Jewell, S

<h1 class="title-news"></h1><div> =<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29122017/wyoming-powder-river-basin-coal-subsidies-climate-change-oil-gas-trump">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29122017/wyoming-powder-river-basin-coal-subsidies-climate-change-oil-gas-trump</a>end of choke hold series, no many linksHow Federal Giveaways to Big Coal Leave Ranchers and Taxpayers Out in the ColdShort cuts, subsidies and tax breaks helped create 7,000 jobs in the Powder River Basin. Damage to water, air and land is part of the price borne by the public, too.
By Neela Banerjee, Robert McClureDEC 29, 2017This story was also published on WyoFile.On the morning after the autumn's first snow, L.J. Turner looked out over a creek near his house that reliably watered his family's livestock for more than 70 years. A third-generation Wyoming rancher, Turner remembered hunting rabbits there amid lush marsh grasses and high cottonwood trees when he was a boy in the 1950s.Then the nation's three largest coal mines began to dig in downhill from his 10,000-acre ranch. To get to the coal, they blasted through and drained the region's aquifers. The marsh grasses vanished. The creek began to recede and eventually ran dry, as did a well Turner dug to feed a livestock watering trough.  As the mines grew and oil and gas wells came, Turner lost not only his ranch's abundant water, but also 6,000 acres he once leased as grazing land—scraped away to reach the coal. Now his cattle herd is half what it was, calves near the coal mines die at alarming rates, and he has had to spend thousands of dollars drilling deeper and deeper wells, eating into an already reduced income."You can't really do a whole lot about this as an individual, and there's not a reason or a lot of benefit to sitting there and beating your head against the wall," said Turner, who sued the state unsuccessfully over the loss of water. "It's just, you have to change."Over the last 40 years, Turner and some of his neighbors have paid a heavy price for the development of energy resources beneath the sagebrush-studded high plains where he lives in the Powder River Basin, a West Virginia-sized swath straddling Montana and Wyoming. The wave of fossil fuel extraction brought jobs and money. It also depleted aquifers that allowed people to live and ranch here for generations, devoured thousands of rural acres, and worsened air quality.American taxpayers everywhere have paid heavily, too. The federal government owns most of the coal, oil and gas in the ground here. And it has fostered mining and drilling through a host of subsidies, including tax breaks, cheap leases and low royalties that permit fossil fuel corporations to privatize the benefits while socializing many of the costs. Corporations have been able to lease federal coal at $1 a ton or less, use loopholes to halve official royalty rates, and take risks that could push the costs of land reclamation onto taxpayers. Direct fossil fuel subsidies by the federal government amount to about $10 billion annually in tax breaks and deductions, according to a conservative estimate by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group. Oil and gas companies, for instance, can deduct the bulk of a well's drilling costs in the year they are incurred, as opposed to writing off the capital expenditures over many years as other industries do. That deduction cost taxpayers almost $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2015, and "distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and natural gas industry," according to the Treasury Department.Tallies of direct subsidies don't include the hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues from undervalued leases and royalty rates. They also don't account for billions taxpayers shell out to clean up after fossil fuel extraction or the resulting damage to human health and the environment from climate change.After calculating all the effects, the International Monetary Fund estimated that governments worldwide pay more than $5.3 trillion annually to support the burning of fossil fuels. The United States is the second-most prolific fossil fuel subsidizer, behind China, according to the 2017 study."We're a century and a half into coal and oil. These are not fledgling industries," said Dan Bucks, former director of the Montana Department of Revenue and a consultant on tax and conservation issues. "We're subsidizing fuels with enormous environmental costs especially climate change, and it can't be justified when we know we can supply our energy needs by other means."The subsidies slow the natural transition to a more competitive and environmentally sound energy future," Bucks added.
Choke HoldIndustry spends considerable amounts to hold on to this taxpayer support, part of a multi-pronged strategy it deploys across courtrooms, legislatures, news media and in Congress to preserve its bottom line. During the 2016 federal election cycle, fossil fuel companies laid out $354 million in campaign donations and lobbying, according to a report by the climate watchdog group Oil Change International. Over the same period, the industry enjoyed $29.4 billion in direct and indirect federal and state subsidies, the group estimated.Many fossil fuel projects would likely have gone ahead even without the tax and royalty breaks. But reducing the number and forcing companies to pay for the impact on air, water, land and the climate would shrink fossil fuel extraction markedly, analysts said.If coal mining in the Powder River Basin had gone slower or been less widespread, things could have ended up differently for the Turners."There are significant external costs that companies don't pay for, and if they had to pay for them, we would have a lot less coal production" in the Powder River Basin, said Mark Squillace, director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School. "And there's no doubt that if you had less coal development there, you would have less aquifer depletion."The government has long subsidized industries to foster their growth. Renewable energy gets tax breaks—but their cost to taxpayers to date is smaller than for fossil fuels and they're written to sunset in the future. Fossil fuel supports have lasted for decades, with two oil subsidies about a century old.In 2009, President Barack Obama pledged to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020, citing a need to keep more fossil fuels in the ground and avoid the worst damage from climate change. The Republican-led Congress took no action on Obama's budget requests to end them. In his last year in office, the Interior Department suspended new federal coal leases in order to overhaul the program so it better reflects environmental costs and boosts revenue.The Trump administration reversed those efforts, part of the president's deregulatory agenda aimed at maximizing production of coal, oil and natural gas while backing away from climate policy. The tax bill signed by Trump this month preserves the subsidies enjoyed by industry. "We've ended the war on beautiful, clean coal," Trump declared recently.   
Free Land in Coal Country but With a CatchAfter fighting in World War I, L.J. Turner's father sold the family farm in Missouri and moved a thousand miles to become a rancher in Wyoming. There he got a subsidy of his own. The federal government gave the Turner family land for free under the Homestead Act, passed during the Civil War to encourage westward expansion. When the family was picking acreage, locals advised them, "Be sure you get the big spring there, 'cause it's absolutely foolproof water" for livestock, L.J. Turner said, recalling the stories he was told.  As coal mines grew and oil and gas wells came to the Powder River Basin, L.J. Turner lost his ranch’s abundant water as well as thousands of acres he once leased as grazing land. But there was a catch: A few years before the Turners arrived, Congress changed the terms of the Homestead Act so that the federal government would retain ownership of minerals beneath the land it was deeding to settlers. It was a move that would come to benefit today's corporations immensely.Mining federal coal in the Mountain West began in spurts in the 19th century to feed the railroads, but coal leasing accelerated in the 1970s to meet demands of utilities that needed more fuel to support booming manufacturing. The 1973 Arab oil embargo added urgency.At the time, environmental activists, empowered by the Federal Lands and Management Policy Act of 1976, were pushing for opening more public lands to uses other than resource extraction and for better planning. Even supporters of resource extraction wanted competitive bids and better royalty rates so that taxpayers would be paid a fair price for the fossil fuels they own.But "the urgency to mine coal ended up winning out," said Bucks, who served on a U.S. Commerce Department commission in the 1970s that studied the consequences of coal mining in Wyoming and Montana. "Land management was complex, the science evolving. That's a long-term endeavor, while the energy need was immediate."The rush to mine had its biggest impact on the Powder River Basin. In 1977, the Black Thunder mine opened about 20 miles east of the Turners' home. Five years later came the Antelope Mine, now owned by Cloud Peak Energy, about 15 miles to the southeast. Eventually, between those two projects, Peabody Energy built the largest surface coal mine in the world, the North Antelope Rochelle mine.By 2002, the Powder River Basin had become the country's largest coal-producing region. Today it produces 40 percent of all the coal burned in the United States and accounts for more than 10 percent of the country's annual greenhouse gas emissions.The coal boom employed 7,000 people in Wyoming at its employment peak in 2011. By 2016, that number had fallen to fewer than 5,700, as demand for coal slowed considerably under competitive pressure from cheaper natural gas and renewable sources and the weight of federal regulations.Even with the industry in decline, the government continues to support the coal companies in the Powder River Basin and elsewhere by offering short cuts, subsidies and tax breaks at nearly every step of the mining process.
America's Declining Coal IndustryTaxpayer Coal for Sale at $1 a Ton—or LessSince coal mining took off there 40 years ago, investigations by federal agencies and independent analysts have repeatedly shown that the leasing process shortchanges taxpayers. The first two coal leases sold in 1982 "were legally suspect and publicly criticized for not receiving fair market value," leading to a major Congressional inquiry, Squillace wrote in a 2013 law journal article.In 1990, the Interior Department under Pres. George H.W. Bush rescinded the Powder River Basin's status as a federal coal-producing region for reasons that remain unclear. The move loosened coal leasing restrictions. Rather than Interior deciding where, when and how much coal should be mined, those decisions fell to industry.U.S. taxpayers have lost billions of dollars in revenue over decades from undervalued coal lease sales and royalty payments that benefit coal companies. investigations by federal agencies and independent analysts have shown. One enduring effect of this has been to make noncompetitive lease sales the norm. A corporation will pick a tract of coal to expand an existing mine and petition Interior to lease it. These parcels are too small to be standalone mines that would otherwise invite competitors, Squillace said. So when the coal lease is put up for sale, there's usually only a single bidder, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2013.In a survey of 107 leased parcels, 96 of them, or 90 percent, went to a sole bidder, almost always a company seeking to expand an existing mine, the report found.This lack of competition means rock-bottom rates and sparse returns to taxpayers. Over the years, the federal government has sold leases in the Powder River Basin for about $1.00 per ton of coal or less. The market price of Powder River Basin coal is about $12.00 a ton, according to the Energy Information Administration.Besides the lack of competition, leases are so cheap because the Interior Department itself sets the initial price for a coal tract at far below market value. The process for calculating a lease's value is confidential, but separate studies by the Interior Department's Inspector General and the GAO determined the process is flawed. It fails to account for growing overseas demand and other market forces, and deprives taxpayers of millions of dollars annually. ...n investigation by Reuters estimated that industry used the loophole created by captive transactions to pay at least $40 million less in royalties in 2011 alone. Even the Wyoming state auditor recommended stricter federal control over captive transactions among affiliates of a single mining corporation because it had determined that such sales "are highly susceptible to manipulation."Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, did not answer questions about criticisms of the federal leasing programs, calling the queries "tendentious." He said that coal corporations paid fees "actually above market rates," and that Obama's Interior secretary "concluded no major reform" of the federal coal leasing program was warranted.In fact, after years of reports critical of federal coal leasing, including by the Interior Department's Inspector General, the Obama administration undertook a sweeping review of the program. In January 2016, the Interior Department under Secretary Sally Jewell paused the sale of new coal leases during this review. In mid-2016, the administration reformed the royalty rule to close the captive transaction loophole, requiring that royalties be assessed on the first sale to an unaffiliated entity.Just before Trump took office in January 2017, Jewell released the results of the coal leasing review. "Based on the thoughtful input we received through this extensive review, there is a need to modernize the federal coal program," she stated. "We have a responsibility to ensure the public...get a fair return from the sale of America's coal, operate the program efficiently and in a way that meets the needs of our neighbors in coal communities, and minimize the impact coal production has on the planet that our children and grandchildren will inherit."
Ryan ZinkeJewell's successor, Ryan Zinke, reversed those steps: The results from the review of coal leasing were discarded, the moratorium lifted and the proposed royalty rule rescinded, tilting the system back once more to industry.Heather Swift, an Interior Department spokeswoman, declined to answer questions about why Zinke overturned Obama-era steps to reform coal leasing. She pointed out that in making its decision the Interior had revived the dormant Royalty Policy Committee to advise Zinke. Nearly all the committee members are from fossil fuel extraction states and industries. There are no local environmentalists, consumer advocates or tax specialists among the representatives.
Cleaning Up After Fossil FuelsFossil fuel extraction tears up the land, even when there are no spills or accidents. Forests and prairie get peeled away for mines, well pads, roads and more. Once corporations are finished, they are supposed to restore what they disrupted to a semblance of its previous state. And they are required to post bonds with state and federal authorities, as a form of insurance to pay for restoration—even if they go bankrupt.The country's largest coal companies often use the option of self-bonding, which allows them to operate without posting any actual cash or collateral, essentially offering their promise that they will pay fully to restore an area once the mine has closed.Self-bonding rests on the assumption that the corporations are too big and stable to go bankrupt. Yet by 2016, $2.4 billion of the $3.86 billion in outstanding self-bonding obligations nationwide were held by companies that had filed for bankruptcy in recent years, including Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal and Peabody. Critics are concerned that taxpayers could be on the hook for reclaiming their old mines if coal sales continue to decline.</div>

<p style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"> ===

When the federal government introduced stronger standards for fracking on public lands earlier this month, the oil and gas industry was quick to file lawsuits. On Thursday, the state of Wyoming joined the fray.

Claiming that the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/20/3637106/republicans-freaking-on-fracking-rules/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) set of rules</a> released last week “unlawfully interferes” with the state’s existing fracking regulations, Wyoming filed a suit Thursday against the U.S. Department of the Interior, Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM, requesting judicial review of the rules.

In the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_4EQ9PebvQIaVFaZkFKN2dPZWM/view" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">lawsuit</a>, Wyoming claims that BLM cannot put these restrictions on fracking because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has “exclusive authority” to regulate any underground injections under the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974.

<p style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.4em 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">However, under the so-called “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/24/3584055/fracking-with-benzene/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Halliburton Loophole</a>,” added to the SWDA in 2003, fracking activities are specifically excluded from the definition of underground injections, unless diesel fuel is being used — which is fairly uncommon.

“It appears the state just has it wrong legally,” Mike Freeman, an attorney with Earth Justice told ThinkProgress. “Wyoming’s petition actually cites the definition of underground injection that excludes fracking.”

The new BLM rules require oil and gas companies to disclose all the chemicals used while fracking on protected lands. During the fracking process, a liquid, usually water, is mixed with chemicals and injected into shale, releasing pockets of natural gas or oil. The water generally cannot be recycled and is toxic after use. Under the new rules, companies will be prohibited from storing fracking wastewater in open pits on national public land and required to periodically test the integrity of every well to help prevent pollution.

Two oil and gas industry groups, Independent Petroleum Association for America and the Western Energy Alliance, have <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/236429-drillers-file-lawsuit-to-challenge-fracking-rules" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">also filed</a> a lawsuit against BLM on similar overreach grounds, saying that the “final rule as issued is contrary to law.” North Dakota is also<a href="http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/03/25/north-dakota-might-challenge-new-federal-fracking-rule/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">reportedly</a> considering a lawsuit. Both Wyoming and North Dakota have experienced an oil and gas boom in recent years.

BLM manages <a href="http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">more than 17.5 million</a> acres of public lands in Wyoming, and also has the mineral rights to another 40.7 million acres in the state. In 2013, the most recent year data has been released, 620 new oil and gas wells were started in the state. According to that data, more than <a href="http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls13/pls2013.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">7 million acres of public land</a> in Wyoming are currently under lease by oil and gas developers.

The BLM’s new rules apply only to oil and gas extraction on federally managed land. As of 2013, the United States managed 247 million acres of public land and had another 700 million acres of mineral rights. Some in Congress want that to change, though. A nonbinding amendment introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) would support state efforts to sell public lands, including national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments. The amendment, which would require further legislation in order to become law, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/26/3639683/senate-sell-off-public-lands/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">passed</a> the Senate on Thursday. The amendment echoes <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/16/3633814/gop-budget-public-lands/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">similar</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/10/3458798/ted-cruz-auction-off-public-lands/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">proposals</a> made by House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz (R-TX).

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/bureau-of-land-management/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Bureau of Land Management</a></li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/dept-of-the-interior/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Dept. of the Interior</a></li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/fracking/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Fracking</a></li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/lawsuits/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Lawsuits</a></li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/wyoming/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Wyoming</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<p class="title-news" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">===

==

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/fracking-public-land-rule_n_6910922.html

The Department of Interior <a href="http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.Par.6134.File.tmp/HF-Final-Agency-Draft.pdf" target="_hplink" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">released new rules</a> for hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on public lands in the United States on Friday, the first significant update to the regulations in three decades.

"Decades-old regulations don't take into account current technology for hydraulic fracturing," said Interior Sec. Sally Jewell in a call with reporters Friday. The new rules will require companies drilling on public lands to disclose the chemicals they are using to the Bureau of Land Management, will set higher standards for the storage of wastewater from the fracking process, and will require validation of well integrity.

There are 100,000 oil and gas wells on public lands across the U.S., according to the department, and 90 percent of those in operation use hydraulic fracturing, a process that uses a high-pressure stream of water, sand and chemicals to tap into oil and gas reserves. Friday's final rule applies only to development on public lands, however, not to the much more prolific development of state and private land. The Bureau of Land Management oversees 756 million acres of public land across the country....

must disclose chems

==

<h1 class="title-news" style="">Interior Secretary Sally Jewell wants to get rid of any climate change denial at the agency, telling her employees this week that if they doubt the existence of manmade global warming, they need to visit some federal lands to see the proof.</h1>

"I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior," Jewell <a href="http://www.eenews.net/login?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eenews.net%2Feenewspm%2F2013%2F07%2F31%2Fstories%2F1059985419" target="_hplink">said Wednesday</a>.

E&E News reported that Jewell invited any individuals who still hold such views to see the melting permafrost in Alaska or the disappearing snowpacks in the Sierra Mountains.

"If you don't believe in it, come out into the resources," she added.

Jewell, the former CEO of Recreation Equipment Inc., took over at the Interior Department in April.

In late June, President Barack Obama used his executive authority to issue a number of measures <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3497151.html" target="_hplink">aimed at curbing climate change</a>.

The Interior Department will be responsible for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3497151.html" target="_hplink">issuing permits for 10 gigawatts of renewables</a> on public lands by the end of the year.

"You and I can actually do something about it," Jewell said, <a href="http://www.eenews.net/login?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eenews.net%2Feenewspm%2F2013%2F07%2F31%2Fstories%2F1059985419" target="_hplink">according to E&E</a>. "That's a privilege, and I would argue it's a moral imperative."

Jewell's comments have <a href="http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/0813/morningenergy11307.html" target="hplink">drawn criticism from climate skeptic blogs</a>, with Marlo Lewis at GlobalWarming.org writing, "Such moralizing would be funny were it not for the <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/07/31/climate-change-deniers-not-welcome-at-interior-secy-jewell/" target="hplink">chilling effect</a> it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think."

eg

JEWELL COMMENT DRAWS SCORN: Interior Secretary Sally Jewell's remark to agency employees yesterday that she hopes "there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior" quickly drew scorn on several climate skeptic blogs. Junk Science simply called it “Scientific Cleansing” in the headline of a short post (<a href="http://bit.ly/13AOwkN" target="blank">http://bit.ly/13AOwkN</a>).GlobalWarming.org's Marlo Lewis went further, with a long piece criticizing Jewell's comment. “Such moralizing would be funny were it not for the chilling effect it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think. … Only a few months on the job and Jewell already behaves like a self-righteous bully. A good swift dose of congressional oversight is in order. It might just keep the thought police from harassing climate dissenters at DOI.” More: <a href="http://bit.ly/18NZZ5U" target="blank">http://bit.ly/18NZZ5U</a>

<h1 class="title-news" style="">Sally Jewell's Energy Strategy: Interior Secretary Nominee Pledges Balanced Approach</h1>

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's nominee for Interior secretary is pledging a balanced approach to energy that would expand and diversify production on public lands while preserving protection on certain land and water.

Recreational Equipment Inc. president and chief executive Sally Jewell tells a Senate committee she supports Obama's "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that embraces fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, as well as renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Jewell says Thursday she'll work to achieve Obama's goal of doubling renewable electricity generation by 2020 and says she'd use Interior's scientific resources to combat climate change.

Obama nominated Jewell last month to replace outgoing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is stepping down this spring.

but fracking rules loose

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/fracking/four-examples-last-week-prove-obama-full-hot-air-climate-protection" style="">http://www.alternet.org/print/fracking/four-examples-last-week-prove-obama-full-hot-air-climate-protection</a>

</div>