Rural climate skeptics are costing us time and money. Do we keep indulging them?
The recent announcement by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the government agency was putting a moratorium on the use of fossil fuels in federally-funded community development and agricultural programs was greeted with skepticism.
But this was merely the latest in a long list of policies and projects that rural climate advocates claim were unfairly funded — or at the very least, made with little or no regard to climate science.
While these projects may not be the biggest of government programs, they illustrate the serious impact the skeptics have on projects that benefit rural communities. And, with the ongoing debate concerning how to transition the US to 100% renewable energy, the skeptics are also contributing to the fossil fuel industry’s ongoing campaign to undermine the Clean Air Act.
In the US, there are over 200 federally funded environmental projects aimed at cleaning up contaminated sites, restoring water resources, and increasing land productivity within rural communities all across the country.
But in recent years, rural climate skeptics have been putting their weight behind numerous climate change deniers’ campaigns — including efforts to block new EPA air pollution regulations, to deny the reality of climate change, and to undermine the authority of federal science.
In 2018, for example, the Sierra Club and other activists launched an aggressive campaign to put a halt to new air pollution rules proposed by the EPA and signed off by the US Supreme Court.
The Sierra Club’s action was triggered by the EPA’s rule that would limit particulate matter (PM) pollution from power plants to 5 micrograms per cubic meter (or 5 “micrograms per day”). The group argued that the proposed rule was flawed and that the EPA did not adequately evaluate the health threats, cost-effectiveness, or the scientific evidence on human health risks from PM.
They also warned that the proposed rules would force many rural communities to continue burning wood-firing wood boilers, instead of using cleaner and less expensive alternatives.
But this campaign was backed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other organizations with a
