InsideSources

Global warming is once again a hot-button issue–and that isn’t just because temperatures in Washington, D.C. have reached the 90s. President Obama made the Paris Climate Accords a central part of American environmental policy and his personal presidential legacy. Now that Donald Trump is in the Oval Office, the U.S. has not only pulled out of the agreement, information about climate change was removed from the Environmental Protection Agency website in late April. This week, the mayors of twelve cities developed their own sites to keep the information online.

“Deleting federal webpages does not reset the scientific consensus that climate change is real,” said San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee in a statement. “The American people are entitled to the publicly-funded EPA research on climate change. And while the federal government continues to undermine the progress we’ve made on climate change, cities are taking a stand. San Francisco will continue our fight against climate change by taking aggressive local actions to protect our citizens and planet.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was the first to announce the republication of the information in a web post on Sunday.

Lee and Emanuel were joined by the mayors of Atlanta, Boston, Evanston, Fayetteville, Houston, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, and St. Louis. The mayors are also part of a group of 270 U.S. mayors who pledged to honor the goals of the Paris climate accords by pledging to promote electric vehicles and to cut emissions.

The city-maintained sites allow access to archived versions of the EPA pages on climate change, causes of climate change, and how human activity is causing the climate to warm. The pages had been quietly removed from the agency’s website in late April, causing uproar among environmentalists.

EPA head Scott Pruitt has expressed doubt over man-made climate change, telling an interviewer in March that, he did “not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

However, the EPA’s public affairs department has stressed that the EPA website was being updated, not removed. J.P. Freire, the EPA’s associate administrator for public affairs, told CNN in April that the agency was working “to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we’re protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law.”

The information contained on the EPA website includes basic science on climate change, ways in which the weather is impacted by greenhouse gas emissions, and federal policies undertaken to mitigate these effects. The pages do not include any research or information that can only be obtained through the EPA website.

The EPA website still contains information about how climate change affects the water sector, as well as information about greenhouse gases and global warming potentials. That isn’t enough for the mayors, however, who see American withdrawal from the Paris Agreement as the first sign of a schismatic shift in environmental policy.

The mayors’ move comes as the U.S. reiterated its commitment to leaving the Paris Climate Agreement by refusing to join breakout sessions discussing global warming policy at the recent meeting between G7 environmental ministers in Bologna, Italy. Pruitt only attended the summit’s first day on Sunday, before returning to Washington and leaving Acting Assistant Administrator Jane Nishida to represent the U.S.

While other members of the group lamented the lack of American participation, the Trump administration believes that other mechanisms exist to promote pollution reduction and energy efficiency. In a formal statement, the U.S. said that it would continue to “engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment” and believes that the most effective way of achieving these goals is to work outside of the Paris Agreement.

“We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress,” said Pruitt on Monday. “Today’s action of reaching consensus makes clear that the Paris Agreement is not the only mechanism by which environmental stewardship can be demonstrated. It also demonstrates our commitment to honest conversations, which are the cornerstone of constructive international dialogue.”

“The United States will continue to show leadership by offering action-oriented solutions to the world’s environmental challenges. We have indicated a willingness to engage on an international stage that stands to greatly benefit from American ingenuity, innovation, and advanced technologies. We have already demonstrated significant progress towards mitigating environmental problems and we will continue to develop these for the benefit of all nations,” he continued.

Pruitt points out that, without the Paris Agreement, the United States has already cut its emissions to 1994-levels.

Follow Erin on Twitter.

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

As with the rest of the country, it appears New Hampshire is pretty divided on the Paris Climate Agreement. At the state level, Republicans are applauding President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the global climate pact, while Democrats are hoping to use the issue as political ammo in next year’s elections. At the local level, a couple cities, colleges, and universities are figuring out how they can commit themselves to reducing carbon emissions to show the rest of the world that not everyone agrees with Trump.

That division was very apparent Thursday during one of the last full House sessions of the year. Several House Republicans staged a walkout after Rep. Lee Walker Oxenham, D-Plainfield, was granted the right to speak on the House floor about Republican Gov. Chris Sununu’s decision not to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a group of 12 states and Puerto Rico that are committed to upholding the Paris climate deal.

NH Reps narrowly ok member to speak on Climate Change. GOP choose to walk out. Forced to return. pic.twitter.com/uhO10aNfX7

— Raymond Gagnon (@gagnon03743) June 8, 2017

The representatives that walked out were forced to return to their seats because House Speaker Shawn Jasper needed quorum in order finish the day’s business. In her speech, Oxenham mentioned Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and Republicans let out a cheer. The New Hampshire Democratic Party was quick to criticize Republican members for their actions.

“Rather than hear their colleague on a key issue, Republicans decided to continue to plug their ears in ignorance on climate change,” said Ray Buckley, NHDP chairman, in a statement. “In doing so, they are standing with Governor Sununu and President Trump against the rest of the world. This Republican walkout is symbolic of their willful ignorance on basic science.”

Sununu stated last week that he “stands by” Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement and he said Monday that New Hampshire would not join the U.S. Climate Alliance.

“Not at this time, especially when we do not yet know its impact on our economy and environment,” he told the Concord Monitor.

That drew criticism from U.S. Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, and U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Annie Kuster — all four members of New Hampshire’s Democratic congressional delegation — who wrote a Wednesday letter to Sununu encouraging him to change his mind.

“Governor, we write in support of New Hampshire joining the U.S. Climate Alliance. It is vital that the Granite State continues to be a leader on climate change and clean energy,” they wrote. “Just as the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord cedes American global leadership, New Hampshire’s refusal to acknowledge the clear consensus on climate science will similarly damage our state’s reputation.”

New Hampshire already participates in a regional cap-and-trade pact with nine other states in the Northeast that works to reduce carbon emissions. Under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, fossil fuel power plants have to buy allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. Sununu has previously indicated he would be support withdrawing from RGGI, but only if other states also did it.

While lawmakers battle it out at the State House on climate change, several cities and universities in New Hampshire are reaffirming their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A national movement called “We Are Still In” has gained steam since Trump made his announcement last week. As of Monday, a total of 1,219 governors, mayors, businesses, investors, and colleges and universities across the country declared their intent to ensure the United States remains a global leader in the effort to combat climate change.

“In the absence of leadership from Washington, states, cities, colleges and universities, businesses and investors, representing a sizable percentage of the U.S. economy will pursue ambitious climate goals, working together to take forceful action and to ensure that the U.S. remains a global leader in reducing emissions,” the statement reads.

While no Granite State cities have signed on to that specific statement, two colleges have joined the cause — the University of New Hampshire and Southern New Hampshire University.

In a separate statement from the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda, 274 mayors committed to adopt, honor, and uphold the Paris Climate Agreement goals.

“We will continue to lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks,” the statement reads. “We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean energy economy, and stand for environmental justice

Nashua Mayor Jim Donchess and Portsmouth Mayor Jack Blalock have signed on to that statement, but not the one from “We Are Still In.”

In other communities in the Granite State, Durham officials held a Tuesday forum about the feasibility of scaling down the targets of the Paris agreement to a municipal level. The town of Hanover also voted in May to establish a goal of transitioning to 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2050.

Dartmouth College President Phil Hanlon didn’t sign on to the “We Are Still In” statement, but he signed onto a similar letter with the presidents of 11 other leading research universities. That letter commits the universities to transition to low-carbon energy and enhance sustainability practices on their campuses.

In the letter released Monday, the presidents “reaffirm that commitment, which is consistent with the Paris Agreement and recognizes the concerted action that is needed at every level to slow, and ultimately prevent, the rise in the global average temperature and to facilitate the transition to a clean energy economy. Universities have a critical role to play in reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions, continuing to advance evidence-based understanding of the causes and effects of climate change on the environment, the economy and public health, and developing solutions.”

The other signatories include all the Ivy League institutions, except Princeton University, and also Duke University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University.

Earlier this year, Dartmouth announced it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from campus operations by 50 percent by 2025 and by 80 percent by 2050. They also pledged to transition their campus to renewable resources by 2025.

In its announcement, Dartmouth admitted that it had fallen behind some of its peer institutions on a number of sustainability fronts.

“Although Dartmouth has substantially reduced campus energy use and made other significant advances over the last decade, we lag our peer institutions with respect to commitments, actions, and reporting in the sustainability domain,” the college released in its sustainability report. “Our report recommends principles, standards, and commitments in the areas of energy, waste and materials, water, food, transportation, and landscape and ecology.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States would pull out of the Paris Climate Accord was far from surprising. After all, the agreement had never been popular with conservatives, and Trump had campaigned against it last fall. In the wake of the president’s announcement, various groups, including environmental organizations, and the states of New York, Washington, and California have announced that they disapprove of the president’s announcement and intend to continue to support the agreement. Four Native American tribes also announced on Friday that “they will continue to uphold and support the Paris Climate Change Agreement (sic).” Although effective as a statement of support, the announcement demonstrates the limits of tribal authority under the American system.

“As sovereign nations, we stand with the countries around the world to support the Paris Climate Change Agreement and we join with them to protect this precious place we all call home,” said Swinomish Tribal Chairman Brian Cladoosby.

In a press release, the tribes explained that, since the U.S. federal government had failed to address the “the urgent and existential threat” of global climate change, it was “a moral and practical necessity for tribal, state, and local governments, in collaboration with average citizens everywhere, to fill the leadership vacuum.” In the statement, they state that addressing climate change falls under tribal authority.

The statement brought together tribes from far-flung reaches of the country. Standing Rock rose to national prominence during the pipeline protests in North Dakota last year. While the other tribes share Standing Rock’s commitment to environmental protection, they are from Washington and Alaska. The Quinault reservation is on the southwestern corner of Washington’s Olympic peninsula, while the central council of the Tlingit and Haida is located in Juneau, Alaska. The Swinomish are a small (less than 1,000 members) tribe in Washington state.

“For hundreds of years the pollution based economy has degraded our home,” Cladoosby continued. “We can no longer allow a failed system to continue to destroy the planet. The Paris Climate Change Agreement reflects the global consensus that we must act together and we must act now.”

The tribes’ statement was supported by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest association of Native American tribes.

“We will work to ensure that all parties respect, promote, and consider Indigenous peoples’ rights in all climate change actions, as is required by the Paris Agreement,” said NARF Executive Director John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, in a statement.

The NCAI stresses that native tribes have an intimate knowledge of their surrounding environments which makes them more sensitive to the effects of climate change.

“Through years of tireless effort, the link between traditional knowledge, sustainable development, and cultural resilience is now reflected in the international conversations that take place around climate change policy,” continued Cladoosby.

In the statement, the tribes called on the United Nations to invite other native tribes to make this important commitment to the health of the planet. Significantly, neither the joint statement, nor the statement from NCAI binds the tribal governments to any specific policy changes. In part this reflects the realities of reservation economies, which, in general, do not involve much heavy industry.

Despite this, tribal groups have argued that despite having a negligible carbon footprint, indigenous people are severely impacted by the effects of climate change because of their close relationship to the land.

“Alaska tribal governments are living with the early but significant effects of climate change,” said Richard Peterson, president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska. “Our traditional knowledge learned over millennia within our aboriginal lands leaves us with no doubt that immediate action to reduce the impacts of climate change is our duty as sovereign indigenous governments.”

Peterson said that the tribe would participate in the agreement, but did not elaborate on which parts it intended to uphold. Meanwhile, Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation, tells InsideSources that a national response will be organized next week at the mid-year conference of the National Congress of
American Indians. (Sharp is also vice president of NCAI.) She did not elaborate on the effect supporting the Accords would have on tribal industry.

The Paris Climate Accords imposed strict emissions requirements on signatories. So far, the tribes have not pledged themselves to similar cuts.

While the statements stress that the tribes are “sovereign nations,” this term does not mean that they have the same legal status as a foreign country, like France. The statement exposes the limits of tribal authority. Like any other private organization, tribes can adopt internal policies to promote values they support. Additionally, they are considered governmental entities under American law with authority somewhere between that of a state and a city. Since the 1830s, relationships between tribes and the United States government have been based on the principle that tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government and tribal authority.

At the same time, the United States government acknowledges a federal Indian trust responsibility, which encompasses both moral and legal obligations on the part of the government. It also limits tribal authority by granting certain responsibilities to the federal government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs describes this trust responsibility as “a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages.”

The various federally-recognized Native American tribes have been granted lands under the terms of various treaties. These areas are generally exempt from state jurisdiction and tribes retain control over taxation, the passage and enforcement of civil and criminal law, licensure, zoning, and other elements of self-governance. Although recognized as tribal nations, they are not considered foreign countries, but rather treated like states.

“Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few,” explains the Bureau of Indian Affairs, “but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency.”

According to this understanding of treaty rights, under American law, no Native American tribe would be allowed to sign the Paris Climate Accord, which was negotiated as an international treaty, just as no individual state could sign the treaty. Neither tribal authority nor state government extends to negotiations or treaties.

Tribal governments aren’t the only ones whose climate activism may be unconstitutional. Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law, writes that the United States Climate Alliance formed by California, New York, and Washington, may be an impermissible interstate compact.

“The alliance faces some potential constitutional challenges and limitations,” writes Kontorovich. “The Interstate Compacts Clause, article I, section 10, clause 3 provides that ‘no state … may enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power,’ without the consent of Congress.”

Calling the Interstate Compacts Clause a “a clear textual limit on state power,” he explains that states forming an “alliance” to achieve the same policy ends that otherwise would be accomplished by the United States government via international treaty “is exactly the kind of side deal the Constitution sought to prevent states from cutting.”

Follow Erin on Twitter.

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu made waves in New Hampshire politics over the weekend as he became the first governor in the New England region to say that he “stands by” President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. As expected, Democrats are using his words as political ammo to attack his position on environmental issues, but none more so than a gubernatorial candidate challenging Sununu for the Corner Office in 2018.

“I don’t have a real reaction right now to be honest,” Sununu told New Hampshire Public Radio on Friday. “It’s nothing I’ve really thought about. It’s a federal issue at this point. It’s nothing. I’m focused on the 603 and what we do here.”

He continued to say that withdrawing from the global climate agreement, which involves nearly 200 nations aiming to slow the effects of climate change, could be significant, but he hasn’t spent a lot of time looking at the issue

“You know it’s not my job to go through the whole accord and look at the in-depth impacts across the country, economically,” he said. “The president has done that, his team has done that, and they’ve made the decision they feel is in the best interest of the United States and I stand by that.”

Although some people can interpret that statement as taking a non-position, many supporters and opponents are reading into it that he agrees with Trump’s decision to leave the climate deal.

Republicans took to Twitter to reiterate their support for Sununu and Trump, like Rep. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester.

@GovChrisSununu Says He 'Stands By' Trump's Decision To Withdraw From Paris Accord. As do I. #NHPolitics https://t.co/PIjDPjvc4d

— Victoria Sullivan (@VSullivan4NH) June 4, 2017

Sununu’s statement is significant because it marks a drastic departure from other states in New England, including his fellow Republican governors.

Four states in the region announced they were joining a bipartisan coalition committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. The U.S. Climate Alliance was started by the Democratic governors of California, New York, and Washington state.

Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker said he decided to join the alliance, along with Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott. The Democratic governors of Connecticut and Rhode Island have also joined the coalition.

Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage has not publicly made a statement about Trump’s decision to pull out of the climate pact, making Sununu the only GOP governor in the area, so far, to “stand by” Trump.

The New Hampshire Republican Party has also applauded Trump’s decision, saying the Paris climate deal did not put U.S. taxpayers first.

.@POTUS knows a bad deal when he sees one. Leaving the #ParisClimateDeal means putting taxpayers first! pic.twitter.com/WI8fYgtH2k

— NHGOP (@NHGOP) June 2, 2017

State Democrats are using Sununu’s words as political fodder to motivate their base and prepare for Democratic candidates to challenge him next year. As expected, all four Democratic members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation disagree with Trump’s decision.

Wow. A bafflingly ignorant and lazy position by @GovChrisSununu. Granite Staters should be outraged he's not standing up for us #nhpolitics https://t.co/UFVjttYi7j

— NH Democratic Party (@NHDems) June 2, 2017

The New Hampshire Democratic Party is calling Sununu out for commenting on other federal issues, like the GOP-led repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the president’s travel ban to several Muslim-majority countries. They’re also blasting him for being an environmental engineer who “must not understand, the environment does not recognize borders.”

Steve Marchand, a Democratic candidate who announced that he would run for governor in 2018, has also taken issue with Sununu’s stance on the global climate pact.

In his first official statement since he announced his candidacy in April, Marchand said as governor, he would support the Paris Climate Agreement and advocate for New Hampshire’s involvement in the U.S. Climate Alliance.

“Unlike many of the nation’s governors, Governor Sununu has not pushed back on President Trump’s decision,” he said. “Both President Trump and Governor Sununu are wrong.”

Marchand, who ran for governor in 2016 but lost the Democratic nomination to eventual nominee Colin Van Ostern, is pushing his progressive message by meeting with various Democratic groups around the state. He is a former mayor of Portsmouth and said Portsmouth was the first community in New Hampshire to sign onto the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

“I’ve been a passionate progressive on environmental protection and energy policy throughout my public life, as a mayor, and as a candidate for statewide office,” said Marchand. “I strongly believe we can lower energy costs for consumers, reduce demand for energy, create New Energy jobs, and protect our natural beauty if we are willing to lead on energy and the environment. I’ve got a specific plan for New Hampshire that will do this, and being a part of the U.S. Climate Alliance would improve our ability to do the right thing — both economically and morally. President Trump will not lead, and neither will Governor Sununu. I have, and as Governor, I will.”

Over the entire weekend, Marchand and the NHDP have taken to Twitter to criticize Sununu for not being a supporter of the climate deal. It can be expected for the Democrats to raise this as a campaign issue in the 2018 governor’s race.

In several other states, various cities have said they would still adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement’s terms and reduce their carbon footprint. The only town in New Hampshire to take a similar environmental stance is Hanover, which voted in May to establish a goal of transitioning to 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2050.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.