As noted in the introductory portion of the Assessment:

“The more the planet warms, the greater the impacts. Without rapid and deep reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, the risks of accelerating sea level rise, intensifying extreme weather, and other harmful climate impacts will continue to grow. Each additional increment of warming is expected to lead to more damage and greater economic losses compared to previous increments of warming, while the risk of catastrophic or unforeseen consequences also increases. …

However, this also means that each increment of warming that the world avoids—through actions that cut emissions or remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere—reduces the risks and harmful impacts of climate change. While there are still uncertainties about how the planet will react to rapid warming, the degree to which climate change will continue to worsen is largely in human hands. …

In addition to reducing risks to future generations, rapid emissions cuts are expected to have immediate health and economic benefits ,,,. At the national scale, the benefits of deep emissions cuts for current and future generations are expected to far outweigh the costs.”

The report goes into significant detail regarding the risks from climate change and the benefits of reducing the factors that are leading to and exacerbating the impacts of climate change.

“Harmful impacts will increase in the near term

Even if greenhouse gas emissions fall substantially, the impacts of climate change will continue to intensify over the next decade (see ‘Meeting US mitigation targets means reaching net-zero emissions’ …Box 1.4), and all US regions are already experiencing increasingly harmful impacts. Although a few US regions or sectors may experience limited or short-term benefits from climate change, adverse impacts already far outweigh any positive effects and will increasingly eclipse benefits with additional warming….

In coastal environments, dry conditions, sea level rise, and saltwater intrusion endanger groundwater aquifers and stress aquatic ecosystems. Inland, decreasing snowpack alters the volume and timing of streamflow and increases wildfire risk. Small rural water providers that often depend on a single water source or have limited capacity are especially vulnerable….

As the climate changes, increased instabilities in US and global food production and distribution systems are projected to make food less available and more expensive. These price increases and disruptions are expected to disproportionately affect the nutrition and health of women, children, older adults, and low-wealth communities….

Homes, property, and critical infrastructure are increasingly exposed to more frequent and intense extreme events, increasing the cost of maintaining a safe and healthy place to live….

More severe wildfires in California, increasing sea level rise in Florida, and more frequent flooding in Texas are expected to displace millions of people. Climate-driven economic changes abroad, including reductions in crop yields, are expected to increase the rate of emigration to the United States. “

The Assessment also notes the significant impacts on all aspects of the national infrastructure.

“ Many infrastructure systems across the country are at the end of their intended useful life and are not designed to cope with additional stress from climate change. For example, extreme heat causes railways to buckle, severe storms overload drainage systems, and wildfires result in roadway obstruction and debris flows. Risks to energy, water, healthcare, transportation, telecommunications, and waste management systems will continue to rise with further climate change, with many infrastructure systems at risk of failing. ”

It also notes the disproportionate impacts on specific groups.

“ While climate change can harm everyone’s health, its impacts exacerbate long-standing disparities that result in inequitable health outcomes for historically marginalized people, including people of color, Indigenous Peoples, low-income communities, and sexual and gender minorities, as well as older adults, people with disabilities or chronic diseases, outdoor workers, and children.”

The Assessment concludes that despite a decrease in carbon emissions in recent years and increasing efforts to address the impacts of climate change not enough has been done.

“Despite an increase in adaptation actions across the country, current adaptation efforts and investments are insufficient to reduce today’s climate-related risks and keep pace with future changes in the climate. Accelerating current efforts and implementing new ones that involve more fundamental shifts in systems and practices can help address current risks and prepare for future impacts (see ‘Mitigation and adaptation actions can result in systemic, cascading benefits’ …).”

The Report notes that global surface temperatures between 2011- 2020 were on average 1.09 degrees Celsius higher than the period of 1850 -1900. With the temperature over land averaging about half a degree Celsius more than over oceans. The “likely” amount of the increase due to human activity represented by Greenhouse Gases (“GHGs”) and aerosols is 1.07 degrees Celsius.

Some of the findings,noted in the Report follow, with notations as to the level of confidence in the accuracy of the conclusions:

“Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since AR5. Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s, including increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts (high confidence) ….
Between 2010 and 2020, human mortality from floods, droughts and storms was 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to regions with very low vulnerability. (high confidence) …
Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater, cryospheric, and coastal and open ocean ecosystems (high confidence). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (high confidence) with mass mortality events recorded on land and in the ocean (very high confidence). Impacts on some ecosystems are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain (medium confidence) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (high confidence) ….
Climate change has reduced food security and affected water security, hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals (high confidence) ….
In all regions increases in extreme heat events have resulted in human mortality and morbidity (very high confidence). The occurrence of climate-related food-borne and water-borne diseases (very high confidence) and the incidence of vector-borne diseases (high confidence) have increased. In assessed regions, some mental health challenges are associated with increasing temperatures (high confidence), trauma from extreme events (very high confidence), and loss of livelihoods and culture (high confidence) ….
Climate change has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people that are unequally distributed across systems, regions and sectors. Economic damages from climate change have been detected in climate-exposed sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, fishery, energy, and tourism….
In urban areas, observed climate change has caused adverse impacts on human health, livelihoods and key infrastructure. Hot extremes have intensified in cities. Urban infrastructure, including transportation, water, sanitation and energy systems have been compromised by extreme and slow-onset events, with resulting economic losses, disruptions of services and negative impacts to well-being. Observed adverse impacts are concentrated amongst economically and socially marginalised urban residents. (high confidence) …”

The Report goes on to assess adaptation attempts, noting that, while adaptation is increasing and brings improvements, it is spotty and needs to be increased. “Most observed adaptation responses are fragmented, incremental, sector-specific and unequally distributed across regions. Despite progress, adaptation gaps exist across sectors and regions, and will continue to grow under current levels of implementation, with the largest adaptation gaps among lower income groups “

The Report projects continued increases in global warming in the “near term (2021-2040)”. “The assessed climate response to GHG emissions scenarios results in a best estimate of warming for 2081–2100 that spans a range from 1.4°C for a very low GHG emissions scenario … to 2.7°C for an intermediate GHG emissions scenario … and 4.4°C for a very high GHG emissions scenario…”.

In addition, it further notes that we have reached certain irreversible changes, resulting from the cumulative impacts of climate change which include, among other manifestations:
“Limiting global surface temperature does not prevent continued changes in climate system components that have multi-decadal or longer timescales of response (high confidence). Sea level rise is unavoidable for centuries to millennia due to continuing deep ocean warming and ice sheet melt, and sea levels will remain elevated for thousands of years (high confidence). However, deep, rapid and sustained GHG emissions reductions would limit further sea level rise acceleration and projected long-term sea level rise commitment….
The likelihood and impacts of abrupt and/or irreversible changes in the climate system, including changes triggered when tipping points are reached, increase with further global warming (high confidence). As warming levels increase, so do the risks of species extinction or irreversible loss of biodiversity in ecosystems including forests (medium confidence), coral reefs (very high confidence) and in Arctic regions (high confidence). …The probability and rate of ice mass loss increase with higher global surface temperatures (high confidence)…”

It is noted in the Report that options for adaptation decrease as the situation worsens and piecemeal attempts at adaptation could even worsen the long term impacts. Currently, the Report projects exceeding the 1.5 degree Celsius level that has been viewed as a tipping point, but notes concerted efforts could limit the degree of “overshoot” and ultimately bring GHG levels down and possibly eventually reverse the global increase in temperatures. But it predicts that the global impacts will be severe, long lasting and in some instances permanent, or certainly long lasting (for millennia). Most disconcerting is that the Report projects more severe impacts than previously forecast.

The rule was based on an analysis undertaken by the EPA.

“Having decided that the BSER was one that would reduce carbon pollution mostly by moving production to cleaner sources, EPA then set about determining ‘the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application’ of that system. … The Agency recognized that, in translating the BSER into an operational emissions limit, it could choose whether to require anything from a little generation shifting to a great deal. It settled on what it regarded as a ‘reasonable’ amount of shift, which it based on modeling how much more electricity both natural gas and renewable sources could supply without causing undue cost increases or reducing the overall power supply. … The Agency ultimately projected, for instance, that it would be feasible to have coal provide 27% of national electricity generation by 2030, down from 38% in 2014.”

Thereafter, the rule was repealed by the Trump administration on the grounds that the rule reflected a shift in the energy generation mix at the grid level, rather than setting energy generation levels at individual facilities, which had previously been the practice. The Trump administration interpreted the statutory authority of the EPA as being limited to regulation at the facility level and thereafter promulgated what it called the Affordable Clean Energy (“ACE”) Rule which addressed equipment upgrades and operating practices at the facility level. This was followed by cases brought in the DC Circuit by a number of states challenging the action of the EPA repealing  the Clean Power Plan and implementing ACE.

“ The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and held that EPA’s ‘repeal of the Clean Power Plan rested critically on a mistaken reading of the Clean Air Act’—namely, that generation shifting cannot be a ‘system of emission reduction’ under Section 111. 985 F. 3d 914, 995. The court vacated the Agency’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan and remanded to the Agency for further consideration. It also vacated and remanded the ACE rule for the same reason. The court’s decision was followed by another change in Presidential administrations, and EPA moved the court to partially stay its mandate as to the Clean Power Plan while the Agency considered whether to promulgate a new Section 111(d) rule. No party opposed the motion, and the Court of Appeals agreed to stay its vacatur of the Agency’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan.”

The Supreme Court took up the appeal. The EPA argued that the states lacked standing but the Court determined that they were injured  because the rules in the Clean Power Plan required them to “..more stringently regulate power plant emissions…”. Likewise, the Court reject the EPA argument that the issues were moot because the EPA had determined not to enforce the Clean Power Plan, as it was planning on promulgating a new rule. The Court rejected that argument stating that it was not absolutely clear the alleged behavior would not recur.

The Court found this to be a “major question” case, meaning it involved an issue so broad in its economic and political significance that it provided “a reason to hesitate” that Congress intended to confer authority to implement the rule. “Under this body of law, known as the major questions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the authority it claims.…”

Thus the Court held:

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In her dissent, Justice Kagan strongly disagrees with the majority’s interpretation of the authority of the EPA, noting in part:

“The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious:The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

The action, against various federal officials alleged that the issuance of the Lease violated the National Environmental Protection Act (“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The Court addressed four cross motions for summary judgment.

The Lease involves the portion of the Gulf of Mexico known as the Outer Continental Shelf. “The Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act (“OCSLA”) is the statutory framework under which the Department of the Interior may lease areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. 43 U.S.C. 1334; Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,563 F.3d 466, 472 (D.C. Cir.2009) [hereinafter “Biological Diversity”]. OCSLA sets forth a four-stage process for potential oil and gas production that is “pyramidic in structure, proceeding from broad-based planning to an increasingly narrower focus as actual development grows more imminent.” State of Cal. ex rel. Brown v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290,1297 (D.C. Cir. 1981).”

The stages range from bidding for leases, development of general plans to submission and review of a more detailed plans where various state and federal agencies must review the plan and the lease may be terminate if it would “probably cause serious harm or damage.” Under NEPA the federal government must look at the potential impacts of the lease and as the plan is develop, if new information comes forward, there must be a supplemental review of potential environmental impacts. While there have been prior decisions granting much authority to approve leases pursuant to OCSLA, the Court noted “…NEPA sets a floor that agencies must comply with even if an agency’s underlying statute, such as OCSLA, could be construed to set a lower one.” .

The leasing was part of BOEM five year program to develop the protocol for the designated area. “NEPA provides that the environmental analysis conducted at each stage may incorporate by reference previous, related analyses, a method known as ‘tiering’.” Therefore, it was proposed that there would be a supplemental environmental review each year. This was done initially, but in 2020 there was no additional environmental review. Instead, a determination was issued that the 2018 supplemental EIS was sufficient. Shortly before President Biden took office, a determination was made to proceed with the Lease. Then, when President Biden took office, the President issued an Executive Order, pausing all such leases pending further review.

Louisiana and other jurisdictions challenged the Executive Order in the Western District of Louisiana. The court issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the executive Order and BOEM began to implement the process for the leasing and issued a new Record of Decision for the leasing. As a result, the current action was instituted claiming violations of NEPA and the APA. Louisiana and other parties intervened and the parties agreed that the Lease sale could go forward, but implementation would be stayed pending a determination of cross motions for summary judgment.

The Court noted that, as the issue is whether the agency review was adequate. The review by the Court is limited to an examination of the agency record and “deciding whether, as a matter of law, an agency action is supported by the administrative record and is otherwise consistent with the APA standard of review.”

The Court went through a detailed discussion of the claim that the issues were not ripe for judicial review. The Court concluded the issues are ripe, as among other things, “… the Federal Defendants do not challenge this action on ripeness grounds, and none of the parties argue that the lease sale was not a ‘major federal action’ requiring the agency to take a hard look at its actions under NEPA”. Further, “…once a lease is issued BOEM cannot unilaterally undo that decision for at least five years and the government must pay a penalty if it does so.”

Plaintiffs’ challenges included an argument that BOEM failed to include in calculations of total emissions, foreign greenhouse gas emissions in comparing the proposal to the no action alternative. The Court noted that the reports relied upon by BOEM found that there was a potential range of reduction in foreign oil consumption, in the no action alternative, of between one and six billion barrels. Therefore, the Court determined:

“BOEM ‘should have either given a quantitative estimate of the downstream greenhouse emissions that will result from’ the reduced foreign consumption ‘or explained more specifically why it could not have done so.’ Sierra Club (Southeast Market),867 F.3d at 1374.”

While BOEM had issued an addendum, in which it stated it could not calculate the potential changes in the emissions, the Court states that BOE failed to use available information to make a reasonable summary of existing evidence of potential impacts. Further, undercutting BOEM’s argument that it could not have done an analysis was that fact that shortly after issuing its record of decision in this matter, it issued an analysis of the already available data, on reduction of foreign emissions through no action, with respect to the next proposed lease it considered. Thus, the Court concluded the most recent evaluation by BOEM of the subsequent lease “…demonstrates that it was possible for BOEM to have done so in a scientifically reliable way with the information available to it when it evaluated Lease Sale 257…. Barreling full-steam ahead with blinders on was simply not a reasonable action for BOEM to have taken here.”

Plaintiffs also claimed new information had come to light that required a supplemental EIS. Much of this information deals with climate change, and the Court states that BOEM noted such issues. “Indeed, the seriousness with which BOEM considered climate change as part of its analysis was precisely what made its reliance on its counterintuitive conclusion that the No Action Alternative would increase greenhouse gas emissions such a grave error.”

The Court noted several other issues raised by Plaintiffs and concluded that while in certain instances the review may not have been ideal, it was adequate enough to avoid being overturned.

As to remedy for the failure to take a hard look at the issue of foreign greenhouse gas emissions, he Court noted the standard remedy would be vacatur to require the agency to go back and take a hard look at the issue. Further, the Court stated that remand without vacatur often “invites agency indifference.” Therefore, the question becomes whether the error is serious and whether vacatur would be disruptive and is unnecessary.

“With an informed hard look at the full emissions impacts of Lease Sale 257, BOEM“ may well approve another alternative included in the EIS or deny the lease altogether.” Liberty,982 F.3d at 740…. The Court is doubtful, especially given the multiple opportunities at which BOEM could have remedied this error and did not, that it can remedy that misstep on remand.”

There was also an argument that vacatur would be disruptive, but the Court found that none of the leases have been awarded or have become effective.

Therefore, the Court vacated the determination and sent it back to BOEM in order to fully address the issue of impacts upon foreign greenhouse gas emissions of the no action alternative and whether that would alter or negate the issuance of the Lease 257.

In the summary for policymakers provided in the Report, the authors make a number of significant findings, regarding the increases in green house gas (GHG), sea level rise, increased temperatures and other impacts of climate change, much of which they find was either likely caused or contributed to by man.

“This SPM provides a high–level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate, including how it is changing and the role of human influence, the state of knowledge about possible climate futures, climate information relevant to regions and sectors, and limiting human–induced
climate change.…”

Among the findings are  the following:

“A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. …

A.1.1 Observed increases in well–mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities. Since 2011 (measurements reported in AR5), concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere, reaching annual averages of 410 ppm for carbon dioxide (CO2),
1866 ppb for methane (CH4), and 332 ppb for nitrous oxide (N2O) in 20196. Land and ocean have taken up a near–constant proportion (globally about 56% per year) of CO2 emissions from human activities over the past six decades, with regional differences (high confidence)7. {2.2, 5.2, 7.3, TS.2.2, Box TS.5}…

A.1.2 Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature8 in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001–2020) was 0.99 [0.84–1.10] °C higher than 1850–19009. Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C). Additionally, methodological advances and new
datasets contributed approximately 0.1ºC to the updated estimate of warming in AR610. …

A.1.3 The likely range of total human–caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well–mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to
0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C. It is very likely that well–mixed GHGs were the main driver12 of tropospheric warming since 1979, and extremely likely that human–caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main
driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid–1990s. …

A.1.4 Globally averaged precipitation over land has likely increased since 1950, with a faster rate of increase since the 1980s (medium confidence). It is likely that human influence contributed to the pattern of observed precipitation changes since the mid–20th century, and extremely likely that human influence
contributed to the pattern of observed changes in near–surface ocean salinity. Mid–latitude storm tracks have likely shifted poleward in both hemispheres since the 1980s, with marked seasonality in trends (medium confidence). For the Southern Hemisphere, human influence very likely contributed to the poleward shift of
the closely related extratropical jet in austral summer. ..

A.1.5 Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (about 40% in September and about 10% in March). There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to
regionally opposing trends and large internal variability. Human influence very likely contributed to the decrease in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover since 1950. It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past two decades, but there is
only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss. …

A.1.6 It is virtually certain that the global upper ocean (0–700 m) has warmed since the 1970s and extremely likely that human influence is the main driver. It is virtually certain that human–caused CO2 emissions are the main driver of current global acidification of the surface open ocean. There is high
confidence that oxygen levels have dropped in many upper ocean regions since the mid–20th century, and medium confidence that human influence contributed to this drop. …

A.1.7 Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high
confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971. …
 
A.1.8 Changes in the land biosphere since 1970 are consistent with global warming: climate zones have shifted poleward in both hemispheres, and the growing season has on average lengthened by up to two days per decade since the 1950s in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics (high confidence). …”

The Report concludes that, among other things:

“C-2 With further global warming, every region is projected to increasingly experience concurrent and multiple changes in climatic impact–drivers. Changes in several climatic impact–drivers would be more widespread at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming and even more widespread and/or pronounced for higher warming levels.

C.3 Low–likelihood outcomes, such as ice sheet collapse, abrupt ocean circulation changes, some compound extreme events and warming substantially larger than the assessed very likely range of future warming cannot be ruled out and are part of risk assessment.

D. Limiting Future Climate Change

D.1 From a physical science perspective, limiting human–induced global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative CO2 emissions, reaching at least net zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions. Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in CH4 emissions would also limit the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution and would improve air quality.

“Simply stated: The Normals are the basis for judging how daily, monthly and annual climate conditions compare to what’s normal for a specific location in today’s climate.”

The data was first collected for the period from 1901 to 1930. NOAA has prepared maps for each 30 year period, as compiled in ten year intervals (1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on) comparing annual temperatures and precipitation. The maps clearly show the “,,,influence of long-term global warming…”.

The precipitation maps are said to demonstrate a shifting of wet and dry areas over the decades. “And yet, it’s probably not a coincidence that the last four maps in the series — the 1961-1990, 1971-2000, 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 Normals — are nationally the four wettest-looking maps in the collection. At least some of that wetness relative to the 20th-century average is linked to the overall climate warming and ‘wetting’ of the atmosphere that’s occurred as rising temperatures cause more water to evaporate from the ocean and land surface.”

The conclusions regarding the new normal is consistent with a report issued by NOAA in January of this year for the year 2020. That report noted that 2020 was the fifth warmest year in the United States, since records began being kept in 1890. However, 2020 was not an anomaly as all five of the warmest years have been since 2012.

Discussing just the year 2020, the January report noted:

“Ten states across the Southwest, Southeast and East Coast had their second-warmest year on record. There were no areas of below-average annual temperatures observed across the Lower 48 states during 2020. In Alaska, despite temperatures running 1.5 degrees F above the long-term average, the state saw its coldest year since 2012.”

In addition, 2020 had 22 disasters linked to weather and climate that caused one billion dollars or more in damage.

The report summarizes the present goals for reduction in Green House Gases (“GHGs”) but notes: “…to be consistent with global emission pathways with no or limited overshoot of the 1.5°C goal, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions need to decline by about 45 per cent from the 2010 level by 2030,reaching net zero around2050. For limiting global warming to below 2°C, CO2 emissions need to decrease by about 25 per cent from the 2010 level by 2030 and reach net zero around 2070. Deep reductions are required for non-CO2 emissions as well. Thus, the estimated reductions referred to … above fall far short of what is required, demonstrating the need for Parties to further strengthen their mitigation commitments under the Paris Agreement.”

The Report summarizes various actions  and goals proposed by the Participants noting:

“All major greenhouse gases released into Earth’s atmosphere reached new record high concentrations in 2019. The annual global average carbon dioxide concentration at Earth’s surface was 409.8 ± 0.1 ppm, an increase of 2.5 ± 0.1 ppm over 2018, and the highest in the modern instrumental record and in ice core records dating back 800,000 years. Greenhouse gases, along with several halogenated gases, have contributed to a 45% increase in net forcing compared to 1990.

Carbon dioxide is responsible for nearly two-thirds of this increase. A weak El Niño early in the year transitioned to ENSO-neutral conditions by mid-year, yet the annual global surface temperature across land and ocean surfaces was still among the three highest on record. July became the hottest month in records dating to the mid- to late-1800s. Each decade since 1980 is warmer than its preceding decade, with 2010–19being around 0.2°C warmer than 2000–09.In 2019, there were a record high number of extreme warm days (temperatures above the 90th percentile) over global land surfaces. There were also a low number of extreme cool days (temperatures below the 10th percentile) compared to the last 70 years, but there were more cool days compared to the average of just the past decade. A new indicator introduced this year to the report—marine heat waves—indicates that the number of strong marine heatwaves surpassed the number of more moderate marine heat waves for the sixth consecutive year.”

In addition, it is reported that the temperature of the oceans, along with sea levels have continued to rise and that “mean sea level set a new record for the eighth consecutive year, an increase of 6.1 mm from 2018. Record high ocean heat content measured to 700 m depth in 2019 contributed an estimated 4.5 mm of that rise. Since 2004, ocean heat content has been increasing at a rate exceeding 0.20°C per decade near the surface and at a lower but still increasing rate of less than 0.03°C decade in deeper waters below 300 m.”

Moreover, temperatures continued to rise in the Arctic with surface temperatures for 2019 being “… the second highest in the 120-year record, following 2016, with record high temperatures in Alaska and north-west Canada. Mean annual Arctic surface air temperatures over land have increased more than twice as fast as the global mean since the mid-1980s.”  As a result of the increased surface temperatures ice melt continues to contribute to rising sea levels. “The Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic-wide mass loss from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland are estimated to contribute approximately 0.7 and 0.4 mm yr–1, respectively, to global sea level rise.” Likewise, the Antarctic continent maintained the second highest temperatures recorded since 1980, also contributing to ice melt. “In 2019, global mean sea level set a new record for the eighth consecutive year, an increase of 6.1 mm from 2018.”

While areas of the Northern Hemisphere, such as the United States were cooler on average in 2019, it appears the overall increase of GHGs in the atmosphere and sea level rise, due to ice melt, are trending as predicted by most scientists.

“If we wish to spare people in the United States and around the world the mortal dangers of extreme and relentless heat, there is little time to do so and little room for half measures. We need to employ our most ambitious actions to prevent the rise of extreme heat—to save lives and safeguard the quality of life for today’s children, who will live out their days in the future we’re currently creating.”

The report summarizes the choices the United States faces.

“We have conducted this analysis for three global climate scenarios associated with different levels of global heat- trapping emissions and future warming. These scenarios reflect different levels of action to reduce global emissions, from effectively no action to rapid action. Even the scenario of rapid action to reduce emissions does not spare our communities a future of substantially increased extreme heat. For the greatest odds of securing a safe climate future for ourselves and the ecosystems we all depend on, we would need to take even more aggressive action, in the US and globally, than outlined in any of the scenarios used here. Our challenge is great, but the threat of not meeting it is far greater.”

The Report discusses different levels of extreme heat, including what is referenced as “off the charts”. This is a level of heat that is so high it is literally off the charts currently used to measure such events. What will happen if no action is taken is spelled out as follows:

“A Snapshot of Results

Our results show that, with no action to reduce heat-trapping emissions, by midcentury (2036–2065), the following changes  would be likely in the United States, compared with average conditions in 1971–2000:

• The average number of days per year with a heat index above 100°F will more than double, while the number of days per year above 105°F will quadruple.
• More than one-third of the area of the United States will experience heat conditions once per year, on average, that are so extreme they exceed the current NWS heat index range—that is, they are literally off the charts.
• Nearly one-third of the nation’s 481 urban areas with a population of 50,000 people or more will experience an average of 30 or more days per year with a heat index above 105°F, a rise from just three cities historically (El Centro and Indio, California, and Yuma, Arizona).
• Assuming no changes in population, the number of people experiencing 30 or more days with a heat index above 105°F in an average year will increase from just under 900,000 to more than 90 million—nearly one-third of the US population.
• Countrywide, more than 1,900 people per year have historically been exposed to the equivalent of a week or more of off-the-charts heat conditions; this number is projected to rise to more than 6 million people by mid- century—again, assuming no population changes.

Late in the century (2070–2099), with no action to reduce heat-trapping emissions, the following changes can be expected:

• The United States will experience, on average, four times as many days per year with a heat index above 100°F, and nearly eight times as many days per year above 105°F, as it has historically.
• At least once per year, on average, more than 60 percent of the United States by area will experience off-the- charts conditions that exceed the NWS heat index range and present mortal danger to people.
• More than 60 percent of urban areas in the United States—nearly 300 of 481—will experience an average of 30 or more days with a heat index above 105°F.
• The number of people who experience those same conditions—still assuming no population change—will increase to about 180 million people, roughly 60 percent of the population of the contiguous United States.
• The number of people exposed to the equivalent of a week or more of off-the-charts heat conditions will rise to roughly 120 million people, more than one-third of the population.

Our results show that failing to reduce heat-trapping emissions would lead to a staggering expansion of dangerous heat. In contrast, aggressive emissions reductions that limit future global warming to 3.6°F (2°C) or less would contain that expansion and spare millions of people in the United States from the threat of relentless summer heat. With these aggressive emissions reductions, the above impacts would, in most cases, be held at or below their midcentury levels and would not grow progressively worse during the second half of the century.”

What our children and grandchildren face, if we take no action, is briefly summarized in the Report as follows: “…in many places around the nation, extreme heat will lead to an increase in deaths or illnesses, disrupt long-standing ways of life, force people to stay indoors to keep cool, and perhaps even drive large numbers of people away from places that become too unpleasant or impractical to live. Outdoor work and play would need to be severely curtailed during the summer months. Power grids could be severely strained. Air and rail travel could be disrupted. Other impacts associated with heat—such as water stress, wildfires, agricultural losses, and ecosystem changes—would become more frequent or severe.”

-Steven Silverberg

“Climate change, and humanity’s ability to combat it, are increasingly prominent topics of public discourse. This case concerns the attention the government must give climate change when taking action that may increase its effects.”

At issue are a number of oil and gas leases on federal lands. The Plaintiffs’ claim that the BLM should have prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for these leases, claiming the BLM failed to take into account the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the activities that would be performed under the leases.

In granting summary judgment to the Plaintiffs and remanding the matter for further review by the BLM, the Court held:

“Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and the Institute’s motion to file an amicus brief. Having reviewed the record and the relevant law, the Court concludes that—withholding judgment on whether BLM’s leasing decisions were correct—BLM did not sufficiently consider climate change when making those decisions. BLM summarized the potential on-the-ground impacts of climate change in the state, the region, and across the country. It failed, however, to provide the information necessary for the public and agency decisionmakers to understand the degree to which the leasing decisions at issue would contribute to those impacts. In short, BLM did not adequately quantify the climate change impacts of oil and gas leasing. Thus, for the reasons explained more thoroughly below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in part, denies Defendants’ motions, and denies the Institute’s motion.”

In analyzing the law, the Court noted that the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”), 30 U.S.C. §§ 181–287, gives the Secretary of the Interior broad discretion in granting leases for oil and gas exploration on public lands. While the Secretary is required to grant leases, he is also required to “safeguard the public welfare” and may determine “the terms and conditions” of the leases and may therefore “impose a broad range of stipulations on oil and gas leases for federal land, including concerning the timing, pace, and scale of development.”

Citing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the Court outlined its purpose noting in part:

“NEPA simply requires that federal agencies consider the environmental consequences of their actions. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370h; 40 C.F.R. § 1501.1. Under NEPA, agency decisionmakers must identify and understand the environmental effects of proposed actions, and they must inform the public of those effects so that it may “play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of [the agency’s] decision.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989);…”

The Court noted that where an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared and has fully analyzed the potential environmental impacts for a particular project, the regulations allow a subsequently proposed project to rely on those findings in what is referred to as “tiering”. However, a subsequent project “must supplement those EISs with more specific environmental analyses of the action at issue.”

During the leasing stage, in addition to the tiered review, some analysis was performed regarding  greenhouse gases (GHGs), but no environmental impact statements were prepared. The Court found the agency “…acknowledge that oil and gas drilling on leased parcels will emit GHGs, and they describe the sources of those emissions, but they do not attempt to quantify and project the GHG emissions likely to result from a given lease sale.”

The Court went on to note that the BLM claimed the climate models were inadequate to develop sound predictions of the impacts and that in any case the proposed drilling would not have a “measurable effect” on national and global emissions.

“Finally, the EAs emphasize that the leasing stage is a preliminary step towards oil and gas drilling, but that specific drilling projects are not guaranteed to move forward simply because a given lease was sold. ”

However, in granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs  the Court, among other findings, held that granting the leases was an “irrevocable commitment” and therefore: “…because BLM cannot fully prevent GHG emissions from oil and gas drilling once leases have been issued, BLM was required to assess the reasonably foreseeable impacts of drilling, at the leasing stage. BLM’s assessments fell short of NEPA’s requirements.”

While the Court did not agree with the claim that there should have been a site specific analysis for each of the leases issued, it did find that there was sufficient degree of information available to perform an analysis based on the projected number of likely wells.

“BLM had at its disposal estimates of (1) the number of wells to be developed; (2) the GHG emissions produced by each well; (3) the GHG emissions produced by all wells overseen by certain field offices; and (4) the GHG emissions produced by all wells in the state. With this data, BLM could have reasonably forecasted, by multiple methods, the GHG emissions to be produced by wells on the leased parcels.”

Rejecting the argument the tiered analysis that was performed provided sufficient information, the Court noted that the amount of additional information available to BLM would have permitted a quantitative analysis of the impacts that was not performed.

Plaintiffs’ also argued that BLM should have examined the indirect impacts of the downstream use of oil and gas produced from the leased lands. BLM argued those impacts were too attenuated and the information contained in its analysis was sufficient.  The Court disagreed finding  “… the lease sales are a ‘legally relevant cause’ of downstream GHG emissions, and BLM was required to consider those emissions as indirect effects of oil and gas leasing.”  Yet, while finding the issue is relevant the Court also noted that a full quantitative analysis, that Plaintiffs argued was required,  was more than legally mandated. However, the Court directed that BLM obtain available information and make a more detailed assessment than was previously undertaken.

Finally, the Court determined not to vacate the leases but to remand the matter for further analysis by BLM with the directive that no new drilling may be permitted in the iterim. The Court retained jurisdiction and admonished the BLM not to consider this a mere formality in filling out paperwork.

-Steven M. Silverberg