Point-Source Emissions Threaten to Undo Climate Action Plans

October, 2024

Lincoln — The City of Lincoln has launched a second round of homeowner incentives to replace fossil-fueled furnaces and air conditioners with electric heat pumps.  Low and moderate income families can receive up to $3000 for the conversion, on top of Lincoln Electric System and federal tax credit incentives. The "initiative is an important part of the city’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050," according to the Lincoln JournalStar. 

This is a good program.  Each household that converts reduces carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions by 1-2 metric tons annually.  Last year's pilot program reduced emissions by 250 tons of CO2e.

Another good local government effort is the acquisition and restoration of grasslands and wetlands at 27th and Arbor Road.  Each acre protected or restored can reduce 3-7 metric tons of CO2e emissions annually.  If 155 acres is protected at 7 tons per acre (both generous estimates) the annual reduction would reach 1000 tons.  

Both the heat pump conversions and protection of natural resource buffers are part of the Lincoln-Lancaster Climate Action Plan, adopted in 2021. 

But context is needed.  These and other worthy efforts will likely not be enough to meet Lincoln's goals for CO2e reductions.  Not when point-source emissions overwhelm them.

Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. in west Lincoln was given a local government permit this year for 38,554 annual metric tons of CO2e.  In 2022, soybean processor Archer Daniels Midland in northeast Lincoln reported CO2e emissions of 158,580 metric tons.  Just to offset the coal-fired ADM plant's CO2e output would require the equivalent of converting nearly 80,000 Lincoln households to heat pumps, or at least 35 square miles of additional carbon-sequestration on woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands.  Doing the math is depressing.   

Theoretically, local governments can, by law, require stricter controls on point-source CO2e emissions than are required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency or by the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy.  A cursory review, however, suggests such measures are not under consideration.  Point-source emissions are not given attention in the local Climate Action Plan.  One reason may be that a 2019 local ordinance ceded the authority to the state.  

The state's Priority Climate Action Plan steers away from point-source emission controls in favor of distributing federal grants to voluntary projects in the agriculture production sector.  Announcing a $307 million federal grant this year, the governor said it would be used to "turbocharge the state ag industry." 

Looking at some of the state's largest CO2e emitters, one is located next door in Gage County.  Koch Fertilizer Beatrice LLC emitted 631,946 metric tons of CO2e in 2022.  That year, ADM's ethanol plant in Columbus emitted 1,163,383 metric tons.  

ADM has facilities throughout the midwest, some of which are in the company's plan to reduce CO2e emissions.  The Lincoln soybean oilseed plant is among the last to phase out coal as a part of this plan.  This presents an opportunity to look at how ADM's choices on reducing emissions are related to the regulatory environment in different states and localities, including those with stricter point-source controls.  ADM makes large political contributions to affect those environments, in Nebraska and elsewhere.  The same can be said for the Koch businesses.  Hypotheses are waiting to be tested.  

In the meantime, be prepared for less than good news in reaching our goals unless more can be done to address point-source emissions.  Per capita CO2e emissions in Nebraska already rank sixth highest in the nation. And don't be surprised as more frequent and more devastating storms strike in unexpected places, including our own state, city, and county.         

  

 

Missouri Does Not Have Standing to Oppose Student Debt Relief

October, 2024

Washington — Student loan debt relief for good cause has once again been stymied by dubious court injunctions.  The latest injunction raises eyebrows not only because it is the result of judge-shopping, but because the plaintiff, the State of Missouri, does not have the standing it claims to oppose the relief.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) found, controversially, that Missouri's relationship to the loan servicer MOHELA was sufficient to give Missouri standing to oppose the first Biden debt relief proposal, that rationale does not attach to the much different debt relief effort now being promulgated by the Department of Education.  For example, most of those now eligible for the relief are linked more closely to loan servicers' errors and consumer protection failures, and the legal basis for the relief is grounded in the Secretary of Education's longstanding powers and obligations under the Higher Education Act, not on the previous HEROES Act justification disallowed in Biden v. Nebraska. 

The appropriate test for Missouri's standing in the current, much different case is whether Missouri is injured or if it actually benefits from the relief borrowers would be given.  That is not going to be a close call, as the supposed injury to Missouri even in Biden was conjured out of nothing.  And, clearly, the servicer MOHELA is not an arm of the State of Missouri, although both Missouri and MOHELA still make futile arguments in that direction.

That question was resolved earlier this year by the federal district court of Eastern Virginia in Pellegrino v. Equifax (2024):  MOHELA is not an arm of the State of Missouri.  If Missouri insists that it is, to have standing, then Missouri should pay borrower relief for MOHELA malfeasance.  Missouri cannot have it both ways.  

Judge-shopping is bad enough.  Giving plaintiffs standing when they have none is worse.  Many learned legal commentators, representing a broad ideological spectrum, have already doubted that Missouri had standing in Biden v. Nebraska.  That was a contrivance to carve out the narrowest of paths for the Supreme Court to make pronouncements on its "major questions" doctrine.  But this new attempt at debt relief is hardly a major question, if properly scored, as it deals primarily with fulfilling the promises the federal government made to borrowers over decades in its student loan programs.  Granted, it is hard to find a plaintiff who will be harmed by the government finally fulfilling its own obligations, but Missouri is certainly not it. 

  

American Voices Abroad: Get out the Vote

September, 2024

Berlin — Our friend and chair of Berlin-based American Voices Abroad, Ann Wertheimer, gave an inspiring speech recently in Hamburg.  Here is part of it. 

Defending Democracy rally, Hamburg, September 22, 2024

My name is Ann Wertheimer. I was born in New Jersey and lived there until I moved to Washington, D.C. to work as a public school teacher. I have been living in Berlin since 1971 where I taught English at the Freie Universität.

I am the chair of American Voices Abroad Berlin—or AVA, for short. AVA is a politically progressive group independent of all political parties both in the United States and in Germany. We offer a community for engaged U.S. citizens and provide a forum for a wide spectrum of views. We began in 2003 as Americans in Berlin Against the Iraq War. After a while, we began to focus on other issues and then changed our name.

And, by the way, we are not only citizens of the United States; we are also members of the community where we live. We seek to engage all members of this community in dialogue on issues of mutual concern.

Und übrigens sind wir nicht nur Bürger der Vereinigten Staaten, sondern auch ein Teil der Gemeinschaft in der wir leben. Wir wollen alle in dieser Gemeinschaft in einen Dialog über Fragen von gemeinsamem Interesse einbinden.

Joining American Voices Abroad is a way of engaging in American civic life even from here.

Democracy, we think, is something you do. You do it as an individual and you do it as part of a community.

Doing democracy starts with voting. Free and fair elections are the basis of democracy. Voting is how you do democracy as an individual, but significantly as one individual among many. Voting is a political act that we carry out with all of our fellow citizens.

A strong democracy needs high voter participation, but the United States State Department estimates that, of the over 80,000 U.S. citizens of voting age living in Germany, less than 10% voted in the 2022 general election—even though registering and voting from here is fairly simple. (If you haven’t yet registered, go to votefromabroad.org and do it.)

So why do so many overseas Americans not vote, not even in an election as crucial as this one? Do they not know that they can? Do they not know how? Or is it cynicism? Or resignation? Or fear of being tracked by the government? Does low voter turnout possibly reflect a lack of civic engagement among Americans abroad, a lack of community? In our efforts to participate in the life of our country of residence, in Germany, have we forgotten the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? Are we perhaps confused about what it means to act as individuals and, at the same time, to be part of the body politic?

With all good will, people may say, “My conscience just won’t let me vote for this or that person because I disagree with her so strongly on … name your issue.” So they sit out the election with a sense of political righteousness. In the end, the candidate who wins the election is often much further from the non-voter’s ideals than the candidate who offended their conscience.

Democracy may be exhausting, messy, confusing, and fragile, but it is truly our best hope. And we might take heart from legal scholar Jedediah Purdy, who writes: “Although no formula can make a polity democratic, there is one that goes a long way toward doing so: the principle that everybody votes.” (from Two Cheers for Politics: Why Democracy Is Flawed, Frightening — and Our Best Hope) ...

In the up-coming election, what’s at stake has never been more clear. It is the understanding that our government must work for all of us, that we are equal under the law, and that the rule of law, rather than the whims of one person or small group, must prevail....

We have learned that when wannabe dictators tell us what they intend to do, we should believe them. Wenn Möchtegern-Diktatoren uns sagen, was sie tun wollen, sollten wir ihnen glauben.

---