Farewell to the Paul Revere of the climate change movement

Almost a half-century ago, in 1979, when he was a lobbyist with Friends of the Earth, Rafe Pomerance was plowing through an EPA report on coal liquefaction. On page 66, federal scientists were warning that surging emissions of carbon dioxide, caused mostly by burning fossil fuels, could cause a “significant and damaging” increase in Earth’s temperature. 

“This was so much more profound than the issues I’d been working on,” Rafe told The Washington Post in 1989. “I remember thinking: What right does this generation have to warm up the Earth?”

Rafe spent the rest of his life trying to avert catastrophic warming, leading the push for the first congressional hearings on the issue and helping negotiate the Kyoto Protocol, a landmark United Nations treaty to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. 

On May 21, this Paul Revere of the effort to raise awareness of climate change–and to combat it–died of lung cancer. He was 79.  

Just a few days after Rafe read the coal report, a colleague showed him a newspaper article about a speech by geophysicist Gordon J.F. MacDonald. In his speech, McDonald highlighted the likely effects of carbon-fueled warming: devastating storms, widespread drought, and enough ice sheet melt to submerge major coastal cities. 

Rafe tracked down MacDonald’s phone number and asked for a meeting, Sarah Kaplan reported in The Post. Over the course of several hours, as MacDonald patiently explained the greenhouse effect, which researchers had been studying since the 19th century, Rafe became increasingly appalled that no one beyond a siloed group of scientists seemed to know about the issue. Rafe began to arrange meetings between MacDonald and an array of government officials. 

Another climate scientist who Rafe introduced to policymakers, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute, became the most prominent messenger of the impending threat. Rafe saw that Dr. Hansen, an Iowa native, had a knack for translating complex atmospheric science into plain English. “It was really Rafe from the beginning who understood James Hansen would be someone who’d be a trusted authority,” explained Nathaniel Rich, who wrote a whole-issue article in The New York Times Magazine in 2018 headlined “Losing Earth.”  

In June 1988, during a year of record global heat, Dr. Hansen testified to a Senate panel that global warming was no longer theoretical; it could be detected “with 99 percent confidence” and “is changing our climate now.” His testimony was front-page news across the country. 

“Rafe also understood that it was also important to build leadership on Capitol Hill,” said our co-founder and board chair George T. Frampton Jr., a former chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). George noted that Rafe and Tom Lovejoy, a Smithsonian Institution ecologist, began to recruit lawmakers. The early champions were Democratic Congressmen Tim Wirth (CO) and Al Gore (TN), both of whom went on to become senators, and Republican Senator John Heinz (PA). 

Rich’s article, later expanded in a book and now in production as a movie, portrayed the decade from 1979 to 1989 as a lost opportunity, when climate change first became a national issue. Both Republican and Democratic leaders pledged to avert disaster — before the window was slammed shut by the administration of President George H.W. Bush, under the sway of the fossil fuel industries, according to a New York Times obituary by Trip Gabriel.

“I think he’s the central figure in the emergence of climate change as a political issue,” Rich told Gabriel. “He was really the man behind the scenes all through, and he understood at a very early stage intuitively that he shouldn’t himself be the messenger.” 

Rafe proposed that nations reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent. It was a hard target, which found its way into the keynote speech by Wirth at an international climate conference in Toronto in June 1988.

Rafe played a vital role in the 1997 adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s first binding treaty requiring industrialized nations to cut planet-warming pollution. “Rafe knew his science very well, and he was not righteous about it,” Wirth said. “His was a very applied kind of advocacy — not just, ‘You ought to do this,’ but, ‘This is how we might do it.’ Not just that it should be done, but this is how we can get it done.” 

Unfortunately, the United States did not ratify this landmark treaty. Before the Kyoto Protocol was even finalized, the U.S. Senate adopted a unanimous resolution of disapproval.

Rafe worked for a number of environmental groups, often in leadership positions. He founded the National Clean Air Coalition in 1973, served as president of Friends of the Earth from 1980 to 1984, and also worked at the World Resources Institute, Arctic 21, Clean Air Cool Planet, American Rivers and the League of Conservation Voters. He founded the Climate Policy Center in 1999 after serving under President Bill Clinton as deputy assistant secretary of state for environment and development.

Rafe once told Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, that his family motivated his unrelenting activism. Whenever he felt frustrated by the slow pace of progress or daunted by the enormity of the task ahead, he wore a bracelet that one of his granddaughters made for him. “I use that to remind myself that I have to be outspoken,” he explained. “Unless there’s some strategic reason not to speak out, I don’t hold back, because this is about her.”

Shipping industry is eyeing a carbon tax, despite US objections

Despite efforts by the United States to undermine the initiative, on May 1 the world’s maritime nations preserved a plan to adopt the first global carbon fee on shipping. 

Concluding a week-long meeting at International Maritime Organization (IMO) headquarters in London,  the member nations agreed to keep working on its plan with a goal of adopting global regulations based on what the IMO calls a “Net-zero Framework.” 

However, the organization also agreed to continue discussing alternative proposals and to entertain new ones, which could change the plan substantially. A number of countries submitted alternative proposals and suggested changes, saying that those should still be on the table, for inclusive, constructive negotiations. 

Australia and others expressed concern, The Associated Press reported, that continuing to discuss alternatives would set the process back, when the impacts of climate change are being felt worldwide and the shipping industry is calling for certainty now to make investments in green technologies.

As the meeting closed, IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said, “We kind of are back on track,” while urging delegates to rebuild trust and continue talking to one another.

Em Fenton, of the U.K.-based climate change nonprofit Opportunity Green, said the framework survived, with a majority of countries supporting it, but asserted, “Survival is not a victory, and we cannot end up in a cycle of open-ended negotiations. We must now look forward to moving toward adoption of the framework later this year in a way that maintains urgency and ambition, and delivers justice and equity for countries on the front lines of climate impacts.” 

The regulations would establish a pricing system that would impose fees for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia are among those that strongly oppose a fee.

After the IMO adjourned, State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said, “The United States remains strongly opposed to the Net-Zero Framework, a fundamentally flawed proposal that would have imposed a global carbon tax on American consumers and our shipping and energy industries.” 

Experts told Politico that the data that the U.S. distributed at the meeting to stymie the carbon tax is at odds with prevailing analyses and ignores the benefits that would come from implementing the framework. James Stewart, a research fellow in the data analytics of transport at the UCL Energy Institute, said he was able to reverse-engineer the U.S. methodology and had found “fundamental flaws” in how flyers distributed by the U.S. derived the estimates. 

“Whilst there are a number of different issues with the approach taken, the most significant is in its overestimation of the contribution of fuel cost to total trade costs,” Stewart said, adding, “The error over-inflates compliance cost estimates and thereby overstates the NZF’s impact to a large extent.”

“This isn’t credible analysis, it’s a calculated exaggeration designed to scare members,” said Felix Klann, shipping policy officer at Transport & Environment. Klann said the IMO already provides robust data on transition costs and accused Washington of “bad-faith miscalculation and fearmongering to protect fossil fuel interests.”

Under the Net-zero Framework, the fees collected would go into an IMO fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships.

The IMO set a target for the sector to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by about 2050, and has committed to ensuring that fuels with zero or near-zero emissions are used more widely. Large ships last about 25 years, so the industry would need to make changes and investments now to reach the goal around 2050. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents more than 80 percent of the world’s merchant fleet, has advocated adoption of the regulations.

IMO nations agreed on the Net-zero Framework last year. Delegates met in October to adopt it, a step that was widely expected to be a formality. The U.S., with trade threats from President Donald Trump, and support from Saudi Arabia and others, derailed the meeting. Delegates decided to postpone the decision by a year and adjourn.

We Need to Learn Better

I’m old enough to remember the 1973 Middle East oil embargo and the long lines at gas stations. So is our current president. The lesson was clear: We needed to end our dependence on the oil from that region. 

The fallout included U.S. automakers’ loss of significant market share to Japanese companies, which were producing cars that could go many more miles on a gallon of gas than most of the ones made by Ford, GM, and Chrysler. 

That oil shock did lead to some progress. "Solar, wind, and nuclear are children of the 1970s oil shocks — with growth driven by security, not environmentalism," the Carlyle Group's Jeff Currie and Admiral James Stavridis, the former NATO commander, wrote recently. And, as Rebecca Elliott noted in a news analysis in The New York Times, our fuel-economy standards are “an enduring legacy” of the embargo.

That progress was bolstered by the developing scientific consensus that fossil fuels were changing our climate and a range of actions taken to address that problem. 

Because of efforts to boost energy efficiency and promote renewable energy sources, Americans are more insulated from oil shocks today than decades ago, Francesca Paris noted in The New York Times. “Petroleum makes up a tiny share of electricity generation (less than 1 percent, down from 11 percent in 1980). Oil prices hit consumers on the road most of all, but even there, less so: The country’s cars are more efficient, on average, and a growing share of Americans are driving electric vehicles.”

Yet it’s discouraging that in the half century since the OPEC embargo, the U.S. and other nations remain so vulnerable to what is transpiring today in and around the Strait of Hormuz. As The Times’ Elliott observed: “With oil front and center, it feels almost like revisiting an earlier time, before countries began embracing renewable energy…”  

And the need to move away more quickly from reliance on fossil fuels became even clearer with the March 6 publication of a new study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Researchers found that the rate of global warming has nearly doubled over the last decade. As David Gelles reported in The Times, “Many of the consequences of global warming — such as more intense storms, warming oceans and melting glaciers — are arriving faster and more powerfully than many scientists had expected,” David Gelles reported in The Times.

Ben Geman of Axios wrote, “Various analysts and advocates say (the Iran War) could — or at least should — prompt governments and investors to prioritize fuels that don't have to move across oceans.”

But maybe not. "While I agree that oil price spikes could revive interest in renewables, I'll say it again: high prices tend to usher out incumbent politicians faster than they usher in new technologies," ClearView Energy Partner's Kevin Book posted on X.

The politician occupying the Oval Office remains intent on stifling any transition away from fossil fuels, including what he calls “clean, beautiful coal.” With the courts frustrating his efforts to block wind farms off the East Coast, the Trump administration offered to pay nearly $1 billion  to TotalEnergies, the French energy company behind two wind farms off New York State and North Carolina, to not proceed with those projects. Total Energies accepted that deal. Not only that, the company committed to investing in natural gas infrastructure in Texas. 

Imagine if Congress, back in the mid-1970s, had voted to put a price on carbon. Think how different our sorry history on oil and the Middle East would have been. Wouldn’t it be great if this latest conflict could convince our political leaders that they cannot postpone this sensible step any longer? 

Endangerment Finding: Now What?

Now that President Trump’s EPA has thrown out the endangerment finding–a determination that carbon dioxide, methane and four other greenhouse gases were a threat to public health and welfare–legal and state policy wheels are turning.

Of course, what we also would like to see is renewed momentum on Capitol Hill for putting a price on carbon emissions. Such a free-market approach should appeal to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, regardless of their views on regulatory responses to global warming.

The withdrawal of the endangerment finding marks the culmination of years of effort by right-wing and industry groups to undermine the cornerstone of federal rules that limit greenhouse gases — and to hamper future administrations from putting them back in place after Trump leaves office.

“If the rule survives …legal challenges, we reiterate that it could reshape U.S. federal climate policy by pendulum-proofing the issue against a Democrat sweep” in the 2028 general elections, Clearview Energy Partners, a consulting firm, said.

That is a risk that many supporters of the endangerment finding think is worth taking. “You can’t just stand by and let E.P.A. trash its own authority because you’re scared of a potentially negative ruling” from the Supreme Court, said Andres Restrepo, a lawyer for the Sierra Club. “I think that it’s a bigger risk to do nothing.”

A coalition of health and environmental organizations has already sued the Trump administration over its February 12 decision. “EPA has a duty to consider the well-being and safety of all, and the science is clear; climate change and air pollution threaten everyone’s health,” said Georges Benjamin, chief executive officer of the American Public Health Association, one of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit was brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

Meantime, as Politico’s Alex Nieves wrote, “The Trump administration just tore apart decades of U.S. climate policy, but it may have also handed California its golden ticket.”  He explained that some legal experts argue that state regulators now will have the power to fill the void. “That’s because states are preempted from setting their own tailpipe standards — a restriction that becomes hard to defend if the federal government bows out of the emissions game.”

Trump’s EPA is trying to head off that legal reasoning. The agency’s official repeal argues that states are still preempted from developing laws or regulations that “adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or engines.”

Fifty states trying to solve the climate problem individually is not a scenario that appeals to the auto industry.  As Politico reported, “While major car companies lobbied Congress to revoke California’s EV sales mandate last year, they stopped short of advocating against the endangerment finding and didn’t explicitly praise the repeal last week.”

Maxine Joselow of The New York Times noted that Colorado legislators “are trying carrots rather than sticks.” In the coming weeks, they plan to introduce a bill that would provide a $2,000 tax credit toward new electric vehicle purchases starting in 2027, up from the current amount of $750. It’s just one example of initiatives that states are pursuing to tackle climate change’s threats to our health and prosperity.

“The transition to cleaner, nonfossilized fuel is happening very rapidly even though Donald Trump is trying to slow down this progress,” said Jay Inslee, the former governor of Washington. “The states are tremendous powers in this clean energy transition we’re going through.”

Three East Coast Wind Farms Breeze to Court Victories

Wind farms were on the verge of providing electricity to millions of homes along the East Coast. The projects had generated tens of thousands of jobs and promised to speed the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

But President Donald Trump despises wind power and, in December, his administration issued stop-work orders for five East Coast wind farms that were under construction. 

His animosity dates back to the time when turbines, which he called “monsters,” were proposed off the coast of Scotland in sight of his Aberdeenshire golf course. He went before the Scottish Parliament in an unsuccessful attempt to block their construction. Trump derides wind farms as “losers” that lose money, destroy the landscape and kill birds.

The president also contends that they pose a national security threat. His administration argued in court that wind turbine blade movement can interfere with radar. New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) termed that a “bogus pretense,” adding, “When I heard this, I said one thing: I’m the governor of New York. If there is a national security threat off the coast of New York, you need to tell me what it is. I want a briefing right now. Well, lo and behold, they had no answer.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has said wind projects are “bad for everybody.”

Workers are now back on the job at three of those offshore sites, thanks to rulings by federal judges. On January 12, a judge said that work could resume on Revolution Wind, which will power 350,000 homes in Connecticut and Rhode Island. 

Three days later, District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, ruled that construction on the Empire Wind project could go forward offshore from Long Island, N.Y., while he considers the merits of the government’s order to suspend the project.

Twenty-four hours later, a third wind farm got a green light. Federal Judge Jamar Walker allowed the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project to temporarily keep building. 

Meantime, Orsted is suing over the pause of its Sunrise Wind project for New York, with a hearing still to be set. The fifth paused project is Vineyard Wind, under construction in Massachusetts. 

Pointing to the upheaval for Orsted’s Revolution Wind, Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a champion of the oil and gas industry, said, “You have this project that has been underway for years, millions of dollars, 80 percent complete, and then you have, ‘Sorry, that’s not on our approved list,’” she said.

“OK, now we’re back on. But what is the message that is sent to Ørsted? What is the message that is sent to any of these companies about the reliability of working on a project in the United States?” she continued. “I worry about that.”

In contrast, as Claire Brown and Brad Plumer reported in The New York Times, “Over the past eight months, the Energy Department has taken the extraordinary step of ordering that generators at five coal-burning power plants that had been headed for retirement stay open and keep running. That’s just the beginning, officials say.”

Trump has expressed “a certain affection for the fuel,” Brown and Plumer wrote, calling it “beautiful clean coal” even though it is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and a major driver of global warming.

If Congress could find the will and energy to put a price on carbon, it would be easier to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. Urge your senators and House member to take that important step.