Nov 10: A new EPA study shows concentrations of toxic chemicals in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs in nearly all 50 U.S. states. For the first time, EPA is able to estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs nationwide that have fish containing potentially harmful levels of chemicals such as mercury and PCBs. Peter Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water said, “These results reinforce Administrator Jackson’s strong call for revitalized protection of our nation’s waterways and long-overdue action to protect the American people. EPA is aggressively tackling the issues the report highlights. Before the results were even finalized, the agency initiated efforts to further reduce toxic mercury pollution and strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act – all part of a renewed effort to protect the nation’s health and environment.”
The data showed mercury concentrations in game fish exceeding EPA’s recommended levels at 49 percent of lakes and reservoirs nationwide, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in game fish at levels of potential concern at 17 percent of lakes and reservoirs. These findings are based on a comprehensive national study using more data on levels of contamination in fish tissue than any previous study. EPA said that burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, accounts for nearly half of mercury air emissions caused by human activity in the U.S., and those emissions are a significant contributor to mercury in water bodies. From 1990 through 2005, emissions of mercury into the air decreased by 58 percent. EPA is committed to developing a new rule to substantially reduce mercury emissions from power plants, and the Obama Administration is actively supporting a new international agreement that will reduce mercury emissions worldwide.
The study also confirms the widespread occurrence of PCBs and dioxins in fish, illustrating the need for federal, state and local government to continue efforts to reduce the presence of these harmful chemicals in our lakes and reservoirs and ensure that fish advisory information is readily available. EPA said it is important that women of child-bearing age and children continue to follow the advice of EPA and the Food and Drug Administration on fish consumption as it relates to mercury. The study is also a strong message to state and local governments to redouble their efforts in looking for opportunities to reduce mercury discharges, as well as developing fish advisories, especially to reach those in sensitive and vulnerable populations.
Results from the four-year National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue show that mercury and PCBs are widely distributed in U.S. lakes and reservoirs. Mercury and PCBs were detected in all of the fish samples collected from the nationally representative sample of 500 lakes and reservoirs in the study. Because these findings apply to fish caught in lakes and reservoirs, it is particularly important for recreational and subsistence fishers to follow their state and local fish advisories.
EPA said it is conducting other statistically based national aquatic surveys that include assessment of fish contamination, such as the National Rivers and Streams Assessment and the National Coastal Assessment. Sampling for the National Rivers and Streams Assessment is underway, and results from this two-year study are expected to be available in 2011. Collection of fish samples for the National Coastal Assessment will begin in 2010.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's National Lake Fish Tissue Study website for complete information (click here). Access more information on local fish advisories (click here).
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
House Passes Chemical & Water Security Act (H.R. 2868)
Nov 6: The House of Representatives passed by a vote of 230 to 193 the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868) [See WIMS 10/23/09]. According to a release from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill strengthens security at America's chemical plants and drinking water and wastewater facilities by establishing risk-based and reasonable security standards for these critical assets. H.R. 2868 reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which is slated to expire October 2010, and improves the program in many ways. It also authorizes U.S. EPA to establish similar security programs for drinking water and wastewater facilities.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, "I am pleased that the House has acted to close the critical security gap at drinking water facilities and to strengthen security requirements for chemical facilities. The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 will reduce the risk that chemicals used by our own chemical facilities are turned against us through terrorist attack and other intentional acts. This bill will make our country safer."
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee said, "Today the House took decisive action to secure our nation's chemical plants and drinking water facilities from a potential terrorist attack. This bill will help shore up a potential vulnerability in our defenses, as the same chemicals that help purify our water and make the microchips used in our computers could potentially be turned into weapons of mass destruction. The bill contains language that I have championed for five years that provides authority to require the riskiest facilities to use safer chemicals or processes when they are technologically and economically feasible. This is central to protecting the millions of Americans that live near these facilities -- since terrorists cannot blow up what is no longer there."
According to a summary from the Committee, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009: (1) Makes the DHS CFATS program permanent. The legislation strengthens the chemical security program by requiring the review and, in some cases, the implementation of safer technologies, adding enforcement tools, and protecting the right of workers to participate in developing and implementing chemical facility security plans. (2) Authorizes EPA to create a risk-based, performance-based program for the water sector similar to the one established by DHS for chemical plants. This gives effect to the regulatory approach that the Obama Administration supports. (3) Requires the riskiest chemical facilities, drinking water facilities, and water treatment works to assess and, when appropriate, implement methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack (also known as inherently safer technologies [ISTs]). (4) Strengthens the enforcement of the CFATS program by allowing citizens to bring suit against the Secretary of DHS for failure to perform non-discretionary obligations.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO, Cal Dooley, released a statement saying, “The legislation approved by the House today is an important step toward building upon the ongoing success of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) by making them permanent. While ACC is unable to endorse the bill due primarily to concerns over the potential impact of the authority granted to DHS to mandate the implementation of IST, we appreciate the efforts by both the House Energy & Commerce and Homeland Security Committee to seek our input to improve the legislation. Specifically, we were encouraged by changes that ensure proper protections for sensitive information and a civil lawsuit provision that bolsters oversight while still protecting private companies from frivolous lawsuits.
“We look forward to working with Senate in the same spirit to pass legislation that takes an aggressive but smart approach to regulating chemical security and ensures DHS has the resources to help us protect our facilities, our employees, the communities in which we operate, and the vital products we supply everyday to the nation.”
Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace USA indicated, “Although it’s a compromise, this bill represents a historic first step toward protecting the 100 million Americans living in the shadow of high-risk chemical plants. Attempts by House Republicans to weaken the legislation were voted down. “The day after a terrorist attack at a chemical plant kills thousands of Americans, any suggestion that we should not require the use of safer chemicals at these plants will be considered totally crazy. Republicans should have been offering amendments to strengthen this modest legislation instead of trying to cripple it.”
Greenpeace cited the recent announcement from the Clorox Company which indicated it plans to convert all of their U.S. facilities from ultra-hazardous chlorine gas to liquid bleach to “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,” according to their CEO Don Knauss. Clorox also indicated that these changes “won’t affect the size of the company’s workforce." Hind from Greenpeace added, “by leading the way in eliminating the potential consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident, Clorox provided Congress with compelling new evidence to enact chemical plant security legislation.”
Access a release from the Energy & Commerce Committee and link to the bill text (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2868 including the roll call vote (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access the ACC position and more on ISTs (click here). Access a lengthy release from Greenpeace (click here).
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, "I am pleased that the House has acted to close the critical security gap at drinking water facilities and to strengthen security requirements for chemical facilities. The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 will reduce the risk that chemicals used by our own chemical facilities are turned against us through terrorist attack and other intentional acts. This bill will make our country safer."
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee said, "Today the House took decisive action to secure our nation's chemical plants and drinking water facilities from a potential terrorist attack. This bill will help shore up a potential vulnerability in our defenses, as the same chemicals that help purify our water and make the microchips used in our computers could potentially be turned into weapons of mass destruction. The bill contains language that I have championed for five years that provides authority to require the riskiest facilities to use safer chemicals or processes when they are technologically and economically feasible. This is central to protecting the millions of Americans that live near these facilities -- since terrorists cannot blow up what is no longer there."
According to a summary from the Committee, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009: (1) Makes the DHS CFATS program permanent. The legislation strengthens the chemical security program by requiring the review and, in some cases, the implementation of safer technologies, adding enforcement tools, and protecting the right of workers to participate in developing and implementing chemical facility security plans. (2) Authorizes EPA to create a risk-based, performance-based program for the water sector similar to the one established by DHS for chemical plants. This gives effect to the regulatory approach that the Obama Administration supports. (3) Requires the riskiest chemical facilities, drinking water facilities, and water treatment works to assess and, when appropriate, implement methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack (also known as inherently safer technologies [ISTs]). (4) Strengthens the enforcement of the CFATS program by allowing citizens to bring suit against the Secretary of DHS for failure to perform non-discretionary obligations.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO, Cal Dooley, released a statement saying, “The legislation approved by the House today is an important step toward building upon the ongoing success of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) by making them permanent. While ACC is unable to endorse the bill due primarily to concerns over the potential impact of the authority granted to DHS to mandate the implementation of IST, we appreciate the efforts by both the House Energy & Commerce and Homeland Security Committee to seek our input to improve the legislation. Specifically, we were encouraged by changes that ensure proper protections for sensitive information and a civil lawsuit provision that bolsters oversight while still protecting private companies from frivolous lawsuits.
“We look forward to working with Senate in the same spirit to pass legislation that takes an aggressive but smart approach to regulating chemical security and ensures DHS has the resources to help us protect our facilities, our employees, the communities in which we operate, and the vital products we supply everyday to the nation.”
Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace USA indicated, “Although it’s a compromise, this bill represents a historic first step toward protecting the 100 million Americans living in the shadow of high-risk chemical plants. Attempts by House Republicans to weaken the legislation were voted down. “The day after a terrorist attack at a chemical plant kills thousands of Americans, any suggestion that we should not require the use of safer chemicals at these plants will be considered totally crazy. Republicans should have been offering amendments to strengthen this modest legislation instead of trying to cripple it.”
Greenpeace cited the recent announcement from the Clorox Company which indicated it plans to convert all of their U.S. facilities from ultra-hazardous chlorine gas to liquid bleach to “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,” according to their CEO Don Knauss. Clorox also indicated that these changes “won’t affect the size of the company’s workforce." Hind from Greenpeace added, “by leading the way in eliminating the potential consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident, Clorox provided Congress with compelling new evidence to enact chemical plant security legislation.”
Access a release from the Energy & Commerce Committee and link to the bill text (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2868 including the roll call vote (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access the ACC position and more on ISTs (click here). Access a lengthy release from Greenpeace (click here).
Friday, November 06, 2009
Barcelona UNFCCC Climate Change Talks Breakdown
Nov. 6: The last negotiating session before the historic UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in December concluded Friday in Barcelona, Spain. More than 4,500 participants, including delegates from 181 countries, took part in the Barcelona UN Climate Change Talks. The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will take place from December 7 to 18.
Based on contentious discussion in Barcelona and what appears to be a deepening of division between developing and developed countries; it now seems impossible that any legally binding agreement will be reached in Copenhagen. If that is the case, then the question turns to whether some alternative process to resolve major differences can be agreed to; or whether the differences, trust, goodwill and confidence of the parties may be so broken that even an agreement to proceed will be difficult.
Speaking at a press conference in Barcelona, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer reiterated that Copenhagen must result in a strong international climate change deal. He said, “Copenhagen can and must be the turning point in the international fight against climate change -- nothing has changed my confidence in that. A powerful combination of commitment and compromise can and must make this happen."
De Boer said in terms of specific he cited, progress on adaptation, technology cooperation, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and mechanisms to disburse funds for developing countries was made in Barcelona. He said, “It is essential that practical action is swiftly implemented after Copenhagen to assist developing countries in their fight against climate change.”
However, de Boer indicated little progress was made on the two key issues of mid-term emission reduction targets of developed countries and finance that would allow developing countries to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. He said, “Without these two pieces of the puzzle in place, we will not have a deal in Copenhagen. So leadership at the highest level is required to unlock the pieces."
He reminded that at a summit in New York earlier this year, heads of state and government pledged to clinch a deal in Copenhagen that provides clarity on: ambitious emission reduction targets of industrialized countries; nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries with the necessary support; significantly scaled-up financial and technological resources and an equitable governance structure for these resources. De Boer said, “I look to industrialized countries to raise their ambitions to meet the scale of the challenge we face. And I look to industrialized nations for clarity on the amount of short and long-term finance they will commit.”
According to de Boer, developed countries would need to provide fast-track funding on the order of at least $10 billion USD to enable developing countries to immediately develop low emission growth and adaptation strategies and to build internal capacity.
At the same time, developed countries will need to indicate how they intend to raise predictable and sustainable long-term financing and what there longer-term commitments will be.
De Boer also reminded that according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020 in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change, with global emissions falling by at least 50% by 2050. Even under this scenario, there would be an only a 50% chance of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences. He concluded, “Negotiators must deliver a final text at Copenhagen which presents a strong, functioning architecture to kick start rapid action in the developing world. And between now and Copenhagen, governments must deliver the clarity required to help the negotiators complete their work.”
The U.S. appeared to take a much stronger position as evidenced by the press conference of Jonathan Pershing , Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change at the conclusion of the Barcelona meetings. Pershing reiterated that the U.S. interested in "strongest possible agreement." However, indicated frustration with developing countries who he said want the U.S. to agree to a fixed dollar amount of assistance and fixed emission reduction targets; yet, they (developing countries) do not want to make reasonable commitments on their part.
Pershing said, "We are looking for parallelism not imbalance;" meaning the U.S. expects similar commitments from all countries based upon their individual abilities or capacities to achieve such commitments. For example, he said, "we expect more from Brazil" than of very poor African or South American countries. He said he was "somewhat disappointed" that the U.S. is having such a hard time getting agreement on what seems like a straight forward concept.
However, just as the U.S. and other developed countries are frustrated -- so are large blocks of developing countries. Those countries are saying that the developed countries want to "abandon the Kyoto Protocol and seek a new agreement which they are opposed to. They also point out what they call as the "low level of ambition" from developed countries, i.e. their commitments to mid-term greenhouse reduction targets which they say are inadequate and unacceptable. They also say that the developed countries are attempting to "shift responsibility to developing countries" by requiring them make specific commitments.
Developing countries are also raising question about developed countries using new undefined terms like "advanced developing countries" which have not been agreed to. Also, they say that developed country commitments on financing "were not adequate or forthcoming." They say there is a need for at least commitments of $400 billion per year. Finally, they say there is no central body to deal with technology transfer, and their are many loose ends dealing with research and development, models, intellectual property concerns, etc.
Access a release from Yvo de Boer (click here). Access the Pershing press briefing (click here). Access the South Centre press briefing representing 51 developing countries (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to press briefings and documents (click here). Access various media reports on the Barcelona meetings (click here).
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Senate EPW Committee Passes S.1733 Without Republicans
Nov 5: Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), again made a brief appearance as the only Republican before the Committee and again reiterated the same Republican request for a complete economic analysis of S. 1733 before proceeding with the scheduled markup of the bill. He expressed strong opposition to reports that the Committee was considering the so-called "nuclear option," (i.e. moving the bill without at least two Republicans present for the vote. Senator Inhofe left following his brief statement.
The Committee then proceeded to vote to approve the Chairman's mark of the bill, without amendment. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) voted "no" and explained that he supports climate change legislation; however, he could not vote for the bill as is. He indicated his primary objection was that he felt the 20% greenhouse gas reduction from 2005 levels was too strict and said he preferred a "trigger" mechanism the would be activated if other countries demonstrated that they were reducing emissions as required. The bill passed the committee on a vote of 11-1, with all seven Republican members absent.
A number of Democratic members of the Committee expressed their support for Chairman Boxer's decision to move the bill forward. It was again pointed out that at least 5-6 other Senate committees will be considering related bills and amendments. It was also again emphasized that the U.S. EPA testified that additional economic modeling at this time, as demanded by Republicans, would not indicate any significant changes and would be costly and time consuming. It was also noted the Senator Kerry, Lieberman and Graham will be attempting to craft a bill that can obtain 60 votes for passage.
Chairman Barbara Boxer said the vote to send the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act to the floor of the Senate was in full accordance with longstanding Committee and Senate Rules. She said, "We did it for three reasons. S. 1733 addresses a crucial issue of our time and advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the 60 votes we need for a comprehensive bill that will be melded together from various Committees and Senators from different regions of the country. This bill is already being worked on by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, Graham and others.
"We found, after questioning the EPA extensively, that the Republicans’ demand for another EPA analysis now would be duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The absence of the Republicans during the EPA’s presentation was a clear message that their criticism of the EPA analysis was not a substantive one. Indeed, the EPA said their economic analysis was 'unprecedented' in scope and was never done for any other energy or climate bill at this stage of the process.
"The Committee and Senate rules that have been in place during Republican and Democratic majorities are there to be used when the Majority feels it is in the best interest of their states and of the nation to act. A majority of the Committee believes that S. 1733, and the efforts that will be built upon it, will move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment. We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.”
Access the hearing website for a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer and link to the Chairman's mark of S. 1733 (click here).
The Committee then proceeded to vote to approve the Chairman's mark of the bill, without amendment. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) voted "no" and explained that he supports climate change legislation; however, he could not vote for the bill as is. He indicated his primary objection was that he felt the 20% greenhouse gas reduction from 2005 levels was too strict and said he preferred a "trigger" mechanism the would be activated if other countries demonstrated that they were reducing emissions as required. The bill passed the committee on a vote of 11-1, with all seven Republican members absent.
A number of Democratic members of the Committee expressed their support for Chairman Boxer's decision to move the bill forward. It was again pointed out that at least 5-6 other Senate committees will be considering related bills and amendments. It was also again emphasized that the U.S. EPA testified that additional economic modeling at this time, as demanded by Republicans, would not indicate any significant changes and would be costly and time consuming. It was also noted the Senator Kerry, Lieberman and Graham will be attempting to craft a bill that can obtain 60 votes for passage.
Chairman Barbara Boxer said the vote to send the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act to the floor of the Senate was in full accordance with longstanding Committee and Senate Rules. She said, "We did it for three reasons. S. 1733 addresses a crucial issue of our time and advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the 60 votes we need for a comprehensive bill that will be melded together from various Committees and Senators from different regions of the country. This bill is already being worked on by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, Graham and others.
"We found, after questioning the EPA extensively, that the Republicans’ demand for another EPA analysis now would be duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The absence of the Republicans during the EPA’s presentation was a clear message that their criticism of the EPA analysis was not a substantive one. Indeed, the EPA said their economic analysis was 'unprecedented' in scope and was never done for any other energy or climate bill at this stage of the process.
"The Committee and Senate rules that have been in place during Republican and Democratic majorities are there to be used when the Majority feels it is in the best interest of their states and of the nation to act. A majority of the Committee believes that S. 1733, and the efforts that will be built upon it, will move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment. We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.”
Access the hearing website for a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer and link to the Chairman's mark of S. 1733 (click here).
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Republicans Continue Boycott Of Kerry-Boxer (S. 1733) Markup
Nov 4: Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), made a brief appearance as the only Republican before the Committee and reiterated the same Republican request for a complete economic analysis of S. 1733 before proceeding with the scheduled markup of the bill. Following his statement, Senator Inhofe left the meeting [See WIMS 10/3/09].
In part, Senator Inhofe said, "Madam Chairman, I want to be very clear about what the Republicans want: we want a markup of this bill. And we have a pathway to get there, if only we had your cooperation. That's why I'm here today. Madam Chairman, this is in your hands now. I have the letter Sen. Voinovich wrote to Administrator Jackson yesterday. This letter outlines exactly what we're looking for. It outlines the agreement Sen. Voinovich has with EPA. EPA can start today to complete this analysis. But Madam Chairman, the way we see it, you are standing in the way. So I'm asking you this morning to work with us; let EPA do its analysis, so we can get to a markup. It's really that simple. Madam Chairman, choosing the other course would be unwise. Choosing to set aside the committee's longstanding rules would jeopardize our ability to work together on other issues. Again, I'm asking you not to violate the committee rules. You and I have a lot of work to do: the highway bill, the WRDA bill, and many others. We can't render the EPW Committee irrelevant."
Following Senator Inhofe's departure, the remaining Democratic members commented on the Republican position and reiterated that U.S. EPA had testified yesterday (November 3) that the extensive economic analysis that has been prepared to date, based on economic models, would not change significantly if it were rerun. Additionally, it was indicated that the energy portion of the bill that was previously passed out of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) in June [See WIMS 6/17/09] was not subject to any economic modeling. It is the Democratic leadership plan to combine Kerry-Boxer, following markup; with the ENR-passed energy bill, and then complete a new economic modeling analysis. Republicans are insistent that the analysis be done now and have refused to participate unless it is completed at this point in the process.
Chairman Boxer indicated that the EPW Committee will continue meeting and will be briefed by staff on the Kerry-Boxer bill until the Republican members return to the Committee for the markup. The meeting was recessed until 3:00 PM. A briefing resumed at 3:00 PM.
Access the hearing website for a webcast (click here). Access Senator Inhofe's statement (click here). Access the statement from Senator Voinovich which details the Republican demands (click here).
In part, Senator Inhofe said, "Madam Chairman, I want to be very clear about what the Republicans want: we want a markup of this bill. And we have a pathway to get there, if only we had your cooperation. That's why I'm here today. Madam Chairman, this is in your hands now. I have the letter Sen. Voinovich wrote to Administrator Jackson yesterday. This letter outlines exactly what we're looking for. It outlines the agreement Sen. Voinovich has with EPA. EPA can start today to complete this analysis. But Madam Chairman, the way we see it, you are standing in the way. So I'm asking you this morning to work with us; let EPA do its analysis, so we can get to a markup. It's really that simple. Madam Chairman, choosing the other course would be unwise. Choosing to set aside the committee's longstanding rules would jeopardize our ability to work together on other issues. Again, I'm asking you not to violate the committee rules. You and I have a lot of work to do: the highway bill, the WRDA bill, and many others. We can't render the EPW Committee irrelevant."
Following Senator Inhofe's departure, the remaining Democratic members commented on the Republican position and reiterated that U.S. EPA had testified yesterday (November 3) that the extensive economic analysis that has been prepared to date, based on economic models, would not change significantly if it were rerun. Additionally, it was indicated that the energy portion of the bill that was previously passed out of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) in June [See WIMS 6/17/09] was not subject to any economic modeling. It is the Democratic leadership plan to combine Kerry-Boxer, following markup; with the ENR-passed energy bill, and then complete a new economic modeling analysis. Republicans are insistent that the analysis be done now and have refused to participate unless it is completed at this point in the process.
Chairman Boxer indicated that the EPW Committee will continue meeting and will be briefed by staff on the Kerry-Boxer bill until the Republican members return to the Committee for the markup. The meeting was recessed until 3:00 PM. A briefing resumed at 3:00 PM.
Access the hearing website for a webcast (click here). Access Senator Inhofe's statement (click here). Access the statement from Senator Voinovich which details the Republican demands (click here).
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Republicans Plea For Delay & Walk Out Of Kerry-Boxer Markup
Nov 3: Late November 2, 2009, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, responded to a letter from six Ranking Members of Senate Committees (Murkowski, Chambliss, Grassley, Lugar, Hutchison, and Inhofe) regarding analysis of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Chairman Boxer indicated that she would delay the markup of the bill and scheduled a November 3, 2:30 PM hearing time for further consideration of the EPA economic analysis.
In her letter Senator Boxer said, "Thank you for your letter dated November 2, 2009, in which you ask me to ensure there is a 'satisfactory analysis' of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) before the Environment and Public Works Committee proceeds with its markup of the legislation.
"I want to make sure you are aware that EPA has confirmed that the extensive analysis and supporting materials provided to the Committee are totally sufficient and appropriate for our legislative process. In fact, EPA reports that the analysis provided on the Kerry-Boxer bill and Chairman’s Mark exceeds the analysis typically conducted prior to a markup. EPA has also indicated that this economic analysis reflects hundreds of thousands of pages of backup documentation. It is far more analysis than the 10,000 pages of documentation on the Clear Skies bill that this Committee received in a prior Congress before markup of that legislation.
"In addition, I want to point out that Republican members of the House fully participated in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill mark-up, even though a five-week analysis on the bill under consideration was not undertaken until after the bill was voted out of Committee. To meet your concerns, however, and in the spirit of collegiality, I have arranged for a recess of the markup to take place Tuesday, November 3, at 2:30 PM, so that EPA can be available to answer questions from EPW members on its analysis. In addition, we are offering to extend the deadline for first-degree amendments on the Minority side until close of business tomorrow. Of course, we will follow the rules of the Committee and the Senate as we proceed."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the EPW Committee issued a statement on behalf of the minority in response to Chairman Boxer's announcement on the legislative process saying, "We welcome Chairman Boxer's announcement to delay today's business meeting. The Republicans want to have a markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill. So the question before us is how the committee proceeds. There are five weeks until the Copenhagen meetings begin, which, according to the EPA Administrator, leaves enough time for Chairman Boxer to work with us and the EPA to conduct a full economic analysis of Kerry-Boxer. We hope Chairman Boxer accommodates this request so we can move forward to markup with a complete analysis of Kerry-Boxer's impact on jobs, consumers, ratepayers, families, and small businesses."
The morning session of the meeting was open for EPW members to make statements and ask questions. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) made an impassioned plea for further delays to allow for EPA to develop a "complete" economic analysis. Other Republican members did not attend and following his statement all Senator Voinovich left the meeting, leaving only the Democratic members.
Chairman Boxer and other Democrat members of the EPW responded that the existing EPA analysis was adequate for "the task at hand" (i.e. marking up the bill and considering amendments). It was pointed out that Kerry-Boxer is not even the complete bill and that other parts of the bill will be added following review by other Senate committees. It was also mentioned that various amendments will be considered which could also affect the economic analysis and that the EPW Committee cannot stop and have a new economic analysis after every amendment is considered. Democrats indicated that a full and complete final economic analysis will be completed when the entire bill is complete and amendments are added.
Following several Democratic statements, expressing dismay at the Republican boycott, the meeting was temporarily adjourned so members could attend a joint session of the House and Senate to hear an address from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The EPW meeting was resumed following the Merkel address for additional statements and again with no Republican members present. Chairman Boxer continued the meeting by herself, waiting for Republicans to show up, until about 12:20 PM and indicated she would resume the meeting to hear EPA's economic analysis testimony at 2:30 PM. Following the EPA presentation she said the Committee would begin the bill markup.
At 2:30 PM the business meeting was temporarily adjourned to receive testimony and for a discussion of the economic analysis. Senator Boxer said that Republicans have one complaint and that is that the economic study is not "satisfactory." However, the Republican members did not show up to question EPA regarding the economic study that was completed. Following the EPA testimony and questions, and with no Republican members present, Chairman Boxer announced at approximately 4:00 PM, that the Committee would be in recess subject to call by the Chair. At 4:17 PM, Chairman Boxer announced the recess would continue until 10:00 AM, November 4. She indicated she would be holding a press briefing this afternoon.
Access the statement and letter from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senate Ranking Members and link to the letter to Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a new 959-page revised Kerry-Boxer, S. 1733 Chairman's Mark (click here). Access the hearing website for a webcast and link to the Voinovich statement (click here). Access various media report on the Republican boycott (click here).
In her letter Senator Boxer said, "Thank you for your letter dated November 2, 2009, in which you ask me to ensure there is a 'satisfactory analysis' of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) before the Environment and Public Works Committee proceeds with its markup of the legislation.
"I want to make sure you are aware that EPA has confirmed that the extensive analysis and supporting materials provided to the Committee are totally sufficient and appropriate for our legislative process. In fact, EPA reports that the analysis provided on the Kerry-Boxer bill and Chairman’s Mark exceeds the analysis typically conducted prior to a markup. EPA has also indicated that this economic analysis reflects hundreds of thousands of pages of backup documentation. It is far more analysis than the 10,000 pages of documentation on the Clear Skies bill that this Committee received in a prior Congress before markup of that legislation.
"In addition, I want to point out that Republican members of the House fully participated in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill mark-up, even though a five-week analysis on the bill under consideration was not undertaken until after the bill was voted out of Committee. To meet your concerns, however, and in the spirit of collegiality, I have arranged for a recess of the markup to take place Tuesday, November 3, at 2:30 PM, so that EPA can be available to answer questions from EPW members on its analysis. In addition, we are offering to extend the deadline for first-degree amendments on the Minority side until close of business tomorrow. Of course, we will follow the rules of the Committee and the Senate as we proceed."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the EPW Committee issued a statement on behalf of the minority in response to Chairman Boxer's announcement on the legislative process saying, "We welcome Chairman Boxer's announcement to delay today's business meeting. The Republicans want to have a markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill. So the question before us is how the committee proceeds. There are five weeks until the Copenhagen meetings begin, which, according to the EPA Administrator, leaves enough time for Chairman Boxer to work with us and the EPA to conduct a full economic analysis of Kerry-Boxer. We hope Chairman Boxer accommodates this request so we can move forward to markup with a complete analysis of Kerry-Boxer's impact on jobs, consumers, ratepayers, families, and small businesses."
The morning session of the meeting was open for EPW members to make statements and ask questions. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) made an impassioned plea for further delays to allow for EPA to develop a "complete" economic analysis. Other Republican members did not attend and following his statement all Senator Voinovich left the meeting, leaving only the Democratic members.
Chairman Boxer and other Democrat members of the EPW responded that the existing EPA analysis was adequate for "the task at hand" (i.e. marking up the bill and considering amendments). It was pointed out that Kerry-Boxer is not even the complete bill and that other parts of the bill will be added following review by other Senate committees. It was also mentioned that various amendments will be considered which could also affect the economic analysis and that the EPW Committee cannot stop and have a new economic analysis after every amendment is considered. Democrats indicated that a full and complete final economic analysis will be completed when the entire bill is complete and amendments are added.
Following several Democratic statements, expressing dismay at the Republican boycott, the meeting was temporarily adjourned so members could attend a joint session of the House and Senate to hear an address from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The EPW meeting was resumed following the Merkel address for additional statements and again with no Republican members present. Chairman Boxer continued the meeting by herself, waiting for Republicans to show up, until about 12:20 PM and indicated she would resume the meeting to hear EPA's economic analysis testimony at 2:30 PM. Following the EPA presentation she said the Committee would begin the bill markup.
At 2:30 PM the business meeting was temporarily adjourned to receive testimony and for a discussion of the economic analysis. Senator Boxer said that Republicans have one complaint and that is that the economic study is not "satisfactory." However, the Republican members did not show up to question EPA regarding the economic study that was completed. Following the EPA testimony and questions, and with no Republican members present, Chairman Boxer announced at approximately 4:00 PM, that the Committee would be in recess subject to call by the Chair. At 4:17 PM, Chairman Boxer announced the recess would continue until 10:00 AM, November 4. She indicated she would be holding a press briefing this afternoon.
Access the statement and letter from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senate Ranking Members and link to the letter to Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a new 959-page revised Kerry-Boxer, S. 1733 Chairman's Mark (click here). Access the hearing website for a webcast and link to the Voinovich statement (click here). Access various media report on the Republican boycott (click here).
Monday, November 02, 2009
Barcelona Climate Talks Begin; Last Stop Until Copenhagen
Nov 2: The resumed ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the resumed seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) began today (November 2) and will continue through November 6, in Barcelona, Spain. This is the last round of negotiations before COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark on December 7-18, 2009. More than 4,000 participants, including delegates from 181 countries, have registered for the UN Climate Change Talks in Barcelona.
The meeting in Barcelona follows on the UN Climate Change Talks in Bangkok (September 28 to October 9), which UNFCCC says, "saw increasing convergence, streamlining of negotiating text and narrowing down of options for a comprehensive, fair and effective international climate change deal." However, as others reported there was extensive tension and turmoil between the parties at the Bangkok meetings [See WIMS 10/09/09]. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, “The Barcelona talks need to make clear progress and put in place a solid foundation for success at Copenhagen. We have only five days to achieve this, only five days to further narrow down options and come up with working texts. But I am convinced that it can be done.
Alluding to a meeting of around 35 Environment Ministers ahead of the Barcelona talks, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard said, “Ministers promised to instruct negotiators to be flexible and constructive towards a Copenhagen outcome. Striking a deal is not easy now. But it will not be easer next year or the year after.”
Specifically, progress on adaptation, technology cooperation, action to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries and enhanced capacity building is expected in Barcelona. De Boer said, “Workable middle ground options have emerged on these items that can be taken forward and concretized. The good work needs to be continued, especially in view of preparing the ground for prompt implementation now and up to 2012.”
UNFCCC indicated in a release that a beacon to guide discussions is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. De Boer said, “The targets of industrialized countries that are presently on the table are clearly not ambitious enough. We therefore need more ambitious targets on an individual basis and urgent progress on the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol.” The U.S. for example is proposing only 17% reduction from 2005 under the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454); and 20% reduction from 2005 under the Senate proposed Kerry-Boxer (S. 1733). Despite the international desire for a greater commitment from the U.S., it is highly unlikely that U.S. can commit to additional reductions considering the political resistance to the already proposed reductions.
In opening remarks in Barcelona, U.S. negotiators said they are committed to an "ambitious" global climate change agreement in Copenhagen. The U.S. said there must be "robust" reductions from developed countries; commitments to reduce emissions from "major developing countries" (e.g. China and India); and "low carbon growth plans" but no commitments from "least developed" and "other developing countries." They said they are putting forth new proposals for transparency in monitoring commitments, a global fund for climate and a new technology hub to assist developing countries in adopting new technologies.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access links to webcasts of all November 2 press briefings (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to information and documents for the meetings (click here).
The meeting in Barcelona follows on the UN Climate Change Talks in Bangkok (September 28 to October 9), which UNFCCC says, "saw increasing convergence, streamlining of negotiating text and narrowing down of options for a comprehensive, fair and effective international climate change deal." However, as others reported there was extensive tension and turmoil between the parties at the Bangkok meetings [See WIMS 10/09/09]. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, “The Barcelona talks need to make clear progress and put in place a solid foundation for success at Copenhagen. We have only five days to achieve this, only five days to further narrow down options and come up with working texts. But I am convinced that it can be done.
Alluding to a meeting of around 35 Environment Ministers ahead of the Barcelona talks, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard said, “Ministers promised to instruct negotiators to be flexible and constructive towards a Copenhagen outcome. Striking a deal is not easy now. But it will not be easer next year or the year after.”
Specifically, progress on adaptation, technology cooperation, action to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries and enhanced capacity building is expected in Barcelona. De Boer said, “Workable middle ground options have emerged on these items that can be taken forward and concretized. The good work needs to be continued, especially in view of preparing the ground for prompt implementation now and up to 2012.”
UNFCCC indicated in a release that a beacon to guide discussions is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. De Boer said, “The targets of industrialized countries that are presently on the table are clearly not ambitious enough. We therefore need more ambitious targets on an individual basis and urgent progress on the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol.” The U.S. for example is proposing only 17% reduction from 2005 under the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454); and 20% reduction from 2005 under the Senate proposed Kerry-Boxer (S. 1733). Despite the international desire for a greater commitment from the U.S., it is highly unlikely that U.S. can commit to additional reductions considering the political resistance to the already proposed reductions.
In opening remarks in Barcelona, U.S. negotiators said they are committed to an "ambitious" global climate change agreement in Copenhagen. The U.S. said there must be "robust" reductions from developed countries; commitments to reduce emissions from "major developing countries" (e.g. China and India); and "low carbon growth plans" but no commitments from "least developed" and "other developing countries." They said they are putting forth new proposals for transparency in monitoring commitments, a global fund for climate and a new technology hub to assist developing countries in adopting new technologies.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access links to webcasts of all November 2 press briefings (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to information and documents for the meetings (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
