Nov 13: The U.S. Supreme Court has set an argument date of January 8, 2007, in the case of United Haulers Assoc., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (Case No. 05-1345). On September 26, 2006, the High Court agreed to hear the case following a previous denial in 2002 [See links to detailed history below]. The case is being appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 2006, decision (Case No. 05-2024) which upheld the Northern District of New York decision [See WIMS 3/1/06]. The district court found that the municipal solid waste flow control ordinances enacted and implemented by the Authority did not impose a "differential burden on interstate commerce." Thus, the district court found that the local ordinances did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. This important flow control case that supports the local regulation and its related recycling program, for the first time raises a local government environmental tort liability and recycling encouragement rationale for local flow control regulations, which have basically been deemed invalid since the U.S. Supreme issued its C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown decision in 1994.
In its discussion of the issues involved in the case the Supreme Court says, "This Court held in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 386 (1994), that 'a so-called flow control ordinance, which require[d] all solid waste to be processed at a designated transfer station before leaving the municipality,’ discriminated against interstate commerce and was invalid under the Commerce Clause because it “depriv[ed] competitors, including out-of-state firms, of access to a local market.” This case presents two questions, the first of which is the subject of an acknowledged circuit conflict: (1) Whether the virtually per se prohibition against 'hoard[ing] solid waste' (Id. at 392) recognized in Carbone is inapplicable when the 'preferred processing facility' (ibid.) is owned by a public entity; [and] (2) Whether a flow-control ordinance that requires delivery of all solid waste to a publicly owned local facility and thus prohibits its exportation imposes so 'insubstantial' a burden on interstate commerce that the provision satisfies the Commerce Clause if it serves even a 'minimal' local benefit."
The Second Circuit said in its decision, "even if we were to recognize that the ordinances burden interstate commerce, we would find that the burden imposed is not clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits conferred by the ordinances... We therefore decline to resolve the former question," and affirmed the district court decision. Additionally, the Appeals Court ruled in part, "The record also demonstrates that financing is not the sole purpose of the flow control ordinances. Rather, the flow control measures substantially facilitate the Counties’ goal of establishing a comprehensive waste management system that encourages waste volume reduction, recycling, and reuse and ensures the proper disposal of hazardous wastes, thereby reducing the Counties’ exposure to costly environmental tort suits. See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192, 1198 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that “a municipality may be liable as a potentially responsible party if it arranges for the disposal of hazardous substances”).
The Second Circuit continued, "In our view, then, the local benefits of the flow control measures substantially outweigh whatever modest differential burden they may place on interstate commerce. Because the Pike test places the onus on the plaintiffs to show that this burden is clearly excessive in relation to these benefits, we easily find that the Counties’ flow control ordinances do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and therefore do not decide whether the ordinances burden interstate commerce at all."
Adding to the interest in the case the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in the case of National Solid Wastes v. Daviess County KY (Case No. 04-6498), upheld a district court ruling in a similar case saying that a proposed Daviess County Ordinance was unconstitutional, and enjoined the County from enforcing it [See WIMS 1/25/06]. The Appeals Court cited what it called three relevant waste management cases -- C&A Carbone v. Clarkstown (Supreme Court); Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t (6th Circuit); and Huish Detergents, Inc. v. Warren County (6th Circuit). The Appeals Court said, "The three cases cited above leave little doubt that the Ordinance in this case discriminates against interstate commerce."
The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court also said it refused to adopt what it termed, "the public-private distinction with respect to the dormant commerce clause;" as provided in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals case of United Haulers Assoc., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Authority. The Sixth Circuit called the Second Circuit opinion "a surprising decision," where the it found that a county ordinance that required waste collectors to dispose of solid waste at approved processing sites designated by the county, "did not discriminate against interstate commerce." The Sixth Circuit said, "...this Court respectfully disagrees with the Second Circuit on the proposition that Carbone lends support for the public-private distinction drawn by that court."
Access the Supreme Court docket in the case (click here). Access a more detailed account of the long history in this case from the Medill School of Journalism (click here). Access the Second Circuit opinion (click here). Access the Sixth Circuit opinion (click here).
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Washington Power Shift: Environment & Energy Outlook
Nov 13: With the Democratic victory in the November 7, 2006, election, significant changes will now take place in the leadership and committee makeup in Congress. In today's issue WIMS is deviating somewhat from our traditional format to focus on several of the new leadership positions and their past positions which should provide some indication of future actions on environmental and energy areas when the new Congress convenes in January 2007.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) will replace retiring Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) as Senate Majority Leader. Reid, 66 is an avid supporter of the Democrats’ CLEAN Edge Act introduced on September 14, 2006, by Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Maria Cantwell which they claim will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs across the country. He supports the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and has urged the Congress to move forward on the bipartisan compromise. He supports the Senate-passed bill that would repeal tax breaks for "Big Oil" companies that total $5.4 billion over the next ten years. He has been a persistent critic of the DOE/NRC Yucca Mountain proposal saying, "Nevadans and the rest of the country have the right to know about the environmental and public safety risks associated with the Yucca Mountain Project..." [and] "The Administration’s proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump would change the rules, break the law and prevent states from protecting their cities and people." He was a principal author of the Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, which provides $250 million annually for grants to state and local governments to cleanup brownfields sites.
On climate change, Reid has said, "Addressing this growing environmental threat demands strong leadership. But I am afraid... such leadership has been sorely lacking by this Administration. Instead, the White House has been doctoring information about global warming in reports by government scientists..." He supported the McCain-Lieberman amendment to cap greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 at the 2000 levels and establish a mandatory economy-wide cap and trade program.
Access Senator Reid's website (click here). Access Senator Reid's Minority website (click here).
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), will replace Senator Pete Dominici (R-NM) on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Bingaman, 63, has been a strong advocate for the Clinton area Roadless Rule saying, "the Clinton Roadless Rule struck a chord with Americans, who want to ensure that the few remaining acres of roadless areas in our national forests will be there for the enjoyment of their children and grandchildren." He has criticized the Administration on its implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative and the fuels reduction strategy and said, the "leadership of the Forest Service has... pushed its managers to treat the cheapest and easiest acres, leaving communities at risk and wasting taxpayer dollars. On the issue of climate change and technology, Bingaman has said, "Our current policy of exclusive reliance on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gases has not really led to changes in the technologies we use... We will be wasting taxpayer dollars, if we continue to rely exclusively on government supported R&D to solve the problem of global warming. If we are going to address climate change at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers and society, we need a combined strategy of funding R&D and sending the right price signal to markets. I have been proposing a cap-and-trade approach to establish such a price signal on greenhouse gas emissions..."
Bingaman opposes S.3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and has said he will vote against it. He said, In terms of expanding the nation’s energy supply, "the bill takes us in the wrong direction over the long term." He is concerned about the enormous revenue shift that would result from the new entitlement program that would be created for Gulf Coast states if the legislation becomes law. He supports On energy legislation he supports, Senate Democrats bills which calls "smart, pro-consumer policies to help put America firmly on the path to energy independence." He supports making America the world leader in areas like solar, wind and biofuels; and actions to combat price gouging. He lists specifically, S.2829, the Clean EDGE Act of 2006); S.2025, the Vehicles and Fuels Choices for American Security Act; S.2747, the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006, or S.2677, the Securing America’s Energy Independence Act.
Bingaman has been a strong support of preserving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) saying drilling for oil and gas "will do little to meet our energy needs and nothing to reduce our energy prices... even at its peak production -- twenty years from now -- it will reduce our reliance on imports by only 4 percent." Bingaman co-sponsored the bipartisan Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006, introduced in July and said, “It’s hard to imagine a genuine discussion of our country’s energy future without a significant effort to improve vehicle fuel efficiency." He called the measure a moderate proposal to begin raising the standards for fuel economy.
Access Senator Bingaman's website (click here). Access Bingaman's Ranking Member releases on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee website (click here).
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will apparently Chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and replace outspoken global warming critic Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). The current Ranking Member, Senator James Jeffords (I-VT) is retiring and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) who has seniority is slated to Chair the Finance Committee; and Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is to Chair Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Boxer, 65, is regarded as one of the nation's most liberal advocates of environment protection. She has fought to protect the California coast and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. She has written bills to make polluters pay the costs of toxic Superfund clean-ups. She wrote the law to set drinking water standards at levels that protect children and other vulnerable populations, and she led the successful fight to stop the rollback of national arsenic standards. She is a coauthored of the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001.
Most recently, in October she filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit challenging U.S. EPA's rule on human pesticide testing; and she requested EPA to immediately issue a perchlorate health advisory that addresses early life exposures and susceptibility issues and revise the Agency’s perchlorate cleanup goal. In September, she said EPA’s proposed standards for particulate matter pollution chose "polluters over the people" and "fail to protect public health." She said the standard, "flies in the face of science, should not stand." She said if EPA did not reconsider the proposal it should be struck down by the Courts.
In late August Boxer commented on California legislation to impose broad caps on greenhouse-gas emissions and combat global warming saying, "I am so proud of California today, which has once again taken the lead in confronting a critical environmental issue by passing legislation to directly address the threat of global warming. Global warming could reshape the world as we know it. Climate change could dramatically reduce the Sierra Nevada’s snowpack, trigger a devastating rise in sea level, increase the spread of infectious disease, and harm agriculture." She is the lead cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006, authored by Senator Jim Jeffords which calls for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Access Senator Boxer's website (click here). Access the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee website (click here).
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will replace Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) as Speaker of the House. Pelosi has been an outspoken critic of the Administration. On energy issues she says, "The Republican plan for energy has allowed consumer price gouging by Big Oil companies, while these very companies earn record profits with help from tax breaks and subsidies provided by the Republican Congress. Democrats propose a New Direction for America’s Energy policy, which will put an end to price gouging and unnecessary subsidies for Big Oil companies. Democrats will focus on reinvesting our energy capital into the Midwest, not the Middle East." She says the Democratic energy program will "punish price gouging by Big Oil & help consumers; and stop $33 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for Big Oil.
On environmental issues she indicates, "Protecting the environment is vital to protect the health of all Americans, particularly our children. Democrats are fighting for cleaner air, cleaner water, and preservation of our natural resources, understanding that what we do today has an impact on future generations of Americans. We stand up for fair policies that protect America’s environment while allowing for economic opportunity -- priorities that can work together." She indicates, "the Bush administration’s policies have begun to reverse 30 years of bipartisan support for the environment by rolling back important regulations, proposing drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and crippling provisions in the landmark Clean Air Act." She says Democrats believe in: Proactive, common sense solutions to protect the health and safety of our children; Working together for clean water, clean air, and measures to increase recycling and reduce pollution; Forest management that protects our woodlands, not special interests; Energy policies that promote efficiency and innovation, and provide more protection for consumers; Protecting the nation’s precious wetlands and coastlines by supporting and defending the Clean Water Act; and Investing in technologies that will reduce air pollution and lead to greater energy independence.
Commenting on the recent Administration’s strategic plan on climate change presented to the House Science Committee in September she said, "The world needs decisive action to prevent global warming; instead the Bush Administration keeps offering the American people more hot air. Rather than stepping forward with bold ideas to take on the challenge of climate change, Bush Administration officials repackaged their research and development plans and presented them to the House Science Committee as a new strategic plan. There are precious few new ideas in this ‘strategic plan,’ and no new funding. More importantly, never-ending research isn’t enough – we need strong policies to get new technologies to the marketplace and reduce global warming pollution."
On the Administration's energy policy she has commented in recent months saying, "President Bush says our nation is addicted to oil, but five years after adopting the recommendations of Vice President Cheney’s secret Energy Task Force, the Administration continues to feed the addiction. Conceived in secret, the Administration’s energy plan was written by and for their friends in the oil industry, who raked in more than $100 billion in profits last year. It is a big success for Big Oil. It is an enormous failure for the American people." [And] "the Republicans keep replaying the same old, tired ideas on energy -- such as opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. We should not sacrifice the Arctic coastal plain, one of America’s last truly wild places, for the sake of a small amount of oil. Democrats are stepping forward with new ideas and new solutions. We can’t drill our way to energy independence -- but we can grow our way to energy independence. America’s farmers are ready to grow energy crops that will end our dependence on oil from unstable regions."
Access Representative Pelosi's House Minority website (click here). Access Representative Pelosi's website (click here).
Representative John Dingell (D-MI) will Chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee and replace Representative Joe Barton (R-TX). Dingell, 80, and considered a moderate is the longest-serving member of the House. A cosponsor of the Senate Democrats comprehensive energy independence bill entitled the “PROGRESS Act,” he said the bill is, "a solid plan that will get America on track toward achieving energy independence. Millions of vehicles already on the road are capable of operating on alternative fuels such as E-85... [the] proposal would give consumers the opportunity to use these fuels by ensuring they are readily available.” Dingell, one of three Democrats requesting a GAO study on GAO) EPA's lead and copper rule agreed with the findings that it was "inadequate and may be putting public health at risk." On Superfund, Dingell says, "The Republican Congress and the Bush Administration continue to underfund what has historically been a productive program. The President should explain to the American people why he is content to leave the public health and environment at risk while toxic sites lay untreated in our communities for years." Dingell has also requested EPA clarification of the case law and EPA's position relating to CERCLA responsible party liability issues since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. 125 S. Ct, 577 (2004) [See WIMS 10/27/06]. Dingell and several colleagues also sponsored legislation, H.R. 879, that would require all new and replacement underground storage tanks to have secondary containment.
Dingell has been an advocate for controlling the import of solid waste from Canada. He says that, H.R. 2491, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2005, which passed the House and is stalled in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, "contains important provisions to implement and enforce the bilateral U.S.-Canadian Agreement concerning the transboundary movement of hazardous waste between our countries. The bill would ensure that the U.S.-Canadian Agreement is properly implemented and enforced." Commenting on a July 2006, GAO report which he and others requested, that concluded EPA's air toxics program is failing to reduce public health risks from cancer-causing toxic air pollution, Dingell said, "We in Congress who voted for these deadlines expected better from EPA; the American people deserved better. And the Bush Administration's chronic underfunding of environmental priorities means that progress will continue to be limited."
Access Representative Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee Minority website (click here). Access Representative Dingell's website (click here).
Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) will Chair the House Committee on Resources and replace Richard Pombo (R-CA) who was defeated in his bid for re-election. Pombo was a strong advocate for drilling in ANWR and reforming the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Rahall, 57, has a mixed record of being pro-labor, yet because of his support for the mining industry he opposes some Democratic environmental and energy initiatives. On November 9, Representative Rahall issued a release which he said offered a "glimpse into the future of the Resources Committee." He said, "For too long now, this Congress has pursued policies that are out of touch with American expectations for conserving our unique natural and cultural heritage -- and my colleagues and I are looking forward to working together to restore the balance that has been lost along the way... I have always been a believer in the 'two E’s' – endowment and empowerment – which together will go a long way toward realizing the potential of our nation’s most precious resources and preserving our country’s heritage for future generations... most significant resources are still not properly cared for and protected -- whether it be roadless areas in national forests, the crumbling national parks, threatened and endangered species, or the integrity of our oceans and our fisheries. As Chairman of this Committee, it is integral to promote sound conservation that will protect the wilderness potential of public lands, promote outdoor recreation opportunities to hunt, fish and enjoy our natural environment, and restore our oceans and fisheries.
"Americans must also be empowered by protecting their right-to-know through laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), ending corporate welfare, reclaiming Appalachia, and protecting the disenfranchised in Indian Country and our territories. As Resources Chairman, I will maintain NEPA, end royalty holidays in the OCS and give-aways under the Mining Law of 1872, prioritize the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and miners, advance Native American health care, and tackle territorial issues such as political self determination."
On September Rahall commented on the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California upholding the "Roadless Rule" saying, "A great swath of America’s natural heritage has been granted a pardon from destructive developments due to a landmark court ruling overturning the Bush Administration’s policy to set aside the popular Clinton-era “roadless rule” for National Forests."
Access Representative Rahall Resource Committee Minority website (click here). Access Representative Rahall website (click here).
Other Major Committee Changes - Obviously, there are many other Committee and Subcommittee changes that will affect environmental and energy decisions in the 110th Congress, too numerous to detail here. The following is a brief summary of the other major Committee changes.
In the Senate: Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry: Tom Harkin (D-IA), 66, will replace Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Harkin's website (click here). Commerce, Science, & Transportation: Daniel Inouye (D-HI), 82, will replace Ted Stevens (R-AK). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Inouye's website (click here).
In the House: Agriculture: Collin Peterson (D-MN), 62, will replace Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Peterson's website (click here). Transportation & Infrastructure: James Oberstar (D-MN), 72, will replace Don Young (R-AK). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Oberstar's website (click here). Science: Bart Gordon (D-TN), 57, will replace retiring Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-NY). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Gordon's website (click here).
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) will replace retiring Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) as Senate Majority Leader. Reid, 66 is an avid supporter of the Democrats’ CLEAN Edge Act introduced on September 14, 2006, by Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Maria Cantwell which they claim will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs across the country. He supports the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and has urged the Congress to move forward on the bipartisan compromise. He supports the Senate-passed bill that would repeal tax breaks for "Big Oil" companies that total $5.4 billion over the next ten years. He has been a persistent critic of the DOE/NRC Yucca Mountain proposal saying, "Nevadans and the rest of the country have the right to know about the environmental and public safety risks associated with the Yucca Mountain Project..." [and] "The Administration’s proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump would change the rules, break the law and prevent states from protecting their cities and people." He was a principal author of the Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, which provides $250 million annually for grants to state and local governments to cleanup brownfields sites.
On climate change, Reid has said, "Addressing this growing environmental threat demands strong leadership. But I am afraid... such leadership has been sorely lacking by this Administration. Instead, the White House has been doctoring information about global warming in reports by government scientists..." He supported the McCain-Lieberman amendment to cap greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 at the 2000 levels and establish a mandatory economy-wide cap and trade program.
Access Senator Reid's website (click here). Access Senator Reid's Minority website (click here).
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), will replace Senator Pete Dominici (R-NM) on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Bingaman, 63, has been a strong advocate for the Clinton area Roadless Rule saying, "the Clinton Roadless Rule struck a chord with Americans, who want to ensure that the few remaining acres of roadless areas in our national forests will be there for the enjoyment of their children and grandchildren." He has criticized the Administration on its implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative and the fuels reduction strategy and said, the "leadership of the Forest Service has... pushed its managers to treat the cheapest and easiest acres, leaving communities at risk and wasting taxpayer dollars. On the issue of climate change and technology, Bingaman has said, "Our current policy of exclusive reliance on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gases has not really led to changes in the technologies we use... We will be wasting taxpayer dollars, if we continue to rely exclusively on government supported R&D to solve the problem of global warming. If we are going to address climate change at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers and society, we need a combined strategy of funding R&D and sending the right price signal to markets. I have been proposing a cap-and-trade approach to establish such a price signal on greenhouse gas emissions..."
Bingaman opposes S.3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and has said he will vote against it. He said, In terms of expanding the nation’s energy supply, "the bill takes us in the wrong direction over the long term." He is concerned about the enormous revenue shift that would result from the new entitlement program that would be created for Gulf Coast states if the legislation becomes law. He supports On energy legislation he supports, Senate Democrats bills which calls "smart, pro-consumer policies to help put America firmly on the path to energy independence." He supports making America the world leader in areas like solar, wind and biofuels; and actions to combat price gouging. He lists specifically, S.2829, the Clean EDGE Act of 2006); S.2025, the Vehicles and Fuels Choices for American Security Act; S.2747, the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006, or S.2677, the Securing America’s Energy Independence Act.
Bingaman has been a strong support of preserving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) saying drilling for oil and gas "will do little to meet our energy needs and nothing to reduce our energy prices... even at its peak production -- twenty years from now -- it will reduce our reliance on imports by only 4 percent." Bingaman co-sponsored the bipartisan Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006, introduced in July and said, “It’s hard to imagine a genuine discussion of our country’s energy future without a significant effort to improve vehicle fuel efficiency." He called the measure a moderate proposal to begin raising the standards for fuel economy.
Access Senator Bingaman's website (click here). Access Bingaman's Ranking Member releases on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee website (click here).
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will apparently Chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and replace outspoken global warming critic Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). The current Ranking Member, Senator James Jeffords (I-VT) is retiring and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) who has seniority is slated to Chair the Finance Committee; and Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is to Chair Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Boxer, 65, is regarded as one of the nation's most liberal advocates of environment protection. She has fought to protect the California coast and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. She has written bills to make polluters pay the costs of toxic Superfund clean-ups. She wrote the law to set drinking water standards at levels that protect children and other vulnerable populations, and she led the successful fight to stop the rollback of national arsenic standards. She is a coauthored of the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001.
Most recently, in October she filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit challenging U.S. EPA's rule on human pesticide testing; and she requested EPA to immediately issue a perchlorate health advisory that addresses early life exposures and susceptibility issues and revise the Agency’s perchlorate cleanup goal. In September, she said EPA’s proposed standards for particulate matter pollution chose "polluters over the people" and "fail to protect public health." She said the standard, "flies in the face of science, should not stand." She said if EPA did not reconsider the proposal it should be struck down by the Courts.
In late August Boxer commented on California legislation to impose broad caps on greenhouse-gas emissions and combat global warming saying, "I am so proud of California today, which has once again taken the lead in confronting a critical environmental issue by passing legislation to directly address the threat of global warming. Global warming could reshape the world as we know it. Climate change could dramatically reduce the Sierra Nevada’s snowpack, trigger a devastating rise in sea level, increase the spread of infectious disease, and harm agriculture." She is the lead cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006, authored by Senator Jim Jeffords which calls for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Access Senator Boxer's website (click here). Access the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee website (click here).
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will replace Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) as Speaker of the House. Pelosi has been an outspoken critic of the Administration. On energy issues she says, "The Republican plan for energy has allowed consumer price gouging by Big Oil companies, while these very companies earn record profits with help from tax breaks and subsidies provided by the Republican Congress. Democrats propose a New Direction for America’s Energy policy, which will put an end to price gouging and unnecessary subsidies for Big Oil companies. Democrats will focus on reinvesting our energy capital into the Midwest, not the Middle East." She says the Democratic energy program will "punish price gouging by Big Oil & help consumers; and stop $33 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for Big Oil.
On environmental issues she indicates, "Protecting the environment is vital to protect the health of all Americans, particularly our children. Democrats are fighting for cleaner air, cleaner water, and preservation of our natural resources, understanding that what we do today has an impact on future generations of Americans. We stand up for fair policies that protect America’s environment while allowing for economic opportunity -- priorities that can work together." She indicates, "the Bush administration’s policies have begun to reverse 30 years of bipartisan support for the environment by rolling back important regulations, proposing drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and crippling provisions in the landmark Clean Air Act." She says Democrats believe in: Proactive, common sense solutions to protect the health and safety of our children; Working together for clean water, clean air, and measures to increase recycling and reduce pollution; Forest management that protects our woodlands, not special interests; Energy policies that promote efficiency and innovation, and provide more protection for consumers; Protecting the nation’s precious wetlands and coastlines by supporting and defending the Clean Water Act; and Investing in technologies that will reduce air pollution and lead to greater energy independence.
Commenting on the recent Administration’s strategic plan on climate change presented to the House Science Committee in September she said, "The world needs decisive action to prevent global warming; instead the Bush Administration keeps offering the American people more hot air. Rather than stepping forward with bold ideas to take on the challenge of climate change, Bush Administration officials repackaged their research and development plans and presented them to the House Science Committee as a new strategic plan. There are precious few new ideas in this ‘strategic plan,’ and no new funding. More importantly, never-ending research isn’t enough – we need strong policies to get new technologies to the marketplace and reduce global warming pollution."
On the Administration's energy policy she has commented in recent months saying, "President Bush says our nation is addicted to oil, but five years after adopting the recommendations of Vice President Cheney’s secret Energy Task Force, the Administration continues to feed the addiction. Conceived in secret, the Administration’s energy plan was written by and for their friends in the oil industry, who raked in more than $100 billion in profits last year. It is a big success for Big Oil. It is an enormous failure for the American people." [And] "the Republicans keep replaying the same old, tired ideas on energy -- such as opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. We should not sacrifice the Arctic coastal plain, one of America’s last truly wild places, for the sake of a small amount of oil. Democrats are stepping forward with new ideas and new solutions. We can’t drill our way to energy independence -- but we can grow our way to energy independence. America’s farmers are ready to grow energy crops that will end our dependence on oil from unstable regions."
Access Representative Pelosi's House Minority website (click here). Access Representative Pelosi's website (click here).
Representative John Dingell (D-MI) will Chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee and replace Representative Joe Barton (R-TX). Dingell, 80, and considered a moderate is the longest-serving member of the House. A cosponsor of the Senate Democrats comprehensive energy independence bill entitled the “PROGRESS Act,” he said the bill is, "a solid plan that will get America on track toward achieving energy independence. Millions of vehicles already on the road are capable of operating on alternative fuels such as E-85... [the] proposal would give consumers the opportunity to use these fuels by ensuring they are readily available.” Dingell, one of three Democrats requesting a GAO study on GAO) EPA's lead and copper rule agreed with the findings that it was "inadequate and may be putting public health at risk." On Superfund, Dingell says, "The Republican Congress and the Bush Administration continue to underfund what has historically been a productive program. The President should explain to the American people why he is content to leave the public health and environment at risk while toxic sites lay untreated in our communities for years." Dingell has also requested EPA clarification of the case law and EPA's position relating to CERCLA responsible party liability issues since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. 125 S. Ct, 577 (2004) [See WIMS 10/27/06]. Dingell and several colleagues also sponsored legislation, H.R. 879, that would require all new and replacement underground storage tanks to have secondary containment.
Dingell has been an advocate for controlling the import of solid waste from Canada. He says that, H.R. 2491, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2005, which passed the House and is stalled in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, "contains important provisions to implement and enforce the bilateral U.S.-Canadian Agreement concerning the transboundary movement of hazardous waste between our countries. The bill would ensure that the U.S.-Canadian Agreement is properly implemented and enforced." Commenting on a July 2006, GAO report which he and others requested, that concluded EPA's air toxics program is failing to reduce public health risks from cancer-causing toxic air pollution, Dingell said, "We in Congress who voted for these deadlines expected better from EPA; the American people deserved better. And the Bush Administration's chronic underfunding of environmental priorities means that progress will continue to be limited."
Access Representative Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee Minority website (click here). Access Representative Dingell's website (click here).
Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) will Chair the House Committee on Resources and replace Richard Pombo (R-CA) who was defeated in his bid for re-election. Pombo was a strong advocate for drilling in ANWR and reforming the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Rahall, 57, has a mixed record of being pro-labor, yet because of his support for the mining industry he opposes some Democratic environmental and energy initiatives. On November 9, Representative Rahall issued a release which he said offered a "glimpse into the future of the Resources Committee." He said, "For too long now, this Congress has pursued policies that are out of touch with American expectations for conserving our unique natural and cultural heritage -- and my colleagues and I are looking forward to working together to restore the balance that has been lost along the way... I have always been a believer in the 'two E’s' – endowment and empowerment – which together will go a long way toward realizing the potential of our nation’s most precious resources and preserving our country’s heritage for future generations... most significant resources are still not properly cared for and protected -- whether it be roadless areas in national forests, the crumbling national parks, threatened and endangered species, or the integrity of our oceans and our fisheries. As Chairman of this Committee, it is integral to promote sound conservation that will protect the wilderness potential of public lands, promote outdoor recreation opportunities to hunt, fish and enjoy our natural environment, and restore our oceans and fisheries.
"Americans must also be empowered by protecting their right-to-know through laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), ending corporate welfare, reclaiming Appalachia, and protecting the disenfranchised in Indian Country and our territories. As Resources Chairman, I will maintain NEPA, end royalty holidays in the OCS and give-aways under the Mining Law of 1872, prioritize the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and miners, advance Native American health care, and tackle territorial issues such as political self determination."
On September Rahall commented on the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California upholding the "Roadless Rule" saying, "A great swath of America’s natural heritage has been granted a pardon from destructive developments due to a landmark court ruling overturning the Bush Administration’s policy to set aside the popular Clinton-era “roadless rule” for National Forests."
Access Representative Rahall Resource Committee Minority website (click here). Access Representative Rahall website (click here).
Other Major Committee Changes - Obviously, there are many other Committee and Subcommittee changes that will affect environmental and energy decisions in the 110th Congress, too numerous to detail here. The following is a brief summary of the other major Committee changes.
In the Senate: Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry: Tom Harkin (D-IA), 66, will replace Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Harkin's website (click here). Commerce, Science, & Transportation: Daniel Inouye (D-HI), 82, will replace Ted Stevens (R-AK). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Inouye's website (click here).
In the House: Agriculture: Collin Peterson (D-MN), 62, will replace Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Peterson's website (click here). Transportation & Infrastructure: James Oberstar (D-MN), 72, will replace Don Young (R-AK). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Oberstar's website (click here). Science: Bart Gordon (D-TN), 57, will replace retiring Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-NY). Access the Committee website (click here). Access Gordon's website (click here).
Thursday, November 09, 2006
NAM Sees Opportunity In Political Upheaval
Nov 8: Jay Timmons, Senior Vice President for Policy and Government Relations of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) conducted a press briefing on the election results and said, “Tuesday’s election upheaval should be seen not as a radical shift to the political left, but rather an expression of widespread frustration. I believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi will assume the House Speaker’s gavel with a determination to deliver results for the American people to enable her party to govern beyond two years. To do that, I anticipate she and her leadership team will bring nontraditional allies together to forge consensus on key issues, and that will include the business community.” Timmons acknowledged that manufacturing lost many stalwart friends in the elections, many of whom have won the NAM’s Award for Manufacturing Legislative Excellence, and that their support will be missed. He said, “We extend our thanks to them but the voters have spoken. We are optimistic that the incoming legislators share our interest in strengthening the U.S. economy and creating more jobs. During the campaigns, most clearly staked out their positions in the political center, not the extreme. We will welcome them to Washington and seek to work with them.
“Sometimes a new Congress creates fresh opportunities for positive legislation if only because the new legislators bring with them a fresh attitude. The importance of manufacturing to our country transcends political considerations. The American people have made it clear they are weary of the negative tone of public discourse in Washington that prevents action on important issues.” Timmons said the NAM will work aggressively with the lame-duck Congress for action on long overdue legislation – particularly development of OCS natural gas resources and renewal of the research and development tax credit. He said, “These are things that should have been done long ago. Come January, we will work with the 110th Congress under the assumption that the new Congressional leaders want to build a successful track record. We can put partisanship aside and work together for economic growth. If we do, much can be accomplished for America’s manufacturing economy and the 14 million employees who work there.”
Access a release and link to a webcast of the press briefing (click here). [*All]
“Sometimes a new Congress creates fresh opportunities for positive legislation if only because the new legislators bring with them a fresh attitude. The importance of manufacturing to our country transcends political considerations. The American people have made it clear they are weary of the negative tone of public discourse in Washington that prevents action on important issues.” Timmons said the NAM will work aggressively with the lame-duck Congress for action on long overdue legislation – particularly development of OCS natural gas resources and renewal of the research and development tax credit. He said, “These are things that should have been done long ago. Come January, we will work with the 110th Congress under the assumption that the new Congressional leaders want to build a successful track record. We can put partisanship aside and work together for economic growth. If we do, much can be accomplished for America’s manufacturing economy and the 14 million employees who work there.”
Access a release and link to a webcast of the press briefing (click here). [*All]
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Climate Change Threat To Natural & Cultural Heritage
Nov 7: Cultural and nature-based heritage sites-- from Charles Darwin’s favorite barrier reef in Belize and South Africa’s famous West Coast National Park to 600 year-old Thai ruins and archaeological sites in Scotland -- are increasingly threatened by climate change. These are among the findings from a new report, The Atlas of Climate Change: Mapping the World’s Greatest Challenge, compiled by researchers with the Stockholm Environment Institute with assistance from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). According to the report, some of these priceless treasures are at risk as a result of impacts like rising sea levels, flooding and storms. Others, including mosques, cathedrals, monuments, and artifacts at ancient sites are threatened by changes in historic and local climatic conditions. These in turn may lead to subtle but damaging shifts in moisture levels affecting structures directly, or the chemistry and stability of soils in which they are found.
The findings, were unveiled at the 12th Conference of the Parties (COP12) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2nd Meeting of the Parties (MOP2) to the Kyoto Protocol taking place in Nairobi, Kenya, and are based on a number of new studies by researchers across the globe including members of the World Heritage Committee linked with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre.
Access a lengthy release and links to the complete report and related information (click here). [*Climate]
The findings, were unveiled at the 12th Conference of the Parties (COP12) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2nd Meeting of the Parties (MOP2) to the Kyoto Protocol taking place in Nairobi, Kenya, and are based on a number of new studies by researchers across the globe including members of the World Heritage Committee linked with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre.
Access a lengthy release and links to the complete report and related information (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
U.S.- Canada Air Quality Agreement Progress Report
Nov 6: U.S. EPA has posted the United States - Canada Air Quality Agreement Progress Report, 2006. The International Joint Commission (IJC) is responsible for inviting comment on the Air Quality Agreement Progress Report and for providing a synthesis of the comments to governments to assist them in implementing the Agreement. The Air Quality Committee will have the benefit of the synthesis as it implements the Agreement and prepares the next Progress Report. Comments on any aspect of the Agreement are being solicited and should be submitted to the contacts listed in the report by February 28, 2007.
The 2006 Progress Report, prepared by the bilateral Air Quality Committee, is the eighth biennial report compiled under the 1991 Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement. The report highlights actions undertaken by Canada and the United States in the last two years to address transboundary air pollution within the context of the Agreement -- namely, acid rain and ground-level ozone. The report indicates that over the last two years, Canada and the United States have continued to successfully reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the major contributors to acid rain. Both countries have also made considerable progress in meeting the requirements of the Ozone Annex to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the precursors to ground-level ozone. Canada and the United States have focused their actions on reducing these emissions from major sources such as electric generating units, industrial sources, and on-road and nonroad transportation. Each country’s progress in achieving the requirements of the Acid Rain Annex and the Ozone Annex is summarized in the report.
The 2006 Progress Report includes the third five-year comprehensive review of the Air Quality Agreement, which has been organized in a question and answer format to better address requirements in the Agreement and public comments on the 2004 Progress Report submitted by the IJC. The review responds to several deferred issues from previous reviews in 1996 and 2002, highlights progress on several topics, and outlines future areas of potential focus.
Access the complete 84-page report (click here). [*Air]
The 2006 Progress Report, prepared by the bilateral Air Quality Committee, is the eighth biennial report compiled under the 1991 Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement. The report highlights actions undertaken by Canada and the United States in the last two years to address transboundary air pollution within the context of the Agreement -- namely, acid rain and ground-level ozone. The report indicates that over the last two years, Canada and the United States have continued to successfully reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the major contributors to acid rain. Both countries have also made considerable progress in meeting the requirements of the Ozone Annex to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the precursors to ground-level ozone. Canada and the United States have focused their actions on reducing these emissions from major sources such as electric generating units, industrial sources, and on-road and nonroad transportation. Each country’s progress in achieving the requirements of the Acid Rain Annex and the Ozone Annex is summarized in the report.
The 2006 Progress Report includes the third five-year comprehensive review of the Air Quality Agreement, which has been organized in a question and answer format to better address requirements in the Agreement and public comments on the 2004 Progress Report submitted by the IJC. The review responds to several deferred issues from previous reviews in 1996 and 2002, highlights progress on several topics, and outlines future areas of potential focus.
Access the complete 84-page report (click here). [*Air]
Monday, November 06, 2006
COP12/MOP2 Climate Change Conference Begins In Nairobi
Nov 6: The United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Nairobi, Kenya got underway with calls for action and a stark warning that climate change is fast proving to be one of the greatest challenges in the history of humankind. President of the conference, Kenyan Environment Minister Kivutha Kibwana said, "Climate change is rapidly emerging as one of the most serious threats that humanity may ever face." The two-week conference running from November 6 to 17, 2006, the twelfth Conference of the 189 Parties (COP12) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the second meeting of the 166 Parties (MOP2) to the Kyoto Protocol, is the first UN climate summit in sub-Saharan Africa and is expected to draw around five thousand participants.
President Kibwana called on Parties meeting in Nairobi to work together to ensure that real action is achieved on the issue of adaptation to climate change. He said, "Past and current greenhouse gas emission levels have already committed us to at least some level of temperature increase, and therefore a certain level of adaptation measures will be needed as a result." The UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer called for specific activities to be agreed within the five-year work plan on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. He said, “We expect countries to take decisions in Nairobi that will enhance action on adaptation on the ground.” Another key outcome expected of the conference is agreement on how to manage the UNFCCC’s Adaptation Fund. The Fund is financed by a share of proceeds generated by the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism (CDM). The CDM permits industrialized countries which are members of the Protocol to invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries, and thereby generate tradable emission credits.
Among other items, perhaps the most important is negotiating commitments beyond 2012 for countries under the Kyoto Protocol and talks under the UNFCCC on the future of the climate change process, with a focus on how to advance development in a sustainable way and on how to realize the full potential of market-based opportunities. In an opening statement to the 189 Parties, Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "The international climate change process is about building the future. The urgency of addressing the challenge of climate change is such that the foundations and the walls have to be built at the same time, to use the construction analogy. The foundations include crucial blocks such as capacity building, technology transfer to developing countries and adaptation to climate change impacts. These are critical for developing countries to participate in the process. The walls are being constructed in the discussions on the future under the Convention’s Dialogue and the Ad hoc Working Group (AWG)...
"Much has been achieved over the last year: the first session of the Dialogue under the Convention and the first session of the AWG; two regional workshops on adaptation for the Latin American and African regions; an explosion of activities in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); the launch of the Track II procedure under the Joint Implementation; start of the development of the International Transaction Log; start of the work of the Compliance Committee; and advances in the area of technology transfer, including publication of the practitioner’s guide on financing.
"There are also important initiatives emerging outside the UNFCCC process. The World Bank will be presenting its new framework on generating investment into clean energy and green development, a mortgage that is required to advance the construction. Sir Nicolas Stern [See previous post] will be reporting on the results of the extensive review of the economics of climate change that he led, and presenting his view on what will be the cost if we do not rise to the challenge in time... the overall challenge is a substantive one. Harambee, let us pull together, so that the process moves forward on those critical issues. Let’s make this meeting the success that the world expects!"
Access a release (click here). Access the opening statement of UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer (click here). Access the COP12/MOP2 website for all conference materials, documents and information (click here). Access complete and daily reporting from Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) -- a balanced and independent reporting service (click here). [*Climate]
President Kibwana called on Parties meeting in Nairobi to work together to ensure that real action is achieved on the issue of adaptation to climate change. He said, "Past and current greenhouse gas emission levels have already committed us to at least some level of temperature increase, and therefore a certain level of adaptation measures will be needed as a result." The UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer called for specific activities to be agreed within the five-year work plan on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. He said, “We expect countries to take decisions in Nairobi that will enhance action on adaptation on the ground.” Another key outcome expected of the conference is agreement on how to manage the UNFCCC’s Adaptation Fund. The Fund is financed by a share of proceeds generated by the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism (CDM). The CDM permits industrialized countries which are members of the Protocol to invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries, and thereby generate tradable emission credits.
Among other items, perhaps the most important is negotiating commitments beyond 2012 for countries under the Kyoto Protocol and talks under the UNFCCC on the future of the climate change process, with a focus on how to advance development in a sustainable way and on how to realize the full potential of market-based opportunities. In an opening statement to the 189 Parties, Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "The international climate change process is about building the future. The urgency of addressing the challenge of climate change is such that the foundations and the walls have to be built at the same time, to use the construction analogy. The foundations include crucial blocks such as capacity building, technology transfer to developing countries and adaptation to climate change impacts. These are critical for developing countries to participate in the process. The walls are being constructed in the discussions on the future under the Convention’s Dialogue and the Ad hoc Working Group (AWG)...
"Much has been achieved over the last year: the first session of the Dialogue under the Convention and the first session of the AWG; two regional workshops on adaptation for the Latin American and African regions; an explosion of activities in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); the launch of the Track II procedure under the Joint Implementation; start of the development of the International Transaction Log; start of the work of the Compliance Committee; and advances in the area of technology transfer, including publication of the practitioner’s guide on financing.
"There are also important initiatives emerging outside the UNFCCC process. The World Bank will be presenting its new framework on generating investment into clean energy and green development, a mortgage that is required to advance the construction. Sir Nicolas Stern [See previous post] will be reporting on the results of the extensive review of the economics of climate change that he led, and presenting his view on what will be the cost if we do not rise to the challenge in time... the overall challenge is a substantive one. Harambee, let us pull together, so that the process moves forward on those critical issues. Let’s make this meeting the success that the world expects!"
Access a release (click here). Access the opening statement of UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer (click here). Access the COP12/MOP2 website for all conference materials, documents and information (click here). Access complete and daily reporting from Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) -- a balanced and independent reporting service (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, November 03, 2006
Arctic Oil Significantly Less Than Previous Estimate
Nov 1: According to a new joint study by Wood Mackenzie and Fugro Robertson entitled, Future of the Arctic, A New Dawn for Exploration, the U.S. can no longer consider the Arctic as a long-term strategic energy supply source. The study found the Arctic potential is "significantly less than previous estimations had suggested, and the mix of resources have been found to contain much less oil and more gas." lead study author, Andrew Latham, Vice President, Energy Consulting at Wood Mackenzie said, "These findings are disappointing from a world oil resource base perspective.
The study shows only approximately one quarter of the oil volumes previously assessed in key North American and Greenland basins. Most importantly, the study reveals the Arctic to be a gas province, with 85 percent of the discovered resource and 74 percent of the exploration potential as gas. This oil:gas mix is not ideal because remote gas is often much harder to transport to markets. In addition, export and technology constraints are expected to delay production of a large portion of the commercial gas until 2050. This assessment basically calls into question the long-considered view that the Arctic represents one of the last great oil and gas frontiers and a strategic energy supply cache for the US. While these results are disappointing to the US as a whole, the Arctic still holds great potential for individual oil and gas companies with the advanced technology, money and time to develop the challenging resources and build the infrastructure required to transport it."
According to a release, Wood Mackenzie and Fugro Robertson assessed the Arctic resource potential using detailed geoscience analysis of individual basins and their various petroleum reservoirs, ground-truthed by industry data on exploration wells and existing discoveries. Under the most likely scenario, it is projected that production from the Arctic will contribute some 3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (mboepd) liquids and 5 mboepd gas at peak, with the proportion of production from U.S. basins lower than previously anticipated. The findings also indicate the US must look elsewhere to meet rising demand - namely to OPEC nations such as Venezuela, and to Russia. Although these supply options are not expected to face long-term technical challenges, they do carry broader, geopolitical concerns relating to security of supply.
Access a release (click here). Access links to audio and video announcements (click here). Access more information on the report including a brochure and links to contacts and related information (click here). Access the Wood Mackenzie website for additional information (click here). Access the Fugro Robertson website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
The study shows only approximately one quarter of the oil volumes previously assessed in key North American and Greenland basins. Most importantly, the study reveals the Arctic to be a gas province, with 85 percent of the discovered resource and 74 percent of the exploration potential as gas. This oil:gas mix is not ideal because remote gas is often much harder to transport to markets. In addition, export and technology constraints are expected to delay production of a large portion of the commercial gas until 2050. This assessment basically calls into question the long-considered view that the Arctic represents one of the last great oil and gas frontiers and a strategic energy supply cache for the US. While these results are disappointing to the US as a whole, the Arctic still holds great potential for individual oil and gas companies with the advanced technology, money and time to develop the challenging resources and build the infrastructure required to transport it."
According to a release, Wood Mackenzie and Fugro Robertson assessed the Arctic resource potential using detailed geoscience analysis of individual basins and their various petroleum reservoirs, ground-truthed by industry data on exploration wells and existing discoveries. Under the most likely scenario, it is projected that production from the Arctic will contribute some 3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (mboepd) liquids and 5 mboepd gas at peak, with the proportion of production from U.S. basins lower than previously anticipated. The findings also indicate the US must look elsewhere to meet rising demand - namely to OPEC nations such as Venezuela, and to Russia. Although these supply options are not expected to face long-term technical challenges, they do carry broader, geopolitical concerns relating to security of supply.
Access a release (click here). Access links to audio and video announcements (click here). Access more information on the report including a brochure and links to contacts and related information (click here). Access the Wood Mackenzie website for additional information (click here). Access the Fugro Robertson website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. Oral Arguments
Nov 1: The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could force many aging industrial polluters to install up-to-date air pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's "New Source Review" provisions. The case -- Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. (Case No. 05-848) -- involves U.S. EPA lawsuit brought against Duke Energy Corp. for failing to upgrade pollution controls when undertaking major renovations at eight coal-fired power plants. Throughout the oral arguments the Justices intervened extensively with questions and comments of the attorneys.
The questions presented in the case are: (1.) Whether the Fourth Circuit's decision [U.S. v. Duke Energy Corp, June 15, 2005, Case No. 04-1763, See WIMS 6/16/05] violated Section 307(b) of the Act, which provides that national Clean Air Act regulations are subject to challenge "only" in the D.C. Circuit by petition for review filed within 60 days of their promulgation, and "shall not be subject to judicial review" in enforcement proceedings, 42 U .S.C. 7607(b); and, (2. ) Whether the Act's definition of "modification," which turns on whether there is an "increase" in emissions and which applies to both the NSPS and PSD programs, rendered unlawful EPA's longstanding regulatory test defining PSD "increases" by reference to actual, annual emissions.
The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court affirmed the district court judgment; however it said for "somewhat different reasons than those relied on by the district court." In further explanation the Appeals Court said, "This case involves two different, but complementary provisions of the Act: the New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") provisions, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-92... NSPS centers on technological controls at an individual pollution-emitting apparatus, PSD fixes on the actual emissions from a site." [PSD exists primarily to prevent significant deterioration of ambient air quality in areas meeting clean air standards, while NSPS requires new sources to implement particular technologies to limit their own emissions.]
The Fourth Circuit concluded, "Congress mandated that the PSD statute incorporate the NSPS statutory definition of 'modification.' No one disputes that prior to enactment of the PSD statute, the EPA promulgated NSPS regulations that define the term "modification" so that only a project that increases a plant’s hourly rate of emissions constitutes a 'modification.' The EPA must, therefore, interpret its PSD regulations defining "modification" congruently... EPA retains its authority to amend and revise this and other regulations... As long as Congress mandates that 'modification' be defined identically in the NSPS and PSD statutes, however, EPA must interpret that term in a consistent manner in the NSPS and PSD regulations."
Environmental Defense, in its oral argument to the Supreme Court said, "The Clean Air Act requires that the owner of a major emitting facility obtain a prevention of significant deterioration permit before engaging in a modification, which is defined to include any physical change that increases the amount of any pollutant emitted by such source. Since 1980, EPA's PSD regulations have measured such increases in terms of actual emissions in tons per year."
U.S. EPA, in its oral argument said, "The court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction and misconstrued the Clean Air Act in holding that EPA was required to define the determine 'modification' identically for the separate NSPS and PSD programs, and on the jurisdictional point I'd like to address the whipsaw question, because in fact it's quite clear that there's no whipsaw issue here for a number of reasons..."
Duke Energy, in its oral argument said, "...it seems to me it is very clear that the understanding of everyone in the industry, outside the industry, from 1980, candidly well beyond 1988 all the way up to 1999, was that these regulations didn't apply under any circumstances in the absence of an increase in the capacity. And you had to demonstrate that there would be an increase in the hourly rate of the emissions... To confirm precisely that interpretation. That's exactly why GE went to Mr. Reich and asked for a determination of applicability, and was told categorically PSD applicability is determined by evaluating any change in emissions rates caused by the conversion."
Amici Supporting Petitioners (Environmental Defense) include: State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO); The states of NY, CA, CT, DL, IL, IA, ME, MD, MS, MN, NH, NM, OR, RI, VT and PA; Additional states of NJ, AZ, KY, MI, WA, and DC.; various law professors; and the National Parks Conservation Association and Our Children's Earth Foundation. Amici Supporting Respondent (Duke Energy) include: American Electric Power Company, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Southern Company, and Utility Air Regulatory Group; the Manufacturers Association Work Group including -- Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American Chemistry Council; American Forest & Paper Association; American Gas Association; American Petroleum Institute; Council of Industrial Boiler Owners; Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; National Association of Manufacturers; Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; National Oilseed Processors Association; Corn Refiners Association; and the National Cotton Council of America; and the Washington Legal Foundation.
Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Duke Energy Supreme Court & Related Activities for links to the Supreme Court docket; transcript of the oral arguments; petioners, respondent, amici briefs; the Fourth Circuit opinion; and related WIMS articles (click here). [*Air]
The questions presented in the case are: (1.) Whether the Fourth Circuit's decision [U.S. v. Duke Energy Corp, June 15, 2005, Case No. 04-1763, See WIMS 6/16/05] violated Section 307(b) of the Act, which provides that national Clean Air Act regulations are subject to challenge "only" in the D.C. Circuit by petition for review filed within 60 days of their promulgation, and "shall not be subject to judicial review" in enforcement proceedings, 42 U .S.C. 7607(b); and, (2. ) Whether the Act's definition of "modification," which turns on whether there is an "increase" in emissions and which applies to both the NSPS and PSD programs, rendered unlawful EPA's longstanding regulatory test defining PSD "increases" by reference to actual, annual emissions.
The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court affirmed the district court judgment; however it said for "somewhat different reasons than those relied on by the district court." In further explanation the Appeals Court said, "This case involves two different, but complementary provisions of the Act: the New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") provisions, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-92... NSPS centers on technological controls at an individual pollution-emitting apparatus, PSD fixes on the actual emissions from a site." [PSD exists primarily to prevent significant deterioration of ambient air quality in areas meeting clean air standards, while NSPS requires new sources to implement particular technologies to limit their own emissions.]
The Fourth Circuit concluded, "Congress mandated that the PSD statute incorporate the NSPS statutory definition of 'modification.' No one disputes that prior to enactment of the PSD statute, the EPA promulgated NSPS regulations that define the term "modification" so that only a project that increases a plant’s hourly rate of emissions constitutes a 'modification.' The EPA must, therefore, interpret its PSD regulations defining "modification" congruently... EPA retains its authority to amend and revise this and other regulations... As long as Congress mandates that 'modification' be defined identically in the NSPS and PSD statutes, however, EPA must interpret that term in a consistent manner in the NSPS and PSD regulations."
Environmental Defense, in its oral argument to the Supreme Court said, "The Clean Air Act requires that the owner of a major emitting facility obtain a prevention of significant deterioration permit before engaging in a modification, which is defined to include any physical change that increases the amount of any pollutant emitted by such source. Since 1980, EPA's PSD regulations have measured such increases in terms of actual emissions in tons per year."
U.S. EPA, in its oral argument said, "The court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction and misconstrued the Clean Air Act in holding that EPA was required to define the determine 'modification' identically for the separate NSPS and PSD programs, and on the jurisdictional point I'd like to address the whipsaw question, because in fact it's quite clear that there's no whipsaw issue here for a number of reasons..."
Duke Energy, in its oral argument said, "...it seems to me it is very clear that the understanding of everyone in the industry, outside the industry, from 1980, candidly well beyond 1988 all the way up to 1999, was that these regulations didn't apply under any circumstances in the absence of an increase in the capacity. And you had to demonstrate that there would be an increase in the hourly rate of the emissions... To confirm precisely that interpretation. That's exactly why GE went to Mr. Reich and asked for a determination of applicability, and was told categorically PSD applicability is determined by evaluating any change in emissions rates caused by the conversion."
Amici Supporting Petitioners (Environmental Defense) include: State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO); The states of NY, CA, CT, DL, IL, IA, ME, MD, MS, MN, NH, NM, OR, RI, VT and PA; Additional states of NJ, AZ, KY, MI, WA, and DC.; various law professors; and the National Parks Conservation Association and Our Children's Earth Foundation. Amici Supporting Respondent (Duke Energy) include: American Electric Power Company, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Southern Company, and Utility Air Regulatory Group; the Manufacturers Association Work Group including -- Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American Chemistry Council; American Forest & Paper Association; American Gas Association; American Petroleum Institute; Council of Industrial Boiler Owners; Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; National Association of Manufacturers; Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; National Oilseed Processors Association; Corn Refiners Association; and the National Cotton Council of America; and the Washington Legal Foundation.
Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Duke Energy Supreme Court & Related Activities for links to the Supreme Court docket; transcript of the oral arguments; petioners, respondent, amici briefs; the Fourth Circuit opinion; and related WIMS articles (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
U.S. v. Johnson Provides Another Interpretation Of Rapanos
Oct 31: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Case No. 05-1444. Following the First Circuit's decision in this case, see United States v. Johnson, 437 F.3d 157 (1st. Cir. 2006), appellants moved for rehearing en banc (full panel), noting the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in United States v. Rapanos, 376 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2004). The Appeals Court held the petition in abeyance pending a decision in that case. Following the decision in Rapanos v. United States, appellants supplemented their previous petition. They requested that the Appeals Court grant a rehearing en banc to resolve the conflict between the panel decision and Rapanos, or, alternately, that the decision be vacated with prejudice on the ground that the evidence in the record supports a judgment in their favor. The government filed a response requesting that the Appeals Court vacate its previous decision and remand the case to the district court (Massachusetts). The Appeals Court said in a 2-1 decision, "After careful consideration, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with Rapanos..."
In its opinion, the Appeals Court explained the history of the case saying, "In separate rulings on liability and remedy, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The district court denied appellants' motion for reconsideration, stating that 'there is a sufficient basis for the United States to exercise jurisdiction because the undisputed evidence shows that the three wetlands are hydrologically connected to the navigable Weweantic River by nonnavigable tributaries.'" The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in a divided, 2-1 decision. The majority concluded that it was unnecessary to decide whether the "diffusion of water through wetlands" was a sufficient hydrological connection to support a "significant nexus." The dissenting Judge said the United States "...may not constitutionally regulate wetlands that are neither themselves navigable nor truly adjacent to navigable waters."
The Appeals Court offers a brief summation of the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States. In their briefs for en banc rehearing, appellants contended that a rehearing was necessary to resolve the tension between the panel opinion and Rapanos. They argued that under either the plurality opinion or Justice Kennedy's concurrence, a" hydrological connection" is insufficient to establish jurisdiction, although they also argued strenuously that the plurality's test alone should apply. The government argued that additional factfinding is necessary before the legal principles articulated in Rapanos can be applied in this case and opposed the petition for en banc review and urged the Appeals Court, instead "to vacate the panel's decision and remand the case to the district court."
The Appeals Court ruled, "We agree with the government that remand to the district court for application of the Rapanos standards is appropriate. The parties presented their cases in the district court without any awareness of the standards that now apply. They should now have an opportunity to develop their positions in the district court with an awareness of these standards. However, the question of what legal standard to apply is one of some complexity, and other courts have taken varying approaches to the issue. We conclude that the United States may assert jurisdiction over the target sites if it meets either Justice Kennedy's legal standard or that of the plurality. We explain our reasoning..."
In explaining, the Appeals Court says, in the months since Rapanos, four courts have applied its legal standards -- two district courts and two courts of appeals [See links below to the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos]. The Appeals Court discusses the district court decisions -- United States v. Evans; and United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co. -- and the other Appeals Court decisions -- Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg (9th Circuit); and USA v. Gerke Excavating, Inc.
The Appeals Court also analyzes the so-called "Marks directive" that "[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds," Marks, 430 U.S. at 193 (internal citation omitted). On Marks, the Appeals Court says the understanding of "narrowest grounds" as used in Marks "does not translate easily to the present situation."
In its conclusion, again in a split 2-1 decision, the Appeals Court says on remand, "...the district court should do exactly as Justice Stevens has suggested. The federal government can establish jurisdiction over the target sites if it can meet either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard as laid out in Rapanos." The dissent in the opinion indicates, "I depart from the majority in interpreting what standards Rapanos has established. The plurality's 'hydrological connection' test provides the proper constitutional limit on federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. Although the majority has provided an able analysis of a thorny issue, I cannot concur that Justice Kennedy's seemingly opaque 'significant nexus' test is a constitutional measure of federal regulatory jurisdiction..."
Access the complete opinion and brief dissent (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos for links and extensive information (click here). [*Water]
In its opinion, the Appeals Court explained the history of the case saying, "In separate rulings on liability and remedy, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The district court denied appellants' motion for reconsideration, stating that 'there is a sufficient basis for the United States to exercise jurisdiction because the undisputed evidence shows that the three wetlands are hydrologically connected to the navigable Weweantic River by nonnavigable tributaries.'" The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in a divided, 2-1 decision. The majority concluded that it was unnecessary to decide whether the "diffusion of water through wetlands" was a sufficient hydrological connection to support a "significant nexus." The dissenting Judge said the United States "...may not constitutionally regulate wetlands that are neither themselves navigable nor truly adjacent to navigable waters."
The Appeals Court offers a brief summation of the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States. In their briefs for en banc rehearing, appellants contended that a rehearing was necessary to resolve the tension between the panel opinion and Rapanos. They argued that under either the plurality opinion or Justice Kennedy's concurrence, a" hydrological connection" is insufficient to establish jurisdiction, although they also argued strenuously that the plurality's test alone should apply. The government argued that additional factfinding is necessary before the legal principles articulated in Rapanos can be applied in this case and opposed the petition for en banc review and urged the Appeals Court, instead "to vacate the panel's decision and remand the case to the district court."
The Appeals Court ruled, "We agree with the government that remand to the district court for application of the Rapanos standards is appropriate. The parties presented their cases in the district court without any awareness of the standards that now apply. They should now have an opportunity to develop their positions in the district court with an awareness of these standards. However, the question of what legal standard to apply is one of some complexity, and other courts have taken varying approaches to the issue. We conclude that the United States may assert jurisdiction over the target sites if it meets either Justice Kennedy's legal standard or that of the plurality. We explain our reasoning..."
In explaining, the Appeals Court says, in the months since Rapanos, four courts have applied its legal standards -- two district courts and two courts of appeals [See links below to the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos]. The Appeals Court discusses the district court decisions -- United States v. Evans; and United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co. -- and the other Appeals Court decisions -- Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg (9th Circuit); and USA v. Gerke Excavating, Inc.
The Appeals Court also analyzes the so-called "Marks directive" that "[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds," Marks, 430 U.S. at 193 (internal citation omitted). On Marks, the Appeals Court says the understanding of "narrowest grounds" as used in Marks "does not translate easily to the present situation."
In its conclusion, again in a split 2-1 decision, the Appeals Court says on remand, "...the district court should do exactly as Justice Stevens has suggested. The federal government can establish jurisdiction over the target sites if it can meet either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard as laid out in Rapanos." The dissent in the opinion indicates, "I depart from the majority in interpreting what standards Rapanos has established. The plurality's 'hydrological connection' test provides the proper constitutional limit on federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. Although the majority has provided an able analysis of a thorny issue, I cannot concur that Justice Kennedy's seemingly opaque 'significant nexus' test is a constitutional measure of federal regulatory jurisdiction..."
Access the complete opinion and brief dissent (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos for links and extensive information (click here). [*Water]
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
UK's Stern Report On Impacts & Risks Of Climate Change
Oct 30: Being hailed as "the most comprehensive review ever carried out on the economics of climate change," the 700-page report known as The Stern Review, was released. The Review, which reports to the U.K. Prime Minister and Chancellor, was commissioned by the Chancellor in July last year and was conducted by Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economic Service and former World Bank Chief Economist. The report was released the same day as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat, released its annual report on the latest available data on GHG emissions indicating that in the period 1990–2004, the overall emissions of industrialized countries decreased by 3.3 percent [See WIMS 10/30/06].
On releasing the report, Stern said, “The conclusion of the Review is essentially optimistic. There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act internationally. Governments, businesses and individuals all need to work together to respond to the challenge. Strong, deliberate policy choices by governments are essential to motivate change. But the task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity close.”
The first half of the Review focuses on the impacts and risks arising from uncontrolled climate change, and on the costs and opportunities associated with action to tackle it. A sound understanding of the economics of risk is critical here. The Review emphasizes that economic models over timescales of centuries do not offer precise forecasts – but they are an important way to illustrate the scale of effects we might see. The Review finds that all countries will be affected by climate change, but it is the poorest countries that will suffer earliest and most. Unabated climate change risks raising average temperatures by over 5°C from pre-industrial levels. Such changes would transform the physical geography of our planet, as well as the human geography – how and where we live our lives.
According to the report, "If we take no action to control emissions, each tonne of CO2 that we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85 -- but these costs are not included when investors and consumers make decisions about how to spend their money. Emerging schemes that allow people to trade reductions in CO2 have demonstrated that there are many opportunities to cut emissions for less than $25 a tonne. In other words, reducing emissions will make us better off. According to one measure, the benefits over time of actions to shift the world onto a low-carbon path could be in the order of $2.5 trillion each year. The shift to a low-carbon economy will also bring huge opportunities. Markets for low-carbon technologies will be worth at least $500bn, and perhaps much more, by 2050 if the world acts on the scale required [See WIMS 10/24/06]."
The second half of the Review examines the national and international policy challenges of moving to a low-carbon global economy. The report indicates that, "Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has seen. Three elements of policy are required for an effective response." (1) carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation, so that people are faced with the full social costs of their actions; (2) technology policy, to drive the development and deployment at scale of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products; and (3) removing barriers to energy efficiency, and to inform, educate and persuade individuals about what they can do to respond to climate change.
Access a release (click here). Access links to the complete report by chapters and two summaries (click here). Access additional links to Sir Nicholas Stern´s presentation and speaking notes, comments on the Stern Review by leading economists, background to the Review, and supporting commissioned research (click here). [*Climate]
On releasing the report, Stern said, “The conclusion of the Review is essentially optimistic. There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act internationally. Governments, businesses and individuals all need to work together to respond to the challenge. Strong, deliberate policy choices by governments are essential to motivate change. But the task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity close.”
The first half of the Review focuses on the impacts and risks arising from uncontrolled climate change, and on the costs and opportunities associated with action to tackle it. A sound understanding of the economics of risk is critical here. The Review emphasizes that economic models over timescales of centuries do not offer precise forecasts – but they are an important way to illustrate the scale of effects we might see. The Review finds that all countries will be affected by climate change, but it is the poorest countries that will suffer earliest and most. Unabated climate change risks raising average temperatures by over 5°C from pre-industrial levels. Such changes would transform the physical geography of our planet, as well as the human geography – how and where we live our lives.
According to the report, "If we take no action to control emissions, each tonne of CO2 that we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85 -- but these costs are not included when investors and consumers make decisions about how to spend their money. Emerging schemes that allow people to trade reductions in CO2 have demonstrated that there are many opportunities to cut emissions for less than $25 a tonne. In other words, reducing emissions will make us better off. According to one measure, the benefits over time of actions to shift the world onto a low-carbon path could be in the order of $2.5 trillion each year. The shift to a low-carbon economy will also bring huge opportunities. Markets for low-carbon technologies will be worth at least $500bn, and perhaps much more, by 2050 if the world acts on the scale required [See WIMS 10/24/06]."
The second half of the Review examines the national and international policy challenges of moving to a low-carbon global economy. The report indicates that, "Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has seen. Three elements of policy are required for an effective response." (1) carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation, so that people are faced with the full social costs of their actions; (2) technology policy, to drive the development and deployment at scale of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products; and (3) removing barriers to energy efficiency, and to inform, educate and persuade individuals about what they can do to respond to climate change.
Access a release (click here). Access links to the complete report by chapters and two summaries (click here). Access additional links to Sir Nicholas Stern´s presentation and speaking notes, comments on the Stern Review by leading economists, background to the Review, and supporting commissioned research (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, October 30, 2006
Kyoto Industrialized Parties Post 1990–2004 3.3 % GHG Reduction
Oct 30: Each year, developed countries submit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat, which then publishes an annual report on the latest available data on GHG emissions from these countries. This year’s GHG data report covers emissions from 1990 to 2004. The GHG emissions data submitted by Annex I (industrialized) Parties under the United Nations Climate Change Convention are considered accurate and reliable as a basis for assessing progress in emission reductions.
The UNFCCC report, Greenhouse Gas Data, 2006, constitutes the first complete set of data submitted by all 41 Annex I industrialized Parties of the Convention to the Bonn-based secretariat. According to the secretariat, in the period 1990–2004, the overall emissions of industrialized countries decreased by 3.3 percent. However, this was mostly due to a 36.8 percent decrease in emissions on the part of economies in transition of eastern and central Europe (EITs). Within the same time-period, the greenhouse gas emissions of the other industrialized Parties of the Convention grew by 11.0 percent. The Kyoto Protocol presently requires 35 industrialized countries and the European Community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels in its first commitment period between 2008 and 2012.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "The worrying fact is that EITs, which were mostly responsible for the overall emissions reductions of industrialized countries so far, as a group have experienced an emission increase of 4.1 percent in the period 2000-2004. This means that industrialized countries will need to intensify their efforts to implement strong policies which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." In particular, transport remains a sector where emission reductions are urgently required but seem to be especially difficult to achieve. Emissions from transportation grew by 23.9 percent from 1990 to 2004. According to the released data, the joint emissions of industrialized countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol were 15.3 per cent below the 1990 level in 2004, while the individual performance of countries varied.
The UN’s chief climate change official pointed out that despite the emission growth in some countries in the period 2000-2004, Parties of the Kyoto Protocol stand a good chance of meeting their individual emissions reduction commitments if they speedily apply the additional domestic mitigation measures they are planning and use the Kyoto Protocol’s market-based flexibility mechanisms. de Boer said, “The challenge is well understood. After its entry into force in 2005, the Kyoto Protocol is now firmly in place and is guiding industrialized countries in identifying and implementing policy options, including the Protocol’s flexibility mechanisms, to meet their targets under the treaty."
One promising option for meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets is the use of the clean development mechanism (CDM). The CDM permits industrialized countries to invest in sustainable development projects that reduce emissions in developing countries and thereby generate tradable emission credits. To date, around 375 CDM projects have been registered, with a total estimated emission reduction potential of more than 600 million tonnes. More than 900 more projects are in the pipeline. The total estimated emission reduction potential of all projects currently in the CDM pipeline in the period up to 2012 stands at around 1.4 billion tonnes, which amounts to about 12% of what industrialized Kyoto Protocol Parties emitted in 1990 [See previous post, Post Kyoto Commitments Needed To Stabilize Carbon Markets]. Last week, the UNFCCC launched the second project-based mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol: joint implementation (JI), which allows developed countries to acquire carbon credits from greenhouse gas emission reducing projects undertaken in other industrialized countries [See WIMS 10/27/06].
de Boer said, “In the countries that are members of the European Union, the use of the EU emissions trading scheme is growing in importance. We are looking forward to emissions trading between all countries with emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol when the first commitment period starts in 2008. The United Nations Climate Change Secretariat is presently putting in place the required support infrastructure to make this possible. At the same time, it is clear that further global action on climate change is urgently needed to generate significant investment flows into clean technology, making use of existing and new market mechanisms.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference - Nairobi 2006 (November 6 to 17, 2006), negotiations on the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol will continue, along with a dialogue on the future of the climate change process under the UNFCCC. The meeting will be the second Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 2), in conjunction with the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 12). The conference will also include, from November 6 to 14, the twenty-fifth session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 25), the twenty-fifth session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 25), and the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG 2).
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a webcast from UNFCCC (click here). Access a Presentation slide show (click here). Access the GHG Data 2006 Booklet (click here). Access the table Changes in GHG emissions from 1990 to 2004 for Annex I Parties (click here). Access complete information on the COP12/MOP2 and related meetings (click here). [*Climate]
The UNFCCC report, Greenhouse Gas Data, 2006, constitutes the first complete set of data submitted by all 41 Annex I industrialized Parties of the Convention to the Bonn-based secretariat. According to the secretariat, in the period 1990–2004, the overall emissions of industrialized countries decreased by 3.3 percent. However, this was mostly due to a 36.8 percent decrease in emissions on the part of economies in transition of eastern and central Europe (EITs). Within the same time-period, the greenhouse gas emissions of the other industrialized Parties of the Convention grew by 11.0 percent. The Kyoto Protocol presently requires 35 industrialized countries and the European Community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels in its first commitment period between 2008 and 2012.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "The worrying fact is that EITs, which were mostly responsible for the overall emissions reductions of industrialized countries so far, as a group have experienced an emission increase of 4.1 percent in the period 2000-2004. This means that industrialized countries will need to intensify their efforts to implement strong policies which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." In particular, transport remains a sector where emission reductions are urgently required but seem to be especially difficult to achieve. Emissions from transportation grew by 23.9 percent from 1990 to 2004. According to the released data, the joint emissions of industrialized countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol were 15.3 per cent below the 1990 level in 2004, while the individual performance of countries varied.
The UN’s chief climate change official pointed out that despite the emission growth in some countries in the period 2000-2004, Parties of the Kyoto Protocol stand a good chance of meeting their individual emissions reduction commitments if they speedily apply the additional domestic mitigation measures they are planning and use the Kyoto Protocol’s market-based flexibility mechanisms. de Boer said, “The challenge is well understood. After its entry into force in 2005, the Kyoto Protocol is now firmly in place and is guiding industrialized countries in identifying and implementing policy options, including the Protocol’s flexibility mechanisms, to meet their targets under the treaty."
One promising option for meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets is the use of the clean development mechanism (CDM). The CDM permits industrialized countries to invest in sustainable development projects that reduce emissions in developing countries and thereby generate tradable emission credits. To date, around 375 CDM projects have been registered, with a total estimated emission reduction potential of more than 600 million tonnes. More than 900 more projects are in the pipeline. The total estimated emission reduction potential of all projects currently in the CDM pipeline in the period up to 2012 stands at around 1.4 billion tonnes, which amounts to about 12% of what industrialized Kyoto Protocol Parties emitted in 1990 [See previous post, Post Kyoto Commitments Needed To Stabilize Carbon Markets]. Last week, the UNFCCC launched the second project-based mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol: joint implementation (JI), which allows developed countries to acquire carbon credits from greenhouse gas emission reducing projects undertaken in other industrialized countries [See WIMS 10/27/06].
de Boer said, “In the countries that are members of the European Union, the use of the EU emissions trading scheme is growing in importance. We are looking forward to emissions trading between all countries with emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol when the first commitment period starts in 2008. The United Nations Climate Change Secretariat is presently putting in place the required support infrastructure to make this possible. At the same time, it is clear that further global action on climate change is urgently needed to generate significant investment flows into clean technology, making use of existing and new market mechanisms.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference - Nairobi 2006 (November 6 to 17, 2006), negotiations on the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol will continue, along with a dialogue on the future of the climate change process under the UNFCCC. The meeting will be the second Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 2), in conjunction with the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 12). The conference will also include, from November 6 to 14, the twenty-fifth session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 25), the twenty-fifth session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 25), and the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG 2).
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a webcast from UNFCCC (click here). Access a Presentation slide show (click here). Access the GHG Data 2006 Booklet (click here). Access the table Changes in GHG emissions from 1990 to 2004 for Annex I Parties (click here). Access complete information on the COP12/MOP2 and related meetings (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, October 27, 2006
Dingell Requests Clarification On CERCLA Liability Issues
Oct 23: U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, has requested clarification of the case law and EPA's position relating to CERCLA responsible party liability issues since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. 125 S. Ct, 577 (2004) [See WIMS 12/14/04]. In addition to the letter, Representative Dingell includes a list of 14 questions for Administrator Johnson and requests a response by November 9, 2006. In his letter, Dingell writes:
"On December 13, 2004, the Supreme Court decided in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. 125 S. Ct, 577 (2004) that a private party may not obtain contribution from other liable parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Section 113 (f)(1)) unless the private party has been sued under Section 106 or Section 107(a) of CERCLA. The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that held parties who initiate private cleanups may bring contribution suits irrespective of prior enforcement action. The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the question whether liable parties who are not subject to an action under Section 107 may instead seek relief under Section 107(a)(4)(B).
"Since the Supreme Court decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall there have been several United States Circuit Court of Appeals decisions and numerous district courts that have directly addressed the availability of a CERCLA subsection 107(a) contribution claim to potentially responsible parties who have voluntarily incurred cleanup costs. I am aware of two Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., 423 F.3d 90 (2nd Cir., 2005) and Atlantic Research Corp. v. United States of America (8th Cir., August 11, 2006) [See WIMS 8/14/06], that held a liable party may, under appropriate procedural circumstances, bring a cost recovery action under Section 107. These two Circuit Courts concluded that it no longer made sense to view Section 113 as a liable party's exclusive remedy. Several weeks after the Eighth Circuit's decision in Atlantic Research Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in El Dupont DeNemours and Company and Conoco, Inc., et al, v. United States of America (August 29, 2006) [See WIMS 9/12/06] refused to imply a cause of action for contribution under Section 107 or the common law available to potentially responsible parties engaged in sua sponte voluntary cleanups.
"I would like to obtain additional information relating to the case law in the other circuits with respect to the availability of Section 107 for contribution as well as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) view on the impact of the decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall on the overall cleanup program and the EPA's reaction to proposed legislative language to overturn the Supreme Court Decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall."
Access the letter and questions to Administrator Johnson (click here). Access the complete Cooper Industries v. Aviall S.Ct. opinion (click here). [*Remed]
"On December 13, 2004, the Supreme Court decided in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. 125 S. Ct, 577 (2004) that a private party may not obtain contribution from other liable parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Section 113 (f)(1)) unless the private party has been sued under Section 106 or Section 107(a) of CERCLA. The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that held parties who initiate private cleanups may bring contribution suits irrespective of prior enforcement action. The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the question whether liable parties who are not subject to an action under Section 107 may instead seek relief under Section 107(a)(4)(B).
"Since the Supreme Court decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall there have been several United States Circuit Court of Appeals decisions and numerous district courts that have directly addressed the availability of a CERCLA subsection 107(a) contribution claim to potentially responsible parties who have voluntarily incurred cleanup costs. I am aware of two Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., 423 F.3d 90 (2nd Cir., 2005) and Atlantic Research Corp. v. United States of America (8th Cir., August 11, 2006) [See WIMS 8/14/06], that held a liable party may, under appropriate procedural circumstances, bring a cost recovery action under Section 107. These two Circuit Courts concluded that it no longer made sense to view Section 113 as a liable party's exclusive remedy. Several weeks after the Eighth Circuit's decision in Atlantic Research Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in El Dupont DeNemours and Company and Conoco, Inc., et al, v. United States of America (August 29, 2006) [See WIMS 9/12/06] refused to imply a cause of action for contribution under Section 107 or the common law available to potentially responsible parties engaged in sua sponte voluntary cleanups.
"I would like to obtain additional information relating to the case law in the other circuits with respect to the availability of Section 107 for contribution as well as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) view on the impact of the decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall on the overall cleanup program and the EPA's reaction to proposed legislative language to overturn the Supreme Court Decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall."
Access the letter and questions to Administrator Johnson (click here). Access the complete Cooper Industries v. Aviall S.Ct. opinion (click here). [*Remed]
Thursday, October 26, 2006
EPA Launches New SmartWay Grow & Go Program
Oct 26: Promoting the environmental benefits of renewable fuels is the focus of the new SmartWay Grow & Go program, launched by the U.S. EPA. Expanding the successful SmartWay Transport Partnership, SmartWay Grow & Go companies are encouraged to make commitments toward improving the environment through the use of renewable fuels. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "Through SmartWay Grow & Go, President Bush is moving the fuels of the future into the market today. By investing in technology that unlocks the energy from our domestic crops, EPA and our partners are bringing breakthroughs in renewable fuel from the labs to the streets." The goal of the SmartWay Grow & Go program is to have 25 percent of EPA's SmartWay Transport partners using renewable fuels by 2012, and 50 percent by 2020. There are currently 481 SmartWay Transport partners including major truck and rail carriers as well as shipping and logistics companies.
Leading SmartWay partners are already taking action. For example, H-E-B and Meijer are expanding the sale of renewable fuels at their retail pumps, while Coca-Cola Enterprises' light and heavy duty fleets are expanding their use of ethanol and biodiesel as these fuels become more widely available. EPA said, "Renewable fuels are available today and provide environmental benefits. Ethanol reduces emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide and benzene, a known human carcinogen, and biodiesel provides significant reductions in carbon monoxide, particulate matter and sulfates. Use of ethanol and biodiesel results in less greenhouse gas emissions relative to conventional gasoline."
Access a release (click here). Access the SmartWay Grow & Go website for complete information (click here). [*Energy]
Leading SmartWay partners are already taking action. For example, H-E-B and Meijer are expanding the sale of renewable fuels at their retail pumps, while Coca-Cola Enterprises' light and heavy duty fleets are expanding their use of ethanol and biodiesel as these fuels become more widely available. EPA said, "Renewable fuels are available today and provide environmental benefits. Ethanol reduces emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide and benzene, a known human carcinogen, and biodiesel provides significant reductions in carbon monoxide, particulate matter and sulfates. Use of ethanol and biodiesel results in less greenhouse gas emissions relative to conventional gasoline."
Access a release (click here). Access the SmartWay Grow & Go website for complete information (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
EPA Air Advisors Urge Strengthening The Ozone Standard
Oct 25: U.S. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Panel issued new recommendations for limiting ozone, or smog pollution. The 23-member scientific advisory panel unanimously presented their view that there is no scientific justification for retention of the current 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm); and recommended instead that a substantially stronger standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm be adopted. Under a court-ordered schedule, EPA must propose action on the ozone standard by May 30, 2007, and take final action by February 2008.
In an October 24, 2006, cover letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the CASAC Ozone Panel said, "In its summary of EPA staff conclusions on the primary (health-related) ozone NAAQS found in Chapter 6 of the 2nd Draft Ozone Staff Paper, OAQPS set-forth two options with regard to revising the level and the form of the standard: (1) retain the current primary eight-hour (8-hr) NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm); or (2) consider a reduction in the level of the primary O3 NAAQS within the range of alternative 8-hr standards included in Staff’s exposure and risk assessments (which included a range from 0.064 to 0.084 ppm) with primary focus on an O3 level of 0.07 ppm with a range of forms from third- through fifth-highest daily maximum. The Ozone Panel unanimously concludes that: (1.) There is no scientific justification for retaining the current primary 8-hr NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), and (2.) The primary 8-hr NAAQS needs to be substantially reduced to protect human health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations. Therefore, the CASAC unanimously recommends a range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm for the primary ozone NAAQS."
EPA is currently reviewing the standards under a court-ordered schedule in a suit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of health and environmental groups, including the American Lung Association. Earthjustice attorney David Baron issued a statement regarding the CASAC announcement saying, "Scientists are now telling us that ozone is much more dangerous to our lungs than previously thought. We urge EPA to heed the advice of the health experts and strengthen the standards so we can all breathe easier. Federal health standards for smog are too weak to protect public health. Only last month, EPA Administrator Steve Johnson rejected a recommendation of his science advisors, the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, and a host of other public health groups that he strengthen the annual clean air standard for another pollutant - airborne particulate matter (including soot). The stronger standards had been opposed by industry groups. It's time for EPA to base standards on sound science instead of political science. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt standards strong enough to protect public health. We hope this time EPA will listen to the health experts and ensure the clean air Americans deserve."
Access the complete 112-page CASAC review and recommendations (click here). Access an Earthjustice release (click here). Access the CASAC Ozone Panel website for extensive background information (click here). [*Air]
In an October 24, 2006, cover letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the CASAC Ozone Panel said, "In its summary of EPA staff conclusions on the primary (health-related) ozone NAAQS found in Chapter 6 of the 2nd Draft Ozone Staff Paper, OAQPS set-forth two options with regard to revising the level and the form of the standard: (1) retain the current primary eight-hour (8-hr) NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm); or (2) consider a reduction in the level of the primary O3 NAAQS within the range of alternative 8-hr standards included in Staff’s exposure and risk assessments (which included a range from 0.064 to 0.084 ppm) with primary focus on an O3 level of 0.07 ppm with a range of forms from third- through fifth-highest daily maximum. The Ozone Panel unanimously concludes that: (1.) There is no scientific justification for retaining the current primary 8-hr NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), and (2.) The primary 8-hr NAAQS needs to be substantially reduced to protect human health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations. Therefore, the CASAC unanimously recommends a range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm for the primary ozone NAAQS."
EPA is currently reviewing the standards under a court-ordered schedule in a suit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of health and environmental groups, including the American Lung Association. Earthjustice attorney David Baron issued a statement regarding the CASAC announcement saying, "Scientists are now telling us that ozone is much more dangerous to our lungs than previously thought. We urge EPA to heed the advice of the health experts and strengthen the standards so we can all breathe easier. Federal health standards for smog are too weak to protect public health. Only last month, EPA Administrator Steve Johnson rejected a recommendation of his science advisors, the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, and a host of other public health groups that he strengthen the annual clean air standard for another pollutant - airborne particulate matter (including soot). The stronger standards had been opposed by industry groups. It's time for EPA to base standards on sound science instead of political science. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt standards strong enough to protect public health. We hope this time EPA will listen to the health experts and ensure the clean air Americans deserve."
Access the complete 112-page CASAC review and recommendations (click here). Access an Earthjustice release (click here). Access the CASAC Ozone Panel website for extensive background information (click here). [*Air]
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Post Kyoto Commitments Needed To Stabilize Carbon Markets
Oct 17: According to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, the world urgently needs a long-term legal framework to provide security for carbon markets and investments necessary to combat climate change. Speaking at the international conference “Make Markets Work for Climate” in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, de Boer said that while it was clear that globally there was strong commitment to address energy security and to green energy, it was also clear that poverty eradication and economic growth were the overriding concerns for developing countries.
de Boer said, “At present, the financial resources provided to developing countries do not suffice to meet the needs for mitigation and adaptation as required under the United Nations Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol." Last month, de Boer pointed out that a 100 billion dollars per year green investment flow to developing countries could be created if industrialized countries agreed to a 60 to 80% emission reduction by mid-century and used market-based mechanisms to help meet these commitments. Referring to this, he said, “To date, none of the sources of finance available to developing countries have a potential of this scale.”
Citing the need for a new global initiative to combat climate change, de Boer said that a self-financing climate compact would be the solution to generate financial flows between the North and South required to effectively tackle climate change. He said, This would ensure sustainable development for the future. But it requires a long-term legal framework to be in place.” The Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism (CDM) for example permits industrialized countries to invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries, and thereby generate tradable emission credits.
The CDM already has over 1,200 projects in the pipeline and an overall emission reduction potential of about 1.4 billion tonnes by 2012, amounting to the combined annual emissions of Spain and the United Kingdom. de Boer said, “Whilst the CDM has been gaining speed very rapidly, there would be a significant risk for the value of carbon beyond 2012 without a long term provision for the carbon market. To guarantee continuity for investments, a post 2012 agreement is urgently needed. At this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi (November 6 to 17), governments will continue discussion of the future action on climate change, including commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. The Parties will also look at measures to expand the CDM by building capacity in developing countries and to make it more accessible to the least developed countries, in particular in Africa.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC website (click here). [*Climate]
de Boer said, “At present, the financial resources provided to developing countries do not suffice to meet the needs for mitigation and adaptation as required under the United Nations Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol." Last month, de Boer pointed out that a 100 billion dollars per year green investment flow to developing countries could be created if industrialized countries agreed to a 60 to 80% emission reduction by mid-century and used market-based mechanisms to help meet these commitments. Referring to this, he said, “To date, none of the sources of finance available to developing countries have a potential of this scale.”
Citing the need for a new global initiative to combat climate change, de Boer said that a self-financing climate compact would be the solution to generate financial flows between the North and South required to effectively tackle climate change. He said, This would ensure sustainable development for the future. But it requires a long-term legal framework to be in place.” The Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism (CDM) for example permits industrialized countries to invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries, and thereby generate tradable emission credits.
The CDM already has over 1,200 projects in the pipeline and an overall emission reduction potential of about 1.4 billion tonnes by 2012, amounting to the combined annual emissions of Spain and the United Kingdom. de Boer said, “Whilst the CDM has been gaining speed very rapidly, there would be a significant risk for the value of carbon beyond 2012 without a long term provision for the carbon market. To guarantee continuity for investments, a post 2012 agreement is urgently needed. At this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi (November 6 to 17), governments will continue discussion of the future action on climate change, including commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. The Parties will also look at measures to expand the CDM by building capacity in developing countries and to make it more accessible to the least developed countries, in particular in Africa.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC website (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, October 23, 2006
U.S. Recycling Rate Climbs To 32%; Generation Down
Oct 23: According to a new report from U.S. EPA, Americans are recycling more and throwing away less. Administrator Stephen Johnson, speaking at the National Recycling Coalition Conference in Atlanta, said that the U.S. recycled 32 percent of its waste in 2005. Including composting, Americans recycled 79 million tons, representing a 2 percent increase from 2004 and a huge jump from 16 percent in 1990. In all, Americans generated nearly 246 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2005 – a decrease of nearly 2 million tons from 2004. The decrease is due in part to the decline in individual waste generation to about 4.5 pounds per person per day, representing a 1.5 percent decrease from 2004. In addition to generating less waste, individuals recycled nearly 1.5 pounds per person per day.
Other data contained in the report show recycling trends across the board are generally up: container and packaging recycling increased to 40 percent; nearly 62 percent of yard waste was composted; and about 42 million tons of paper were recycled -- a 50 percent recycling rate. EPA has collected and reported on data going back to 1960 on the generation and disposal of waste in the United States. The information is used to measure the success of municipal solid waste reduction and recycling programs across the country. The data also shows where the nation needs to make improvements in municipal waste management. EPA is releasing the executive summary now, until the full report and data tables are available. EPA plans to update the full report every two years.
Access a release (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the report and links to previous reports (click here). Access a basic overview of 2005 Municipal Solid Waste Fact and Figures (click here). [*Solid, *P2]
Other data contained in the report show recycling trends across the board are generally up: container and packaging recycling increased to 40 percent; nearly 62 percent of yard waste was composted; and about 42 million tons of paper were recycled -- a 50 percent recycling rate. EPA has collected and reported on data going back to 1960 on the generation and disposal of waste in the United States. The information is used to measure the success of municipal solid waste reduction and recycling programs across the country. The data also shows where the nation needs to make improvements in municipal waste management. EPA is releasing the executive summary now, until the full report and data tables are available. EPA plans to update the full report every two years.
Access a release (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the report and links to previous reports (click here). Access a basic overview of 2005 Municipal Solid Waste Fact and Figures (click here). [*Solid, *P2]
Friday, October 20, 2006
Corporate Guide To Climate-Related Risks & Opportunities
Oct 18: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change released a new "how to" guide entitled, Getting Ahead of the Curve: Corporate Strategies That Address Climate Change. Representatives from Shell, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Swiss Re and Whirlpool Corporation spoke about their companies’ corporate strategies to address climate change at the National Press Club announcement in Washington DC. The guide is designed for corporate decision makers as they navigate rapidly changing global markets and presents an in-depth look at the development and implementation of corporate strategies that take into account climate-related risks and opportunities. The guide, authored by Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan, lays out a step-by-step approach for companies to reshape their core business strategies in order to succeed in a future marketplace where greenhouse gases are regulated and carbon-efficiency is in demand. The research shows a growing consensus among corporate leaders that taking action on climate change is a sensible business decision. Many of the companies highlighted in the report are shifting their focus from managing the financial risks of climate change to exploiting new business opportunities for energy efficient and low-carbon products and services.
Relying on six highly detailed, on-site case studies, as well as results from a 100-question survey completed by 31 companies, the report offers a unique and in-depth look at the development and implementation of corporate strategies that address climate change. The featured case studies include Alcoa, Cinergy (now Duke Energy), DuPont, Shell, Swiss Re, and Whirlpool Corporation. One of the clearest conclusions is that businesses need to engage actively with government in the development of climate policy. Of 31 major corporations polled by the report author, nearly all companies believe that Federal greenhouse gas standards are imminent, and 84 percent of these companies believe regulations will take effect before 2015. The report offers policy makers insight into how companies are moving forward on climate change and how they can most effectively engage in the policy discussion. The Pew Center’s Eileen Claussen said, “If you look at what is happening today at the state level and in the Congress, a proactive approach in the policy arena clearly makes sound business sense. In the corporate world, inaction is no longer an option.”
The research draws from the experience of companies in the Pew Center’s Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). The BELC, with 42 companies representing over 3 million employees and a combined market value of more than $2.4 trillion, is the largest US-based association of corporations actively pursuing solutions to climate change. Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs also gave input. The members of the BELC are: ABB; Air Products; Alcan; Alcoa Inc.; American Electric Power; Bank of America; Baxter International Inc.; The Boeing Company; BP; California Portland Cement; CH2M HILL; Cummins Inc.; Deutsche Telekom; DTE Energy; Duke Energy; DuPont; Entergy; Exelon; GE; Georgia-Pacific; Hewlett-Packard Company; Holcim (US) Inc.; IBM; Intel; Interface Inc.; John Hancock Financial Services; Lockheed Martin; Marsh Novartis; Ontario Power Generation; PG&E Corporation; Rio Tinto; Rohm and Haas; Royal Dutch/Shell; SC Johnson; Sunoco; Toyota; TransAlta; United Technologies; Weyerhaeuser; Whirlpool Corporation; and Wisconsin Energy Corporation.
Access a release (click here). Access links to the complete report, executive summary and individual case studies (click here). [*Climate]
Relying on six highly detailed, on-site case studies, as well as results from a 100-question survey completed by 31 companies, the report offers a unique and in-depth look at the development and implementation of corporate strategies that address climate change. The featured case studies include Alcoa, Cinergy (now Duke Energy), DuPont, Shell, Swiss Re, and Whirlpool Corporation. One of the clearest conclusions is that businesses need to engage actively with government in the development of climate policy. Of 31 major corporations polled by the report author, nearly all companies believe that Federal greenhouse gas standards are imminent, and 84 percent of these companies believe regulations will take effect before 2015. The report offers policy makers insight into how companies are moving forward on climate change and how they can most effectively engage in the policy discussion. The Pew Center’s Eileen Claussen said, “If you look at what is happening today at the state level and in the Congress, a proactive approach in the policy arena clearly makes sound business sense. In the corporate world, inaction is no longer an option.”
The research draws from the experience of companies in the Pew Center’s Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). The BELC, with 42 companies representing over 3 million employees and a combined market value of more than $2.4 trillion, is the largest US-based association of corporations actively pursuing solutions to climate change. Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs also gave input. The members of the BELC are: ABB; Air Products; Alcan; Alcoa Inc.; American Electric Power; Bank of America; Baxter International Inc.; The Boeing Company; BP; California Portland Cement; CH2M HILL; Cummins Inc.; Deutsche Telekom; DTE Energy; Duke Energy; DuPont; Entergy; Exelon; GE; Georgia-Pacific; Hewlett-Packard Company; Holcim (US) Inc.; IBM; Intel; Interface Inc.; John Hancock Financial Services; Lockheed Martin; Marsh Novartis; Ontario Power Generation; PG&E Corporation; Rio Tinto; Rohm and Haas; Royal Dutch/Shell; SC Johnson; Sunoco; Toyota; TransAlta; United Technologies; Weyerhaeuser; Whirlpool Corporation; and Wisconsin Energy Corporation.
Access a release (click here). Access links to the complete report, executive summary and individual case studies (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, October 19, 2006
EPA TSCA Nanotechnology Stewardship Program
Oct 18: U.S. EPA is launching a collaborative process to design a Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under TSCA, to complement and support its efforts on new and existing nanoscale materials. Many nanoscale (one to 100 nanometers) materials are regarded as "chemical substances" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA provides EPA with a strong framework for ensuring that new and existing chemical substances are manufactured and used in a manner that protects against unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. For example, EPA requires manufacturers of new chemical substances to provide specific information to the Agency for review prior to manufacturing chemicals or introducing them into commerce. EPA can require reporting or development of information to assess existing chemicals already in the marketplace. Additionally, EPA can take action to ensure that those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment are effectively controlled.
EPA has received and reviewed a number of new chemical notices under TSCA for nanoscale materials and expects the number to increase in the future. The Agency will continue to implement TSCA to enable responsible development of nanotechnology and realize its potential environmental benefits. EPA says it will apply sound science, assess and, where appropriate, manage potential unreasonable risks to human health and the environment presented by nanoscale materials. EPA will be working collaboratively with stakeholders to develop and implement the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, and will announce a variety of opportunities for public input. The Agency will use the information resulting from the stewardship program to support the further development of its TSCA program for nanoscale materials, including any regulatory actions that may be needed to protect human health and the environment.
Elements involved in the design and implementation of the Stewardship Program will include: (1) public scientific peer consultations to discuss risk management practices and characterization for nanoscale materials; (2) an overall framework document describing the TSCA program for nanoscale materials; (3) a document on distinguishing the TSCA Inventory status of "new" versus "existing" chemical nanoscale materials; (4) a concept paper describing EPA's thinking for the Stewardship Program, as well as an Information Collection Request to collect data under the Stewardship Program; (5) workshops examining the pollution prevention opportunities for nanoscale materials; and (6) a public meeting to discuss these documents and program elements.
As part of the effort, EPA is creating a list of stakeholders. The Agency has sent letters to more than 500 organizations and individuals inviting participation in the design and development of a stewardship program that will help to better understand the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Additionally, an email notification list is being established to distribute new information on EPA efforts on nanotechnology under TSCA (See below). EPA held a preliminary meeting in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2006 to launch its new effort.
Access an EPA release (click here). Access the stakeholder letter from EPA (click here). Access an overview of the Program and links to additional information (click here). Access a FR announcement of the October 19, 2006 meeting (click here). Subscribe to EPA Nanotech TSCA notification list (click here). Access the National Nanotechnology Initiative website for additional information (click here). Access the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies for additional information (click here). Access previous post Groups Call For Nanotechnology Consumer Protection [*Toxics]
EPA has received and reviewed a number of new chemical notices under TSCA for nanoscale materials and expects the number to increase in the future. The Agency will continue to implement TSCA to enable responsible development of nanotechnology and realize its potential environmental benefits. EPA says it will apply sound science, assess and, where appropriate, manage potential unreasonable risks to human health and the environment presented by nanoscale materials. EPA will be working collaboratively with stakeholders to develop and implement the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, and will announce a variety of opportunities for public input. The Agency will use the information resulting from the stewardship program to support the further development of its TSCA program for nanoscale materials, including any regulatory actions that may be needed to protect human health and the environment.
Elements involved in the design and implementation of the Stewardship Program will include: (1) public scientific peer consultations to discuss risk management practices and characterization for nanoscale materials; (2) an overall framework document describing the TSCA program for nanoscale materials; (3) a document on distinguishing the TSCA Inventory status of "new" versus "existing" chemical nanoscale materials; (4) a concept paper describing EPA's thinking for the Stewardship Program, as well as an Information Collection Request to collect data under the Stewardship Program; (5) workshops examining the pollution prevention opportunities for nanoscale materials; and (6) a public meeting to discuss these documents and program elements.
As part of the effort, EPA is creating a list of stakeholders. The Agency has sent letters to more than 500 organizations and individuals inviting participation in the design and development of a stewardship program that will help to better understand the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Additionally, an email notification list is being established to distribute new information on EPA efforts on nanotechnology under TSCA (See below). EPA held a preliminary meeting in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2006 to launch its new effort.
Access an EPA release (click here). Access the stakeholder letter from EPA (click here). Access an overview of the Program and links to additional information (click here). Access a FR announcement of the October 19, 2006 meeting (click here). Subscribe to EPA Nanotech TSCA notification list (click here). Access the National Nanotechnology Initiative website for additional information (click here). Access the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies for additional information (click here). Access previous post Groups Call For Nanotechnology Consumer Protection [*Toxics]
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Third Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List
Oct 16: In a Federal Register announcement [71 FR 60704-60708], U.S. EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has started the process to develop the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL3) to help identify unregulated contaminants that may require a national drinking water regulation in the future. The CCL 3 contaminant nominations process is an opportunity to provide information on contaminants that the general public, stakeholders, agencies, and industry think should be considered for the CCL. Nominations must be received on or before December 15, 2006. The Agency will also accept nominations during the notice and comment period following EPA’s publication of the proposed CCL.
According to EPA, there are thousands of naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that have the potential to enter sources of drinking water (e.g., pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, industrial chemicals). Some of these contaminants may pose no risk to human health, but others may cause cancer or have endocrine disrupting, reproductive, or developmental effects. Naturally occurring microbial contaminants may also cause acute illness. To ensure that public health is protected, EPA must assess the universe of unregulated drinking water contaminants to determine if they may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The CCL is the primary vehicle used by EPA to target and prioritize unregulated contaminants in drinking water for research and analysis to determine which new contaminants should be regulated. SDWA requires that EPA publish, every five years, a list of unregulated chemical and microbial contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and which may require regulation under SWDA. EPA is also required to consult with the scientific community and provide notice and opportunity for public comment prior to publication of the CCL.
Access EPA's Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3) Nominations website for complete details including links to the FR announcement and the nominations website (click here). [*Drink]
According to EPA, there are thousands of naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that have the potential to enter sources of drinking water (e.g., pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, industrial chemicals). Some of these contaminants may pose no risk to human health, but others may cause cancer or have endocrine disrupting, reproductive, or developmental effects. Naturally occurring microbial contaminants may also cause acute illness. To ensure that public health is protected, EPA must assess the universe of unregulated drinking water contaminants to determine if they may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The CCL is the primary vehicle used by EPA to target and prioritize unregulated contaminants in drinking water for research and analysis to determine which new contaminants should be regulated. SDWA requires that EPA publish, every five years, a list of unregulated chemical and microbial contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and which may require regulation under SWDA. EPA is also required to consult with the scientific community and provide notice and opportunity for public comment prior to publication of the CCL.
Access EPA's Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3) Nominations website for complete details including links to the FR announcement and the nominations website (click here). [*Drink]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
