The political season always brings an array of promises, whether kept or broken, that can lead to changes in many areas. Environmental issues have been one of the leading subjects of debate in recent elections. The election will have a major impact on how we view environmental issues going forward. Not only is each candidate differing in opinion on how to protect the environment, but they will also appoint the next SCOTUS judge that will also have a major impact. The following is a brief, neutral overview of the current candidates’ stance regarding environmental issues.

Democratic Candidates:

Hillary Clinton:

Clinton has been very vocal about her support for a cleaner environment. She has also taken action to ensure the nation continues to develop environmental friendly technology. On January 18, 2016, Hillary Clinton signed a pledge to use renewable sources to power at least half of the nation’s energy needs by 2030. Clinton has also gone on record as saying that we should push businesses to be more innovative in order to create new products that will lead to the preservation of our environment. Also, she has been on record as saying that she is against the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline has been a major topic of conversation regarding its environmental safety. Clinton has also been pushing to team up with Canada and Mexico in order to reduce the carbon footprint of this continent. In summary, Hillary Clinton has been in favor of expanding environmental initiatives in order to preserve the environment.

Bernie Sanders:

Sanders has a record of trying to preserve the environment. He has introduced a “Keep it in the Ground” Act in 2015 which was designed to prohibit offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic. He has also voted against the Keystone XL pipeline. Sanders, similar to Hillary, has also signed a pledge to power at least half of the nation with renewable energy by 2030. He has said in the past that climate change is “the number one threat facing America.” He is also against fracking. Bernie Sanders is determined for this nation to break its dependency on fossil fuels.

Republican Candidates:

Ted Cruz:

Cruz has co-sponsored a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Cruz does not believe climate change is manmade and thus we should not have strict regulations. Cruz sponsored a bill in 2014 which proposed lifting multiple regulations on the energy producing industries. Cruz has also been very critical of the EPA calling it “unbelievably abusive.” Cruz has opposed the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, a plan that was designed to try and cut the carbon emissions from power plants.

John Kasich:

In the past, Kasich has been a proponent of renewable energy. In 1996, he voted to increase funding for research regarding renewable energy. In 2012, Kasich supported legislation that embraced Ohio’s renewable energy as vital to the state’s economy. However, in 2014 Kasich signed a bill to free Ohio’s standards for renewable energy. Kasich has also signed bills in Ohio that allowed for the drilling of oil and gas in Ohio state-parks. In 2000, Kasich voted against implementation of the “Kyoto Protocol of 1997,” which aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Kasich’s voting record regarding environmental issues has swayed. Recently, in a 2016 debate, Kasich advocated for using all sources of energy, however, he also advocated for making sure that these sources can somehow be cleaner.

Donald Trump:

Trump is a strong advocate of the Keystone XL pipeline. He has also come out and denied that global warming exists. A voting record and what sort of policy Trump would take is difficult to truly determine as so little history exists on his position. Recently, Donald Trump has said he would eliminate the EPA in order to cut federal spending.

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has about $32 billion in structures and facilities across the US. About two-thirds of the land that NASA manages is less than sixteen feet from mean sea level, and much of it is near the coasts. Their largest spaceport is the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, which stretches 72 miles along the Atlantic. So the threat of harmful climate change, and rising water levels specifically, is very real for NASA.

According to one recent study, “warming pressure on the Antarctic ice sheet could help push sea levels higher by as much as five or six feet by the end of this century.”  NASA’s own Climate Adaption Science Investigators group evaluates risks for all federal agencies. They have predicted that sea levels will rise five inches to two feet by 2050 and could cause widespread problems for NASA’s coastal sites.

NASA also impacts climate change. They provide data from the satellites which orbit earth; they also help increase awareness of the growing urgency for climate change. In fact, NASA has examined the effects of climate change for almost ten years now.  Strategist Kim W. Toufectis, who leads NASA’s master planning program, told the New York Times that by 2007 “we had to acknowledge that we should recognize climate change and extreme weather as a formal risk that we should be actually managing.” NASA has the abilities to make forecasts based on data, “shame on us if we are not capitalizing on that,” he added.

Everyone agrees that warmer water and air caused by climate change will likely lead to more destructive storms.  After Hurricane Sandy in 2012, NASA spent almost $3 million to rebuild a long dune to replace protective sands that had been washed away. And because NASA is in a delicate wildlife refuge, repairs weren’t as easy as simply moving some dirt around with a bulldozer.

NASA has made preparations for climate change including hardening the facilities against rising sea levels with barriers and structures made for storms and flooding, or even a strategic retreat. Each of these strategies will no doubt be very expensive, although we do not know how expensive just yet.

Indeed, water is coming.

Sources:

Schwartz, John, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/science/nasa-is-facing-a-climate-change-countdown.html?action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0 (accessed April 5, 2016).

Gillis, Justin, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html (accessed April 5, 2016).

Carlowicz, Michael, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201508_risingseas/ (accessed April 5, 2016).

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a victory for clean energy in January, 2016. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association. The issue in the case was whether FERC has the authority to regulate the rules used by operators of wholesale-electricity markets to pay for reductions in electricity consumption and to recoup those payments through adjustments to wholesale rates under the Federal Power Act (FPA). To put it more plainly, FERC wants wholesale market operators to compensate electricity users, or demand response providers, at the same rate as they would electricity generators. They will compensate users for their commitment to reduce their electricity during peak periods, which is within FERC’s authority under the FPA. However, this would have an effect on retail electricity sales. FERC has the ability to regulate practices that affect wholesale electricity rates. FERC has a duty to ensure that these rates are just and reasonable. However, FERC is limited under the FPA to only create rules or practices that directly affect the wholesale electricity market.

FERC cannot take an action that would regulate retail electricity sales. Under the FPA, the authority to regulate retail electricity sales is reserved for the States. The holding the Court delivered confirmed that the FPA provides FERC with the authority to regulate wholesale market operations compensation of demand response bids. The Court concluded that FERC can regulate the wholesale electricity market even if FERC’s wholesale regulation will have an effect on the retail electricity market. The purpose of the FPA allowing both federal and state powers to oversee and regulate the electricity markets is to prevent any gaps which would allow private interests to interfere with the public welfare.

Finally, the Court held that FERC did not act “arbitrarily or capriciously” in requiring wholesale electricity market operators to compensate electricity users at the same rate as electricity generators. Also, the Court noted that it affords great deference to FERC when reviewing FERC’s electricity rate decisions. This may become an upcoming issue as there may be future challenges to the rates that are imposed.

Sources:

F.E.R.C. v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n, 136 U.S. 760 (2016).