Administration Strategy For Nanotechnology-Related EHS Research

Feb 14: The Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology released a document describing the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) strategy for addressing priority research on the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) aspects of nanomaterials. The report, Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research, was prepared by the subcommittee’s Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group.

Importantly, it should be emphasized that the NSET Nanotechnology Strategy should not be confused with the U.S. EPA draft report titled, Draft Nanomaterial Research Strategy (EPA/600/S-08/002), which was prepared by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), and announced in the Federal Register [73 FR 8309-8311, 2/13/08]. The EPA draft is undergoing an external peer review and public comment process that will hold a peer review meeting April 11, 2008 [See WIMS 2/13/08]. Public comments on the EPA strategy are due by March 13, 2008. Additionally, and also somewhat confusing, on January 28, 2008, EPA announced its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) that calls on manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of engineered nanoscale materials to voluntarily report to EPA key information about these materials within six months. EPA is not requesting that participants develop additional data, only that participants submit existing data [See WIMS 1/28/08].

EHS research and information needs related to nanotechnology were identified in the NSET Subcommittee documents, Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, published in September 2006 and, Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document for Public Comment, released in August 2007.

According to a release, the latest NSET EHS Strategy presents a path for coordinated interagency implementation of research to address the needs identified in earlier reports. It is based in part on a detailed analysis of the Federal Government's FY 2006 nanotechnology-related EHS research portfolio, a $68 million investment in 246 projects. Experts from the NEHI Working Group analyzed how these activities addressed the priority research needs and then proposed emphasis and sequencing for future research efforts. Agency-specific research and regulatory needs, public comments on the prior documents, and considerations of the state of EHS research in the national and international nanotechnology communities all played an important role in shaping the strategy.

Dr. Clayton Teague, Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office said, “This EHS research strategy is the result of a terrific team effort led by the NEHI Working Group. It reflects a strong consensus and commitment among the NNI [National Nanotechnology Initiative] member agencies on the roles they will assume, consistent with their respective missions and responsibilities, to move the Federal efforts in nanotechnology-related EHS research forward. The quality of the document demonstrates that the NNI is working hard to understand -- and to think strategically about -- nano EHS issues in a systematic, coordinated fashion."

Also on February 14, NSET released a summary of the NNI Fiscal Year 2009 budget. According to the summary, the 2009 NNI budget provides increased support for research on fundamental nanoscale phenomena and processes, from $481 million in 2007 to $551 million in 2009. The proposed budget reflects substantial ongoing growth in funding for instrumentation research, metrology and standards (from $53 million in 2007 to $82 million in 2009) and in nanomanufacturing research (from $48 million in 2007 to $62 million in 2009). EHS R&D funding in 2009 ($76 million) is more than double the level of actual funding in 2005 ($35 million) -- the first year this data was collected.

In a related matter, Jim Gulliford, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, conducted an online interactive forum today (February 20) on the new Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program designed to examine the human health and environmental risks and benefits of nanoscale chemical products. A transcript of the forum is available from the links below.

The Federal Government's nanotechnology research programs, in general, fall under the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Coordination of research in the field takes place through the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council. The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office provides technical and administrative support to the NSET Subcommittee and serves as a central point of contact for the NNI. The above programs operate under the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.

Access a release from NSET with links to previous reports (click here). Access the complete EHS Strategy report (click here). Access the NNI website for additional information (click here). Access the FR announcement for EPA's Draft Nanomaterial Research Strategy (click here). Access EPA's draft Nanomaterial Research Strategy (click here). Access the EPA interactive forum transcript (click here). Access the Office of Science & Technology Policy website (click here). Access links to other nanotechnology publications from EPA (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on Nanotechnology issues (click here). [*Toxics]

House Science Committee Wants GAO Investigation Of FutureGen

Feb 15: The Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology Bart Gordon (D-TN) -- joined by fellow Committee Members Nick Lampson (D-TX), Jerry Costello (D-IL) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) -- have asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the Administration’s recent decision to pull their support for FutureGen -- a project intended to demonstrate the next generation of coal-fired power production and once the centerpiece of the Department of Energy’s(DOE) program on clean coal technology.

On January 31, 2008, the DOE announced a significant departure from its clean coal initiative, FutureGen [See WIMS 1/31/08]. Originally conceived in 2003, FutureGen was touted as a pollution-free power plant of the future intended to showcase cutting-edge technologies to address climate change and advance the President’s hydrogen initiative. In announcing its "restructured" FutureGen program, DOE withdrew support for the Mattoon, IL site announced by the FutureGen Alliance in December 2007.

DOE said, it had issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking industry’s input by March 3, 2008, on the costs and feasibility associated with building clean coal facilities that achieve the intended goals of FutureGen. Following this period and consideration of industry comment, DOE intends to issue a Funding Opportunity Announcement -- or competitive solicitation -- to provide federal funding under cooperative agreements to equip Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC, or other clean coal technology) commercial power plants that generate at least 300 megawatts, with CCS technology aimed at accelerating near-term technology deployment. Initial input from industry will assist in determining how many demonstrations can be commissioned.

In a letter to GAO the Representatives said, “The recent FutureGen announcement takes the program in a dramatically different direction. The reasons for this abrupt change in the FutureGen program are unclear. However, the Administration claims that increases in cost estimates for the program were a contributing factor in this decision. We wish to have a better understanding of the developments in the program that led to this recent decision and an examination of the Administration’s rationale and plans for restructuring this program. There is a need to accelerate the development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies and we want to ensure the Department’s approach to this challenge will deliver the capability we need in the most cost-effective and rapid time frame possible.”

The Committee is asking GAO to investigate a number of concerns surrounding the Administration’s abandoning of FutureGen, including the methods DOE used to estimate the costs of the FutureGen program; what factors accounted for the increases in cost estimates that DOE reports as a major reason for restructuring the FutureGen initiative; and what costs, if any, are associated with the decision to terminate the existing FutureGen program and any contracts or cooperative agreements associated with it.

On February 7, the FutureGen Alliance Board of Directors reaffirmed what it said was "the importance of proceeding with the development of the FutureGen facility in Mattoon, Illinois" at a Board meeting held at the host site. The Board announced its plan to push the project forward as planned, as it believes that FutureGen at Mattoon remains in the public interest. The Board said the Mattoon site has all of the attributes required to be successful, including a secure water source and the ability to inject CO2 on-site eliminating the need for an extended offsite pipeline. The FutureGen Alliance represents some of the world's largest coal companies and electric utilities.

The Alliance indicates that the estimated gross project cost, including construction and operations, is $1.8B (billion). Consistent with its non-profit mission, the Alliance will return 100% of the powerplant’s estimated $300 million in revenue to the project; thereby, reducing the total net project cost to $1.5B. Alliance member companies will make nearly $400 million in additional contributions. The remaining $1.1B was to be contributed by DOE and foreign governments. Thus far, the foreign governments of China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan have pledged to assist DOE in covering DOE’s share of the project cost.

Access a release from the Committee (click here). Access the letter (click here). Access a lengthy release from DOE on the restructured FutureGen program with links to additional information (click here). Access the DOE FutureGen website for additional information (click here). Access the FutureGen Alliance website (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

New Chemical Testing Agreement Will Reduce Reliance On Animal Use

Feb 15: According to a release from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and U.S. EPA, testing the safety of chemicals ranging from pesticides to household cleaners will benefit from new technologies and a plan for collaboration. Federal scientists from the two agencies announced a new toxicity testing agreement. The concept behind this agreement is highlighted in the February 15, 2008 issue of the journal Science.

Two NIH institutes have formed a collaboration with the EPA to use the NIH Chemical Genomics Center's (NCGC) high-speed, automated screening robots to test suspected toxic compounds using cells and isolated molecular targets instead of laboratory animals. This new, trans-agency collaboration is anticipated to generate data more relevant to humans; expand the number of chemicals that are tested; and reduce the time, money and number of animals involved in testing. Full implementation of the hoped-for paradigm shift in toxicity testing will require validation of the new approaches, a substantial effort that could consume many years.

The collaboration is being made possible through a newly signed, five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which leverages the strengths of each organization. The MOU builds on the experimental toxicology expertise at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), NIH; the high-throughput technology at NCGC, managed by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), NIH; and the computational toxicology capabilities at the EPA's recently formed National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT).

The MOU provides for sample and information sharing necessary to more rapidly and effectively identify chemicals that might pose possible risks to the health of humans and animals and to the environment. It addresses opportunities for coordination in four basic areas related to achieving the toxicant testing goals, including: identification of toxicity pathways; selection of chemicals for testing; analysis and interpretation of data; and outreach to scientific and regulatory communities. The collective budget is yet to be determined.

The MOU and the plans articulated in the Science article provide a framework to implement the long-range vision outlined in the 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy [See WIMS 6/15/07], which calls for a collaborative effort across the toxicology community to rely less on animal studies and more on in vitro tests using human cells and cellular components to identify chemicals with toxic effects. Importantly, the strategy calls for improvements in dose-response research, which will help predict toxicity at exposures that humans may encounter.

Data collection to determine chemical toxicity currently relies heavily on whole-animal tests. The growing number of new chemicals, high testing costs and public unease with animal testing led to the search for alternate toxicology testing methods. Quantitative high-throughput screening (qHTS), developed at NCGC, increases the rate at which chemicals are tested, and profiles compounds over a wide range of concentrations. These qualities make the new qHTS technology ideal for toxicology testing, with the potential for advancing the goal of more accurate and timely public health decisions. NHGRI's Dr. Collins said, "A central component of federal effort will explore the use of high-throughput screening assays in toxicology. Such assays allow for the testing of thousands to hundreds of thousands of chemicals a day to determine their possible toxic effect."

EPA's Dr. Gray said, "As our detailed research strategy continues to develop, we will welcome the participation of other federal partners, as well as interested public and private sector organizations, to make this vision of 21st century toxicology a reality. The EPA's engagement in this collaboration is part of its ToxCast™ program -- an initiative launched in 2007 to revolutionize the agency's chemical toxicity evaluation procedures. ToxCast™ will use advances in computers, genomics and cellular biology to speed up toxicity testing and enhance capacity to screen new compounds [See WIMS 11/15/07].

Access a lengthy release from EPA and NIH with links to related information (click here). Access further information on the ToxCast™ Program (click here). Access links to the complete NRC report, a 25-page executive summary and related information (click here). [*Toxics]

Senate Hearing On International Aspects of Carbon Cap & Trade Program

Feb 14: The Senate Finance Committee, Chaired by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), held a hearing on the International Aspects of a Carbon Cap and Trade Program, a subject that was also discussed in the recently release Congressional Budget Office report, entitled, Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions [See WIMS 2/13/08]. The Committee heard testimony from: Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA); Senior Counsel, Environmental Defense; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers; Point Carbon North America; and VP Government and Environmental Affairs, Holcim, Inc.

In an opening statement, Senator Baucus said, "I believe it is a moral imperative to deal with climate change. We all have a basic duty to leave this world to our children better than we found it. But, as we address climate change, we must also strive to do so in harmony with economic growth. Establishing a cap on carbon emissions has the potential to affect the American economy. It could raise costs, especially for energy-intensive industries like aluminum and cement. We must strive to minimize the competitive disadvantage that these costs will place on America. We can do that by encouraging other countries to commit to their own carbon
reductions. In that way, we can level the regulatory playing field. And in that way, we can reduce the incentive for American manufacturers to move their operations and jobs overseas.

"Pending legislation attempts to safeguard American economic competitiveness through measures taken at the border. For instance, proposals require importers to buy carbon allowances for products imported from countries that have not made commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. Our trading partners are watching these proposals carefully. Our challenge is to craft
border measures in a manner that both meets our domestic priorities and respects international trade rules.

"Likewise, we can preserve American economic competitiveness by reducing compliance costs for Americans. As we design the American carbon market, we must provide opportunities for American industries to buy carbon allowances wherever they are available, not only in the United States. At the end of the day, climate change is a global problem. It requires a global solution. The solution that we develop must also provide incentives for emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil to join our effort. Their economies compete with ours. They cannot enjoy a free ride, while we bear the cost. . ."

Senator Specter commented that the Bingaman-Specter, Low Carbon Economy Act, S. 1766, and the Lieberman-Warner bill America’s Climate Security Act, S. 2191, that was reported out of the Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee [See WIMS 12/6/07], have provisions designed to address competitiveness concerns.

Specter said he had made three observations: "(1) First, while this is a developing and unsettled area, there are very good arguments to be advanced that the United States can apply measures at the border to ensure that imports are treated the same as domestic products in terms of the burdens and costs of climate change legislation. (2) Second, to the extent there may be uncertainty in how international rules will be applied, it only makes sense to interpret them in the manner that will allow for the most equitable treatment between imports and domestic products -- and that will thereby provide for the greatest level of environmental protection. (3) Third, to make U.S. climate change legislation effective and to garner public support, it is vital that the same burdens be borne both by imports and domestic products. If it is concluded that this cannot be done (whether for legal or other reasons), it may be impossible to make current climate change proposals work as intended and to actually have the effect of lowering global greenhouse gas concentrations. Therefore, the work being done by this Committee to consider and educate Congress about the trade and legal implications of climate legislation is vital if we are to make progress in this area going
forward. . ."

Holcim Ltd, with U.S. headquarters in Waltham, MA, a worldwide leader in the building materials sector, with over 150 million tons of cement and almost 200 million tons of aggregates supplied annually, testified that it had extensive experience with CO2 emission trading regimes with 27 cement production facilities in 10 countries in the European Union Emission Trading System (EU-ETS). Holcim said, "To be effective in reducing domestic and global carbon emissions, a domestic cap and trade program must contain provisions to avoid 'leakage of carbon emissions' to countries that either have no, or less stringent obligations. This can be achieved by adopting a system of equal rights and equal obligations for domestic producers and importers. . ."

The Environmental Defense attorney, who held previous positions as Assistant US Trade Representative for Environment and Natural Resources, under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations testified in 21-page of testimony that, "We can do this now. At this point in the debate, you’ve heard many arguments about why it’s impossible for us to act. Chief among them is the argument that the U.S. cannot and must not go forward without having secured caps on emissions from major developing nations. I will use my time before you today to rebut this assertion. The objective of national climate legislation is to create broad-based incentives for a new round of innovation in the economy away from high carbon content products to more efficient and profitable alternatives. We can design a U.S. carbon market that achieves our environmental goals while maintaining a level playing field for our companies and workers competing in the international marketplace and creating new market opportunities. . ."

Access the hearing website for links to testimony and opening statements as they become available (click here). Access a webcast of the hearing (click here). [*Climate]

CBO Report: Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions

Feb 12: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a new report entitled, Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions. According to the preface to the report, "There is a growing scientific consensus that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, which result from the burning of fossil fuels, are gradually warming the Earth’s climate. The amount of damage associated with that warming remains uncertain, but there is some risk that it could be large and perhaps even catastrophic. Reducing that risk would require restraining the growth of CO2 emissions -- and ultimately limiting those emissions to a level that would stabilize atmospheric concentrations -- which would involve costs that are also uncertain but could be substantial.

"The most efficient approaches to reducing emissions of CO2 involve giving businesses and households an economic incentive for such reductions. Such an incentive could be provided in various ways, including a tax on emissions, a cap on the total annual level of emissions combined with a system of tradable emission allowances, or a modified cap-and-trade program that includes features to constrain the cost of emission reductions that would be undertaken in an effort to meet the cap.

"This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study -- prepared at the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources [Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)] -- compares those policy options on the basis of three key criteria: their potential to reduce emissions efficiently, to be implemented with relatively low administrative costs, and to create incentives for emission reductions that are consistent with incentives in other countries. In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, the report contains no recommendations."

Further the report says, "Given the gradual nature of climate change, the uncertainty that exists about the cost of reducing emissions, and the potential variability of the cost of meeting a particular cap on emissions at different points in time, a tax could offer significant advantages. If policymakers chose to specify a long-term target for cutting emissions, a tax could be set at a rate that could meet that target at a lower cost than a comparable cap. In addition, if policymakers set the tax rate at a level that reflected the expected benefits of reducing a ton of emissions (which would rise over time), a tax would keep the costs of emission reductions in balance with the anticipated benefits, whereas a cap would not.

"There is significant interest, however, in a cap-and-trade approach (which has been used in the United States to reduce emissions that cause acid rain and is currently being used in the European Union to limit CO2 emissions). This study therefore explores ways in which policymakers could preserve the structure of a cap-and-trade program but achieve some of the efficiency advantages of a tax."

Access the complete 42-page CBO report (click here). [*Climate]

Monaco Will Host Major Global Ministerial Environment Forum

Feb 11: The biggest gathering of environment ministers to take place since the climate change breakthrough in Bali will be happening in Monaco later this month under the theme "Mobilizing Finance for the Climate Challenge". More than 100 ministers from across the globe are scheduled to attend the 10th Special Session of the UN Environment Programme's (UNEP) Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF) -- the world's forum for environment ministers -- alongside senior figures from industry and economics; science; local government; civil society, trades unions and intergovernmental bodies. The meeting takes place in the small European country of Monaco, February 20-22.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said, "The last climate convention meeting delivered the Bali Road Map. This is the path along which over 190 countries are traveling in order to deliver a new and decisive climate deal by Copenhagen in 2009. Mobilizing finance, focusing markets and unleashing innovation will be central to successfully negotiating the Road Map and avoiding too many detours and dead ends. We are already glimpsing a transition to a low carbon society. Billions of dollars are now being invested in renewable energy and hundreds of institutions with trillions of dollars of assets are now endorsing investment principles that reflect environmental alongside social and governance concerns. Designing and delivering a Green Economy will not only avert dangerous and debilitating climate change. It can address the wider sustainability challenges outlined in UNEP's recent Global Environment Outlook from loss of biodiversity and rapid ecosystem degradation to collapsing fish stocks and depleted soils. In doing so, it opens the door to true sustainable development - development that benefits rich and poor alike by unleashing creativity and innovation, spawning new technologies and industries and stimulating new kinds of green employment patterns. In short, it is about investing in tomorrow's economy today."

Other key issues on the table in Monaco include the approval of UNEP's new Medium-Term Strategy for 2010-2013. It is designed to evolve the institution into a more efficient, focused, effective and results based environmental body of the United Nations better equipped to deal with the sustainability challenges of the 21st century. Ministers will also address the issue of International Environment Governance and how well UNEP is placed to address the challenges and opportunities outlined in the recently published landmark report, Global Environment Outlook-4 [See WIMS 10/26/07] .

Also to be considered are reports on improved funding for the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management and the extent to which the international community is moving forward on the management of the hazardous heavy metal mercury. Ministers will also be presented with a key report on tackling illegal international trade in hazardous substances alongside one outlining recommendations on how to improve waste management including recycling in developing economies.

Meanwhile in New York, the United Nations General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim convened the February 11-12, 2008, thematic debate entitled "Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and the World at Work," at the UN Headquarters. Two interactive panel discussions were scheduled: Rising to the Challenge: Partnerships on Climate Change; and Responding to a Multifaceted Challenge: The UN at Work. On February 12, discussions were open to all in which Member States to make statements [See links below].

Access a lengthy release with extensive links to additional information (click here). Access the 10th Special Session website for complete details including links to session documents and information (click here). Access a release with links to the individual speeches at the UN meeting (click here). Access the homepage for the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly (click here). Access the UN thematic debate website with links to information and documents (click here). [*All, *Climate]

Senator Inhofe And Studies Question New RFS Mandate

Feb 8: U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee has posted information on the Committee website indicating that the EPW is "M.I.A." in the biofuels increase debate and that "New Studies Raise More Concern over Dramatic RFS Increase Passed by Congress in 2007."

Senator Inhofe's posting says that, "Barely a month after Congress passed the most onerous fuels mandates in history, two new studies have found that an increased use of biofuels may have a significant impact on the environment. But of course this isn’t surprising to those who actually applied a critical eye to the legislation before Congress imposed a nearly five-fold expansion of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandate [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The studies released this week are the latest to raise mounting questions surrounding ethanol’s effect on livestock feed prices, its economic sustainability, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its water usage and numerous other issues."

Inhofe cites the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog reports saying, “Ethanol loses more glitter after a new study shows it is worse for the environment than fossil fuels, reports the WSJ. Planting biofuel crops in grasslands or forests wipes out natural carbon sinks, prompting Grist to argue that the U.S. Congress 'blew it' with its recent biofuel mandate. The NYT reports that prominent scientists wrote the White House and Congress urging a rethink.”

On the Nature Conservancy website it reported that one of the new studies from The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota finds that many biofuels -- seen by many as a potentially low-carbon energy source -- actually emit more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels they aim to replace. According to the study, co-authored by Joe Fargione, a regional scientist for the Conservancy, “converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace."

Fargione said, "Previous conclusions that biofuels reduce greenhouse gases were based on incomplete analyses. They did not include the effect that biofuels have on the conversion of natural ecosystems to crops." Commenting on the new RFS standard, and responding to the question: But won't biofuels contribute to energy security?; Fargione said, "Unfortunately, not much. Congress recently passed a 36-billion-gallon biofuel mandate, but that will offset only 14 percent of projected gasoline usage by the year 2022 and would require about 60 million acres. After accounting for the energy needed to produce the ethanol, the true offset would only be 8-11 percent."

According to the information posted by Senator Inhofe, "Last year, while the Senate Energy Committee was the prime mover of the hastily increased RFS mandate, Senator Inhofe called for increased oversight by the EPW Committee and warned of the unintended consequences of such a drastic increase. Before 2007, the EPW Committee had held at least 13 hearings on the RFS program, most recently an oversight hearing in September 2006 which highlighted the implementation of this new federal RFS program. In 2007, the EPW Committee failed to hold one..."

The second study, Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, by Princeton University researcher Timothy Searchinger indicates that, "Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products."

On February 7, at the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Oversight Hearing on the recently-passed renewable fuel standard (RFS) contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA. H.R. 6, now Public Law No: 110-140 [See WIMS 12/14/07]), both Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) expressed concerns over the new RFS [See WIMS 2/8/08].

Access the information posted by Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release on the report from the Nature Conservancy (click here). Access information on the report from the Nature Conservancy (click here). Access an abstract and further information on the Princeton report (click here). The Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements and a webcast (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

State of New Jersey v. EPA Vacates Agency Mercury Rules

Feb 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 05-1097, consolidated with 05-1104, 05-1116, 05-1118, 05-1158, 05-1159, 05-1160, 05-1162, 05-1163, 05-1164, 05-1167, 05-1174, 05-1175, 05-1176, 05-1183, 05-1189, 05-1263, 05-1267, 05-1270, 05-1271, 05-1275, 05-1277, 06-1211, 06-1220, 06-1231, 06-1287, 06-1291, 06-1293, 06-1294. In this high profile case involving many states [CA, CT, DE, IL, ME, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, PA, VT and WI], environmental organizations and industry groups, the Appeals Court considered petitions for review of two final rules promulgated by U.S. EPA regarding the emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) -- the so-called Delisting Rule and CAMR.

The Appeals Court sets the stage saying New Jersey and fourteen additional States, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the City of Baltimore (Government Petitioners), and various environmental organizations (Environmental Petitioners) contend that EPA violated Section 112’s plain text and structure when it did not comply with the requirements of section 112(c)(9) in delisting EGUs. Government and Environmental Petitioners further contend that CAMR is inconsistent with provisions of section 111, and that both the Delisting Rule and CAMR should be vacated. Certain intervenors -- including various industry representatives, States, and state agencies -- join EPA in urging the lawfulness of the two rules.

The first rule removes coal- and oil-fired EGUs from the list of sources whose emissions are regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Revision of December 2000 Regulatory Finding (Delisting Rule), 70 FR 15,994 (3/29/05). The second rule sets performance standards for new coal-fired EGUs and establishes total mercury emissions limits for States and certain tribal areas, along with a voluntary cap-and-trade program for new and existing coal-fired EGUs. Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (CAMR), 70 FR 28,606 (5/1805).

The Appeals Court said, "Petitioners contend that the Delisting Rule is contrary to the plain text and structure of section 112. In response, EPA and certain intervenors rely on section 112(n), which sets special conditions before EGUs can be regulated under section 112, to justify the rule. We hold that the delisting was unlawful. Section 112 requires EPA to regulate emissions of HAPs. Section 112(n) requires EPA to regulate EGUs under section 112 when it concludes that doing so is 'appropriate and necessary.'"

The Appeals Court states further that, "In December 2000, EPA concluded that it was 'appropriate and necessary' to regulate mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants under section 112 and listed these EGUs as sources of HAPs regulated under that section. In 2005, after reconsidering its previous determination, EPA purported to remove these EGUs from the section 112 list. Thereafter it promulgated CAMR under section 111. EPA’s removal of these EGUs from the section 112 list violates the CAA because section 112(c)(9) requires EPA to make specific findings before removing a source listed under section 112; EPA concedes it never made such findings. Because coal-fired EGUs are listed sources under section 112, regulation of existing coalfired EGUs’ mercury emissions under section 111 is prohibited, effectively invalidating CAMR’s regulatory approach. Accordingly, the court grants the petitions and vacates both rules."

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram issued a release saying, "In ruling as it did, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with New Jersey and other states, as well as numerous environmental petitioners that EPA cannot avoid its legal duty to promulgate strict limits on mercury emissions from all power plants -- and do so expeditiously. The ruling means elimination of the EPA’s cap-and-trade approach to regulating mercury emissions. Cap-and-trade allows power plants to purchase emissions reduction credits from other plants that have cut emissions below targeted levels, rather than meet strict emission levels by installing stringent pollution controls to reduce mercury emissions at their own plants."

Milgram added, “From the beginning we have maintained that the EPA adopted standards for regulating mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin, which were weak, ineffectual and ran counter to the clear intent of the Clean Air Act.” Milgram's release indicates that, "Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of uncontrolled mercury emissions, generating 48 tons of mercury emissions per year nationwide. EPA finalized its cap-and-trade system for regulating mercury emissions from power plants in May 2006 despite reports that called into question the conclusions underlying the rule. Research funded by the EPA itself found that wet mercury deposition rates from local coal-fired industrial sources were many times higher than EPA projections. The research, conducted in Steubenville, Ohio, bolstered arguments that there was significant potential for uncontrolled local emission sources to perpetuate mercury hot-spots."

Vickie Patton, an attorney with Environmental Defense, which along with Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation was represented by Earthjustice in the lawsuit said, “The federal court agrees with the American Medical Association that EPA's flawed mercury program for coal plants is hazardous to our health. This decision is a victory for the health of all Americans, but especially for our children who can suffer permanent brain damage from toxic mercury pollution.” Alice McKeown, coal analyst for the Sierra Club said, “Coal company claims of ‘clean coal’ will now be put to the test. These mercury pollution reductions will be an important trial run to see if coal is still viable in a cleaner energy future.” The environmental groups said that approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants account for the emissions of 48 tons of mercury annually. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat.

Access the complete 18-page opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Jersey AG (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]

U.S. Funding Russian Assistance On Iranian Nuclear Projects

Feb 6: In a startling revelation, Representatives John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee say that a highly touted Department of Energy (DOE) nonproliferation program, which is intended to keep Soviet-era scientists from migrating to rogue states following the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been funding Russian research institutes that support nuclear projects in Iran. Dingell said, “Only this Administration would complain about proliferation in Iran, as part of President Bush’s nuclear axis of evil, and then finance it with American taxpayer dollars."

The two Representatives wrote Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE's) Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program (IPP). The letter from Stupak and Dingell notes that two IPP-funded institutes in Russia have performed work on the Buhsher nuclear reactor in Iran. The revelations came the day before Bodman testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee on the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget.

Stupak said, “During our hearing in January, Department of Energy and State Department witnesses told me they didn’t know if the United States is funding projects at institutes that are also doing work for the Iranian nuclear program. We now know that they are. I find it to be a rather schizophrenic foreign policy position for the Bush Administration to label Iran part of the ‘axis of evil’ but then send millions of U.S. tax dollars intended for non-proliferation programs to Russian institutes that are doing work on Iran’s nuclear program. I look forward to hearing the Energy and State Departments’ justifications for such a policy.”

Bodman said he is unsure if the allegations are true and DOE is still investigating the charges in the letter, but said it is his belief that U.S. funds are "not contributing to the Iranian nuclear program." He said DOE will get the Committee answers to their questions.

Access a release from Dingell and Stupak with links to the letter and two attachments (click here). Access the Committee hearing website and archived webcast where Secretary Bodman is questioned on this issue (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]

Senate Second Hearing On Surface Transportation Commission Report

Feb 6: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Perspectives on the Surface Transportation Commission Report. The hearing is the second by the Committee on the recent Transportation for Tomorrow report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released on January 15, 2008. The report was prepared by the specially convened Commission, under Section 1909 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Report includes detailed recommendations for creating and sustaining a pre-eminent surface transportation system in the United States [See WIMS 1/31/08].

Witnesses testifying at the second hearing included: Mary Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; the Secretary for the Kansas Department of Transportation; the Director of Transportation Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the President and CEO of the American Highway Users Alliance; and the Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues Government Accountability Office (GAO). Committee Ranking Member, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement.

Senator Inhofe said, "First, I want to point out that although Secretary Peters along with two other Commissioners voted against the final report, there was much agreement on most of the policy recommendations. For the most part, all the Commissioners found agreement on the vast and unmet needs of our nation’s transportation network, but where they differ is in how to pay for it. I have long advocated for a decreased federal role, which I believe allows for greater flexibility for states to manage their own transportation funding priorities. It would appear those who wrote the dissenting views concur...

"I think the important lessons to take from the report are that if we don’t take dramatic action, growing congestion and deteriorating pavement conditions will choke the US economy. I am glad that there is consensus among the commissioners that modal specific decisions and the current program structure are outdated. Finally, I have to comment on the proposed financing mechanism. I believe increasing the federal fuel tax by the amount proposed in the final report is neither politically viable nor economically sound..."

GAO testified that the nation has reached a critical juncture with its current surface transportation policies and programs. Demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, resulting in increased congestion. In addition, without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund -- the major source of federal highway and transit funding -- is projected to incur significant deficits in the years ahead. GAO's testimony discusses 1) principles to assess proposals for restructuring the surface transportation program and 2) GAO’s preliminary observations on the Commission’s recommendations.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified, "We -- Congress, state and local governments, and the private sector -- cannot treat infrastructure like other problems or programs where you can wait until the very last minute and then write a big check. Infrastructure projects require foresight and years of careful planning... On a typical day, about 43 million tons of goods valued at $29 billion, moved nearly 12 billion ton-miles on the nation’s interconnected transportation network. Bridges serve as critical links in the system... Congestion costs drivers $78 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic... Shoddy road conditions result in $67 billion in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs per year. More important, poorly maintained roads contribute to a third of all highway fatalities. That’s more than 14,000 deaths every year -- a national disgrace..."

The Chamber said it "agrees with Senator Inhofe’s observation made at the EPW hearing last week, '…Both the current model of stovepiped modal decisions and the current program structure are outdated...' When it comes to funding and financing our national transportation system, the Chamber believes that every option must be considered to address the enormous problems of the aging transportation infrastructure..."

Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the complete 258-page Commission report or individual sections (click here). Access the Commission's website for extensive background information (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). [*Transport]

Leading Financial Institutions Announce "The Carbon Principles"

Feb 4: Three of the world's leading financial institutions announced the formation of The Carbon Principles, climate change guidelines for advisors and lenders to power companies in the United States. These Principles are the result of a nine-month intensive effort to create an approach to evaluating and addressing carbon risks in the financing of electric power projects. According to a release from Citi, the need for these Principles is driven by the risks faced by the power industry as utilities, independent producers, regulators, lenders and investors deal with the uncertainties around regional and national climate change policy.

The Principles were developed in partnership by Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, and in consultation with leading power companies American Electric Power, CMS Energy, DTE Energy, NRG Energy, PSEG, Sempra and Southern Company. Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), environmental non-governmental organizations, also advised on the creation of the Principles.

The financial giants said, this effort is the first time a group of banks has come together and consulted with power companies and environmental groups to develop a process for understanding carbon risk around power sector investments needed to meet future economic growth and the needs of consumers for reliable and affordable energy. The consortium has developed an Enhanced Diligence framework to help lenders better understand and evaluate the potential carbon risks associated with coal plant investments.

The Principles recognize the benefits of a portfolio approach to meeting the power needs of consumers, without prescribing how power companies should act to meet these needs. However, if high carbon dioxide-emitting technologies are selected by power companies, the signatory banks have agreed to follow the Enhanced Diligence process and factor these risks and potential mitigants into the final financing decision. Matt Arnold, director of Sustainable Finance, which helped coordinate the development of the Principles and Enhanced Diligence process said, "There was full and frank dialogue around the table. There was a remarkable amount of debate and exchange of information and views among the banks, power companies and environmental organizations. The dialogue resulted in a rigorous analysis of the carbon risks in power investments, and sets the stage for further discussion."

Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have pledged their commitment to the Principles to use as a framework when talking about these issues with clients. The effort creates a consistent approach among major lenders and advisors in evaluating climate change risks and opportunities in the US electric power industry. The Principles and associated Enhanced Diligence represent a first step in a process aimed at providing banks and their power industry clients with a consistent roadmap for reducing the regulatory and financial risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The Principles address energy efficiency, renewable and low carbon distributed energy technologies, and conventional and advanced generation.

The Principles are:

• Energy efficiency. An effective way to limit CO2 emissions is to not produce them. The signatory financial institutions will encourage clients to invest in cost-effective demand reduction, taking into consideration the value of avoided CO2 emissions. We will also encourage regulatory and legislative changes that increase efficiency in electricity consumption including the removal of barriers to investment in cost-effective demand reduction. The institutions will consider demand reduction caused by increased energy efficiency (or other means) as part of the Enhanced Diligence Process and assess its impact on proposed financings of certain new fossil fuel generation.
  
  
• Renewable and low carbon distributed energy technologies. Renewable energy and low carbon distributed energy technologies hold considerable promise for meeting the electricity needs of the US while also leveraging American technology and creating jobs. We will encourage clients to invest in cost-effective renewables and distributed technologies, taking into consideration the value of avoided CO2 emissions. We will also encourage legislative and regulatory changes that remove barriers to, and promote such investments (including related investments in infrastructure and equipment needed to support the connection of renewable sources to the system). We will consider production increases from renewable and low carbon generation as part of the Enhanced Diligence process and assess their impact on proposed financings of certain new fossil fuel generation.
  
  
• Conventional and advanced generation. In addition to cost effective energy efficiency, renewables and low carbon distributed generation, investments in conventional or advanced generating facilities will be needed to supply reliable electric power to the US market. This may include power from natural gas, coal and nuclear technologies. Due to evolving climate policy, investing in CO2-emitting fossil fuel generation entails uncertain financial, regulatory and certain environmental liability risks. It is the purpose of the Enhanced Diligence process to assess and reflect these risks in the financing considerations for certain fossil fuel generation. We will encourage regulatory and legislative changes that facilitate carbon capture and storage (CCS) to further reduce CO2 emissions from the electric sector.

Mark Brownstein, managing director of business partnerships for Environmental Defense, one of the NGOs that advised with the banks in creating the Principles said, "Leading utilities and financial institutions understand that the rules of the road have changed for coal. These principles are a first step in facilitating an honest assessment of electric generation options in light of the obvious and pressing need to substantially reduce national greenhouse gas pollution."

Dale Bryk, senior attorney at NRDC said, "Expectations are rising fast for this industry. Global warming is changing the competitive landscape. Clean power is the name of the game today. Conventional coal facilities are already facing intensive scrutiny. We think the serious money is increasingly going to be on clean, efficient solutions."

CMS Energy of Jackson, MI said, "The electric companies that serve America's families and businesses every day understand the need for a balanced approach to meet our country's energy needs. At CMS Energy, our objective is to provide reliable and affordable power to our customers through a prudent, environmentally responsible mix of conventional and advanced technologies that includes renewable energy and to work with customers to help them use energy efficiently. By adopting these principles, Wall Street is making an important and creative contribution to the ongoing effort to address climate change and a contribution that will be welcomed by those in the utility sector with similar concerns about the environment."

Anthony Earley Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Detroit-based DTE Energy said, "DTE Energy is proud of its history of environmental stewardship and thus we applaud the Carbon Principles approach by leading banks recognizing that a broad range of energy solutions must be considered to address the climate change issue.

Access the release from Citi with further details on the Principles, Enhanced Diligence and further quotes from participants (click here). Access an extensive release from NRDC (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

House Climate Change Legislation Design White Papers

Jan 31: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chaired by Representative John Dingell (D-MI) and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Chaired by Rick Boucher (D-VA) are continuing their strategy of issuing a series of Climate Change Legislation Design White Papers as the next step toward enactment of a mandatory, economy-wide climate change program. The latest White Paper entitled, Competitiveness Concerns/Engaging Developing Countries, discusses potential domestic legislative provisions that could encourage developing countries to curb their emissions of greenhouse gases.

Last fall the Committee released its first White Paper on a cap-and-trade control methodology [See WIMS 10/4/07]. The latest White Paper on Competitiveness Concerns will be the subject of a Subcommittee hearing on February 28, 2008. According to Dingell and Boucher, additional White Papers will be released in the coming weeks to address other key issues in of their proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) control strategy. The two Representatives said it is their goal to draft GHG control legislation and get it processed through the Subcommittee and full Committee and to the House Floor in time to conference with legislation from the Senate. They said, "It is our intention to present a final measure to the President to be signed into law before the Congress adjourns this year.

They said their legislation will most likely include a provision to encourage developing countries to curb their GHG emissions. The White Paper examines the need and current proposal to achieve that goal. The two are encouraging interested parties to share their views and suggestions on this issue.

On December 5, 2007, the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), approved S. 2191, the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act. The final vote on approval was 11-8, with all eight Democrats voting for the bill, two Independents voting for the bill, and one Republican, sponsor Senator Warner voting for the bill. The bill now awaits consideration before the full Senate [See WIMS 12/6/07].

Access a memo to members of the Committee including contacts to submit input (click here). Access the 16-page White Paper (click here). [*Climate]

UN Report On Activities In Relation to Climate Change

Jan 28: The United Nations Secretary-General has released a 52-page report entitled, Overview of United Nations Activities in Relation to Climate Change. The report was prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 62/8 of November 19, 2007, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit, by January 25, 2008, a comprehensive report providing an overview of the activities of the United Nations system in relation to climate change.

According to the report summary, it provides a preliminary overview of the current climate change activities of the United Nations and an indication of the way forward. It contains the results, as of now, of extensive consultations within the Chief Executives Board and its High-level Committee on Programmes. Annex I to the report provides an overview of current United Nations system activities on climate change organized by key areas. Annex II contains a more forward-looking paper entitled “Coordinated United Nations system action on climate change”. Annex II, in particular, is the outcome of extensive consultations among all relevant United Nations system entities on a common approach. It exemplifies the system’s commitment to strengthening and coordinating its work under the four main areas under intergovernmental discussion, namely, adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing, in support of the efforts of Member States to implement existing and future agreements. The report provides extensive and detailed insights into the UN involvement in the issue.

In the Annex II section on Financing, the report indicates that, "Global investments in the magnitude of from $15 trillion to $20 trillion United States dollars may be required over the next 20-25 years to place the world on a markedly different and sustainable energy trajectory. If investment choices are based on solid economic rationale and sound scientific evidence, valuing true costs, they can unlock huge change potential. The high-level event stressed the need to provide developing countries with additional resources for investment and capacity building. While the bulk of investment will come from government and the private sector, the United Nations system can support countries to make choices based on sound scientific and technical criteria. It will become essential to coordinate access and utilize available resources, as the proliferation of funding mechanisms can lead to fragmentation and loss of coherence and effectiveness."

The report concludes, in a section titled, The Way Forward, "The international community acknowledges the United Nations as being the multilateral framework for establishing a post-2012 climate regime, and a source of multisectoral and sectoral support... As a global problem, climate change demands a collective international response. The United Nations commands the ability to support such a response on the basis of a strategic vision, setting out common goals and objectives, assigned roles for United Nations entities and strengthened mechanisms for collaboration. Such a strategy, which should be developed within the Chief Executives Board, would also ensure that future climate programmes of individual agencies in their area of comparative advantage are developed in collaboration within a broader framework and in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process."

The report forms part of the background for an up-coming General Assembly "thematic debate" on climate change. The UN General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim will convene the thematic debate entitled "Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and the World at Work " on February 11 and 12, 2008, at UN Headquarters in New York. Two interactive panel discussions will take place on February 11: Rising to the Challenge: Partnerships on Climate Change; and Responding to a Multifaceted Challenge: The UN at Work. On February 12, 2008, there will be a discussion open to all in which Member States will make statements.

Access the complete UN report (click here). Access extensive information on the upcoming thematic debate on climate change (click here). [*Climate]

Senate Hearing On National Surface Transportation Report

Jan 31: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, “A Hearing to Receive the Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.” On January 15, 2008, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released its major report entitled, Transportation for Tomorrow, prepared by the specially convened Commission, under Section 1909 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Report includes detailed recommendations for creating and sustaining a pre-eminent surface transportation system in the United States [See WIMS 1/15/08].

The Commission's report concluded: "The Commission concludes that the current Federal surface transportation programs should not be 're-authorized' in their current form. We must begin anew. This New Beginning is the dawn of the third era in the modern history of the Federal surface transportation program."

Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP; the Wisconsin Department of Transportation; BNSF Railway Company; and The Skancke Company. Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) both delivered opening statements.

Senator Boxer said in part, "On August 1, 2007, the collapse of the I-35 west bridge in Minneapolis claimed the lives of 13 and injured 145 people. This tragedy served as an urgent wake up call that we cannot neglect our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The current highway, transit and highway safety programs of SAFETEA-LU expire at the end of 2009.

"Today we begin our process of developing a new authorization for those programs... In reviewing the Commission’s recommendations, it is clear to me that there is no easy answer to the challenges we face. But without action by the Federal government, our infrastructure will further deteriorate, congestion will increase, additional lives will be lost, and our economy will suffer... If we don’t aggressively pursue safety improvements, more lives will be lost on U.S. roads. In 2006, almost 43,000 people died and 2.6 million were injured... If we act, the Commission’s report suggests that by 2025 we could cut fatalities in half and reduce per-vehicle delay on major urban highways by 20 percent...

"The discussion on financing will explore a myriad of options – several of which are discussed in the report. While the gas tax will continue to fund our surface program, we know that it is not a sustainable, long-term source of funding. Options could include private-sector investment, pricing through tolls and the like, and charges for vehicle miles traveled or VMT. Global warming and other important environmental considerations need to be integrated into our transportation planning..."

Access the hearing website and link to all testimony, opening statements, webcast and related information (click here). Access the complete 258-page report or individual sections (click here). Access the Commission's website for extensive background information (click here). [*Transport]

600+ U.S. Scientists Urge Congress To Act On Climate Change

Jan 29: According to a release from the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), more than 600 prominent scientists from across the United States are calling on Congress to pass legislation that will curb America’s global warming pollution and help protect wildlife and other natural resources threatened by global warming. Spearheaded by some of America’s greatest scientific minds, including Harvard Professor E.O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Paul Ehrlich and Camille Parmesan, the scientists have sent a letter to Congress urging action.

Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, renowned conservation biologist and president of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment said, “The science is irrefutable not only about the reality of climate change, but also that plant and animal species are already being harmed by it. Alarming effects are already being observed in nature from mountaintops to the oceans, and from the equator to the polar regions. We have the choice to allow these effects to intensify or to move to avoid the more disastrous consequences for life on earth.”

Dr. Dan Svedarsky, president of The Wildlife Society, on behalf of its over 8,000 professional wildlife biologists said, “The precarious status of polar bears and their melting sea ice habitat in the Arctic is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not just polar bears -- wildlife across America are being impacted by global warming, including birds, butterflies, fish and mammals.” Jeff Price, one of the authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (2007) said, “The science is clear that without major action to both reduce global warming pollution and to help wildlife survive global warming, species will suffer rapidly increasing extinction rates. It is not too late, but we must take action now.”

The U.S. Senate is currently considering legislation that would begin to take the urgent actions these scientists say are necessary [See WIMS 12/6/07 & 1/18/08]. The Climate Security Act (S. 2191), introduced in 2007 by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), creates a market-based system that cuts global warming pollution and helps communities address the impacts of climate change. John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife and global warming at NWF said, “Global warming is an unprecedented challenge for wildlife, adding a host of new threats such as thawing permafrost, disappearing mountain snow pack, and the warming of rivers, lakes and estuaries. Senators Lieberman and Warner recognize the gravity of the threat and the necessity of timely and effective action. The Climate Security Act provides the best hope for saving wildlife at risk of extinction and for conserving ecosystems that are essential for both wildlife and people.”

The signers are hoping to convey to Congress “our sense of urgency. Global warming is already causing serious damage and disruptions to wildlife and ecosystems, and reliable projections call for significant additional damage and disruptions. To fulfill the nation’s longstanding commitment to conserving abundant wildlife and healthy ecosystems for future generations, Congress must craft legislation that greatly reduces global warming pollution and generates substantial dedicated funding to protect and restore wildlife and ecosystems harmed by global warming.”

Access a release from NWF (click here). Access the letter and complete list of signers, organized by state (click here). [*Climate]

President Bush Delivers Last State Of The Union Address

Jan 28: President George W. Bush delivered his final State of the Union Address, Monday, January 28, 2008, at the U.S. Capitol. The Address dealt largely with the U.S. Economy and the war in Iraq. The word "environment" appeared once in the speech in a sentence stating, "Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil." The term "climate change" also appeared once in the speech in a sentence stating, "The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change."

The term "energy" appeared five times in sentences as follows: "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology... Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources... The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology..."

In his speech the President emphasized the need to generate coal power with carbon sequestration, said the nation should increase renewable and nuclear power; and stressed the need to develop new and advanced technology to deal with energy and climate change issues. He also re-emphasized his position that an international climate change agreement must include "commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride."

In context, approximately three paragraphs of the speech dealt with the subjects of environment, energy and climate change. The President said, "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

"This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth."


Congressional Democrats React To The State of the Union Address


Senate Democrats issued a broad-based response saying, "We agree with the President that we must work together to make progress on our most pressing challenges. Yet, tonight, the President offered little more than the status quo. At a time when our economy is on shaky ground and our leadership around the world is eroding, the status quo won't do." On their website they posted a list of what they would like to hear."

On the issue of climate change they said, "We need to hear a plan to take further significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are pushing us closer to the brink of global climate catastrophe -- and to make the U.S. a global leader in bringing all countries into binding agreement. We must build on the work of this Congress to lower vehicle emissions for the first time in 32 years with new CAFE standards, to increase efficiency for buildings, lighting, and appliances, and to increase clean, renewable fuel usage. We need to hear a plan to: design a carbon cap and trade system [and] set a renewable electricity standard nationwide."

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued some comments and a point-counterpoint response to some of the President's statements. Markey said, "During President Bush’s tenure, oil has risen from $26 per barrel to spiking above $100 barrel, and total U.S. heat-trapping emissions have risen by more than 3 percent, and by more than 210 million metric tons in carbon dioxide equivalent -- about the same as the total yearly output of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden combined.

“Too often, President Bush has used positive rhetoric to mask the reality that on his watch, the United States has undermined, not reinforced, the international effort to cap the emissions of heat-trapping gases that endanger the planet. In his short-sighted concession to ignore real solutions to global warming in favor of expediency and special interests, he is risking the fate of the world. History is not likely to judge this legacy kindly.

“But we in the Congress intend to give this president opportunities in his final year to reverse his pattern of negligence when it comes to global warming and be part of kick-starting a green revolution in our country. The president asked Congress to ‘cooperate for results’ tonight – I hope he will follow his own advice.”

The official Democratic response to the State of the Union Address was delivered by Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of the State of Kansas. In one passage, Governor Sebelius says, "You and I - stand ready - ready to protect our environment for future generations, and stay economically competitive. Mayors have committed their cities to going green; governors have joined together, leading efforts for energy security and independence; and the majority in Congress is ready to tackle the challenge of reducing global warming and creating a new energy future for America. So we ask you, Mr. President, will you join us? It's time to get to work..."

Pelosi and Reid issued a second, brief reaction saying in part, "We hope that the bipartisanship on the economic stimulus package that has marked the start of this new year is a sign of things to come. But the President must do much more than simply give speeches that promise progress and commit to cooperation – he must work with Congress to make it happen. If the President holds fast to the commitment he made to bipartisanship tonight, we can make great progress for the American people this year."


Groups React To State of the Union Address


The following is some reaction to the President's State of the Union Address. WIMS notes that very few industry groups issued statements commenting on the President's Address.

Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group (formerly the National Environmental Trust), issued a statement on advance text of the address saying, “The President’s proposal for a worldwide clean technology fund is a major landmark in addressing global warming. Developing countries will need billions in financial assistance to cut the growth of their global warming pollution over the next several decades.

“Still, $2 billion is a very small amount of money given the scale of the problem. China alone is investing over $100 billion a year through its state-owned enterprises in new energy projects and resources, mostly in oil and coal-fired electricity. The President’s proposed fund must be accompanied by a strong new climate treaty to direct global business investment into clean energy technologies.”

Greenpeace USA issued a statement saying in part, "Under his watch, greenhouse gas emissions have increased as the United States’ reputation has plummeted. The damage to both the environment and the U.S.’s international standing will take years to undo. Rather than offer real solutions to global warming, the President has repeatedly kowtowed to the oil and energy industries by sowing confusion on the science and offering policies that are comparable to throwing a thimble-full of water on a raging fire."

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "In his final State of the Union address, President Bush missed his last opportunity to confront America's global warming challenge and commit to enacting binding climate legislation by the end of his term... Any presumption that the crisis of global warming can be met through voluntary measures is a fantasy. Anything less than science-based, binding reductions in global warming pollution isn't going to meet the challenge. American researchers and entrepreneurs respond to market signals, which a market-based cap-and-trade program will send. If there are no mandatory controls there is very little incentive to invest or innovate..."

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) issued a statement saying, "Unfortunately, the president’s plan outlined tonight offers old approaches instead of bold solutions. Congress should act quickly to pass the bipartisan Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to energize America’s economy and reduce global warming pollution. Doing nothing on global warming is a recipe for economic failure. We need to reject the defeatist attitude of those who say that protecting our environment will harm our economy. In the fight against global warming, the science is clear: the path to avoid catastrophic climate change starts with mandatory limits on global warming pollution that create bold new opportunities for clean energy jobs and technologies. A voluntary approach adds up to lots of rhetoric and little actual change..."

Eileen Claussen, President of Pew Center on Global Climate Change issued a statement saying, "President Bush’s proposal tonight to invest $2 billion to deploy clean energy technologies in developing countries is a step in the right direction. A fair and effective global response to climate change is possible only with strong support from industrialized countries. But compared to the level of investment needed, and the $10 billion pledged two days ago by Japan, the president’s proposal appears modest at best.

"The White House must go much further if it wants to be seen as a leader on climate action. At home, the president should work with Congress to enact a mandatory cap-and-trade bill to significantly reduce U.S. emissions. Abroad, the United States must sit down with other countries and negotiate binding international commitments. The so-called national commitments the administration is advocating would be little more than promises, providing no assurance that China, India, and other countries would hold up their end of the bargain. American business and the American public are calling for mandatory federal action on climate change..."

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) issued a statement saying, “After seven years of a presidential assault on environmental protections, of siding with Big Oil over consumers and the environment, of refusing to address the global warming crisis and actively thwarting state efforts to do so, the President promised more of the same tonight. The best thing about President Bush’s State of the Union speech tonight is that it is his last. The very idea that the President would attempt to take credit for ‘leadership’ in the post-2012 global warming program is absurd, especially considering that his Administration was internationally shamed in Bali."

Access the full transcript of the 2008 State of the Union Address with links to video and related information (click here). Access the Senate Democrats "State of Our Union" website (click here). Access the transcript of general comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Markey (click here). Access the Governor Sebelius response (click here). Access the second release from Pelosi and Reid (click here). Access a release from the Pew Environment Group with links to additional information on China Investments (click here). Access the statement from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the NWF statement (click here). Access a release from the Pew Climate Center (click here). Access a release from LCV (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]