Mar 22: According to a release, U.S. EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data is available this year earlier than ever before for local communities and national analysis. Facility-specific data was released last September and the full national data for reporting year 2005 (January 1 to December 31, 2005, the latest available) was released today (March 22, 2007). EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information Molly O'Neill said, "EPA is getting quality data out to the public faster through electronic reporting which is good for the environment, good for states and good for our partners in industry. Some 95 percent of the 23,000 facilities used electronic reporting.
EPA said this year's data shows that "progress is being made in reducing releases of several chemicals of special concern." For example, between 2004 and 2005 dioxin releases decreased by 23 percent and mercury releases fell by nine percent. In addition, several individual industries have made significant progress in reducing releases. Petroleum refining releases dropped 10 percent transportation equipment registered a six percent decrease and chemical manufacturing cut releases by four percent.
Review of the last five years of data shows chemical releases reported to TRI have decreased by 22 percent nationally. The 2005 data shows a three percent, 117 million pounds, overall increase from 2004 in total disposal and other releases. EPA said annual changes are not unusual and cited a number of possible reasons for the increase including: production increases, fluctuations in the content of raw materials used in particular industries or changes in releases at large facilities that impacts the national data.
An EPA analysis indicates another interesting view of the data. A few large facilities can be a determining factor in the National trend. Based on an analysis of facilities reporting in both 2001 and 2005, we found that the total disposal or other releases for the group of “smaller” facilities (those reporting less than 100,000 pounds) increased by 57% from 2001 to 2005 while the total for the group of “larger” facilities (those reporting 100,000 pounds or more) decreased by 9% and for six facilities with the very largest change (more than 80 million pounds) total disposal or other releases decreased by 80%.
TRI tracks 650 chemicals and chemical categories and industrial sectors specified by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 and its amendments. The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 also mandates that TRI reports must include data on toxic chemicals treated on-site, recycled, and burned for energy recovery. Together, these laws require facilities in certain industries to report annually on releases, disposal and other waste management activities related to these chemicals.
Access an EPA release (click here). Access an overview of the 2005 TRI data and relevant TRI information including analysis, summaries, tables, charts, maps, etc. (click here). Access the TRI Explorer, an on-line tool that generates reports based on facilities, chemicals, geographic areas, or industry type (SIC code) at the county, state, and national level including information for on- and off-site disposal or other releases, transfers off-site, and other waste management data (click here). [*Toxics]
Friday, March 23, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Additional EPA Interpretations Of "South Coast" Decision
Mar 19: As reported on March 20 [See WIMS 3/20/07], U.S. EPA proposing to move forward with final actions on requests to redesignate 18 areas in Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia as meeting the national outdoor air quality standard for ground-level ozone. In doing so, the Agency made various interpretation regarding the December decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that rescinded EPA's rule that classified ozone nonattainment areas for the 8-hour standard [See WIMS 1/2/07, South Coast Air Quality v. U.S. EPA].
In its proposed approval and interpretation, the Agency said, "EPA proposes to find that the Court’s ruling does not alter any requirements relevant to these proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these redesignations. The EPA believes that the Court’s decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that may be filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of these areas to attainment, because in either circumstance, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests."
In addition on March 19, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bill Wehrum issued a memo providing further guidance on the impacts of the South Coast Air Quality v. U.S. EPA decision. In the guidance memo, EPA said, "The court's mandate has not been issued and we have until March 22, 2007 to decide whether to seek rehearing on any aspect of the decision. Since the decision was announced, we have received many questions from the Regions, Federal, State, local agencies, and Tribes on its impact. The inquiries can be grouped into four primary questions and the purpose of this memo is to provide you responses to those questions as best we can at this time."
The very significant questions which EPA responds to in the Memo include: (1) Have State Implementation Plan (SIP) obligations changed as a result of the decision?; (2) Should States submit nonattainment SIPs by June of this year?; (3) Can ozone nonattainment areas with clean air be redesignated to attainment during the pendency of the court decision?; and (4) What transportation conformity, general conformity, and NSR requirements must be met at this time in 8-hour ozone areas?
Access EPA's Guidance Memo (click here). [*Air]
In its proposed approval and interpretation, the Agency said, "EPA proposes to find that the Court’s ruling does not alter any requirements relevant to these proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these redesignations. The EPA believes that the Court’s decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that may be filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of these areas to attainment, because in either circumstance, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests."
In addition on March 19, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bill Wehrum issued a memo providing further guidance on the impacts of the South Coast Air Quality v. U.S. EPA decision. In the guidance memo, EPA said, "The court's mandate has not been issued and we have until March 22, 2007 to decide whether to seek rehearing on any aspect of the decision. Since the decision was announced, we have received many questions from the Regions, Federal, State, local agencies, and Tribes on its impact. The inquiries can be grouped into four primary questions and the purpose of this memo is to provide you responses to those questions as best we can at this time."
The very significant questions which EPA responds to in the Memo include: (1) Have State Implementation Plan (SIP) obligations changed as a result of the decision?; (2) Should States submit nonattainment SIPs by June of this year?; (3) Can ozone nonattainment areas with clean air be redesignated to attainment during the pendency of the court decision?; and (4) What transportation conformity, general conformity, and NSR requirements must be met at this time in 8-hour ozone areas?
Access EPA's Guidance Memo (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Al Gore Makes The Rounds Testifying To Congress
Mar 21: Former Vice President, Al Gore made the rounds on Capitol Hill testifying before Congressional committees including a joint meeting of subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Science and Technology Committee in the morning; and before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon. The House subcommittees' hearing also included testimony from Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Adjunct Professor, Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School.
Gore who had just 3-pages of written testimony said that climate change was a "planetary emergency -- a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth." He said, "Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause." He said climate change offers both a danger and an opportunity. "There is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming." He cited a new study from the University of Alaska which says that "Methane is leaking from the Siberian permafrost at five time the predicted levels. Methane is 23 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide and there are billions of tons underneath the permafrost."
He said the "best way --- and the only way -- to get China and India on board is for the U.S. to demonstrate real leadership. He called the situation a "moral moment" -- "It is about who we are as human beings and our capacity to transcend our limitations and rise to meet this challenge." He indicated that the solutions "seem quite difficult" but in practice "will turn out to be much easier than they appear to us now." He concluded saying, "WE must choose a future for which our children and grandchildren will thank us."
Lomborg summarized his own 23-page testimony into four main points: Global warming is real and man-made. This point has been made in many places, but perhaps most strongly and convincingly by the IPCC (2007a); Statements about the strong, ominous and immediate consequences of global warming are often wildly exaggerated, as I will show below; We need a stronger focus on smart solutions rather than excessive if well-intentioned efforts; We need – as this hearing asks for – to put global warming in perspective. Climate change is not the only issue on the global agenda, and actually one of the issues where we can do the least good first.
He said, "Al Gore and the many people he has inspired have good will and great intentions. However, he has got carried away and come to show only worst-case scenarios. This is unlikely to form the basis for a sound policy judgment. The problem is compounded in that if we follow Al Gore’s recommendations, we will likely end up choosing very bad policies to solve the many problems, we agree need attention."
Lomborg asks the question, "...whether we would do better by addressing the real and pressing needs of current generations that we can solve so easily and cheaply, before we try to tackle the long-term problem of climate change where we can do so little for so much. He cites the figures saying that the Kyoto Protocol would likely cost at least $180 billion a year and do little good. UNICEF, on the other hand, estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation.
Access the House hearing website for links to the complete testimony and opening statements (click here). Access the Senate hearing website were testimony should be posted later today (click here). [*Climate]
Gore who had just 3-pages of written testimony said that climate change was a "planetary emergency -- a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth." He said, "Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause." He said climate change offers both a danger and an opportunity. "There is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming." He cited a new study from the University of Alaska which says that "Methane is leaking from the Siberian permafrost at five time the predicted levels. Methane is 23 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide and there are billions of tons underneath the permafrost."
He said the "best way --- and the only way -- to get China and India on board is for the U.S. to demonstrate real leadership. He called the situation a "moral moment" -- "It is about who we are as human beings and our capacity to transcend our limitations and rise to meet this challenge." He indicated that the solutions "seem quite difficult" but in practice "will turn out to be much easier than they appear to us now." He concluded saying, "WE must choose a future for which our children and grandchildren will thank us."
Lomborg summarized his own 23-page testimony into four main points: Global warming is real and man-made. This point has been made in many places, but perhaps most strongly and convincingly by the IPCC (2007a); Statements about the strong, ominous and immediate consequences of global warming are often wildly exaggerated, as I will show below; We need a stronger focus on smart solutions rather than excessive if well-intentioned efforts; We need – as this hearing asks for – to put global warming in perspective. Climate change is not the only issue on the global agenda, and actually one of the issues where we can do the least good first.
He said, "Al Gore and the many people he has inspired have good will and great intentions. However, he has got carried away and come to show only worst-case scenarios. This is unlikely to form the basis for a sound policy judgment. The problem is compounded in that if we follow Al Gore’s recommendations, we will likely end up choosing very bad policies to solve the many problems, we agree need attention."
Lomborg asks the question, "...whether we would do better by addressing the real and pressing needs of current generations that we can solve so easily and cheaply, before we try to tackle the long-term problem of climate change where we can do so little for so much. He cites the figures saying that the Kyoto Protocol would likely cost at least $180 billion a year and do little good. UNICEF, on the other hand, estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation.
Access the House hearing website for links to the complete testimony and opening statements (click here). Access the Senate hearing website were testimony should be posted later today (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
EPA Interprets "South Coast" In Redesignations In MI, OH, WV
Mar 20: U.S. EPA announced it is proposing to move forward with final actions on requests to redesignate 18 areas in Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia as meeting the national outdoor air quality standard for ground-level ozone. EPA said ozone air quality in these areas has improved enough to meet the standard, and the states have requested redesignation. In April 2004, EPA designated these areas as nonattainment because their air quality did not meet national outdoor air quality standards for ground-level ozone. The designations became effective in June 2004.
EPA had proposed to redesignate these areas, but final action on the redesignations has been held up pending Agency review of a December decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That decision rescinded EPA's rule that classified ozone nonattainment areas for the 8-hour standard [See WIMS 1/2/07, South Coast Air Quality v. U.S. EPA]. EPA said the supplemental proposed rule sets forth its views on the potential effect of the Court’s ruling on a number of proposed redesignation actions.
Specifically, EPA indicates in the proposed rule, "EPA proposes to find that the Court’s ruling does not alter any requirements relevant to these proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these redesignations. The EPA believes that the Court’s decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that may be filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of these areas to attainment, because in either circumstance, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests."
In Michigan, the areas are Flint, Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Muskegon, Benzie County, Huron County, Mason County and Cass County. The Ohio areas are Lima, Canton-Massillon, and three areas that cross Ohio-West Virginia state boundaries. The last three areas are Marietta, Ohio, and Parkersburg, WV; Steubenville, Ohio, and Weirton, WV; and an area in Ohio across the Ohio River from Wheeling, WV.
In its supplemental proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on its belief that final action on the redesignation proposals is appropriate under the Clean Air Act and long-standing policies on state redesignation requests. The Agency believes the court's ruling does not alter these requirements or prevent redesignation. EPA's supplemental proposal will be published soon in the Federal Register. EPA will accept comments on the proposal for 15 days from the date of publication.
Access a release (click here). Access the supplemental proposal (click here). Access a fact sheet (click here). [*Air]
EPA had proposed to redesignate these areas, but final action on the redesignations has been held up pending Agency review of a December decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That decision rescinded EPA's rule that classified ozone nonattainment areas for the 8-hour standard [See WIMS 1/2/07, South Coast Air Quality v. U.S. EPA]. EPA said the supplemental proposed rule sets forth its views on the potential effect of the Court’s ruling on a number of proposed redesignation actions.
Specifically, EPA indicates in the proposed rule, "EPA proposes to find that the Court’s ruling does not alter any requirements relevant to these proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these redesignations. The EPA believes that the Court’s decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that may be filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of these areas to attainment, because in either circumstance, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests."
In Michigan, the areas are Flint, Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Muskegon, Benzie County, Huron County, Mason County and Cass County. The Ohio areas are Lima, Canton-Massillon, and three areas that cross Ohio-West Virginia state boundaries. The last three areas are Marietta, Ohio, and Parkersburg, WV; Steubenville, Ohio, and Weirton, WV; and an area in Ohio across the Ohio River from Wheeling, WV.
In its supplemental proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on its belief that final action on the redesignation proposals is appropriate under the Clean Air Act and long-standing policies on state redesignation requests. The Agency believes the court's ruling does not alter these requirements or prevent redesignation. EPA's supplemental proposal will be published soon in the Federal Register. EPA will accept comments on the proposal for 15 days from the date of publication.
Access a release (click here). Access the supplemental proposal (click here). Access a fact sheet (click here). [*Air]
Monday, March 19, 2007
CWA Can't Be Used To Destroy A Lake
Mar 16: The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit has issued an order saying that the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) cannot be used to destroy an Alaskan lake [See WIMS 12/06/06] (Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Coeur Alaska, Case No. 06-35679). Earthjustice who represented the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Lynn Canal Conservation, and the Sierra Club, said the ruling that may set precedent about how the Act is interpreted nationwide.
Earthjustice indicated that although the full ruling is not yet released, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was wrong in letting a gold mine company dump toxic mine tailings into a lake near Juneau. In the first of a two-part ruling on Kensington Mine dumping operations, the Appeals Court said, "In issuing its permit to Coeur Alaska for the use of Lower Slate Lake as a disposal site, the Corps violated the Clean Water Act," Today's ruling disallowed a diversion ditch which the court said was environmentally destructive and which violated a previous injunction against the mine. But, the court said it would rule against the entire dumping procedure in its final opinion.
Tom Waldo, attorney for Earthjustice, the non-profit law firm that filed the appeal on behalf of the citizen and conservation groups said, "The ruling should prevent mines across the United States from likewise dumping into lakes, streams and rivers. The Kensington permit was a test case by the Bush Administration to resurrect destructive mining practices from the pick-and-shovel days. We've learned from the mistakes of the past. The Clean Water Act prohibited these practices, and today's court ruling confirms that."
Waldo expressed hope that the court ruling would deter such operations elsewhere in Alaska -- notably the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, home of the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery. Pebble Mine, like Kensington, is designed to dump vast quantities of toxic mine tailings into lakes. A broad coalition of business, environmental, fishing and native groups is opposing the mine because of its damaging potential.
Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the first part of the ruling (click here). [*Water]
Earthjustice indicated that although the full ruling is not yet released, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was wrong in letting a gold mine company dump toxic mine tailings into a lake near Juneau. In the first of a two-part ruling on Kensington Mine dumping operations, the Appeals Court said, "In issuing its permit to Coeur Alaska for the use of Lower Slate Lake as a disposal site, the Corps violated the Clean Water Act," Today's ruling disallowed a diversion ditch which the court said was environmentally destructive and which violated a previous injunction against the mine. But, the court said it would rule against the entire dumping procedure in its final opinion.
Tom Waldo, attorney for Earthjustice, the non-profit law firm that filed the appeal on behalf of the citizen and conservation groups said, "The ruling should prevent mines across the United States from likewise dumping into lakes, streams and rivers. The Kensington permit was a test case by the Bush Administration to resurrect destructive mining practices from the pick-and-shovel days. We've learned from the mistakes of the past. The Clean Water Act prohibited these practices, and today's court ruling confirms that."
Waldo expressed hope that the court ruling would deter such operations elsewhere in Alaska -- notably the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, home of the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery. Pebble Mine, like Kensington, is designed to dump vast quantities of toxic mine tailings into lakes. A broad coalition of business, environmental, fishing and native groups is opposing the mine because of its damaging potential.
Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the first part of the ruling (click here). [*Water]
Friday, March 16, 2007
EPA Science Advisors Have "Grave Concerns" Re: EPA Budget
Mar 13: U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) has submitted to Administrator Stephen Johnson, a detailed review of the Agency's FY 2008 budget and longer range. Up front, SAB notes that the mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment which requires "a deep understanding of environmental science and technology." However, SAB says, between 2004 and the proposed 2008 budget, the overall support for Research and Development at EPA has declined by 25% in inflation adjusted terms. The summarized comments expressed in a letter to Johnson are revealing of the depth of their concerns. The letter reads, in part:
"For many years the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has performed detailed annual reviews of the Agency's Research and Development (R&D) budget request. This year, ORD requested that the Board provide advice on the strategic directions (over the next five years) of its major research programs. For its part, the Board asked ORD to address its current and planned research program in four key cross-program environmental challenge areas. These included: (1) the impacts of climate change; (2) sensitive populations (both human and ecological); (3) the environmental consequences of urban sprawl; and (4) large-scale natural and man-made environmental disasters.
"The SAB findings and recommendations are detailed in this report. Overall, the SAB believes that EPA scientists are doing an outstanding job of sustaining a high quality program of research in the face of severe budget constraints that appear to have caused EPA’s research planning to become more reactive and less strategic. With few important exceptions (e.g. nanotechnology, sustainability research), the resulting research funding decisions appear to be incremental rather than strategic, causing research programs to focus more on yesterday’s issues and less on new and emerging environmental problems.
"Further, while the Agency was able to identify its longer term strategic directions for many specific program areas, and also identified a variety of lines of research relevant to the four cross-program issues identified by the Board, cross-program strategic planning is still very limited. EPA urgently needs to develop a higher-level research planning effort that can consider and adjust the balance and focus among major program areas and increase coordination and collaboration across program areas.
With respect to the FY 2008 President’s budget, the SAB has grave concerns about the decreased trend in the funding of ecosystems research, decreased funding of STAR extramural and fellowship programs, and the elimination of the economics and decision sciences research program within ORD. The SAB is concerned that continuing intentions to decrease EPA’s support of research will erode staff morale and ultimately, if it has not already done so, harm EPA’s ability to maintain national leadership in environmental science and engineering."
Access the complete 30+ page SAB review (click here). [*All]
"For many years the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has performed detailed annual reviews of the Agency's Research and Development (R&D) budget request. This year, ORD requested that the Board provide advice on the strategic directions (over the next five years) of its major research programs. For its part, the Board asked ORD to address its current and planned research program in four key cross-program environmental challenge areas. These included: (1) the impacts of climate change; (2) sensitive populations (both human and ecological); (3) the environmental consequences of urban sprawl; and (4) large-scale natural and man-made environmental disasters.
"The SAB findings and recommendations are detailed in this report. Overall, the SAB believes that EPA scientists are doing an outstanding job of sustaining a high quality program of research in the face of severe budget constraints that appear to have caused EPA’s research planning to become more reactive and less strategic. With few important exceptions (e.g. nanotechnology, sustainability research), the resulting research funding decisions appear to be incremental rather than strategic, causing research programs to focus more on yesterday’s issues and less on new and emerging environmental problems.
"Further, while the Agency was able to identify its longer term strategic directions for many specific program areas, and also identified a variety of lines of research relevant to the four cross-program issues identified by the Board, cross-program strategic planning is still very limited. EPA urgently needs to develop a higher-level research planning effort that can consider and adjust the balance and focus among major program areas and increase coordination and collaboration across program areas.
With respect to the FY 2008 President’s budget, the SAB has grave concerns about the decreased trend in the funding of ecosystems research, decreased funding of STAR extramural and fellowship programs, and the elimination of the economics and decision sciences research program within ORD. The SAB is concerned that continuing intentions to decrease EPA’s support of research will erode staff morale and ultimately, if it has not already done so, harm EPA’s ability to maintain national leadership in environmental science and engineering."
Access the complete 30+ page SAB review (click here). [*All]
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Auto Companies Views On Climate Change & Energy Security
Mar 14: The House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Chaired by Rick Boucher (D-VA), held a hearing on Climate Change and Energy Security: Perspectives from the Automobile Industry.
In an opening statement Chairman Boucher indicated, "Our goal is to produce this year legislation that has economy -wide application. Each sector of the economy will make a greenhouse gas control contribution. Applying this broad measure to the transportation sector poses special challenges. Unlike some other industries, auto manufacturers are subject to a pre-existing regulatory program, CAFÉ, which is designed to promote fuel economy, but which also has a limiting effect on greenhouse gas emissions, notably the emission of carbon dioxide. Much thought must be devoted to an effective means of integrating the existing CAFÉ regulatory program into the new regulatory structure which will specifically target greenhouse gases."
Boucher also provided insight into the likely scheduling of climate change legislation, saying, "I also want to say a word this afternoon about our schedule for drafting a greenhouse gas control program. Earlier this year, the Speaker assured me that we would have the time the committee needs to produce a carefully constructed bill. That early assurance was reconfirmed this week by the Speaker's office's statement that climate change legislation will not be part of the July floor agenda. It is my intention to continue our hearing process through the early spring and then begin the bill drafting process with the goal of having the comprehensive climate change bill on the House floor late this year. House passage this year would provide ample time for a conference."
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Ron Gettelfinger, President, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; Rick Wagoner, Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerGeneral Motors Corporation; Jim Press, President and Chief Operating Officer, Toyota Motor North America; Alan R. Mulally, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company; and Thomas W. LaSorda, Chief Executive Officer and President, Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler.
As an example of testimony, Rick Wagoner GM testified that the subjects of climate change and energy security are "critical issues that are at the forefront of GM’s business planning." Wagoner said, "Since 2001, a series of geopolitical, natural, and economic realities have combined to drive home the fact that we face an increasingly uncertain energy future on a global basis. For the global auto industry, this means that we must as a business necessity develop alternative sources of propulsion, based on diverse sources of energy, in order to meet the world’s growing demand for our products... We are fully prepared to discuss all of these issues, including carbon constraints on the U.S. economy. However, before we discuss any alternatives, we believe we must first begin with a frank evaluation of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program (CAFE)... CAFE has been particularly damaging to the domestic, full line manufacturers...
"...we urge Congress to resist the temptation to set some arbitrary level of future CAFE performance and instead let National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set the appropriate targets... recent legislative proposals to increase CAFE requirements by 4% per year or more would be extraordinarily expensive and technically challenging to implement—all with little to show for actually reducing oil consumption or emissions.... The best opportunity for addressing all of these issues [reducing gasoline consumption, oil imports and CO2 emissions] over the next decade is through increased use of bio-fuels. And, the bio-fuel with the greatest potential to displace petroleum-based fuels in the U.S. is ethanol."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and an archive webcast (click here). Access various media reports on the hearing (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
In an opening statement Chairman Boucher indicated, "Our goal is to produce this year legislation that has economy -wide application. Each sector of the economy will make a greenhouse gas control contribution. Applying this broad measure to the transportation sector poses special challenges. Unlike some other industries, auto manufacturers are subject to a pre-existing regulatory program, CAFÉ, which is designed to promote fuel economy, but which also has a limiting effect on greenhouse gas emissions, notably the emission of carbon dioxide. Much thought must be devoted to an effective means of integrating the existing CAFÉ regulatory program into the new regulatory structure which will specifically target greenhouse gases."
Boucher also provided insight into the likely scheduling of climate change legislation, saying, "I also want to say a word this afternoon about our schedule for drafting a greenhouse gas control program. Earlier this year, the Speaker assured me that we would have the time the committee needs to produce a carefully constructed bill. That early assurance was reconfirmed this week by the Speaker's office's statement that climate change legislation will not be part of the July floor agenda. It is my intention to continue our hearing process through the early spring and then begin the bill drafting process with the goal of having the comprehensive climate change bill on the House floor late this year. House passage this year would provide ample time for a conference."
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Ron Gettelfinger, President, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; Rick Wagoner, Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerGeneral Motors Corporation; Jim Press, President and Chief Operating Officer, Toyota Motor North America; Alan R. Mulally, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company; and Thomas W. LaSorda, Chief Executive Officer and President, Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler.
As an example of testimony, Rick Wagoner GM testified that the subjects of climate change and energy security are "critical issues that are at the forefront of GM’s business planning." Wagoner said, "Since 2001, a series of geopolitical, natural, and economic realities have combined to drive home the fact that we face an increasingly uncertain energy future on a global basis. For the global auto industry, this means that we must as a business necessity develop alternative sources of propulsion, based on diverse sources of energy, in order to meet the world’s growing demand for our products... We are fully prepared to discuss all of these issues, including carbon constraints on the U.S. economy. However, before we discuss any alternatives, we believe we must first begin with a frank evaluation of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program (CAFE)... CAFE has been particularly damaging to the domestic, full line manufacturers...
"...we urge Congress to resist the temptation to set some arbitrary level of future CAFE performance and instead let National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set the appropriate targets... recent legislative proposals to increase CAFE requirements by 4% per year or more would be extraordinarily expensive and technically challenging to implement—all with little to show for actually reducing oil consumption or emissions.... The best opportunity for addressing all of these issues [reducing gasoline consumption, oil imports and CO2 emissions] over the next decade is through increased use of bio-fuels. And, the bio-fuel with the greatest potential to displace petroleum-based fuels in the U.S. is ethanol."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and an archive webcast (click here). Access various media reports on the hearing (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
MIT Report Says Carbon Capture & Sequestration Is Critical
Mar 14: Leading academics from an interdisciplinary MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) panel issued a report that examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis. The study, The Future of Coal--Options for a Carbon Constrained World, advocates that the United States assume global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions. Led by co-chairs John Deutch, Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, the report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs.
According to Deutch, "As the world's leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work. Demonstration of technical, economic and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should carbon emission controls be adopted and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner."
In addition to the major recommendations of the necessity to perfect CCS, the report says, "Key changes must be made to the current Department of Energy research development and demonstration program to successfully promote CCS technologies. The program must provide for demonstration of CCS at scale; a wider range of technologies should be explored; and modeling and simulation of the comparative performance of integrated technology systems should be greatly enhanced."
David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a member of the study’s advisory committee said, “The MIT report concludes that we have the know-how to capture and safely store heat-trapping emissions from power plants now on the drawing board, but it points out that much more needs to be done if this technology is to be used to prevent carbon pollution from coal on a massive scale. While energy efficiency and renewables continue to be the most effective means of cutting global warming pollution, carbon emissions’ capture and storage is essential as long as we continue using large amounts of coal.”
NRDC said in a release that the report is "silent on the most urgent coal investment issue facing the industry and the environment: What global warming emissions standards should apply to proposed new coal power plants? The facts set forth in the report justify a recommendation to require all proposed new coal plants capture carbon pollution for underground disposal, but the report sidesteps this question."
Access a release from MIT and link to the complete 192-page report, summary and related information (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
According to Deutch, "As the world's leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work. Demonstration of technical, economic and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should carbon emission controls be adopted and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner."
In addition to the major recommendations of the necessity to perfect CCS, the report says, "Key changes must be made to the current Department of Energy research development and demonstration program to successfully promote CCS technologies. The program must provide for demonstration of CCS at scale; a wider range of technologies should be explored; and modeling and simulation of the comparative performance of integrated technology systems should be greatly enhanced."
David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a member of the study’s advisory committee said, “The MIT report concludes that we have the know-how to capture and safely store heat-trapping emissions from power plants now on the drawing board, but it points out that much more needs to be done if this technology is to be used to prevent carbon pollution from coal on a massive scale. While energy efficiency and renewables continue to be the most effective means of cutting global warming pollution, carbon emissions’ capture and storage is essential as long as we continue using large amounts of coal.”
NRDC said in a release that the report is "silent on the most urgent coal investment issue facing the industry and the environment: What global warming emissions standards should apply to proposed new coal power plants? The facts set forth in the report justify a recommendation to require all proposed new coal plants capture carbon pollution for underground disposal, but the report sidesteps this question."
Access a release from MIT and link to the complete 192-page report, summary and related information (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA Appeals Court CAA Ruling
Mar 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 03-1202. The Appeals Court said, "In this case, the Sierra Club challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s air pollution standards for brick and ceramics kilns. Because most of the standards violate the Clean Air Act as interpreted by this Court in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (percuriam), and National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000), and because the remaining standards violate the Act’s requirements for 'work practice standards,' we vacate the standards in their entirety and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
In its decision the Appeals Court further noted, "For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the emission standards for both brick and ceramics kilns and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If the Environmental Protection Agency disagrees with the Clean Air Act’s requirements for setting emissions standards, it should take its concerns to Congress. If EPA disagrees with this court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act, it should seek rehearing en banc or file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In the meantime, it must obey the Clean Air Act as written by Congress and interpreted by this court." Additionally, Senior Circuit Judge Williams indicated he concurred "entirely with the court’s opinion," and included a note to the opinion regarding what he called a "paradox in the relationship between two key provisions of § 112 of the Clean Air Act."
According to a release from Earthjustice who represented Sierra Club, "This latest decision reflects a broader problem at EPA, an agency that under the Bush administration has persistently ignored the law, the courts, and public health by adopting standards that do not adequately limit toxic air pollution." Earthjustice attorney James Pew said, "This decision is not just about brick kilns. It is about an agency that thinks it is above the law, and chooses to ignore Congress, the courts, and the citizens who have called upon EPA to protect against this pollution. Hopefully, this decision will remind EPA that it exists to protect public health and the environment by implementing our environmental laws, not subverting them."
At issue were the highly protective requirements in the Clean Air Act's toxic provisions, which require EPA to set standards for entire industries that reflect the emission levels achieved by the cleanest plants that are currently in operation. Marti Sinclair, Sierra Club's air chair said, "We applaud the court's decision, and it's a good thing we have courts to review what this rogue agency is doing. Instead of fulfilling its mission to protect public health and the environment, EPA is doing its best to deny Americans the protection that Congress provided."
According to the Earthjustice release, brick kilns and ceramics kilns emit more that 6,000 tons of toxic chemicals into the air each year, including hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, and particulate matter containing toxic metals such as arsenic, chromium and lead, which can lead to cancer, respiratory damage and neurological and organ damage. They said, for many kilns, "EPA refused to require any limit on toxic emissions at all. For others EPA set standards that -- in direct violation of the Clean Air Act -- did not even purport to reflect the emission levels achieved by the cleanest plants in the industry."
Access the complete 20-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice with links to additional information (click here). [*Air]
In its decision the Appeals Court further noted, "For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the emission standards for both brick and ceramics kilns and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If the Environmental Protection Agency disagrees with the Clean Air Act’s requirements for setting emissions standards, it should take its concerns to Congress. If EPA disagrees with this court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act, it should seek rehearing en banc or file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In the meantime, it must obey the Clean Air Act as written by Congress and interpreted by this court." Additionally, Senior Circuit Judge Williams indicated he concurred "entirely with the court’s opinion," and included a note to the opinion regarding what he called a "paradox in the relationship between two key provisions of § 112 of the Clean Air Act."
According to a release from Earthjustice who represented Sierra Club, "This latest decision reflects a broader problem at EPA, an agency that under the Bush administration has persistently ignored the law, the courts, and public health by adopting standards that do not adequately limit toxic air pollution." Earthjustice attorney James Pew said, "This decision is not just about brick kilns. It is about an agency that thinks it is above the law, and chooses to ignore Congress, the courts, and the citizens who have called upon EPA to protect against this pollution. Hopefully, this decision will remind EPA that it exists to protect public health and the environment by implementing our environmental laws, not subverting them."
At issue were the highly protective requirements in the Clean Air Act's toxic provisions, which require EPA to set standards for entire industries that reflect the emission levels achieved by the cleanest plants that are currently in operation. Marti Sinclair, Sierra Club's air chair said, "We applaud the court's decision, and it's a good thing we have courts to review what this rogue agency is doing. Instead of fulfilling its mission to protect public health and the environment, EPA is doing its best to deny Americans the protection that Congress provided."
According to the Earthjustice release, brick kilns and ceramics kilns emit more that 6,000 tons of toxic chemicals into the air each year, including hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, and particulate matter containing toxic metals such as arsenic, chromium and lead, which can lead to cancer, respiratory damage and neurological and organ damage. They said, for many kilns, "EPA refused to require any limit on toxic emissions at all. For others EPA set standards that -- in direct violation of the Clean Air Act -- did not even purport to reflect the emission levels achieved by the cleanest plants in the industry."
Access the complete 20-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice with links to additional information (click here). [*Air]
Monday, March 12, 2007
It's Sunshine Week For Public Access To Information
Mar 12: Sunshine Week (March 11-17, 2007) is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public's right to know. Sunshine Week is led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and is funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami. Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public's right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger. According to an announcement, "Sunshine Week is a non-partisan initiative whose supporters are conservative, liberal and everything in between."
In conjunction with Sunshine Week, a nationwide information audit, conducted as a prelude to event, found slightly more than four in 10 of the official gatekeepers willing – if wary – to provide copies of emergency response plans, which federal law makes public. Other local officials, however, reacted to requests with confusion, outright denials and sometimes by calling police to check out the auditors. Many weren’t sure who had the authority to release the reports, or even where the documents were located.
More than a third of public officials audited refused to provide access to their local Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan – which is mandated by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 as a public document. Another 20 percent provided only partial reports. Those denials stood in stark contrast to the experience of other auditors, many of whom were offered copies of the report in either paper or disc form; 48, or 12 percent, of the 404 communities put the reports online.
The audits were conducted in early January, when reporters, civic group members, students and other volunteers visited their Local Emergency Planning Committee, which prepares the reports outlining emergency response in the event of a chemical or hazardous material accident. The 1986 law not only says the plans are public, it also requires the local officials to advertise their availability once a year.
In all, 162 news organizations participated as requestors, along with three student newspapers and eight League of Women Voters chapters. This report is built on a database of their experiences and offers a snapshot of the difficulties citizens may face when they request public information that may be considered sensitive. The audit is a project of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, the National Freedom of Information Coalition and the Society of Environmental Journalists for Sunshine Week.
In a related matter, a beta version of OpenCongress.org has been launched. According to the website, sponsored by the Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation, it "brings together official government information with news and blog coverage to give you the real story behind what's happening in Congress." The website indicates, "For most people, finding out what's really happening in Congress is a daunting and time-consuming task. The legislative process is frequently arcane and closed-off from the public, resulting in frustration with Congress and apathy about politics. Small groups of political insiders and lobbyists know what's really going on in Congress, but this important information rarely makes its way into the light. The official website of the library of Congress, Thomas, publishes the full text of bills, but we can do much more to inform ourselves and make our government accessible. Now, with OpenCongress, everyone can be an insider." OpenCongress is a free, open-source, non-profit, and non-partisan web resource with a mission to help make Congress more transparent and to encourage civic engagement.
Access the Sunshine Week website for extensive information (click here). Access a release on the Audit of Response Plans (click here). Access the report of the Audit: Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans (click here). Access the OpenCongress.org website (click here). [Note: WIMS has posted a link to the OpenCongress.org website on the EcoBizPort.com homepage under Congress (click here).] [*All, *Toxics]
In conjunction with Sunshine Week, a nationwide information audit, conducted as a prelude to event, found slightly more than four in 10 of the official gatekeepers willing – if wary – to provide copies of emergency response plans, which federal law makes public. Other local officials, however, reacted to requests with confusion, outright denials and sometimes by calling police to check out the auditors. Many weren’t sure who had the authority to release the reports, or even where the documents were located.
More than a third of public officials audited refused to provide access to their local Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan – which is mandated by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 as a public document. Another 20 percent provided only partial reports. Those denials stood in stark contrast to the experience of other auditors, many of whom were offered copies of the report in either paper or disc form; 48, or 12 percent, of the 404 communities put the reports online.
The audits were conducted in early January, when reporters, civic group members, students and other volunteers visited their Local Emergency Planning Committee, which prepares the reports outlining emergency response in the event of a chemical or hazardous material accident. The 1986 law not only says the plans are public, it also requires the local officials to advertise their availability once a year.
In all, 162 news organizations participated as requestors, along with three student newspapers and eight League of Women Voters chapters. This report is built on a database of their experiences and offers a snapshot of the difficulties citizens may face when they request public information that may be considered sensitive. The audit is a project of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, the National Freedom of Information Coalition and the Society of Environmental Journalists for Sunshine Week.
In a related matter, a beta version of OpenCongress.org has been launched. According to the website, sponsored by the Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation, it "brings together official government information with news and blog coverage to give you the real story behind what's happening in Congress." The website indicates, "For most people, finding out what's really happening in Congress is a daunting and time-consuming task. The legislative process is frequently arcane and closed-off from the public, resulting in frustration with Congress and apathy about politics. Small groups of political insiders and lobbyists know what's really going on in Congress, but this important information rarely makes its way into the light. The official website of the library of Congress, Thomas, publishes the full text of bills, but we can do much more to inform ourselves and make our government accessible. Now, with OpenCongress, everyone can be an insider." OpenCongress is a free, open-source, non-profit, and non-partisan web resource with a mission to help make Congress more transparent and to encourage civic engagement.
Access the Sunshine Week website for extensive information (click here). Access a release on the Audit of Response Plans (click here). Access the report of the Audit: Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans (click here). Access the OpenCongress.org website (click here). [Note: WIMS has posted a link to the OpenCongress.org website on the EcoBizPort.com homepage under Congress (click here).] [*All, *Toxics]
Friday, March 09, 2007
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Division
Mar 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 04-17554, 05-15051. Other amici curiae involved in the case include: Pacific Legal Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, National Association of Home Builders and the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division.
San Francisco Baykeeper and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (collectively Baykeeper) filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) against Cargill Salt Division and Cargill, Incorporated (Cargill). Baykeeper alleged that Cargill discharged pollutants into “waters of the United States” without a permit. The body of water into which Cargill allegedly discharged waste is a non-navigable, intrastate pond (the Pond), not determined to be a “wetland,” that collects polluted runoff within Cargill’s waste containment facility located near the southeastern edge of San Francisco Bay.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Baykeeper after determining that the Pond qualifies as a “water of the United States” because it is adjacent to a protected water of the United States (Mowry Slough). Cargill then brought the appeal. The Appeals Court said, "Because we conclude that mere adjacency provides a basis for CWA coverage only when the relevant waterbody is a 'wetland,' and no other reason for CWA coverage of Cargill’s Pond is supported by evidence or is properly before us, we reverse the district court’s summary judgment."
In further discussing the case relation to the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and Rapanos v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006); the Appeals Court said, "We conclude, therefore, that nothing in Bayview, SWANCC or Rapanos requires or supports the view that Cargill’s Pond is a water of the United States because it is adjacent to Mowry Slough. Baykeeper contends, however, that the Pond is more than merely adjacent; it has a nexus to Mowry Slough. It is not sufficient, however, for Baykeeper simply to make its individual case; it must establish that it was unreasonable for the EPA to confine to wetlands the CWA’s reach to non-navigable waterbodies adjacent to protected waters. Even on its own terms, however, Baykeeper’s argument fails. The evidence in support of Baykeeper’s nexus falls far short of the nexus that Justice Kennedy required in Rapanos even for wetlands that the Corps sought to hold subject to the CWA..."
The Appeals Court noted further, "In short, the 'Adjacent Waters Theory upon which the District Court based its Jurisdictional Ruling' does not rely on evidence of tributary status or effect on interstate commerce. Accordingly, we conclude that these alternative theories are independent of the 'Adjacent Waters Theory' and are waived."
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), an amicus party in the case, issued a release that "cheered the decision." NAHB President Brian Catalde said, “These regulatory burdens translate into expenses that increase the price of homes. We need to stop this bureaucratic expansion on behalf of our home buyers... We should all want the same thing: protection for the nation’s water supply. But the rules about how to achieve that need to be clear, for the sake of all of us. Let’s keep our environmental regulations strong, but make them sensible. Make them consistent. Our nation’s home builders – and our nation’s home buyers – deserve no less.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the NAHB release (click here). Access WIMS eNewsUSA Blog for various articles related to Rapanos (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos for links and extensive information (click here). [*Water]
San Francisco Baykeeper and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (collectively Baykeeper) filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) against Cargill Salt Division and Cargill, Incorporated (Cargill). Baykeeper alleged that Cargill discharged pollutants into “waters of the United States” without a permit. The body of water into which Cargill allegedly discharged waste is a non-navigable, intrastate pond (the Pond), not determined to be a “wetland,” that collects polluted runoff within Cargill’s waste containment facility located near the southeastern edge of San Francisco Bay.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Baykeeper after determining that the Pond qualifies as a “water of the United States” because it is adjacent to a protected water of the United States (Mowry Slough). Cargill then brought the appeal. The Appeals Court said, "Because we conclude that mere adjacency provides a basis for CWA coverage only when the relevant waterbody is a 'wetland,' and no other reason for CWA coverage of Cargill’s Pond is supported by evidence or is properly before us, we reverse the district court’s summary judgment."
In further discussing the case relation to the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and Rapanos v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006); the Appeals Court said, "We conclude, therefore, that nothing in Bayview, SWANCC or Rapanos requires or supports the view that Cargill’s Pond is a water of the United States because it is adjacent to Mowry Slough. Baykeeper contends, however, that the Pond is more than merely adjacent; it has a nexus to Mowry Slough. It is not sufficient, however, for Baykeeper simply to make its individual case; it must establish that it was unreasonable for the EPA to confine to wetlands the CWA’s reach to non-navigable waterbodies adjacent to protected waters. Even on its own terms, however, Baykeeper’s argument fails. The evidence in support of Baykeeper’s nexus falls far short of the nexus that Justice Kennedy required in Rapanos even for wetlands that the Corps sought to hold subject to the CWA..."
The Appeals Court noted further, "In short, the 'Adjacent Waters Theory upon which the District Court based its Jurisdictional Ruling' does not rely on evidence of tributary status or effect on interstate commerce. Accordingly, we conclude that these alternative theories are independent of the 'Adjacent Waters Theory' and are waived."
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), an amicus party in the case, issued a release that "cheered the decision." NAHB President Brian Catalde said, “These regulatory burdens translate into expenses that increase the price of homes. We need to stop this bureaucratic expansion on behalf of our home buyers... We should all want the same thing: protection for the nation’s water supply. But the rules about how to achieve that need to be clear, for the sake of all of us. Let’s keep our environmental regulations strong, but make them sensible. Make them consistent. Our nation’s home builders – and our nation’s home buyers – deserve no less.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the NAHB release (click here). Access WIMS eNewsUSA Blog for various articles related to Rapanos (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos for links and extensive information (click here). [*Water]
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Madison Declaration On Mercury Pollution
Mar 8: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, published "The Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution," in its latest issue. Much of the current issue is devoted to mercury pollution. The Declaration summarizes the scientific and technical conclusions presented by four expert panels in their critical synthesis manuscripts and in plenary sessions at the Eighth International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant, convened in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, on August 6–11, 2006. The 1150 registered participants in the conference constituted a diverse, multinational body of scientific and technical expertise on environmental mercury pollution. The Declaration conveys the panels' principal findings and their consensus conclusions on key policy-relevant questions concerning atmospheric sources of mercury, methylmercury exposure and its effects on humans and wildlife, socioeconomic consequences of mercury pollution, and recovery of mercury-contaminated fisheries.
One of the key findings is that, "The health risks posed by mercury-contaminated fish are sufficient to warrant issuing a worldwide general warning to the public -- especially children and women of childbearing age -- to be careful about how much and which fish they eat.
Five other major findings in the declaration were: (1) On average, three times more mercury is falling from the sky today than before the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago as a result of the increasing use of mercury and industrial emissions. (2) The uncontrolled use of mercury in small-scale gold mining is contaminating thousands of sites around the world, posing long-term health risks to an estimated 50 million inhabitants of mining regions. These activities alone contribute more than 10 percent of the mercury in Earth’s atmosphere attributable to human activities today. (3) Little is known about the behavior of mercury in marine ecosystems and methylmercury in marine fish, the ingestion of which is the primary way most people at all levels of society worldwide are exposed to this highly toxic form of mercury. (4) Methylmercury exposure at present levels constitutes a public health problem in many parts of the world. (5) Methylmercury levels in fish-eating birds and mammals in some parts of the world are reaching toxic levels, which may lead to population declines in these species and possibly in fish populations as well.
Access the abstract and link to the full text article which requires a subscription to the journal (click here). Access the contents of the latest AMBIO (click here). Access a release on the Declaration summarizing further findings (click here). Access the Preface and the Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution (click here). Access the Declaration with nontechnical summary of principal findings (click here). Access complete information about the Madison conference including: unedited, full-length videotapes of all four panel presentations (click here). [*Toxics]
One of the key findings is that, "The health risks posed by mercury-contaminated fish are sufficient to warrant issuing a worldwide general warning to the public -- especially children and women of childbearing age -- to be careful about how much and which fish they eat.
Five other major findings in the declaration were: (1) On average, three times more mercury is falling from the sky today than before the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago as a result of the increasing use of mercury and industrial emissions. (2) The uncontrolled use of mercury in small-scale gold mining is contaminating thousands of sites around the world, posing long-term health risks to an estimated 50 million inhabitants of mining regions. These activities alone contribute more than 10 percent of the mercury in Earth’s atmosphere attributable to human activities today. (3) Little is known about the behavior of mercury in marine ecosystems and methylmercury in marine fish, the ingestion of which is the primary way most people at all levels of society worldwide are exposed to this highly toxic form of mercury. (4) Methylmercury exposure at present levels constitutes a public health problem in many parts of the world. (5) Methylmercury levels in fish-eating birds and mammals in some parts of the world are reaching toxic levels, which may lead to population declines in these species and possibly in fish populations as well.
Access the abstract and link to the full text article which requires a subscription to the journal (click here). Access the contents of the latest AMBIO (click here). Access a release on the Declaration summarizing further findings (click here). Access the Preface and the Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution (click here). Access the Declaration with nontechnical summary of principal findings (click here). Access complete information about the Madison conference including: unedited, full-length videotapes of all four panel presentations (click here). [*Toxics]
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Administration Submits Yucca Mountain Development Legislation
Mar 6: Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel Bodman announced that the Administration is sending a legislative proposal to the U.S. Congress to "enhance the nation’s ability to manage and dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel and Defense high-level radioactive waste at the highly controversial Yucca Mountain site. Currently 55,000 metric tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel and Defense high-level waste is being stored at more than 100 above-ground sites in 39 states, and that number grows by about 2,000 metric tons annually.
Secretary Bodman said, “This legislative proposal reflects the Administration’s strong commitment to advancing the development of the Yucca Mountain repository, while seeking to provide stability, clarity and predictability in moving the project forward. Nuclear power is a clean, reliable domestic source of energy that currently represents approximately 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply. The Yucca Mountain repository is critical to the nation’s current and future energy and national security needs, and I look forward to working with the Congress on developing a bill that can be passed by Congress and signed by the President.”
The proposed legislation would facilitate the licensing and construction of the geologic repository and according to DOE, "lead to the safe, permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste deep within the mountain." Among the various provisions, the proposed legislation would withdraw, permanently from public use, the land at and surrounding the Yucca Mountain repository site in Nevada, and would facilitate Congress’s ability to provide adequate funding for the Yucca Mountain Project. Permanent withdrawal is needed to meet a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirement for the Yucca Mountain repository. Funding reform is necessary to correct a technical budgetary problem that has acted as a disincentive to adequate funding.
The proposed legislation would also eliminate the current statutory 70,000 metric ton cap on disposal capacity at Yucca Mountain, in order to "allow maximum use of the mountain’s true technical capacity." This provision would help provide the "safe isolation of the nation’s entire commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory from existing reactors, including life extensions." Also included are provisions for a more streamlined NRC licensing process, and for initiation of infrastructure activities, including safety and other upgrades and rail line construction, to enable earlier start-up of operations. Other provisions are designed to consolidate duplicative environmental reviews.
In the letter to Congressional leaders, Secretary Bodman says, "This legislative proposal is the same as that submitted by the Administration to Congress last year, with the exception of technical amendments to one section discussed in the enclosed bill summary. We are aware that some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about elements of this proposal and that some have proposed other approaches to addressing radioactive waste disposal issues. The Administration offers this legislative proposal again to continue the conversation and looks forward to working with Congress to develop a bill that can be passed by Congress and signed by the President."
Access a DOE release and link to a letter to Congressional leaders, the bill language, a bill summary, a legislative provisions summary, and sectional summary (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Secretary Bodman said, “This legislative proposal reflects the Administration’s strong commitment to advancing the development of the Yucca Mountain repository, while seeking to provide stability, clarity and predictability in moving the project forward. Nuclear power is a clean, reliable domestic source of energy that currently represents approximately 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply. The Yucca Mountain repository is critical to the nation’s current and future energy and national security needs, and I look forward to working with the Congress on developing a bill that can be passed by Congress and signed by the President.”
The proposed legislation would facilitate the licensing and construction of the geologic repository and according to DOE, "lead to the safe, permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste deep within the mountain." Among the various provisions, the proposed legislation would withdraw, permanently from public use, the land at and surrounding the Yucca Mountain repository site in Nevada, and would facilitate Congress’s ability to provide adequate funding for the Yucca Mountain Project. Permanent withdrawal is needed to meet a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirement for the Yucca Mountain repository. Funding reform is necessary to correct a technical budgetary problem that has acted as a disincentive to adequate funding.
The proposed legislation would also eliminate the current statutory 70,000 metric ton cap on disposal capacity at Yucca Mountain, in order to "allow maximum use of the mountain’s true technical capacity." This provision would help provide the "safe isolation of the nation’s entire commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory from existing reactors, including life extensions." Also included are provisions for a more streamlined NRC licensing process, and for initiation of infrastructure activities, including safety and other upgrades and rail line construction, to enable earlier start-up of operations. Other provisions are designed to consolidate duplicative environmental reviews.
In the letter to Congressional leaders, Secretary Bodman says, "This legislative proposal is the same as that submitted by the Administration to Congress last year, with the exception of technical amendments to one section discussed in the enclosed bill summary. We are aware that some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about elements of this proposal and that some have proposed other approaches to addressing radioactive waste disposal issues. The Administration offers this legislative proposal again to continue the conversation and looks forward to working with Congress to develop a bill that can be passed by Congress and signed by the President."
Access a DOE release and link to a letter to Congressional leaders, the bill language, a bill summary, a legislative provisions summary, and sectional summary (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
EWG Says Common Industrial Chemical Linked To Birth Defects
Mar 5: The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report saying that an industrial chemical used to line cans of foods is linked to birth defects and was found in more than half of the samples of canned fruit, vegetables, soda, and baby formula from supermarket shelves. EWG said a comprehensive independent laboratory analysis conducted for EWG found bisphenol A (BPA), in 55 of 97 cans of food purchased from major supermarket chains in California, Connecticut and Georgia. The lab tested 27 national name brands and three store brands. Further, the tests found that pregnant women and infants who eat even a single serving of some canned foods are exposed to unsafe doses of BPA. Of the foods tested -- which included many of the canned foods eaten most often by women of childbearing age -- BPA levels were highest in canned pasta and soup. Canned infant formula also had high levels. Just one to three servings of food with these BPA levels could expose a pregnant woman or infant to harmful doses of the chemical.
EWG said the potential for BPA to cause birth defects and reproductive harm is being evaluated today (March 5) by a Federal advisory panel at the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), a division of the National Institutes of Health [See WIMS 2/26/07]. On February 28, EWG raised major concerns about the integrity of CERHR science and conflicts of interest on the part of a Center contractor, Sciences International (SI) [See WIMS 2/28/07]. SI plays a major management role in CERHR operations while at the same time doing business with a client base that includes manufacturers of chemicals under review by the Center, including BPA.
BPA is an ingredient in plastics and the epoxy resins that line food cans. It also has many other common uses in CDs, DVDs, electrical and electronic equipment, automobiles, and sports safety equipment. EWG said that low doses of BPA lead to a range of health problems, including birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems in laboratory animals. EWG said that despite the growing evidence of risk to human health, there are no limits on the amount of BPA allowed in canned food. Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at EWG said, "BPA reads like a case study of how badly our chemical safety system is broken. We've known it's toxic for 75 years, it's polluting the bodies of almost all Americans, but we allow it in our food at levels that leave no margin of safety for pregnant women and young children."
An independent panel of 15 scientists convened by CERHR, is reviewing recent scientific data and reaching conclusions regarding whether or not exposure to the commonly used chemical is hazardous to human development or reproduction. The expert panel is meeting March 5-7 to review and revise the draft expert panel report on BPA, and write its summary, conclusions and critical data needs. The 2.5 day scientific meeting is open to members of the public and the media.
Access a release, extensive background information including the conflict charges and the report from EWG (click here). Access a CERHR release on the review meeting (click here). Access details about the meeting, including panelists and agenda (click here). Access the CERHR BPA Draft 372-page report (click here). [*Toxics]
EWG said the potential for BPA to cause birth defects and reproductive harm is being evaluated today (March 5) by a Federal advisory panel at the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), a division of the National Institutes of Health [See WIMS 2/26/07]. On February 28, EWG raised major concerns about the integrity of CERHR science and conflicts of interest on the part of a Center contractor, Sciences International (SI) [See WIMS 2/28/07]. SI plays a major management role in CERHR operations while at the same time doing business with a client base that includes manufacturers of chemicals under review by the Center, including BPA.
BPA is an ingredient in plastics and the epoxy resins that line food cans. It also has many other common uses in CDs, DVDs, electrical and electronic equipment, automobiles, and sports safety equipment. EWG said that low doses of BPA lead to a range of health problems, including birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems in laboratory animals. EWG said that despite the growing evidence of risk to human health, there are no limits on the amount of BPA allowed in canned food. Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at EWG said, "BPA reads like a case study of how badly our chemical safety system is broken. We've known it's toxic for 75 years, it's polluting the bodies of almost all Americans, but we allow it in our food at levels that leave no margin of safety for pregnant women and young children."
An independent panel of 15 scientists convened by CERHR, is reviewing recent scientific data and reaching conclusions regarding whether or not exposure to the commonly used chemical is hazardous to human development or reproduction. The expert panel is meeting March 5-7 to review and revise the draft expert panel report on BPA, and write its summary, conclusions and critical data needs. The 2.5 day scientific meeting is open to members of the public and the media.
Access a release, extensive background information including the conflict charges and the report from EWG (click here). Access a CERHR release on the review meeting (click here). Access details about the meeting, including panelists and agenda (click here). Access the CERHR BPA Draft 372-page report (click here). [*Toxics]
Monday, March 05, 2007
National Parks Conservation Association v. TVA
Mar 2: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 05-6329. Three environmental organizations brought the suit under the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provisions, alleging that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) shirked its duty to obtain appropriate pollution limitations at a power plant it operates in Clinton, Tennessee. The district court granted summary judgment to TVA, concluding that the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs’ claim for statutory penalties and that the concurrentremedy rule barred their claim for injunctive relief.
The Appeals Court, in a 2-1 decision, concluded that the district court’s ruling on the statute of limitations was in error, and reversed the grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The majority said, "...we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims for civil penalties are timely insofar as they relate to violations that occurred within five years of the date they filed their initial complaint." The Appeals Court ruling hinged on a determination that an alleged violation manifests itself each day the plan operates, therefore, while violations predating February 13, 1996 are time-barred, the remaining violations are not.
Judge Batchelder, issued a dissenting opinion saying, "I respectfully dissent because I do not agree that this case involves a “series of discrete violations.” I believe this case involves, at most, a single violation that occurred in 1988, and therefore, its statute of limitations expired five years later. I would affirm the district court."
Sierra Club, one of the parties in the suit called the decision a "major victory" and said, "The court recognized that each day that this plant operates without modern pollution control standards, the health of the community and the air is put at risk. This ruling enables citizens across the country to hold dirty coal plants accountable and to obtain civil penalties for past damages. Polluting power plants should take notice. Today’s ruling strengthens a growing sentiment that coal-fired power plants will no longer be able to circumvent pollution laws. The days of special treatment for coal plants are over."
Access the complete opinion and dissent (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [*Air]
The Appeals Court, in a 2-1 decision, concluded that the district court’s ruling on the statute of limitations was in error, and reversed the grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The majority said, "...we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims for civil penalties are timely insofar as they relate to violations that occurred within five years of the date they filed their initial complaint." The Appeals Court ruling hinged on a determination that an alleged violation manifests itself each day the plan operates, therefore, while violations predating February 13, 1996 are time-barred, the remaining violations are not.
Judge Batchelder, issued a dissenting opinion saying, "I respectfully dissent because I do not agree that this case involves a “series of discrete violations.” I believe this case involves, at most, a single violation that occurred in 1988, and therefore, its statute of limitations expired five years later. I would affirm the district court."
Sierra Club, one of the parties in the suit called the decision a "major victory" and said, "The court recognized that each day that this plant operates without modern pollution control standards, the health of the community and the air is put at risk. This ruling enables citizens across the country to hold dirty coal plants accountable and to obtain civil penalties for past damages. Polluting power plants should take notice. Today’s ruling strengthens a growing sentiment that coal-fired power plants will no longer be able to circumvent pollution laws. The days of special treatment for coal plants are over."
Access the complete opinion and dissent (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [*Air]
Friday, March 02, 2007
EPA Proposed Locomotive & Marine Diesel Engine Rule
Mar 2: U.S. EPA is proposing a new rule which it says will ensure that Americans continue to breathe cleaner air by significantly reducing air pollution from locomotive and marine diesel engines. The Clean Air Locomotive and Marine Diesel Rule would set stringent emission standards and require the use of advanced technology to reduce emissions. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, “By tackling the greatest remaining source of diesel emissions, we’re keeping our nation’s clean air progress moving full steam ahead. Over the last century, diesels have been America’s economic workhorse, and through this rule, an economic workhorse is also becoming an environmental workhorse.”
Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp joined Administrator Johnson at the announcement which took place at Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, Berth 23, Elizabeth Marine Terminal. The emission standards would apply to the nation’s fleet of diesel locomotive engines, tugs, barges, ferries and recreational marine engines. Diesel exhaust contains toxic chemicals that together with diesel particulate matter pose a cancer risk greater than that of any other air pollutant. The proposed standards, when adopted and fully phased in, would reduce particulate pollution and smog-forming oxides of nitrogen from each engine by 90 percent. Krupp said, “EPA is clearly on the right track in proposing to address the dangerous diesel exhaust from trains and ships. We look forward to working with EPA and the states to carry this important work across the finish line by securing final clean air standards for high-polluting trains and ships.”
When fully implemented, the landmark initiative would cut particulate matter emissions from the engines by 90 percent and nitrogen oxides emissions by 80 percent. This would result in annual health benefits of $12 billion in 2030 and reduce premature deaths, hospitalizations and respiratory illnesses across the United States. These benefits would continue to grow as older locomotive and marine engines are replaced. Overall benefits are estimated to outweigh costs by more than 20 to 1. The rule would tighten emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured. Additionally, the rule sets stringent emission standards for new locomotive and marine diesel engines and sets long-term regulations that require the use of advanced technology to reduce emissions.
The locomotive remanufacturing proposal would take effect as soon as certified systems are available, as early as 2008, but no later than 2010. Standards for new locomotive and marine diesel engines would phase-in starting in 2009. Long-term standards would phase-in beginning in 2014 for marine diesel engines and 2015 for locomotives. The rule also explores a remanufacturing program for existing large marine diesel engines similar to the existing program for locomotives. Other provisions seek to reduce unnecessary locomotive idling.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to a fact sheet, the prepublication copy of the proposed rule, regulatory impact analysis and related details (click here). Access EPA's Diesel Boats and Ships website (click here). Access EPA's Locomotives website (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here) [*Air]
Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp joined Administrator Johnson at the announcement which took place at Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, Berth 23, Elizabeth Marine Terminal. The emission standards would apply to the nation’s fleet of diesel locomotive engines, tugs, barges, ferries and recreational marine engines. Diesel exhaust contains toxic chemicals that together with diesel particulate matter pose a cancer risk greater than that of any other air pollutant. The proposed standards, when adopted and fully phased in, would reduce particulate pollution and smog-forming oxides of nitrogen from each engine by 90 percent. Krupp said, “EPA is clearly on the right track in proposing to address the dangerous diesel exhaust from trains and ships. We look forward to working with EPA and the states to carry this important work across the finish line by securing final clean air standards for high-polluting trains and ships.”
When fully implemented, the landmark initiative would cut particulate matter emissions from the engines by 90 percent and nitrogen oxides emissions by 80 percent. This would result in annual health benefits of $12 billion in 2030 and reduce premature deaths, hospitalizations and respiratory illnesses across the United States. These benefits would continue to grow as older locomotive and marine engines are replaced. Overall benefits are estimated to outweigh costs by more than 20 to 1. The rule would tighten emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured. Additionally, the rule sets stringent emission standards for new locomotive and marine diesel engines and sets long-term regulations that require the use of advanced technology to reduce emissions.
The locomotive remanufacturing proposal would take effect as soon as certified systems are available, as early as 2008, but no later than 2010. Standards for new locomotive and marine diesel engines would phase-in starting in 2009. Long-term standards would phase-in beginning in 2014 for marine diesel engines and 2015 for locomotives. The rule also explores a remanufacturing program for existing large marine diesel engines similar to the existing program for locomotives. Other provisions seek to reduce unnecessary locomotive idling.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to a fact sheet, the prepublication copy of the proposed rule, regulatory impact analysis and related details (click here). Access EPA's Diesel Boats and Ships website (click here). Access EPA's Locomotives website (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here) [*Air]
Thursday, March 01, 2007
UCS Engineers Unveil "Green" Minivan Design
Mar 1: Automotive engineers at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) unveiled a minivan design which they say shows that automakers can build affordable vehicles with existing technology that would meet or exceed global warming pollution standards for cars and trucks adopted by California and 10 other states. They said, "Automakers are currently fighting these standards in court." The minivan, dubbed the UCS Vanguard, features off-the-shelf engine, transmission and fueling systems and other technologies that would save consumers money, maintain vehicle safety and performance, and cut global warming pollution by more than 40 percent. All of the technologies in the Vanguard are in vehicles on the road today, but automakers have yet to combine them all in one single package.
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said, "Today's announcement confirms that we already have the technology and the tools to combat climate change and that now it is simply a question of the political will. Oregon adopted the California tailpipe standard in 2005. Oregon is committed to transitioning to a new generation of cleaner vehicles, and this project demonstrates a clear path forward. It is my hope this will encourage the rest of the nation to join Oregon and the other states already pledged to reduce auto emissions." According to a UCS release installing the Vanguard package of existing technologies fleetwide could significantly reduce global warming pollution for all car and truck size classes. Operational savings would make up for relatively small increases in purchase price. For example, the Vanguard minivan package would add about $300 to the price but result in over $1,300 in lifetime consumer savings, with a payback time of less than two years.
Spencer Quong, a senior UCS vehicles engineer and former automaker consultant who designed the Vanguard said, "Meeting state laws for fighting global warming should be no sweat for the automakers. They already have the solution to pollution right under the hoods of their own cars and trucks." The Vanguard minivan design has eight key components -- including improvements in the engine, transmission, air conditioner, fuel system, aerodynamics and tires -- that can be found piecemeal in more than 100 vehicle models on the road today. The Vanguard is not a hybrid. It uses conventional technology to achieve significant reductions in global warming pollution.
UCS emphasized in their release, "In the absence of federal policies to curb global warming emissions from vehicles, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon and Washington have adopted the California clean car standard. Several other states, including Arizona, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee and Texas, are considering or about to adopt the standard. Combined, these states represent nearly half the U.S population. In response, auto industry trade groups have filed lawsuits in California, Rhode Island and Vermont to block implementation."
Access a lengthy release from UCS (click here). Access the UCS Clean Vehicles website for extensive information on the Vanguard including conference presentation, brochure, animation, technical report; and related issues (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said, "Today's announcement confirms that we already have the technology and the tools to combat climate change and that now it is simply a question of the political will. Oregon adopted the California tailpipe standard in 2005. Oregon is committed to transitioning to a new generation of cleaner vehicles, and this project demonstrates a clear path forward. It is my hope this will encourage the rest of the nation to join Oregon and the other states already pledged to reduce auto emissions." According to a UCS release installing the Vanguard package of existing technologies fleetwide could significantly reduce global warming pollution for all car and truck size classes. Operational savings would make up for relatively small increases in purchase price. For example, the Vanguard minivan package would add about $300 to the price but result in over $1,300 in lifetime consumer savings, with a payback time of less than two years.
Spencer Quong, a senior UCS vehicles engineer and former automaker consultant who designed the Vanguard said, "Meeting state laws for fighting global warming should be no sweat for the automakers. They already have the solution to pollution right under the hoods of their own cars and trucks." The Vanguard minivan design has eight key components -- including improvements in the engine, transmission, air conditioner, fuel system, aerodynamics and tires -- that can be found piecemeal in more than 100 vehicle models on the road today. The Vanguard is not a hybrid. It uses conventional technology to achieve significant reductions in global warming pollution.
UCS emphasized in their release, "In the absence of federal policies to curb global warming emissions from vehicles, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon and Washington have adopted the California clean car standard. Several other states, including Arizona, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee and Texas, are considering or about to adopt the standard. Combined, these states represent nearly half the U.S population. In response, auto industry trade groups have filed lawsuits in California, Rhode Island and Vermont to block implementation."
Access a lengthy release from UCS (click here). Access the UCS Clean Vehicles website for extensive information on the Vanguard including conference presentation, brochure, animation, technical report; and related issues (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Major New UN Report On Confronting Climate Change
Feb 27: The United Nations (UN) Foundation and Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, presented a new report at a press briefing in New York entitled, Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. The report was presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has called climate change one of his priority concerns. The report was prepared as input for the upcoming meeting of the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, and warns of “two starkly different futures” facing humanity: one marked by increasingly serious climate-related impacts and the other aiming to “reduce dangerous emissions, create economic opportunity, help to reduce global poverty, reduce degradation and carbon emissions from ecosystems, and contribute to sustainability.” The report warns, “Humanity must act collectively and urgently to change course through leadership at all levels of society. There is no more time for delay.”
Among the measures recommended in the new scientific report on coping with climate change are improved transportation systems, tighter building codes and financing for energy-efficiency investments. The report notes that the technology exists to “seize significant opportunities around the globe” to reduce emissions and provide other economic, environmental and social benefits. It calls on policy makers to improve efficiency in the area of transportation through measures such as vehicle efficiency standards, fuel taxes, and registration fees or rebates that favor purchase of efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
The report also calls for improved design and efficiency of commercial and residential buildings through building codes, standards for equipment and appliances, incentives for property developers and landlords to build and manage properties efficiently, and financing for energy-efficiency investments, the report states. It also recommends expanding the use of biofuels through energy portfolio standards and incentives to growers and consumers. The report outlines a role for the international community, through the UN and related multilateral institutions, including helping countries in need to finance and deploy energy efficient and new energy technologies while accelerating negotiations to develop a new international framework for addressing climate change and sustainable development.
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), in its role as Secretariat to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), sought to facilitate contributions by the scientific community to the work of the Commission. and invited Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, to convene an international panel of scientific experts to prepare the report outlining the best measures for mitigating and adapting to global warming. To carry out this task, the Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development (SEG) was formed and asked to consider innovative approaches for mitigating and/or adapting to projected climate changes, and to anticipate the effectiveness, cost, and implementation of possible response measures. The members of SEG and the reviewers served as individuals and not as representatives of their governments or institutions.
The SEG concludes, "We believe that these recommendations are consistent with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and will be broadly endorsed by the expert community, which agrees that both near- and long-term efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change need to be intensified, while at the same time strengthening efforts to promote equitable and sustainable economic development... We include in the Executive Summary the steps needed to build a practical and workable path to a healthier planet, and we, and the scientific community, stand ready to help in the design of an effective and workable set of policies and programs."
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access an expanded release from the UN Foundation (click here). Access the 12-page executive summary (click here). Access the 166-page full report (click here). Access the Scientific Research Society, an international honor society for research scientists and engineers, with more than 500 chapters and 60,000 members in North America and around the world (click here). Access the UN Foundation website (click here). Access the UN DESA website (click here). [*Climate]
Among the measures recommended in the new scientific report on coping with climate change are improved transportation systems, tighter building codes and financing for energy-efficiency investments. The report notes that the technology exists to “seize significant opportunities around the globe” to reduce emissions and provide other economic, environmental and social benefits. It calls on policy makers to improve efficiency in the area of transportation through measures such as vehicle efficiency standards, fuel taxes, and registration fees or rebates that favor purchase of efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
The report also calls for improved design and efficiency of commercial and residential buildings through building codes, standards for equipment and appliances, incentives for property developers and landlords to build and manage properties efficiently, and financing for energy-efficiency investments, the report states. It also recommends expanding the use of biofuels through energy portfolio standards and incentives to growers and consumers. The report outlines a role for the international community, through the UN and related multilateral institutions, including helping countries in need to finance and deploy energy efficient and new energy technologies while accelerating negotiations to develop a new international framework for addressing climate change and sustainable development.
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), in its role as Secretariat to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), sought to facilitate contributions by the scientific community to the work of the Commission. and invited Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, to convene an international panel of scientific experts to prepare the report outlining the best measures for mitigating and adapting to global warming. To carry out this task, the Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development (SEG) was formed and asked to consider innovative approaches for mitigating and/or adapting to projected climate changes, and to anticipate the effectiveness, cost, and implementation of possible response measures. The members of SEG and the reviewers served as individuals and not as representatives of their governments or institutions.
The SEG concludes, "We believe that these recommendations are consistent with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and will be broadly endorsed by the expert community, which agrees that both near- and long-term efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change need to be intensified, while at the same time strengthening efforts to promote equitable and sustainable economic development... We include in the Executive Summary the steps needed to build a practical and workable path to a healthier planet, and we, and the scientific community, stand ready to help in the design of an effective and workable set of policies and programs."
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access an expanded release from the UN Foundation (click here). Access the 12-page executive summary (click here). Access the 166-page full report (click here). Access the Scientific Research Society, an international honor society for research scientists and engineers, with more than 500 chapters and 60,000 members in North America and around the world (click here). Access the UN Foundation website (click here). Access the UN DESA website (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Environmental Defense & DuPont Release Nano Risk Framework
Feb 26: Environmental Defense and DuPont announced the public release of a draft version of the Nano Risk Framework - a framework for the responsible development, production, use and disposal of nano-scale materials. They are seeking feedback on the draft to "make this framework as effective, practical, and useful for as wide an audience as possible. Feedback on the draft is requested by Friday, March 30, 2007.
The intent of the framework is to define a systematic and disciplined process that can be used to identify, manage and reduce potential environmental, health and safety risks of nano-scale materials across all lifecycle stages to help ensure that nanotechnology’s benefits are maximized while the potential risks are effectively assessed and managed. According to an announcement, one of the main goals in the development of the framework has been "to do so in an open, transparent manner with other groups, companies and institutions who are also working to assess the potential risks and benefits of nano-materials." They said feedback will enable them to refine the framework to ensure that the final version - scheduled to be released this summer - is a user-friendly, comprehensive tool for businesses, governments, non- profits, university interests and others.
The partnership to develop the Framework began on September 1, 2005. A multidisciplinary team was assembled, drawing from both organizations, with expertise in biochemistry, toxicology, environmental sciences and engineering, medicine, occupational safety and health, environmental law and regulations, product development, and business development. During the development the organizations have solicited and incorporated feedback on the overall approach from a wide and international range of stakeholders (large and small companies, government agencies, universities, and public-interest groups). Pilot-testing of the Framework is now underway on several materials and applications, at various stages of development, to ensure that our approach is flexible, practical, affordable, and effective.
Access the release announcement (click here). Access the 87-page Nano Risk Framework website to access the draft Framework and submit feedback (click here). [*All]
The intent of the framework is to define a systematic and disciplined process that can be used to identify, manage and reduce potential environmental, health and safety risks of nano-scale materials across all lifecycle stages to help ensure that nanotechnology’s benefits are maximized while the potential risks are effectively assessed and managed. According to an announcement, one of the main goals in the development of the framework has been "to do so in an open, transparent manner with other groups, companies and institutions who are also working to assess the potential risks and benefits of nano-materials." They said feedback will enable them to refine the framework to ensure that the final version - scheduled to be released this summer - is a user-friendly, comprehensive tool for businesses, governments, non- profits, university interests and others.
The partnership to develop the Framework began on September 1, 2005. A multidisciplinary team was assembled, drawing from both organizations, with expertise in biochemistry, toxicology, environmental sciences and engineering, medicine, occupational safety and health, environmental law and regulations, product development, and business development. During the development the organizations have solicited and incorporated feedback on the overall approach from a wide and international range of stakeholders (large and small companies, government agencies, universities, and public-interest groups). Pilot-testing of the Framework is now underway on several materials and applications, at various stages of development, to ensure that our approach is flexible, practical, affordable, and effective.
Access the release announcement (click here). Access the 87-page Nano Risk Framework website to access the draft Framework and submit feedback (click here). [*All]
Monday, February 26, 2007
Enviros Claim "Historic" Victory In Texas Utility Fight
Feb 26: The national environmental organization Environmental Defense issued a release saying that it helped to negotiate an aggressive environmental platform as part of the deal involving Texas Pacific Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. who are seeking to acquire Texas-based energy giant TXU Corporation. Environmental Defense has been a major player in an effort to stop TXU Corporation from implementing plans to build 11 old-style coal-fired power plants throughout Central and Northeast Texas.
Environmental Defense said, "Today is a truly historic day in the fight against global warming." As part of the sale agreement, among other things the new company would: terminate plans for the construction of 8 of 11 coal-fired power plants TXU had hoped to build; stop TXU's plans to expand coal operations in other states; endorse the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) platform, including the call for a mandatory Federal cap on carbon emissions; and reduce the company's carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 [See WIMS 1/22/07 & WIMS 2/13/07].
Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense issued a statement saying, "The story behind today's announcement began last April when TXU announced alarming plans to build 11 dirty coal-fired power plants in Texas. From the start, most business and political experts considered it a done deal. Texas Governor Rick Perry got personally involved, fast-tracking the permits and declaring "we're not going to let these bureaucrats jerk us around." Even our own experts in our Texas office considered the odds of stopping the plants as remote, at best.
"But the size of the proposal left us no choice but to aggressively oppose the plants. The 11 coal-fired plants would spew 78 million tons of global warming pollution per year, more than twice the expected carbon reductions from the historic California Clean Cars legislation. So, Environmental Defense mobilized an all-out grassroots campaign targeting TXU and Texas Governor Rick Perry. Nearly 50,000 Environmental Defense members and activists took action, sending emails, attending public hearings across Texas and submitting public comments against the plants. More than 50 community and environmental groups signed on to our letter urging TXU to change its course.
"We took out television, billboard and online ads. We reached out to allies in the Texas state legislature and we worked the legal and financial angles to keep the pressure on TXU. Our efforts were designed to achieve three goals: Stop as many of the plants as possible; Prevent TXU from exporting its coal plant build-out to other states; and Send a national message to other utility companies that the TXU plan is one they should reject."
According to a detailed account of the negotiations published in the New York Times, the deal was brokered through William K. Reilly, the former administrator for U.S. EPA under President George H. W. Bush, who works for Texas Pacific Group. TXU announced this morning that its board had approved the buyout bid for about $45 billion -- the largest in history.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who was also involved in the negotiations issued a on Saturday, February 24. David Hawkins, a former top EPA official with more than 35 years experience in utility environmental issues, who heads NRDC’s Climate Center said, “What we’re witnessing is the beginning of the end of investments in old-fashioned coal plants. These are very big investors coming to the energy table with very big ideas about where the competitive market is heading. Strategies to fight global warming and save energy are crucial for anyone hoping to succeed in today’s electricity industry.”
Access a release from Environmental Defense that links to a breaking news story in the New York Times (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the StopTXU website (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Environmental Defense said, "Today is a truly historic day in the fight against global warming." As part of the sale agreement, among other things the new company would: terminate plans for the construction of 8 of 11 coal-fired power plants TXU had hoped to build; stop TXU's plans to expand coal operations in other states; endorse the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) platform, including the call for a mandatory Federal cap on carbon emissions; and reduce the company's carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 [See WIMS 1/22/07 & WIMS 2/13/07].
Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense issued a statement saying, "The story behind today's announcement began last April when TXU announced alarming plans to build 11 dirty coal-fired power plants in Texas. From the start, most business and political experts considered it a done deal. Texas Governor Rick Perry got personally involved, fast-tracking the permits and declaring "we're not going to let these bureaucrats jerk us around." Even our own experts in our Texas office considered the odds of stopping the plants as remote, at best.
"But the size of the proposal left us no choice but to aggressively oppose the plants. The 11 coal-fired plants would spew 78 million tons of global warming pollution per year, more than twice the expected carbon reductions from the historic California Clean Cars legislation. So, Environmental Defense mobilized an all-out grassroots campaign targeting TXU and Texas Governor Rick Perry. Nearly 50,000 Environmental Defense members and activists took action, sending emails, attending public hearings across Texas and submitting public comments against the plants. More than 50 community and environmental groups signed on to our letter urging TXU to change its course.
"We took out television, billboard and online ads. We reached out to allies in the Texas state legislature and we worked the legal and financial angles to keep the pressure on TXU. Our efforts were designed to achieve three goals: Stop as many of the plants as possible; Prevent TXU from exporting its coal plant build-out to other states; and Send a national message to other utility companies that the TXU plan is one they should reject."
According to a detailed account of the negotiations published in the New York Times, the deal was brokered through William K. Reilly, the former administrator for U.S. EPA under President George H. W. Bush, who works for Texas Pacific Group. TXU announced this morning that its board had approved the buyout bid for about $45 billion -- the largest in history.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who was also involved in the negotiations issued a on Saturday, February 24. David Hawkins, a former top EPA official with more than 35 years experience in utility environmental issues, who heads NRDC’s Climate Center said, “What we’re witnessing is the beginning of the end of investments in old-fashioned coal plants. These are very big investors coming to the energy table with very big ideas about where the competitive market is heading. Strategies to fight global warming and save energy are crucial for anyone hoping to succeed in today’s electricity industry.”
Access a release from Environmental Defense that links to a breaking news story in the New York Times (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the StopTXU website (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Friday, February 23, 2007
NAS Report Looks At Elements Of Global Change Assessments
Feb 23: A new National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) report identifies, for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the essential elements of effective global change assessments, including strategic framing, engagement of stakeholders, credible treatment of uncertainties, and a transparent interface between policymakers and scientists. The report reviews lessons learned from past assessments, which are intended to inform policymakers about the scientific underpinnings of critical environmental issues such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, and ozone depletion. The report identifies 11 essential elements of effective assessments and provides recommendations on evolving the process to better support decision making.
According to the report, assessments convey scientific information to decision makers. Global change assessments are a deliberative process through which experts come to consensus, based on available scientific information, on specific questions related to the environment. Assessments can have a significant impact on public policies, technology development, and future research directions. The report presents a comparative analysis of eight past global change assessments, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. The report indicates that common components of effective assessments include superior leadership, extensive and well designed engagement with interested and affected parties, a transparent and effective science-policy interface, and well articulated communication strategies.
The eight assessments analyzed in the report include: the international Stratospheric Ozone Assessments; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA); National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts; Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; German Enquete Kommission on “Preventive Measures to Protect the Earth’s Atmosphere”; and A set of 21 U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Products.
The report concludes that assessment reports can go only so far to support decision making. To become even more valuable to society, assessments should develop decision support tools. These tools should make use of scientific analysis at the regional and local level where decisions are made. Assessments should provide tools that enable decision makers to link the information provided with their specific needs. For example, the report says, the impacts of climate change on individual watersheds could be assessed by using global-scale projections of future changes in temperature and precipitation as input to regional-scale hydrological models. Using such an approach, those areas or sectors that are highly vulnerable could be selected for a more focused assessment that also take into account pertinent local information such as projected changes in population and land use.
Access a 4-page report in brief (click here). Access a 22-page Executive Summary report (click here). Access links to the complete 206-page report in full or by sections (click here). [*All, *Climate]
According to the report, assessments convey scientific information to decision makers. Global change assessments are a deliberative process through which experts come to consensus, based on available scientific information, on specific questions related to the environment. Assessments can have a significant impact on public policies, technology development, and future research directions. The report presents a comparative analysis of eight past global change assessments, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. The report indicates that common components of effective assessments include superior leadership, extensive and well designed engagement with interested and affected parties, a transparent and effective science-policy interface, and well articulated communication strategies.
The eight assessments analyzed in the report include: the international Stratospheric Ozone Assessments; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA); National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts; Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; German Enquete Kommission on “Preventive Measures to Protect the Earth’s Atmosphere”; and A set of 21 U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Products.
The report concludes that assessment reports can go only so far to support decision making. To become even more valuable to society, assessments should develop decision support tools. These tools should make use of scientific analysis at the regional and local level where decisions are made. Assessments should provide tools that enable decision makers to link the information provided with their specific needs. For example, the report says, the impacts of climate change on individual watersheds could be assessed by using global-scale projections of future changes in temperature and precipitation as input to regional-scale hydrological models. Using such an approach, those areas or sectors that are highly vulnerable could be selected for a more focused assessment that also take into account pertinent local information such as projected changes in population and land use.
Access a 4-page report in brief (click here). Access a 22-page Executive Summary report (click here). Access links to the complete 206-page report in full or by sections (click here). [*All, *Climate]
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Multi-Interest Group Issues Global Framework For Climate Action
Feb 20: The Global Roundtable on Climate Change (GROCC), a group of companies and organizations from around the world has issued what they say is a bold post-Kyoto framework for affecting change at the levels of policy and industry, particularly in regard to creating sustainable energy systems necessary for achieving economic growth. The statement entitled, The Path to Climate Sustainability: A Joint Statement by the Global Roundtable on Climate Change, endorsed by Allianz, Bayer, Citigroup, DuPont, General Electric, Volvo, and many others; calls on governments to set scientifically informed targets for greenhouse gases (GHG) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The agreement also urges governments to place a price on carbon emissions and to set forth policies aimed at addressing energy efficiency and de-carbonization in all sectors.
Calling climate change "an urgent problem," the statement lays out a proactive framework for global action to mitigate risks and impacts while also meeting the global need for energy, economic growth and sustainable development. It outlines cost-effective technologies that exist today and others that could be developed and deployed to improve energy efficiency and help reduce CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases in major sectors of the global economy. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Chair of the Global Roundtable on Climate Change and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University said, "Leaders from key economic sectors and regions of the world have reached a consensus on the path forward to reduce human-made climate change. This initiative points the way to an urgently needed global framework for action. I congratulate the Roundtable signatories, and thank them for their bold leadership and contribution to global progress on this critical issue."
According to a release, the Climate Change Statement released has received endorsements from critical stakeholders and independent experts including leading corporations from all economic sectors; smaller firms with very different perspectives and concerns; an array of civil, religious, environmental, research and educational institutions; and a distinguished list of world-leading experts from the fields of climate science, engineering, economics and policy studies.
One key signatory, U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), plans to present the Joint Statement to Congress as a possible point of action on curbing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Snowe said, “The Global Roundtable on Climate Change Statement is a vital tool to help all nations shape sound public climate change policy, and, as a participant in the Roundtable, I am acting as a conduit for getting the Joint Statement before the U.S. Congress to assist it in coalescing around and adopting scientifically informed and cost effective targets to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. must engage with a significant level of commitment so that the world’s largest emerging economies will participate in adopting a global strategy."
Some of the signatories include Air France, Alcoa, Allianz, American Electric Power, Bayer, China Renewable Energy Industry Association, Citigroup, DuPont, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, ENDESA, Eni, Eskom, FPL Group, General Electric, Iberdrola, ING, Interface, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Munich Re, NRG Energy, Patagonia, Ricoh, Rolls Royce, Stora Enso North America, Suntech Power, Swiss Re, Vattenfall, Volvo, World Council of Churches, World Petroleum Council, and many others.
Since 2004, the diverse members of the GROCC, an initiative of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, has convened more than 100 high-level stakeholders and experts twice a year to explore areas of potential consensus regarding core scientific, technological, and economic issues critical to shaping public policies on climate change. The Joint Statement is an outcome of these dialogues, and was built on careful discussion over the past three years.
The statement specifically calls on governments to set scientifically informed targets for global GHG concentrations, including ambitious but achievable interim goals for CO2, and to take immediate action in pursuit of those targets; to develop mechanisms that place a price on carbon emissions that is reasonably consistent internationally and across sectors in order to reward efficiency and emission avoidance and encourage innovation; establish policy initiatives to address energy efficiency and de-carbonization in all sectors; encourage the development and rapid deployment of low-emitting and zero-emitting energy and transportation technologies; and provide incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and harmful land management practices; as well as other related actions.
Access a lengthy release (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the Statement (click here). Access the complete 26-page statement which includes the complete list of signers from industry, institutions, and individual leaders from Business, Civil Society, Government, and Research Institutions (click here). Access the NextGenerationEarth website where individuals can sign the Climate Statement of Principles (click here). Access the GROCC website (click here). Access the Earth Institute website (click here). [*Climate]
Calling climate change "an urgent problem," the statement lays out a proactive framework for global action to mitigate risks and impacts while also meeting the global need for energy, economic growth and sustainable development. It outlines cost-effective technologies that exist today and others that could be developed and deployed to improve energy efficiency and help reduce CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases in major sectors of the global economy. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Chair of the Global Roundtable on Climate Change and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University said, "Leaders from key economic sectors and regions of the world have reached a consensus on the path forward to reduce human-made climate change. This initiative points the way to an urgently needed global framework for action. I congratulate the Roundtable signatories, and thank them for their bold leadership and contribution to global progress on this critical issue."
According to a release, the Climate Change Statement released has received endorsements from critical stakeholders and independent experts including leading corporations from all economic sectors; smaller firms with very different perspectives and concerns; an array of civil, religious, environmental, research and educational institutions; and a distinguished list of world-leading experts from the fields of climate science, engineering, economics and policy studies.
One key signatory, U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), plans to present the Joint Statement to Congress as a possible point of action on curbing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Snowe said, “The Global Roundtable on Climate Change Statement is a vital tool to help all nations shape sound public climate change policy, and, as a participant in the Roundtable, I am acting as a conduit for getting the Joint Statement before the U.S. Congress to assist it in coalescing around and adopting scientifically informed and cost effective targets to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. must engage with a significant level of commitment so that the world’s largest emerging economies will participate in adopting a global strategy."
Some of the signatories include Air France, Alcoa, Allianz, American Electric Power, Bayer, China Renewable Energy Industry Association, Citigroup, DuPont, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, ENDESA, Eni, Eskom, FPL Group, General Electric, Iberdrola, ING, Interface, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Munich Re, NRG Energy, Patagonia, Ricoh, Rolls Royce, Stora Enso North America, Suntech Power, Swiss Re, Vattenfall, Volvo, World Council of Churches, World Petroleum Council, and many others.
Since 2004, the diverse members of the GROCC, an initiative of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, has convened more than 100 high-level stakeholders and experts twice a year to explore areas of potential consensus regarding core scientific, technological, and economic issues critical to shaping public policies on climate change. The Joint Statement is an outcome of these dialogues, and was built on careful discussion over the past three years.
The statement specifically calls on governments to set scientifically informed targets for global GHG concentrations, including ambitious but achievable interim goals for CO2, and to take immediate action in pursuit of those targets; to develop mechanisms that place a price on carbon emissions that is reasonably consistent internationally and across sectors in order to reward efficiency and emission avoidance and encourage innovation; establish policy initiatives to address energy efficiency and de-carbonization in all sectors; encourage the development and rapid deployment of low-emitting and zero-emitting energy and transportation technologies; and provide incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and harmful land management practices; as well as other related actions.
Access a lengthy release (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the Statement (click here). Access the complete 26-page statement which includes the complete list of signers from industry, institutions, and individual leaders from Business, Civil Society, Government, and Research Institutions (click here). Access the NextGenerationEarth website where individuals can sign the Climate Statement of Principles (click here). Access the GROCC website (click here). Access the Earth Institute website (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Toxic Contaminants In OmegaPure Fish Oil Nutritional Supplements
Feb 21: According to a release from Greenpeace USA, an independent laboratory analysis released today (February 21, 2007) has identified high levels of three toxic chemicals in the popular brand of Omega-3 fish oil nutritional supplements known as OmegaPure. These contaminants include DDT, Dieldrin and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which have all been identified by U.S. EPA as "probable" carcinogens and have been banned in the United States. The contaminants were also found in the fish oil and meal used in pet food and animal feed as nutritional supplements. OmegaPure is produced by Houston-based Omega Protein, Inc., which is the largest producer of fish oil in the United States.
John Hocevar, Greenpeace Oceans Specialist said, "Consumers have a right to know that the products they buy to supposedly improve their health could actually be putting them at risk. Omega Protein’s products should either be cleaned-up or pulled off the market. In the meantime, consumers seeking the benefits of Omega-3 oils should consider safer sources such as flaxseed oil or algae-derived sources of Omega-3s.” The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) laboratories -- an executive agency and research body within the government of the United Kingdom -- performed the analysis for the Greenpeace Research Laboratories located at the University of Exeter.
Hocevar said, “We first became concerned about Omega Protein after watching them do everything they could to avoid regulation of their fisheries. Not only does the company lack concern for the impacts of their fishing practices on the environment but there is a similar lack of concern for the contents of the supplements they sell.”
Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) said, "These newest findings point to the need for the White House to let the Food and Drug Administration finalize regulations setting manufacturing standards for dietary supplements. The White House Office of Management and Budget has effectively prevented the FDA from finalizing these rules, known as ‘Good Manufacturing Practices,’ for more than five years."
According to the more detailed laboratory analysis report, "Within the USA, the FDA does apply an overall tolerance limit of 2 ppm for PCBs in fish and shellfish for consumption. On this basis, PCB concentrations recorded for the fish oil dietary supplement analyzed in the current study fall significantly (10 to 20 times) below that level (at between 0.092 and 0.195 ppm, depending on the summation method employed). However, a far lower ‘screening value’ of 20 ppb (0.02 ppm, determined against Aroclor standard mixtures of PCBs) is set by the US EPA for fish consumption by recreational fishers, based on an assumed average daily intake of 12g of material and an ‘acceptable’ cancer risk level of 10-5. Against this screening value, the potential dietary intake from even a single menhaden oil capsule taken each day can be seen to be quite significant. Intake from consumption of more than one capsule each day would exceed the EPA guideline, even before consideration of contributions from other sources." Omega recommends a dose of “1-2 capsules with a meal up to 3 times daily or as directed by a healthcare professional".
Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access the detailed laboratory results and a video of Omega Protein, Inc. operations (click here). [*Toxics]
John Hocevar, Greenpeace Oceans Specialist said, "Consumers have a right to know that the products they buy to supposedly improve their health could actually be putting them at risk. Omega Protein’s products should either be cleaned-up or pulled off the market. In the meantime, consumers seeking the benefits of Omega-3 oils should consider safer sources such as flaxseed oil or algae-derived sources of Omega-3s.” The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) laboratories -- an executive agency and research body within the government of the United Kingdom -- performed the analysis for the Greenpeace Research Laboratories located at the University of Exeter.
Hocevar said, “We first became concerned about Omega Protein after watching them do everything they could to avoid regulation of their fisheries. Not only does the company lack concern for the impacts of their fishing practices on the environment but there is a similar lack of concern for the contents of the supplements they sell.”
Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) said, "These newest findings point to the need for the White House to let the Food and Drug Administration finalize regulations setting manufacturing standards for dietary supplements. The White House Office of Management and Budget has effectively prevented the FDA from finalizing these rules, known as ‘Good Manufacturing Practices,’ for more than five years."
According to the more detailed laboratory analysis report, "Within the USA, the FDA does apply an overall tolerance limit of 2 ppm for PCBs in fish and shellfish for consumption. On this basis, PCB concentrations recorded for the fish oil dietary supplement analyzed in the current study fall significantly (10 to 20 times) below that level (at between 0.092 and 0.195 ppm, depending on the summation method employed). However, a far lower ‘screening value’ of 20 ppb (0.02 ppm, determined against Aroclor standard mixtures of PCBs) is set by the US EPA for fish consumption by recreational fishers, based on an assumed average daily intake of 12g of material and an ‘acceptable’ cancer risk level of 10-5. Against this screening value, the potential dietary intake from even a single menhaden oil capsule taken each day can be seen to be quite significant. Intake from consumption of more than one capsule each day would exceed the EPA guideline, even before consideration of contributions from other sources." Omega recommends a dose of “1-2 capsules with a meal up to 3 times daily or as directed by a healthcare professional".
Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access the detailed laboratory results and a video of Omega Protein, Inc. operations (click here). [*Toxics]
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Science Association Says Human Climate Change Evidence Is Clear
Feb 18: Another major international group of scientists has adopted a statement on global climate change. Ironically, the statement adopted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Triple A-S" (AAAS), was approved by its Board on December 9, 2006, and released on February 18, 2007 at the groups annual meeting in San Francisco. AAAS is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. AAAS publishes the journal Science, which has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million.
According to the statement, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
"The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.
"Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
"History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive research, development and deployment effort to transform the existing and future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
"In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes.
"The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations."
A footnote to the statement indicates, "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the joint National Academies' statement."
Access the statement (click here). Access the AAAS Climate Change Resources website for additional information (click here). Access the AAAS website (click here). [*Climate]
According to the statement, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
"The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.
"Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
"History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive research, development and deployment effort to transform the existing and future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
"In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes.
"The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations."
A footnote to the statement indicates, "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the joint National Academies' statement."
Access the statement (click here). Access the AAAS Climate Change Resources website for additional information (click here). Access the AAAS website (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
