DOE climate office bans use of phrase 'climate change'

The ICCE office has regular contact with officials from foreign countries, whichmay have led to the more aggressive action on language than in other offices, a source said. | John Shinkle / POLITICO

by Eric Wolff, Politico Pro, March 29, 2017

The Office of International Climate and Clean Energy is the only office at DOE with the words ‘climate’ in its name, and it may be endangered as Trump looks to reorganize government agencies.

A supervisor at the Energy Department's international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction," or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communications, sources have told POLITICO.

Employees of DOE’s Office of International Climate and Clean Energy learned of the ban at a meeting Tuesday, the same day President Donald Trump signed an executive order at EPA headquarters to reverse most of former President Barack Obama's climate regulatory initiatives. Officials at the State Department and in other DOE offices said they had not been given a banned words list, but they had started avoiding climate-related terms in their memos and briefings given the new administration's direction on climate change.

ICCE is the only office at DOE with the words "climate" in its name, and it may be endangered as Trump looks to reorganize government agencies. It plays a key role in U.S. participation in the Clean Energy Ministerial and Mission Innovation, two international efforts launched under Obama that were designed to advance clean energy technology.

The ICCE office has regular contact with officials from foreign countries, which may have led to the more aggressive action on language than in other offices, a source said. At the meeting, senior officials told staff the words would cause a "visceral reaction" with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, his immediate staff, and the cadre of White House advisers at the top of the department.

The Office of International Climate and Clean Energy is the only office at DOE with the words ‘climate’ in its name, and it may be endangered as Trump looks to reorganize government agencies.

A DOE spokeswoman denied there had been a new directive. "No words or phrases have been banned for this office or anyone in the Department,” said DOE spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler.

Another DOE source in a different office said that although there had been no formal instructions about climate-related language in their office there was a general sense that it's better to avoid certain hot-button terms in favor of words like "jobs" and "infrastructure."

A State Department official reported a similar mood.

"We have definitively not received anything on banned words, not even orally," the State official said. "But people are doing a lot of reading into tea leaves. People are taking their own initiatives to not use certain words based on hints from transition people. Everyone is encouraged to finding different ways of talking about things. There's a sense that you'd better find a way to delink" from the previous administration's talking points.

News of the DOE office's word ban drew criticism from one green group.

“What exactly is this office supposed to call itself now? The international C****** office? Ignoring the climate crisis will not make it go away, will not create jobs in the booming clean energy economy, and will not make our country great," Liz Perera, climate policy director at Sierra Club, said in a statement.

Darius Dixon and Ben Lefebvre contributed to this report.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/energy-department-climate-change-phrases-banned-236655

Jeff Masters: Trump’s Executive Order Threatens to Wreck Earth as a Livable Planet for Humans

by Dr. Jeff Masters, wunderground, March 29, 2017

Decades of progress on cleaning up our dirty air took a significant hit on Tuesday, along with hopes for a livable future climate, when President Trump issued his Energy Independence Executive Order. Most seriously, the order attacks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan, which requires a 32% reduction in CO2 emissions from existing power plants by 2030 (compared to 2005 emission rates). 

Tuesday’s blow was just the latest in a series of attacks that threaten our health and the planet’s health. On March 15, Trump also ordered the EPA to review tough air pollution rules for cars and light trucks that were set to kick in between 2022 and 2025. Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, released earlier this month, slashed funding for the EPA by 31%, and eliminated money for renewable energy programs and energy efficiency efforts such as the Energy Star program. 

Trump’s war on clean air will potentially kill tens of thousands of people annually and have health costs in the ten of billions of dollars each year. Separate studies done in 2016 by the World Bank and by the Health Effects Institute (a U.S. non-profit corporation funded by the EPA and the auto industry) estimated that air pollution kills between 91,000 and 100,000 Americans each year—nearly double the number of U.S. combat deaths (58,000) in Vietnam, or over 30 times the death toll of the 9/11 terror attacks. The EPA estimated that tough air pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act that began in 1990 saved over 164,000 lives in the year 2010 alone. 

Damages from U.S. air pollution are extreme. The World Bank study estimated that, in the year 2013 alone, the U.S. suffered $473 billion in health-related damages from air pollution—about 2.9% of the GDP. Health care consumes one-quarter of the $3.7 trillion federal budget, and air pollution is a significant contributor to that bill.
 

Figure 1. Polling in 2016 by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication revealed widespread support among Americans for the key provision of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan: setting strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants. Such limits were supported by 69% of Americans, including majorities in all 50 states and all 435 Congressional Districts; 75% of Americans supported regulating CO2 as a pollutant. Image credit: Yale Climate Opinion Maps.

Power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.—about 31% of the total, and are also a significant source of deadly air pollution—about 26% of all air pollution deaths in the U.S. according to a 2013 MIT study. The authority for the Clean Power Plan comes from the EPA’s Clean Air Act, along with the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision requiring the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The Clean Power Plan is a key component of America’s commitment to reduce global warming under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, and there is broad public support for reducing emissions of CO2 from existing coal-fired power plants (69% of Americans, including majorities in all 50 states and all 435 Congressional Districts, see Figure 1). 


Figure 2. Weakening of U.S. air pollution regulations goes against widespread public support for clean air. A January 2017 poll by Reuters found that 39% of Americans would like to see the EPA "strengthened or expanded," 22% wanted it to "remain the same," and just 19% said they would like to see the agency "weakened or eliminated.” The rest said they "don't know." Image credit: John Mashey, desmogblog.com.

Benefits of the Clean Power Plan far exceed the costs


The EPA estimates that annual costs to industry of the Clean Power Plan will be $1.4-$2.5 billion in 2020, increasing to $5.1-$8.4 billion per year in 2030. These estimates factor in the costs of investments in transitioning to lower-carbon electricity options and the savings that result from investments in energy efficiency. Electricity bills are predicted to rise modestly by 2.4%-2.7% in 2020, but then decline by 2.7%-3.8% in 2025, and 7.0%-7.7% in 2030 as investments in energy efficiency pay off.

The public health and climate benefits of the Clean Power Plan are worth an estimated $34 billion to $54 billion per year in 2030, far outweighing the costs, the EPA estimates. Burning fewer fossil fuels will create less air pollution, and air pollution from the power generation industry will fall about 25% by 2030 if the Clean Power Plan is adopted. The EPA projects that the reduction in pollution will prevent up to 3,600 deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days per year by 2030 (note that a person who dies from air pollution-related causes typically dies about 12 years earlier than they otherwise might have, according to Caiazzo et al., 2013). For every dollar Americans spend on the Clean Power Plan, $4 worth of health benefits will result, says the EPA. The greatest benefits would come in the upper Ohio Valley and farther downwind, where pollution from power plants is highest: southeast Ohio, northwest West Virginia, and western Pennsylvania—areas Trump carried in the 2016 election, including two swing states that pushed him over the top.  


Figure 3. Levels of the deadliest pollutant, fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5), have fallen by 37% and prevented tens of thousands of premature deaths since 2000, thanks to EPA Clean Air Act regulations. A peer-reviewed 1997 EPA Report to Congress reviewed the benefits of the Act from 1970 to 1990, and concluded that, in 1990 alone, pollution reductions under the Act prevented 205,000 early deaths—more than three times the number of U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam. However, this progress is now threatened by the pollution-friendly Trump administration. Image credit: U.S. EPA. 

Opposition to the Clean Power Plan
As one should expect, lobbying groups who receive money from the fossil fuel industry are unhappy with the Clean Power Plan, and criticize the plan’s complexity and large number of regulations. They have a point—it would have been far simpler and more effective to achieve the plan’s goals through a cap-and-trade system, or through a cap-and-dividend approach, or by having Congress adopt a simple carbon tax of $40 per ton (a version of which was proposed in February by a group of Reagan and Bush-era Republicans called the Climate Leadership Council). However, Congress failed to pass a cap-and-trade bill during Obama’s first term, and he was forced to use the regulatory power of the EPA to bring about the reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions needed for the Paris Climate Agreement. 

Critics also dispute EPA’s cost estimates, saying the costs will be much higher. Several of these criticisms state only the costs, not the benefits, and also ignore the huge death toll of air pollution. And at least one study has found that the EPA underestimated the benefits and lives saved by the Clean Power Plan—an independent analysis by Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology LLC,  an energy and environmental policy firm. In a 2017 study, they estimated that the cumulative savings to the U.S. economy (in reduced capital, fuel, and operations and maintenance expenditures) of adopting the Clean Power Plan would exceed $100 billion by 2030, and reach almost $600 billion by 2050, assuming that pollution reductions continue to stay strong after 2030. Failure to adopt the Clean Power Plan would cause more than 40,000 premature deaths annually in 2030, and more than 120,000 per year by 2050. Energy Innovation came up with their estimates using the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) open-source computer model.


Figure 4. Costs and benefits of the Clean Power Plan as estimated by the U.S. EPA. Image credit: U.S. EPA.

Repealing the Clean Power Plan won’t happen quickly
The Clean Power Plan will be difficult to undo quickly. The plan was finalized by EPA in 2015, and is currently being reviewed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Under the new executive order, the Department of Justice will ask the court to suspend the case until the EPA can review and write a new version of the rule. (Before that happens, the court may still rule on the Plan as written, which will influence how the EPA can rewrite the rule.) Once the case is removed from the court, the EPA will have to legally withdraw the existing rule and propose a new rule to take its place, a process that could take years, as the new rule will have to be justified in court, and would likely be challenged in court by environmental groups, according to an in-depth analysis by Brad Plumer at vox.com. In the meantime, nothing prevents states from continuing to reduce emissions by implementing renewable energy standards, efficiency programs, or cap-and-trade programs like those that exist in California and the Northeast. Thus, some of the benefits of the Clean Power Plan will happen regardless of Trump’s orders, and 31 states are on track to be more than halfway toward their near-term Clean Power Plan emission reduction requirements (Figure 5). 


Figure 5. A 2015 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis showed that existing clean energy commitments already place 31 states on track to be more than halfway toward their near-term Clean Power Plan emission reduction requirements, with 21 states set to surpass them. These commitments include carbon caps, mandatory renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards, announced coal plant retirements, and bringing on line nuclear power plants currently under construction.

New executive order attacks the “social cost of carbon”  
The “social cost of carbon” is an estimate of how much human emissions of carbon dioxide cost society via damage to the climate. In 2015, this number was set at $36 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution, and the social cost of carbon underpins at least 150 federal regulations. The “social cost of carbon” tries to answers the question, “how much should we be willing to pay to avert future climate damages?” This number is highly uncertain, but is definitely not zero. Trump’s executive order calls for a reassessment of the social cost of carbon, with the aim of reducing it or entirely circumventing it. Carbonbrief.org has an excellent explainer on the “social cost of carbon.”

Automobile fuel efficiency standards to be reviewed  
President Trump, speaking in Detroit on March 15 to a group of autoworkers, said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will take action to potentially relax tough air pollution rules for cars and light trucks that were set to kick in between 2022 and 2025. A review of the rules was completed in 2016, ahead of a deadline in 2018. “It was necessary (to resume the review) because the standards were set far into the future," Trump said. "If the standards threaten auto jobs, then common sense changes could have — and should have — been made." The review opens up the possibility that the strict fuel economy regulations for 2022-2025 will be significantly weakened; it is relatively easy for the EPA to undo the regulations, according to a New York Times analysis. Once the 2017 review is finished, the EPA can withdraw the current rule for post-2021 emissions and put forth an alternative set of standards within a year. The EPA may also withdraw a waiver that allows California (and other states that have joined it) to enforce stricter auto emissions standards than the federal government imposes. Air pollution from vehicles in the U.S. is responsible for about 26% of all U.S. air pollution deaths, so weakening of these regulations will likely result in thousands of premature deaths that would not have occurred otherwise—in addition to the thousands of deaths we can expect from a weakening of the Clean Power Plan.

U.S. Paris Climate Agreement commitments unlikely to be met  
Trump’s executive order and proposed budget make it clear that we can expect most of the efforts to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases under the Paris Climate Agreement to come under attack, and it is unlikely the U.S. pledge will be met. In that landmark agreement, the U.S. promised a 26%-28% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, as its fair share of the effort to keep global warming no more than 2 °C above preindustrial levels (the generally accepted goal for avoiding dangerous impacts). According to an excellent analysis by vox.com, the Clean Power Plan accounts for roughly one quarter of all the emission reductions promised by the U.S. as part of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. The other three-quarters of the reductions were to come primarily from stricter fuel economy stands for vehicles, tighter emission standards for new coal- and gas-fired power plants, new regulations to curtail methane leaks and limit methane from agriculture, energy efficiency measures, and initiatives to curtail hydrofluorocarbons (another potent greenhouse gas). 

Taken altogether, the numbers from these efforts don’t quite add up to the promised 26%-28% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025, said a 2015 World Resources Institute analysis—and thus additional actions beyond what Obama proposed would be needed. According to a 2016 paper, ”Assessment of the climate commitments and additional mitigation policies of the United States,” and the climateactiontracker.org web site, current U.S. policies, including the Clean Power Plan, would only reduce emissions by 9% below 2005 levels by 2025. A much more aggressive Clean Power Plan was being counted on, plus a whole host of "TBD" actions needed from President Obama’s successor. An excellent new analysis by the Rhodium Group predicts that Trump’s current executive orders and proposed budget will most likely result in a 14% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2025—far below the promised 26%-28% reduction of the Paris Climate Accord. The Rhodium Group’s worst-case scenario—if further efforts to weaken greenhouse gas regulations occur, such as a rollback of automobile emission standards for the 2022-2025 period—was a 9% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025; their best-case scenario was a 17% reduction. 


Figure 6. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions as projected in 2008 for a "business as usual" scenario (gray dotted line) and under the pledge made as part of the Paris Agreement (orange and green dotted lines). Image credit: Earth Institute/Columbia University.

Assault on methane emission rules  
Methane is also a major greenhouse gas, and Trump’s executive order directs efforts to reconsider and rewrite rules on methane emissions. This follows on the March 2, 2017, directive from the EPA to withdraw a 2016 Information Collection Request which directed existing oil and gas facilities to provide data needed to best reduce methane and other harmful emissions from the oil and natural gas industry. However, new methane rules will take years to rewrite and will have to suffer court challenges, and one state—California—voted on March 23 to approve new methane regulations that are the strictest ever adopted in the U.S.

More serious attacks on clean air and clean water likely coming  
Wunderground’s climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood, in a 2017 editorial in EOS, warns that, “Following Trump’s rhetoric, we must be prepared to face efforts aimed at weakening the Clean Air Act itself. Also in the crosshairs are many other environmental statutes passed in the 1970s, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. In terms of enduring impacts, weakening of these underlying statutes will be more consequential than scuttling the Clean Power Plan.” In an email to me, Dr. Rood said he believes that a rollback of auto-emission standards will ultimately end up being more consequential to air pollution and the climate than a rollback of the Clean Power Plan. This will be because market forces are making it likely that the power-generation industry will head towards renewable-energy sources, but market forces are not acting that way on the auto industry—external regulation is needed to force emission reductions. 

Links
The latest assault on climate science by House Republicans happens at 10 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, March 29, when the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology holds a 2-hour hearing titled, “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method.” The Republicans have called three witnesses: Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. John Christy, and Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., all of whom are unfriendly to climate science. The Democrats got to call one witness, Dr. Michael Mann of climate “hockeystick” fame. The hearing is being livestreamed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM86Bl4jSEI. The Democratic press team will be using the hashtags #defendscience and #ActonClimate during the hearing.

Brad Plumer of vox.com has an excellent explainer on Trump’s executive order.

Follow the Climate Deregulation Tracker website to monitor efforts undertaken by the Trump administration to scale back or wholly eliminate federal climate mitigation and adaptation measures. 

March Madness: Trump Proposes 31% Cut to EPA and Big Cuts to Climate Change Programs, my March 16 post

EPA Chief Denies Basic Climate Science, my March 10 post

Commentary
"Together we are going to start a new energy revolution," Trump said, upon signing Tuesday’s executive order. However, his order promotes dirty and deadly 19th Century coal technology, instead of clean 21st Century renewable energy solutions like wind and solar power, making his remarks sadly preposterous. The name of his order, the “Energy Independence Executive Order” is also preposterous, since the U.S. doesn’t import coal, and the stated primary aim of the new order is to revive the coal industry (coal miners were on hand for the signing ceremony). 

In his first speech to Congress, Trump promised that his administration would work to “promote clean air and clean water.” This promise has been exposed as a blatant falsehood by his executive orders and proposed budget, which move us sharply in the opposite direction. By itself, a U.S. failure to make its emission reduction targets of the Paris Climate Agreement will not doom the world to a dangerous rise in temperature above the 2  °C threshold. However, we’ll be lucky to hold global warming to an extremely dangerous 3°C above pre-industrial levels, even if all of the promises made by the 195 nations that signed the Paris Agreement are met. That agreement counted on strong additional actions and leadership by the biggest emitting nations to force additional cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Lack of inspirational American leadership, as glaringly evident in Mr. Trump’s latest executive order, will hurt global efforts to meet even the grossly inadequate goal of keeping global warming below 3 °C, increasing the odds that humanity will have to resort to desperate geoengineering efforts to keep climate mayhem from wrecking Earth as a livable planet for humans. We must resist and protest Trump’s assault on clean air and a livable climate as if our lives depend upon it—because they do.

Contact your House Representative
Contact your Senator

Jeff Masters
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/trumps-executive-order-threatens-to-wreck-earth-as-a-livable-planet

Trump Eyes EPA Visit To Announce Limits On Agency After Pruitt Sworn In

by Dawn Reeves, insideepa.com, February 14, 2017

President Donald Trump plans to visit EPA headquarters to sign executive orders (EOs) aimed at scaling back the agency's climate change and other work, but is waiting until after the expected confirmation and swearing in of agency Administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt, an administration source says.

The president will visit agency headquarters to conduct a ceremonial swearing in of Pruitt, the outgoing Oklahoma attorney general (AG), possibly as soon as next week depending on when the Senate confirms him. Democrats are expected to almost universally oppose him -- with the notable exception of Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) -- though barring any surprise GOP defections, he appears to have enough votes to be confirmed.

The administration source would not share the content or number of the EPA-related EOs, but did say they are intended to send a message that Pruitt is ready to get to work and that they could “suck the air out” of the room.

The source also says that one of the drafted EOs will be directed at the State Department rather than EPA, suggesting that it is related to U.S. participation in the international Paris Agreement or another global environmental issue.

The orders are expected to dramatically scale back the agency's climate change work, and could revoke former President Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan, which is an administration-wide blueprint that lays out regulatory and voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

Another order could direct EPA to begin the process of revoking the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and related new source performance standards to reduce power sector GHGs.

Pruitt Nomination

But it is unclear when Pruitt might get a Senate vote, leaving the timing of Trump's visit EPA uncertain. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that Pruitt is second in a queue of six Cabinet officials to move to the Senate floor this week.

First up is controversial White House Office of Management & Budget Director-nominee Mick Mulvaney. That process could take until the evening of February 16, assuming that Democrats use the full 30 hours of debate as they have for several previous Cabinet picks. That raises the question of whether senators would have enough time to vote on Pruitt before they leave for Congress' President's Day recess on February 17.

Also, Democrats on the Senate environment committee are urging McConnell to delay Pruitt's vote, saying senators should wait until after an Oklahoma court holds an “emergency” hearing on a suit seeking documents from his tenure as AG.

The administration source says Vice President Mike Pence intends to conduct a rapid-fire swearing in Feb. 17 of whichever nominees get through this week, and that Pruitt is currently expected to have his first day on the job at EPA Feb. 17. That day, he would sign an ethics recusal letter, set up his email accounts, and take care of other housekeeping tasks.

Pruitt is expected to seek to focus on traditional areas of EPA work, and is said to be most interested in looking first at the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act implementation, brownfields, and cooperative federalism, the source says.

As soon as the week of Feb. 20, Trump would then come to EPA to conduct the ceremonial swearing in and sign EPA-related EOs, the source says. The source adds that the White House could also change the plan.

Trump's Orders

The source says Trump's planned EPA visit is envisioned as similar to the president's Pentagon trip Jan. 27 after Defense Secretary James Mattis was formally sworn in on Jan. 20. At that visit, Trump signed his “extreme vetting” immigration EO, which has been stayed by federal courts, as well as a second order on military readiness.

Top Trump EPA transition team official Myron Ebell, who has since returned to the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Inside EPA Feb. 7 that he envisioned the repeal of EPA's climate programs would be presented as a package contained in an EO or several EOs. Those orders could, for example, tell EPA to reconsider its new and existing power plant GHG rules, rescind or forbid the use of the social cost of carbon as a measure of such rules' benefits, and announce a schedule for undoing the rest of the Climate Action Plan.

Ebell also expects an order telling EPA to reopen the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.

“I am not sure when in the pecking order” this comes for Trump, but “I expect to see something as a package,” he said.

Ebell added that he expects an effort to undo the GHG endangerment finding but not as part of the initial actions.

Another possible approach for Trump's EPA-related orders is contained in a four-part recommendation from a group of AGs and environmental regulators from 24 states to the Trump administration and the GOP-controlled Congress to withdraw the CPP and ensure that “similar or more extreme proposals never again take shape.”

The recommendations were in a Dec. 15 letter organized by West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey (R) and Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) that advised Trump to issue an EO on his first day in office rescinding Obama's memorandum that directed EPA to issue the CPP, and instruct the agency to “take no further action to enforce or implement the rule,” which is stayed and under court review.

Presidential Visits

Both Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, visited EPA once during their two terms. President Bill Clinton never visited the agency, though President George H. W. Bush did.

Obama visited EPA on Jan. 10, 2012, where he expressed appreciation for the vital work done by the staff, according to a White House transcript of his remarks. Obama pledged to stand by EPA and said, “I want you to know that you've got a president who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way as you carry out your mission to make sure that we've got a cleaner world.”

Bush visited EPA on May 23, 2005, to witness the swearing in of Administrator Stephen Johnson, in a bid to boost sagging agency morale at the time.

However, his visit only further undermined morale, agency sources said at the time, and was seen as further hampering Johnson's ability to push the administration's agenda within the agency. Johnson was the first career employee elevated to administrator. 

-- Dawn Reeves (dreeves@iwpnews.com)

https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-eyes-epa-visit-announce-limits-agency-after-pruitt-sworn

Our new CIA head Mike Pompeo, Tea Party, anti-Obamacare, rejects climate change (our biggest national security threat), and the list goes on

Dear Readers,

This wikipedia post is bound to be changed, so for the record, I am posting it here (although, perhaps, other sites will also have a copy).

Mike Pompeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mike Pompeo
Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyNominee
President	Donald Trump
Preceded by	Meroe Park (Acting)
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Kansas's 4th district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011
Preceded by	Todd Tiahrt
Personal details
Born	Michael Richard Pompeo December 30, 1963 (age 53) Orange, California, U.S.
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Susan Pompeo
Children	1
Education	United States Military Academy at West Point (BS) Harvard University (JD)
Website	House website
Military service
Allegiance	United States
Service/branch	United States Army
Years of service	1986–1991[1]
Rank	Captain[1]
Unit	2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division[2]
*Pending Senate confirmation

Michael Richard "Mike" Pompeo (born December 30, 1963) is an American politician who has been the U.S. Representative for Kansas's 4th congressional district since 2011. He is a member of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party.^[3][4] He was a Kansas representative on the Republican National Committee. On November 18, 2016, he was selected by President-elect Donald Trump to be Trump's nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.^[5]

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1Education, and early career
• 2Military service
• 3Business career
• 4U.S. House of Representatives
  • 4.1Elections
  • 4.2Committee assignments
• 5Nomination to be CIA Director
• 6Political positions
  • 6.1Abortion
  • 6.2Energy and environment
  • 6.3Firearms
  • 6.4Healthcare
  • 6.5Genetically modified foods
  • 6.6Government shutdown
  • 6.7Manufacturing
  • 6.8Military
  • 6.9National security
• 7References
• 8External links

Education, and early career[edit]

Pompeo was born in Orange, California, the son of Dorothy (née Mercer) and Wayne Pompeo.^[6][7] He attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point where he majored in Mechanical Engineering, graduating first in his class in 1986 and subsequently serving in the Regular Army as an Armor Branch cavalry officer from 1986 to 1991.^[8]He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then worked as a lawyer for Williams & Connolly.^[9]

Military service[edit]

This section of a biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (December 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

As a teenager, he enrolled at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He graduated first in his class from West Point in 1986.^[6] According to his official biography, he then served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall.^[10] He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division. He served his last tour in the Gulf War.

Business career[edit]

Pompeo founded Thayer Aerospace and Private Security.^[11] In 2006 he sold his interest in Thayer (which was renamed Nex-Tech Aerospace). He became the President of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment company.^[12]

U.S. House of Representatives[edit]

Elections[edit]

2010

Main article: United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2010 § District 4

In the 2010 Kansas Republican primary for the 4th District Congressional seat, Pompeo defeated State Senator Jean Schodorf (who received 24%), Wichita businessman Wink Hartman (who received 23%), and small business owner Jim Anderson (who received 13%). State Senator Dick Kelsey also ran for the nomination, but ended his campaign before the August primary and endorsed Pompeo.^[13][14][15] Late in the primary, Schodorf began to surge, prompting two outside groups—Americans for Prosperity and Common Sense Issues, an Ohio-based political group—to enter the race, spending tens of thousands of dollars in the final campaign days to attack Schodorf and support Pompeo.^[16]

In the general election, Pompeo defeated Democratic nominee State Representative Raj Goyle. Pompeo received 59% of the vote (117,171 votes), to 36% for Goyle (71,866).^[17]

During the campaign, Pompeo received $80,000 in donations from Koch Industries and its employees.^[18]

2012

See also: United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2012 § District 4

In his 2012 re-election bid, Pompeo defeated Democratic nominee Robert Tillman by a margin of 62%-32%.^[19]

2014

See also: United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2014 § District 4

Pompeo won the general election, defeating Democrat Perry Schuckman, with 66.7% of the vote.^[20]

2016

See also: United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2016 § District 4

Pompeo won the general election with 60.6% of the vote.^[21]

Committee assignments[edit]

Pompeo has been on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the following 3 subcommittees: the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and the Subcommittee on the CIA. He is also on the House Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.^[22]

Nomination to be CIA Director[edit]

On November 18, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he would nominate Pompeo to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.^[23]

Political positions[edit]

Pompeo speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.

Abortion[edit]

Pompeo is strongly opposed to abortion, except in cases when the mother's life is at risk.^[24]

Energy and environment[edit]

On May 9, 2013, Pompeo introduced the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act (H.R. 1900; 113th Congress).^[25]

The bill placed a 12-month deadline on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, requiring it to approve or reject any proposal for a natural gas pipeline within that timeframe.^[26] The bill passed the House along party lines but not voted on in the Senate.^[27]

Pompeo rejects many concepts about global warming.^[28] In 2013, he said, "There are scientists who think lots of different things about climate change. There's some who think we're warming, there's some who think we’re cooling, there's some who think that the last 16 years have shown a pretty stable climate environment."^[28]

Pompeo has referred to President Obama's environment and climate change plans as "damaging" and "radical".^[29] He opposes the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and supports eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas registry program.^[30] He has said that Obama's Clean Power Plan does not provide "any measurable environmental benefit."^[29]

He signed the Americans for Prosperity's No Climate Tax pledge.^[31] He has called for the elimination of wind power production tax credits, calling them an "enormous government handout".^[32] He predicted a new energy bill would cost millions of jobs and make the United States a net food importer.^{[33][clarification needed]}

Firearms[edit]

Pompeo is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, which has endorsed him.^[34]

Healthcare[edit]

Pompeo opposes the Affordable Care Act.^[35]

Genetically modified foods[edit]

Pompeo opposes requiring food suppliers to label food made with genetically modified organisms, and to that end in April 2014 introduced the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" to block states from requiring mandatory GMO food labeling.^[36]

Government shutdown[edit]

Pompeo supported the U.S. federal government shutdown of 2013, blaming President Obama while acknowledging that the Republican Party could take a hit from the shutdown. He stated that he believed the shutdown was necessary to avoid a predicted "American financial collapse 10 years from now."^[37]

In January 2014, Pompeo voted against a two-year budget deal drafted by Paul Ryan that would avert any government shutdown until 2015 and cut deficits by $23 billion.^[38]

Manufacturing[edit]

Pompeo introduced the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 into the House on May 7, 2013.

Military[edit]

Pompeo has been critical of President Obama, whom he repeatedly alleged was indecisive and not appropriately respectful of military leaders such as General McChrystal, who was forced to submit his resignation for having made negative comments about the president to Michael Hastings (1980 – 2013) from Rolling Stone magazine (The Runaway General). Pompeo accused the Obama of "unforgivably fail[ing] to provide the total commitment of our national means to our servicemen in the field."^[39]

National security[edit]

Pompeo speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C.

Pompeo supports the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, characterizing the agency's efforts as "good and important work."^[40] In March 2014, Pompeo denounced NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's inclusion in the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas, and called for Snowden's invitation to speak via telecast at the annual Texas event be withdrawn, lest it encourage "lawless behavior" among attendees.^[41] In February 2016, Pompeo said Snowden "should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence."^[42]

Pompeo has advocated for rolling back post-Snowden surveillance reforms, saying "Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed. That includes Presidential Policy Directive-28, which bestows privacy rights on foreigners and imposes burdensome requirements to justify data collection."^[43]

On July 21, 2015, Pompeo and Senator Tom Cotton alleged the existence of secret side agreements between Iran and the IAEA on procedures for inspection and verification of Iran's nuclear activities under the Iran nuclear deal. The Obama administration denied any clandestine or secret actions.^[44][45][46]

Administration officials acknowledge the existence of agreements between Iran and the IAEA governing the inspection of sensitive military sites, but deny the characterization that they are “secret side deals,” saying instead that they are standard practice in crafting arms-control pacts and that the Administration had provided the information on them that was at its disposal to Congress.^[45]

In a 2013 speech on the House floor, Pompeo said Muslim leaders who fail to denounce acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam are "potentially complicit" in the attacks.^[47] The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Pompeo to revise his remarks, calling them "false and irresponsible".^[48]

Pompeo opposes closing Guantánamo Bay detention camp.^[49] After a 2013 visit to the prison, Pompeo said, of the prisoners who were on hunger strike, "It looked to me like a lot of them had put on weight."^[50]

Pompeo has criticized the Obama administration's decision to end the CIA's secret prisons (so-called "black sites"), and the administration's requirement that all interrogators adhere to anti-torture laws.^[51]

References[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:^a b Staff (2011). "Once a Soldier... Always a Soldier" (PDF). Legislative Agenda. Association of the United States Army. Retrieved January 26, 2013.
2. Jump up^ "Biography – Congressman Mike Pompeo". house.gov.
3. Jump up^ Gehrke, Joel (August 7, 2014). "Tea-Party Power Endures". National Review. Retrieved 29 December 2016.
4. Jump up^ Senator Roberts survives Tea Party challenge, foxnews.com; accessed October 21, 2015.
5. Jump up^ "President-Elect Donald J. Trump Selects U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency" (Press release). New York, New York: Office of the President Elect and of the Vice President Elect. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b Jarlson, Gary (May 31, 1986). "Santa Ana Cadet Wins Top West Point Honor". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
7. Jump up^ Lee, Teresa (October 20, 2010). "Pompeo Visits Mother's Childhood Home". The Wellington Daily News. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
8. Jump up^ "Congressman Mike Pompeo". Retrieved October 21, 2015.
9. Jump up^ Lefler, Dion (2010-07-29). "Pompeo hopes varied background gives him edge". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
10. Jump up^ Kelly, Mary Louise (December 14, 2016). "For CIA Nominee Mike Pompeo, 'Not A Good Situation To Inherit'". National Public Radio. Retrieved 29 December 2016.
11. Jump up^ Wilson, Benet (2010-03-05). "Thayer Aerospace Founder Vies For Congress". Aviation Week. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
12. Jump up^ Mike Pompeo. "Congressman Mike Pompeo Biography". house.gov. Retrieved September 24, 2015.
13. Jump up^ Lefler, Dion; Ron Sylvester (2010-08-03). "Pompeo, Goyle to Meet in 4th District race". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved 2010-08-04. Republican National Committeeman Mike Pompeo survived a bruising GOP primary and Rep. Raj Goyle of Wichita steamrolled his Democratic opponent to set up the general election battle in the Kansas 4th Congressional District.
14. Jump up^ Miller, Tricia (2010-08-04). "Pompeo Likely To Replace Tiahrt". CQ Politics. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
15. Jump up^ D'Aprile, Shane (2010-08-04). "Pompeo wins GOP primary in Rep. Tiahrt's district". The Hill. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
16. Jump up^ "Pompeo, Goyle to meet in 4th District race". Wichita Eagle. August 3, 2010. Retrieved September 24, 2015.
17. Jump up^ "House Results Map". The New York Times. Retrieved September 24, 2015.
18. Jump up^ Eggen, Dan (March 20, 2011). "GOP freshman Pompeo turned to Koch for money for business, then politics". Washington Post. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
19. Jump up^ "Wichita attorney Dan Giroux announces challenge to Rep. Mike Pompeo". Retrieved July 24, 2016.
20. Jump up^ "Kansas Secretary of State 2014 General Election" (PDF). Kansas Secretary of State. November 4, 2014. Retrieved December 29, 2014.
21. Jump up^ "Official Vote Totals" (PDF). Kansas Secretary of State. p. 2. Retrieved December 1, 2016.
22. Jump up^ Lowry, Bryan (2014-05-09). "Rep. Mike Pompeo appointed to Benghazi investigation committee". Kansas.com. Retrieved 2016-07-24.
23. Jump up^ "President-Elect Donald J. Trump Selects U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency". President Elect Donald J. Trump. Retrieved November 18, 2016.
24. Jump up^ "Election 2012: Mike Pompeo". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
25. Jump up^ "H.R. 1900 – Summary". United States Congress. Retrieved November 21, 2013.
26. Jump up^ Kasperowicz, Pete (November 21, 2013). "Thursday:Pipelines in the House, amendment fight in the Senate". The Hill. Retrieved September 24, 2015.
27. Jump up^ "Congressional Bills and Votes H.R. 1900". The New York Times.
28. ^ Jump up to:^a b "Mike Pompeo on Washington Journal". C-SPAN.org. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
29. ^ Jump up to:^a b "Kansas starts working toward clean air plan that Pompeo wants to kill". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
30. Jump up^ "Mike Pompeo's Issue Positions". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
31. Jump up^ "Pledge Takers". NoClimateTax.com. Americans for Prosperity. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
32. Jump up^ Pompeo, Mike (September 30, 2012). "Rep. Mike Pompeo: Wind tax credit harms economy". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
33. Jump up^ "Pompeo predicts new energy bill would cost millions of jobs and make the United States a net food importer"^{[dead link]}, kansas.com; accessed September 24, 2015.
34. Jump up^ "National Rifle Association Endorses Pompeo". Pompeo for Congress. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
35. Jump up^ Pompeo, Mike (September 3, 2013). "The ObamaCare train wreck: Column". USA Today. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
36. Jump up^ Gillam, Carey (April 9, 2014). "U.S. bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states". Reuters. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
37. Jump up^ Wilson, Bill (October 2, 2013). "Pompeo: For the GOP, shutdown is now about reforming entitlement programs". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
38. Jump up^ "Key Votes by Mike Pompeo – U.S. Congress Votes Database – The Washington Post".
39. Jump up^ "Pompeo Responds to President's West Point Speech". Retrieved September 24, 2015.
40. Jump up^ Lefler, Dion (November 4, 2013). "NSA is doing 'important work', Pompeo tells Wichita State students". Retrieved April 9, 2014.
41. Jump up^ Drusch, Andrea (March 9, 2014). "SXSW 2014: Mike Pompeo wants Edward Snowden off the bill". Politico. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
42. Jump up^ "Lawmaker: 'Traitor' Snowden deserves death penalty". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
43. Jump up^ Jr, Mike Pompeo And David B. Rivkin (2016-01-03). "Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
44. Jump up^ Demirjian, Karoun. "'Secret deals' become latest congressional complaint about Iran deal".
45. ^ Jump up to:^a b Jordan Fabian and Kristina Wong. "White House launches Iran side deals counterattack".
46. Jump up^ Schulberg, Jessica. "John Kerry's Confident The IAEA Can Handle Iran, But Congress Isn't Buying It". Retrieved September 24, 2015.
47. Jump up^ Kasperowicz, Pete (June 11, 2013). "GOP lawmaker: US Muslim leaders 'complicit' in terrorist attacks". The Hill. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
48. Jump up^ "GOP lawmaker: US Muslim call Pompeo comments leaders "false and irresponsible"" (PDF). Council on American-Islamic Relations. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
49. Jump up^ "Senate debates Guantánamo in first hearing on closing prison since 2009". Associated Press. July 24, 2014. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
50. Jump up^ "GOP Rep: 'No crisis' at Gitmo, detainees 'have put on weight'". MSNBC. May 26, 2013. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
51. Jump up^ Davis, Julie Hirschfeld (2016-11-18). "Trump Turns to His Right Flank to Fill National Security Posts". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-11-19.