop, and not by the amount of CO2 emits. I think that is true from my personal observations.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 28, 2017 11:54 am

John Mac
Are you a climate “scientist” ?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 28, 2017 11:54 am

smiley smiley

Editor
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 29, 2017 12:08 pm

How about: +6.022 x 10^23 ?
If you get it, thank a chemistry teacher 🙂

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sheri
August 28, 2017 12:17 pm

‘Shouldn’t businesses be rewarded by their customers rather than the government?’
In a free, capitalist society, yes.
Funny how those two qualifiers seem to be big obstacles to progressive/warmist agenda, isn’t it?

Richard Chenoweth
August 27, 2017 2:54 pm

can we censure M Mann tho?

Janice Moore
August 27, 2017 3:05 pm

Have no fear, O Cult of AGW! It’s okay! Those contestants can still gain prestige and recognition of their fantasy science storytelling abilities here:
http://timpfest.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Just-Believe-Liars-Logo.jpg
Good luck!
#(:))

Latitude
August 27, 2017 3:05 pm

Participation trophies…how sick

Tom Halla
Reply to  Latitude
August 27, 2017 3:12 pm

Exactly, a symbol of the Obama regime.

Rotor
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 27, 2017 3:50 pm

Government funded Virtue Signaling.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 28, 2017 12:19 pm

‘Exactly, a symbol of the Obama regime.’
Which was always symbol over substance – or perhaps symbol to HIDE the actual substance, would be putting it better.

Auto
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 28, 2017 1:45 pm

Rotor
“Government funded Virtue Signaling.”
No.
Taxpayer funded Virtue Signalling.
Fixed it for you.
Auto

Reply to  Latitude
August 27, 2017 4:51 pm

Latitude
Agreed.
Endeavour trophies I agree with though. Assuming it’s not distorted and a prize awarded given to everyone.
Losing is like Boredom. Everyone needs to experience both to understand the value off Success and Activity.

bw
August 27, 2017 3:14 pm

The federal EPA should be abolished immediately. Environmental protection is not a federal imperative.
Any state may rule their own property and/or citizens with any amount of environmental protection deemed important to their residents. Alaska can have different environmental priorities than Florida, then adjust them as Alaskans see fit. If Wyoming wants to mine coal, then they can deal with it their own way.
If Californians wants to protect every bacterial cell and rock in their state, then tax their residents to pay for it, then they may do so, etc.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  bw
August 27, 2017 4:38 pm

So if South Dakota wanted to dump nuclear waste in the Ogallala Aquifer, or New Mexico decided it was a good idea to send waste out-of-state down the Red River and/or Brazos River, it’s fine as long as SD and NM see it.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 27, 2017 4:57 pm

Michael Jankowski
So you are justifying central government interference, in a regional problem, when the central government has no clue as to what’s going on, rather than interstate negotiations?
This is like calling in the police to a primary school punch up.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 27, 2017 7:55 pm

Yeah, but one of the kids might have eaten a sandwich into the shape of a gun prior to the primary school punch up, making it much more dangerous. You can never be too safe!

jst1
Reply to  bw
August 27, 2017 11:50 pm

Pollution across state lines is no different than commerce across state lines, There is a role for the federal government.
Be wise.

M Courtney
August 27, 2017 3:26 pm

Ending this practice is the right move. But the timing is wrong.
Having started, the award cycle should finish.
If a company has entered this race they should be able to expect that the Government will be constant.

commieBob
Reply to  M Courtney
August 27, 2017 4:54 pm

Following that logic would make it very hard for the government to change policy on anything.

gnomish
Reply to  M Courtney
August 27, 2017 5:16 pm

if a trough feeder has become dependent, let him die of withdrawals soonest, thanks.

Roger Knights
Reply to  M Courtney
August 27, 2017 6:31 pm

Was the EPA the only funder? I didn’t get that impression, but maybe I’m wrong.

J Mac
Reply to  M Courtney
August 28, 2017 1:08 pm

M Courtney,
No! The sooner waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money is ended, the better.

deebodk
August 27, 2017 3:39 pm

“Under Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has repeatedly expressed doubts about climate change CAGW”
Fixed.

Alba
August 27, 2017 3:40 pm

Meanwhile, in Scotland we have been warned that because of climate change we “can expect more rain, more droughts” among all sorts of other incredible nasties.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15497924.Revealed__climate_change_and_the_terrifying_risk_to_Scotland/?ref=mrb&lp=1

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Alba
August 27, 2017 4:39 pm

Climate change brings less good and more bad. Always and in almost every way you can think of.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 27, 2017 7:06 pm

We’ll assume you forgot to put a /sarc on that post, Michael….

ResouceGuy
August 27, 2017 3:40 pm

Progress

markl
August 27, 2017 3:46 pm

Eating the elephant one bite at a time.

JimG1
Reply to  markl
August 27, 2017 3:52 pm

But without EPA who will tell us how much water our toilets are allowed to hold?

Gunga Din
Reply to  JimG1
August 27, 2017 5:26 pm

Enough to eliminate the S without the BS?

Bruce Cobb
August 27, 2017 4:09 pm

Oh come on, can’t they send them a box of gold stars or something? Sheesh!

Mike Burcke
August 27, 2017 4:10 pm

“…EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has repeatedly expressed doubts about climate change…”
Not doubts about climate change, he disputes “anthropogenic” climate change…

Tom Judd
August 27, 2017 4:17 pm

“In the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2018, the EPA was the target of the largest cut – 31 percent – a figure that Republican and Democratic lawmakers opposed.”
Huh? If my memory serves me (don’t start!) Baroque Obama increased the EPA’s budget 156%. Thus, a 31% cut in its budget still leaves it at almost 108% over its pre-Baroque days. I think we can all agree that home values are not 108% over their 2008 (or former Great Recession) values; except, of course, for homes in D.C. Since Baroque took office the economy struggled to achieve a paltry 2% growth rate over the last 8 years, and that was after the loss incurred from the recession.
I’d say that a 31% cut is totally inadequate. I’d say that for the EPA to be permitted to retain a budget 108% over its pre-recession value is both immoral and an insult to the still struggling middle class. Those Republicans who objected to this 31% cut need to understand that the obscene actions of the Baroque Obama misadministration are what got Donald Trump elected, and they better start accepting that election.

JimG1
Reply to  Tom Judd
August 27, 2017 4:34 pm

But, but what about those really neat curly light bulbs that are so expensive and burn out too soon if you turn them on and off too much and have mercury in them to help poison our land fills? How can we possibly get along without the EPA?

Reply to  JimG1
August 28, 2017 8:26 am

Major problem I have is that they give off a smell of burning plastic, electrical fire oder. I have tried at least 6 different brands including the big name brands and all of them smell funny after a few weeks. The base of all seem to acquire a yellowish to light brown color within a few weeks use, and are very warm to the touch, some even to hot to touch As I was a volunteer fireman for many years I NEVER leave the house without making sure they are all shut off. Have seen two of them, upon turning on, arc, spark, like a mini fire works, and then go out. “Dissected” the base and there are capacitors, resistors, transistors?, diodes, coils and other electronic components in the base. None of these components seem large enough to handle the 15 to 25 watts that the fluorescent bulb is using, yet they go through these miniaturized components, have switched to LEDs and treat them the same way, however, have not had any fireworks or weird smell – yet.

Barbee
August 27, 2017 4:29 pm

“The agency spent $24,950 per year on sponsorship, plus travel and staff time for those managing the awards.”
I get suspicions when they mention such a minuscule number. Makes me wonder how much the travel and staff time cost really was….maybe millions! 1st class travel and accommodations, lobster, Kobe beef and champagne dinners? Yup. Probably millions. Can anyone provide those numbers?

August 27, 2017 4:34 pm

Kill the EPA..!!

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 27, 2017 7:58 pm

Well, they have done a good job so far, but it is time to get rid of them…

nn
August 27, 2017 4:41 pm

Climate change forces program change. Catastrophic.

Michael Jankowski
August 27, 2017 4:52 pm

Ah, the 2017 winners https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/2017-climate-leadership-award-winners
Goldman Sachs got two.
Bank of America has been well represented by these awards.
Sure that it is purely coincidence.

willhaas
August 27, 2017 5:27 pm

The climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensicity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is based upon only partial science and is full of flaws. The biggest flaw is that the AGW conjecture is based upon a radiant greenhouse effect that has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction as hence must be the AGW conjecture. The awards program is pointless because it has no effect on climate.

TA
August 27, 2017 6:28 pm

From the article: “In the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2018, the EPA was the target of the largest cut – 31 percent – a figure that Republican and Democratic lawmakers opposed.”
More accurately, that should be “some” Republican lawmakers opposed. John McCain pours cold water on some policy and some reporters think he represents every other Republican. The Rino’s only represent themselves, they don’t speak for others in the Republican party. Rino’s do give the MSM the answers they want and that’s why they get interviewed. Rino’s LOVE being interviewed by the MSM.
Of course, it is a frequently used trick of the Left and the MSM to get a Rino to say something that supports the Left’s position, and then attribute that position to *all* Republicans.
It’s just like when the Left and the MSM want you to believe that they speak for all Americans. They don’t. They speak for themselves only, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to them talk.

2hotel9
August 27, 2017 6:30 pm

Do we get our money back? Not a %, every f**king penny, with compounded interest.

August 27, 2017 7:41 pm

John MacDonald August 27, 2017 at 6:27 pm said:
“I’ll help out Gunga:
+1^12
That should be lots.”
Unfortunately not so! Remember your mathematics. +1^12 = 1.
Try +10^12. That is a lot larger.

Snarling Dolphin
August 27, 2017 8:32 pm

Amen. Thank you Administrator Pruitt. You’re so much more competent than Gina and Lisa it brings a tear to my eye. Keep up the stellar work!

August 28, 2017 1:03 am

Mr. Pruitt, put the budget for Climate Leadership Awards to good use. Organize the Climate Leadership Team (a.k.a. the Red Team) to write official climate reports of the US government
Atmospheric Group
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Roy Spencer
Sallie Baliunas
Oceanographic Group
Judith Curry
Roger Pielke Sr.
Don Easterbrook
Ecological Group
Freeman Dyson
William Happer
Craig Idso
Patrick Moore
Economic Group
Ross McKitrick
Bjorn Lomborg
Roger Pielke Jr.
Statistical Group
Christopher Essex
Steve McIntyre
Joe D’Aleo

Philip
August 28, 2017 8:00 am

For those old enough to remember, the EPA did need to be created. It has done some good work, and still needs to exist if only to monitor any backsliding on the progress it made, and to cast a wary eye on new developments.
However, to do these tasks it only needs to be a tiny fraction of its current size. It needs scientifically literate people supported by a small number of manegerial/support staff.
It’s remit should be limited to only those items submitted to it by Congress. No more extending its own empire.
Complete abolition would be a mistake. Like all government, it is good in small doses and a threat in larger form.

Pflashgordon
August 28, 2017 8:59 am

We must not perpetuate the fiction that EPA ever had any scientific expertise.
I have contracted for, permitted through, and squared off against EPA over 35 years, and, while I have met some kind and earnest staffers, I have never met one who was scientifically literate (I.e., credentialed). To approach them correctly, the job is always to (1) make nice, (2) be honest, and (3) scientifically educate them on the matter at hand. On the more politically-charged issues, one sometimes has to resort to a scientific body-slam by loading up with PhDs from MIT who can pin the EPA staff for a three count. Even then, they can sometimes maneuver free to achieve their ill-informed political intent (e.g., through pocket vetoes; through rationalizing proposed rules and ignoring public comments/criticisms; through kowtowing to NGOs; through sue and settle).
Like any corporate takeover or acquisition, Mr. Pruitt is simply right-sizing the bloated bureaucracy, casting off dead wood and refocusing on core mission.
If only EPA did have more scientifically credentialed and circumspect staff, but that could in fact be worse given the cesspool of post-modern environmental education. I always urge young persons who have an interest in the environment to attain degrees in a basic or applied science (e.g., chemistry; physics; geoscience; soil science) or engineering, not a generalist degree with the word “environmental” in it. They can always pick up the legal and integrative elements later, through personal study, job experience and/or post-graduate education. Plus, they may soon learn that “green” jobs are not real jobs and that true environmental jobs/careers are quite rare.

%d bloggers like this: