Dec 11: A late night procedural cloture motion vote requiring 60 votes, on H.R. 7005, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, to provide assistance to Ford, GM and Chrysler, was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 52-35, with 12 not voting [See WIMS 12/9/08]. The House had approved a $14 billion assistance package on December 10. President Bush, who had agreed to, and was actively supporting the House-approved bill, is now the last stop for the failing U.S. automobile industry. The President can still authorize or direct the use of already approved funds under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). In the past few days of negotiations with House Democrats, the White House has been insistent that auto industry funding must come from the so-called, Section 136 account created at the Department of Energy and intended to help automakers retool, to become more energy efficient. That option is now not available, and the only apparent source of funds for the auto industry is the TARP funds, or perhaps funding from the Federal Reserve. The White House reportedly has said it will consider the TARP funding.
Following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a brief statement saying, “The House-passed bipartisan legislation protects taxpayers, preserves environmental standards and places tough accountability measures on the auto companies to help ensure their long term viability and competitiveness. The House-passed bill demanded deep concessions from all parties -- the executives, shareholders and the union. Senate Republicans’ refusal to support the bipartisan legislation passed by the House and negotiated in good faith with the White House, the Senate and the automakers is irresponsible, especially at a time of economic hardship. The consequences of the Senate Republicans’ failure to act could be devastating to our economy, detrimental to workers, and destructive to the American automobile industry unless the President immediately directs Secretary Paulson to explore other short-term financial assistance options, including TARP and those available to the Federal Reserve. That is the only viable option available at this time.”
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement saying, “This has been a challenging exercise for everyone involved on both sides. We all remember, just a couple of months ago, we were called upon to rescue the American financial system. At the end of the day, after a few fits and starts, 74 out of 99 senators present thought it was a good idea to do that. . . Now we've moved into a very tricky and challenging area and that is a sort of industry by industry rescue. And we've had before us the whole question of the viability of the American automobile manufacturers. None of us want to see them go down but very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they've created for themselves. . .
“The Administration negotiated in good faith with the Democratic Majority a proposal that was simply unacceptable to the vast majority of our side because we thought it, frankly, wouldn't work. Into this breach stepped the Junior Senator from Tennessee who, I must say, has made an extraordinary impact in a very small amount of time. I’m hard-pressed to think of another member who's been here such a short period of time who's made such an impression on colleagues on both sides of the aisle by mastering an extraordinarily complicated subject and being able to explain it in a way that is understandable.
“And he has diligently pursued an agreement that could pass, that could enjoy broad support on both sides. And he has made great progress in that direction. The sticking point that we are left with is the question of whether the UAW is willing to agree to a parity pay structure with other manufacturers in this country by a date certain. And I understand their reluctance to do that. So far in the discussions that Sen. Corker [Bob Corker, R-TN] and Sen. Dodd and others have had, they have not been willing to give a date specific by which parity could be achieved. It is upon that issue that we’ve reached an impasse for the moment.”
Today (December 12) the White House issued a statement saying (complete verbatim), "It is disappointing that while appropriate and effective legislation to assist and restructure troubled automakers received majority support in both houses, Congress nevertheless failed to pass final legislation. The approach in that legislation provided an opportunity to use funds already appropriated for automakers, and presented the best chance to avoid a disorderly bankruptcy while ensuring taxpayer funds go only to firms whose stakeholders were prepared to make the difficult decisions to become viable, competitive firms in the future.
"Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms. However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary -- including use of the TARP program -- to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers. A precipitous collapse of this industry would have a severe impact on our economy, and it would be irresponsible to further weaken and destabilize our economy at this time. While the federal government may need to step in to prevent an immediate failure, the auto companies, their labor unions, and all other stakeholders must be prepared to make the meaningful concessions necessary to become viable."
Access the Senate roll call vote details (click here). Access a White House press briefing explaining the Administration's position on the auto funding assistance (click here). Access a release from the House Speaker (click here). Access a statement from Senator McConnell (click here). Access a floor speech and video on Senator Corker's alternative legislation (click here). Access the 12/12/08 statement from the White House (click here). Access legislative details on H.R. 7005 (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
U.N.'s Ban Ki-moon: "The World Is Watching Us."
Dec 11: The important High-Level Segment (CMP 4), of the Poznań, Poland Climate Change Conference [See WIMS 12/8/08] of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) takes place today and tomorrow -- December 11 and 12. At a press briefing on December 10, a day before the High-Level Segment UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said that delegates had managed to resolve a number of outstanding issues.
He said two issues still had to be resolved. The first, the Adaptation Fund, was close to finalization, with the question of direct access by developing countries seen as very important. The second outstanding issue was whether Carbon Capture and Storage should be allowed as a pilot or definite decision under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). He added that it may take a little time for the Adaptation Fund to become fully operational, since the Fund is filled from a levy on credits obtained via the CDM, which would first have to be sold on the market. De Boer indicated that, "The decks were now cleared for Ministers to hold a round-table discussion on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action." He said he hoped the Ministers action "would send a strong signal on cooperation and willingness to work together in order to meet the Copenhagen deadline for a strengthened agreement."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is addressing the High-Level segment and appealing to the Ministers and other top officials from nearly 200 nations to not let the food, financial and other current crises dissuade them from taking urgent action on climate change. The CMP 4 meeting caps off the two-week Poznan conference, which marks the half-way point in efforts to reach agreement on a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol, the legally binding regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions whose first commitment period ends in 2012. The conference has drawn some 11,600 participants.
The Secretary-General said, "The world is watching us. The next generation is counting on us. We must not fail. Together, we face two crises: climate change and the global economy. But these crises present us with a great opportunity -- an opportunity to address both challenges simultaneously. . . We need a Green New Deal."
He continued, "What we need, today, is leadership -- leadership by you. We look for that leadership from the European Union. The decisions currently being made by European leaders in Brussels are at great consequence for the whole world. We look for leadership from the United States. It is therefore encouraging to hear about the incoming administration’s plan to put alternative energy, environmentalism and climate change at the very center of America’s definition of national security, economic recovery, and prosperity. . .
"Here in Poznan, we have three challenges: First, is a work-plan for next year’s negotiations. I am glad that an agreement has already been achieved. Second, you need to sketch out the critical elements of a long-term vision. We need a basic framework for cooperative action starting today, not in 2012. . . Third, we must re-commit ourselves to the urgency of our cause. This requires leadership -- your leadership. . . There can be no backsliding on our commitments to a future of low-carbon emissions. We must break free of entrenched positions -- who is to blame, who must act first. . . It is fitting that we meet in Poland, the land of Copernicus. Let us launch a new Copernican revolution -- a revolution in thinking, a revolution in action. Let us save ourselves from catastrophe and usher in a truly sustainable world. . ."
De Boer said on December 11 in a statement to the High-Level Ministers, "Distrust and suspicion have haunted these talks for much too long. You have decided to advance. This is your opportunity to move on. To tell the world how you will deliver together. To tell the world how you will reach out to each other on finance and technology. To tell the world how you will create governance structures for finance in which no one is more equal than the next. . . When you adopted the Bali Road Map, you agreed to the 2009 deadline. Twelve months before Copenhagen, you must give the process clear political guidance and show resolve. Your arrival here in Poznan signals that negotiations have begun in earnest. . .
". . . when the world has recovered from the economic recession, it will not have recovered from climate change. . . So how will you create a new way forward here? How will you spark a global green revolution? . . . You reached a breakthrough in Bali. Now you must make progress in Poznan, so that you can lay the cornerstone for strong action in Copenhagen. . . "
At a press briefing on December 8, Harlan Watson, Alternate Head of the U.S. Delegation in Poznań, in response to a question about any interactions with the Obama transition team in terms of briefing them on what's going on at the conference, he said, "No, I've not been in direct contact with them. As you know, the President-elect asked members of Congress to report back -- he would not be formally sending members of his transition team here, but rather would be relying on reports of members of Congress who would be attending. So we will be fully updating the Congressional delegation on the status of the negotiations, and rely on them to report back to the President-elect."
Access daily briefings from UNFCCC's de Boer (click here). Access a general release from the UN (click here). Access the complete 12/11 statement from the UN Secretary-General (click here). Access the complete 12/11 statement from the UNFCCC Executive Secretary (click here). Access a transcript of the Department of State press briefing (click here). Access the COP14 website for extensive information including links to all conference documents (click here). Access links to live webcasts of the meeting sessions (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
He said two issues still had to be resolved. The first, the Adaptation Fund, was close to finalization, with the question of direct access by developing countries seen as very important. The second outstanding issue was whether Carbon Capture and Storage should be allowed as a pilot or definite decision under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). He added that it may take a little time for the Adaptation Fund to become fully operational, since the Fund is filled from a levy on credits obtained via the CDM, which would first have to be sold on the market. De Boer indicated that, "The decks were now cleared for Ministers to hold a round-table discussion on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action." He said he hoped the Ministers action "would send a strong signal on cooperation and willingness to work together in order to meet the Copenhagen deadline for a strengthened agreement."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is addressing the High-Level segment and appealing to the Ministers and other top officials from nearly 200 nations to not let the food, financial and other current crises dissuade them from taking urgent action on climate change. The CMP 4 meeting caps off the two-week Poznan conference, which marks the half-way point in efforts to reach agreement on a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol, the legally binding regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions whose first commitment period ends in 2012. The conference has drawn some 11,600 participants.
The Secretary-General said, "The world is watching us. The next generation is counting on us. We must not fail. Together, we face two crises: climate change and the global economy. But these crises present us with a great opportunity -- an opportunity to address both challenges simultaneously. . . We need a Green New Deal."
He continued, "What we need, today, is leadership -- leadership by you. We look for that leadership from the European Union. The decisions currently being made by European leaders in Brussels are at great consequence for the whole world. We look for leadership from the United States. It is therefore encouraging to hear about the incoming administration’s plan to put alternative energy, environmentalism and climate change at the very center of America’s definition of national security, economic recovery, and prosperity. . .
"Here in Poznan, we have three challenges: First, is a work-plan for next year’s negotiations. I am glad that an agreement has already been achieved. Second, you need to sketch out the critical elements of a long-term vision. We need a basic framework for cooperative action starting today, not in 2012. . . Third, we must re-commit ourselves to the urgency of our cause. This requires leadership -- your leadership. . . There can be no backsliding on our commitments to a future of low-carbon emissions. We must break free of entrenched positions -- who is to blame, who must act first. . . It is fitting that we meet in Poland, the land of Copernicus. Let us launch a new Copernican revolution -- a revolution in thinking, a revolution in action. Let us save ourselves from catastrophe and usher in a truly sustainable world. . ."
De Boer said on December 11 in a statement to the High-Level Ministers, "Distrust and suspicion have haunted these talks for much too long. You have decided to advance. This is your opportunity to move on. To tell the world how you will deliver together. To tell the world how you will reach out to each other on finance and technology. To tell the world how you will create governance structures for finance in which no one is more equal than the next. . . When you adopted the Bali Road Map, you agreed to the 2009 deadline. Twelve months before Copenhagen, you must give the process clear political guidance and show resolve. Your arrival here in Poznan signals that negotiations have begun in earnest. . .
". . . when the world has recovered from the economic recession, it will not have recovered from climate change. . . So how will you create a new way forward here? How will you spark a global green revolution? . . . You reached a breakthrough in Bali. Now you must make progress in Poznan, so that you can lay the cornerstone for strong action in Copenhagen. . . "
At a press briefing on December 8, Harlan Watson, Alternate Head of the U.S. Delegation in Poznań, in response to a question about any interactions with the Obama transition team in terms of briefing them on what's going on at the conference, he said, "No, I've not been in direct contact with them. As you know, the President-elect asked members of Congress to report back -- he would not be formally sending members of his transition team here, but rather would be relying on reports of members of Congress who would be attending. So we will be fully updating the Congressional delegation on the status of the negotiations, and rely on them to report back to the President-elect."
Access daily briefings from UNFCCC's de Boer (click here). Access a general release from the UN (click here). Access the complete 12/11 statement from the UN Secretary-General (click here). Access the complete 12/11 statement from the UNFCCC Executive Secretary (click here). Access a transcript of the Department of State press briefing (click here). Access the COP14 website for extensive information including links to all conference documents (click here). Access links to live webcasts of the meeting sessions (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
NAS Report Finds "Serious Weaknesses" In U.S. Nano EH&S Plans
Dec 10: A new report -- Review of the Federal Strategy For Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health and Safety Research -- from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) finds "serious weaknesses" and is highly critical of the government's plan for research on the potential health and environmental risks posed by nanomaterials [See WIMS 2/20/08], which are increasingly being used in consumer goods and industry. The committee that wrote the report said, "An effective national plan for identifying and managing potential risks is essential to the successful development and public acceptance of nanotechnology-enabled products.
The committee did not evaluate whether current uses of nanomaterials represent unreasonable risks to the public. Rather, the report focused on what would constitute an effective national research strategy for ensuring that current and future uses of nanomaterials are without significant impacts on human health or the environment. Committee chair David Eaton, professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle said, "The current plan catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology."
According to the report, "The research plan, developed by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), does not provide a clear picture of the current understanding of these risks or where it should be in 10 years. Nor does the NNI plan include research goals to help ensure that nanotechnologies are developed and used as safely as possible. And though the research needs listed in the plan are valuable, they are incomplete, in some cases missing elements crucial for progress in understanding nanomaterials' health and safety impacts. A new national strategic plan is needed that goes beyond federal research to incorporate research from academia, industry, consumer and environmental groups, and other stakeholders."
According to a release from NAS, nanoscale engineering manipulates materials at the molecular and atomic level to create structures with unique and useful properties -- materials that are both very strong and very light, for example. More than 600 products involving nanomaterials are already on the market, the majority of them health and fitness products, such as skin care and cosmetics. And over the next decade, nanomaterials will be used increasingly in products ranging from medical therapies to food additives to electronics. The release says, "Growing use of nanomaterials means that more workers and consumers will be exposed to them, and uncertainties remain about their health and environmental effects; while nanomaterials can yield special benefits, they may also have unexpected and possibly toxic properties."
The report says NNI plan ". . . fails to identify some important areas that should to be investigated; for example, "Nanomaterials and Human Health" should include a more comprehensive evaluation of how nanomaterials are absorbed and metabolized by the body and how toxic they are at realistic exposure levels. . . the NNI plan overstates the degree to which already funded studies are meeting the need for research on health and environmental risks. . . In addition, the NNI strategy does not adequately incorporate input from industries that produce and use nanotechnologies, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, and other stakeholders, which is necessary to identify deficiencies in research strategies."
The committee said, "Accountability is also lacking in NNI's plan. Although lead agencies -- such as the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, among others -- are given roles for overseeing nanotechnology research, there is no single organization or person that will be held responsible for whether the strategy delivers results." Also, it is pointed out that, "The federal funding to specifically address nanotechnology-related environmental health and safety issues is actually far less than indicated in the NNI plan and may be inadequate. Probably less than half of the research projects described in the plan will ultimately yield useful data to support regulatory decision making. If no new resources are provided, the research generated cannot adequately evaluate the potential risks posed by nanomaterials."
The committee indicates that, "A truly robust national strategic plan would involve a broader group of stakeholders, and would consider the untapped knowledge of nongovernment researchers and academics. The plan should identify research needs clearly and estimate the resources necessary to address gaps, as well as provide specific, measurable objectives and a timeline for meeting them. It should also focus on providing solutions to challenges that do not fit neatly into disciplinary or institutional categories. The current structure of NNI would make developing a visionary and authoritative strategy difficult. NNI should continue to foster successful interagency coordination, with the aim of ensuring that the federal research strategy on the health and safety impacts of nanotechnology is an integral part of the broader national strategic plan."
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete 97-page report and 26-page executive summary (click here). Access the complete NNI EHS Strategy report (click here). Access the NNI website for additional information (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on Nanotechnology issues (click here). [*Toxics]
The committee did not evaluate whether current uses of nanomaterials represent unreasonable risks to the public. Rather, the report focused on what would constitute an effective national research strategy for ensuring that current and future uses of nanomaterials are without significant impacts on human health or the environment. Committee chair David Eaton, professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle said, "The current plan catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology."
According to the report, "The research plan, developed by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), does not provide a clear picture of the current understanding of these risks or where it should be in 10 years. Nor does the NNI plan include research goals to help ensure that nanotechnologies are developed and used as safely as possible. And though the research needs listed in the plan are valuable, they are incomplete, in some cases missing elements crucial for progress in understanding nanomaterials' health and safety impacts. A new national strategic plan is needed that goes beyond federal research to incorporate research from academia, industry, consumer and environmental groups, and other stakeholders."
According to a release from NAS, nanoscale engineering manipulates materials at the molecular and atomic level to create structures with unique and useful properties -- materials that are both very strong and very light, for example. More than 600 products involving nanomaterials are already on the market, the majority of them health and fitness products, such as skin care and cosmetics. And over the next decade, nanomaterials will be used increasingly in products ranging from medical therapies to food additives to electronics. The release says, "Growing use of nanomaterials means that more workers and consumers will be exposed to them, and uncertainties remain about their health and environmental effects; while nanomaterials can yield special benefits, they may also have unexpected and possibly toxic properties."
The report says NNI plan ". . . fails to identify some important areas that should to be investigated; for example, "Nanomaterials and Human Health" should include a more comprehensive evaluation of how nanomaterials are absorbed and metabolized by the body and how toxic they are at realistic exposure levels. . . the NNI plan overstates the degree to which already funded studies are meeting the need for research on health and environmental risks. . . In addition, the NNI strategy does not adequately incorporate input from industries that produce and use nanotechnologies, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, and other stakeholders, which is necessary to identify deficiencies in research strategies."
The committee said, "Accountability is also lacking in NNI's plan. Although lead agencies -- such as the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, among others -- are given roles for overseeing nanotechnology research, there is no single organization or person that will be held responsible for whether the strategy delivers results." Also, it is pointed out that, "The federal funding to specifically address nanotechnology-related environmental health and safety issues is actually far less than indicated in the NNI plan and may be inadequate. Probably less than half of the research projects described in the plan will ultimately yield useful data to support regulatory decision making. If no new resources are provided, the research generated cannot adequately evaluate the potential risks posed by nanomaterials."
The committee indicates that, "A truly robust national strategic plan would involve a broader group of stakeholders, and would consider the untapped knowledge of nongovernment researchers and academics. The plan should identify research needs clearly and estimate the resources necessary to address gaps, as well as provide specific, measurable objectives and a timeline for meeting them. It should also focus on providing solutions to challenges that do not fit neatly into disciplinary or institutional categories. The current structure of NNI would make developing a visionary and authoritative strategy difficult. NNI should continue to foster successful interagency coordination, with the aim of ensuring that the federal research strategy on the health and safety impacts of nanotechnology is an integral part of the broader national strategic plan."
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete 97-page report and 26-page executive summary (click here). Access the complete NNI EHS Strategy report (click here). Access the NNI website for additional information (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on Nanotechnology issues (click here). [*Toxics]
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Energy Independence Implications Of Auto Bailout
Dec 9: Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing entitled, Auto Bailout Hearing to Explore Energy Independence Implications. According to an announcement from the Committee, "As Congress considers a multi-billion dollar program of loans to America’s auto industry, many measures of success or failure exist for the industry and the government’s attempts to help the automakers. Chief among those measures of success is how effectively America’s auto industry, and the industry as a whole, is transformed to build cars for the future that reduce our dependence on oil. Will the auto industry meet the fuel economy rules passed by Congress and signed into law nearly a year ago, which could revitalize the industry? Should American taxpayers expect even higher fuel economy performance in return for their investment of additional billions in loans? Do the auto companies’ plans impair their ability to meet the current fuel economy regime?"
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives of: Public Citizen; Bright Automotive; Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland; Art Center College of Design; and MAG Industrial Automation Systems. In opening comments, Chairman Markey said, "This week Congress will vote on whether to extend a lifeline to a broken domestic industry teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The same companies that fought seat belt requirements in the 1960s, air bags in the 80’s, and fuel economy for more than three decades, have returned, hat in hand, unable to survive the month without a taxpayer intervention. Once untouchable symbols of American industrial might and ingenuity, it has become clear the Detroit Three have ceded leadership to the innovators and are now running in fear. . .
". . . the fundamental reason the Big Three need life support today is their inability to move from Car 1.0 to Car 2.0 over the past half century. A business model premised on bigger cars, wider highways, and more oil is a failed equation. Any recovery of these companies will require more than just fresh cash. It will require a change of culture. I have reviewed the pending draft legislation that would make available $15 billion in emergency loans and require the Big Three to withdraw pending lawsuits against the states that support adopting California’s greenhouse gas emission standards. I commend that provision and strongly believe that Congress must go one step further and require that these companies meet the California targets on a nationwide basis. . ."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) of the House Financial Services Committee held a press conference late the afternoon of December 8 on the draft aid package to the auto industry. The two outlined the Democrats plan to use $15 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program authorized by section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) [See WIMS 11/5/08]. Previously, Democratic leaders including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had strongly opposed using the "section 136 funds." They agreed, however, to use the funds because the Bush Administration refused to give in on its opposition to use the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) funds of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008.
Speaker Pelosi said, “It is important to note that unless the restructuring that is called for in this legislation and the goal of viability is achieved by March 31, [2009] there is no justification for spending any more taxpayer dollars. Now it has been said this is a loan of $15 billion because it’s for a different purpose than under Section 136; 136 is for innovation. . . I am very encouraged by the conversations so far. We are on the path. I will only support using Section 136 with the assurance that we will get it back in a number of weeks. And in fact, in a number of weeks, if the Big Three are not on the path to viability, we may want our money back sooner than March 31 instead of over the longer term that would be built into the bill should they again be a thriving, competitive, innovative auto industry for the future.” The Bush Administration is still reviewing the draft legislation and reportedly wants additional stipulations on the auto companies. A deal was expected later today or tomorrow; however, it is still unknown if the compromise will pass the Senate.
In a related matter, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released new data indicating that General Motors and Ford are "now positioned to comply with California's landmark global warming standards if they are applied nationwide." NRDC said the new findings are critical as Congress considers a major bailout of the auto industry. NRDC said, "Despite the capacity to meet these standards, however, GM and Ford remain embroiled in efforts to block the California standards through lawsuits and lobbying."
Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director for NRDC said, “Producing modern and efficient vehicles will expand America’s workforce, make GM and Ford globally competitive, and save drivers billions at the pump. In a future of insecure oil markets and intensifying global warming, American auto companies will only be competitive by making cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.” The NRDC study is based on the fuel economy levels in the plans submitted by GM and Ford to Congress on December 2, 2008.
Access the hearing website and links to all testimony and Chairman Markey's opening comments (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to the analysis (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives of: Public Citizen; Bright Automotive; Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland; Art Center College of Design; and MAG Industrial Automation Systems. In opening comments, Chairman Markey said, "This week Congress will vote on whether to extend a lifeline to a broken domestic industry teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The same companies that fought seat belt requirements in the 1960s, air bags in the 80’s, and fuel economy for more than three decades, have returned, hat in hand, unable to survive the month without a taxpayer intervention. Once untouchable symbols of American industrial might and ingenuity, it has become clear the Detroit Three have ceded leadership to the innovators and are now running in fear. . .
". . . the fundamental reason the Big Three need life support today is their inability to move from Car 1.0 to Car 2.0 over the past half century. A business model premised on bigger cars, wider highways, and more oil is a failed equation. Any recovery of these companies will require more than just fresh cash. It will require a change of culture. I have reviewed the pending draft legislation that would make available $15 billion in emergency loans and require the Big Three to withdraw pending lawsuits against the states that support adopting California’s greenhouse gas emission standards. I commend that provision and strongly believe that Congress must go one step further and require that these companies meet the California targets on a nationwide basis. . ."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) of the House Financial Services Committee held a press conference late the afternoon of December 8 on the draft aid package to the auto industry. The two outlined the Democrats plan to use $15 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program authorized by section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) [See WIMS 11/5/08]. Previously, Democratic leaders including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had strongly opposed using the "section 136 funds." They agreed, however, to use the funds because the Bush Administration refused to give in on its opposition to use the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) funds of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008.
Speaker Pelosi said, “It is important to note that unless the restructuring that is called for in this legislation and the goal of viability is achieved by March 31, [2009] there is no justification for spending any more taxpayer dollars. Now it has been said this is a loan of $15 billion because it’s for a different purpose than under Section 136; 136 is for innovation. . . I am very encouraged by the conversations so far. We are on the path. I will only support using Section 136 with the assurance that we will get it back in a number of weeks. And in fact, in a number of weeks, if the Big Three are not on the path to viability, we may want our money back sooner than March 31 instead of over the longer term that would be built into the bill should they again be a thriving, competitive, innovative auto industry for the future.” The Bush Administration is still reviewing the draft legislation and reportedly wants additional stipulations on the auto companies. A deal was expected later today or tomorrow; however, it is still unknown if the compromise will pass the Senate.
In a related matter, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released new data indicating that General Motors and Ford are "now positioned to comply with California's landmark global warming standards if they are applied nationwide." NRDC said the new findings are critical as Congress considers a major bailout of the auto industry. NRDC said, "Despite the capacity to meet these standards, however, GM and Ford remain embroiled in efforts to block the California standards through lawsuits and lobbying."
Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director for NRDC said, “Producing modern and efficient vehicles will expand America’s workforce, make GM and Ford globally competitive, and save drivers billions at the pump. In a future of insecure oil markets and intensifying global warming, American auto companies will only be competitive by making cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.” The NRDC study is based on the fuel economy levels in the plans submitted by GM and Ford to Congress on December 2, 2008.
Access the hearing website and links to all testimony and Chairman Markey's opening comments (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to the analysis (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Monday, December 08, 2008
Obama: "Your Seat at the Table" Transparency Policy
Dec 5: In a memo the Obama-Biden Transition Project Co-chair John Podesta announced that all policy documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be publicly available for review and discussion on the transition website Change.gov. The Transition Team said, "This means we're inviting the American public to take a seat at the table and engage in a dialogue about these important issues and ideas -- at the same time members of our team review these documents themselves."
The announcement includes a video from the Obama Administration Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs Michael Strautmanis providing an overview of this unique program. On December 5, President-elect Barack Obama announced that Christina M. Tchen will serve as White House Director of Public Liaison and Michael Strautmanis will serve as Chief of Staff to the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison [See link to release below].
The announcement indicates that, "Talking face-to-face with advocates and experts is a vital part of the Transition. But in past transitions, meetings like these took place behind closed doors and lacked the public input and transparency we're working hard to provide." In the Memo to all Obama Transition staff, Podesta says, "As an extension of the unprecedented ethics guidelines already in place for the Obama-Biden Transition Project [See WIMS 11/12/08], we take another significant step towards transparency of our efforts for the American people. Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing. We want to ensure that we give the American people a 'seat at the table' and that we receive the benefit of their feedback. Accordingly, any documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be posted on our website for people to review and comment on. In addition to presenting ideas as individuals at www.change.gov, the American people deserve a “seat at the table” as we receive input from organizations and make decisions. In the interest of protecting the personal privacy of individuals, this policy does not apply to personnel matters and hiring recommendations."
The Memo states further: "The following information will be posted on our website: 1. Documents: All policy documents and written policy recommendations from official meetings with outside organizations. 2. Meetings: The date and organizations represented at official meetings in the Transition headquarters or agency offices, with any documents presented as noted above. This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials. Such materials could include documents (recommendations, press releases, etc.) presented in smaller meetings or materials or made public by the outside organization without a connection to an official meeting."
On the "Your Seat at the Table" website the information is organized chronologically and can also be searched. Each item that is listed includes a link to the documents. Additionally, each listing includes an option to: view or leave a comment and to submit ideas or documents about this entry. As an example, the following is a listing of some items:
- “Our Opposition to ‘Multi-Pollutant’ Legislation and Support for CAIR Fix”
- “Support the IBEW-Boilermakers-UMWA-AEP international provision in climate change legislation.”
- “These recommendations, respectfully submitted to the transition team for its consideration, were compiled by a broad coalition of leading national environmental and conservation groups.”
- “We urge the next President of the United States to include SSP as a new start in a balanced federal strategy for energy independence and environmental stewardship.”
- “Summary of the September 2007 Water Policy Dialogue and a copy of the letter sent to the President, all governors, and key leaders in Congress.”
- “Western Governors are very concerned that during our nation’s deepening energy crisis, the United States lacks an effective long-term energy policy.”
- “Taken in total, the recommendations in this report propose a transformational role for government. It calls for reconnecting our government with all of us, “We, the people.””
Access the Team announcement (click here). Access the Memo from Podesta (click here). Access the "Your Seat at the Table" website (click here). Access the Transition Energy & Environment sections where the Obama plan is outlined and ideas and comments may be submitted (click here). Access a release on the two new appointments (click here). Access the change.gov website for additional information (click here). [Note: WIMS has added a link to the Obama Transition website on the EcoBizPort.com homepage under "Executive Office" (click here).]
The announcement includes a video from the Obama Administration Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs Michael Strautmanis providing an overview of this unique program. On December 5, President-elect Barack Obama announced that Christina M. Tchen will serve as White House Director of Public Liaison and Michael Strautmanis will serve as Chief of Staff to the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison [See link to release below].
The announcement indicates that, "Talking face-to-face with advocates and experts is a vital part of the Transition. But in past transitions, meetings like these took place behind closed doors and lacked the public input and transparency we're working hard to provide." In the Memo to all Obama Transition staff, Podesta says, "As an extension of the unprecedented ethics guidelines already in place for the Obama-Biden Transition Project [See WIMS 11/12/08], we take another significant step towards transparency of our efforts for the American people. Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing. We want to ensure that we give the American people a 'seat at the table' and that we receive the benefit of their feedback. Accordingly, any documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be posted on our website for people to review and comment on. In addition to presenting ideas as individuals at www.change.gov, the American people deserve a “seat at the table” as we receive input from organizations and make decisions. In the interest of protecting the personal privacy of individuals, this policy does not apply to personnel matters and hiring recommendations."
The Memo states further: "The following information will be posted on our website: 1. Documents: All policy documents and written policy recommendations from official meetings with outside organizations. 2. Meetings: The date and organizations represented at official meetings in the Transition headquarters or agency offices, with any documents presented as noted above. This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials. Such materials could include documents (recommendations, press releases, etc.) presented in smaller meetings or materials or made public by the outside organization without a connection to an official meeting."
On the "Your Seat at the Table" website the information is organized chronologically and can also be searched. Each item that is listed includes a link to the documents. Additionally, each listing includes an option to: view or leave a comment and to submit ideas or documents about this entry. As an example, the following is a listing of some items:
- “Our Opposition to ‘Multi-Pollutant’ Legislation and Support for CAIR Fix”
- “Support the IBEW-Boilermakers-UMWA-AEP international provision in climate change legislation.”
- “These recommendations, respectfully submitted to the transition team for its consideration, were compiled by a broad coalition of leading national environmental and conservation groups.”
- “We urge the next President of the United States to include SSP as a new start in a balanced federal strategy for energy independence and environmental stewardship.”
- “Summary of the September 2007 Water Policy Dialogue and a copy of the letter sent to the President, all governors, and key leaders in Congress.”
- “Western Governors are very concerned that during our nation’s deepening energy crisis, the United States lacks an effective long-term energy policy.”
- “Taken in total, the recommendations in this report propose a transformational role for government. It calls for reconnecting our government with all of us, “We, the people.””
Access the Team announcement (click here). Access the Memo from Podesta (click here). Access the "Your Seat at the Table" website (click here). Access the Transition Energy & Environment sections where the Obama plan is outlined and ideas and comments may be submitted (click here). Access a release on the two new appointments (click here). Access the change.gov website for additional information (click here). [Note: WIMS has added a link to the Obama Transition website on the EcoBizPort.com homepage under "Executive Office" (click here).]
Friday, December 05, 2008
"Clean Coal" Argument Rages On With New Campaign
Dec 4: The Alliance for Climate Protection, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club launched the “Reality” Coalition, a national grassroots and advertising effort which they say is designed "to tell a simple truth: in reality, there is no such thing as 'clean coal.' They said, "Environmental experts agree that coal is the dirtiest fuel America uses to produce electricity. The Reality Coalition, then, is challenging the coal industry to come clean -- in its advertising and in its operations. Coal cannot be considered clean until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored.
On December 4, the Reality Coalition launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign, running in print, broadcast and online media and supported by the website, "This Is Reality." The ads are designed and produced by Boulder, Colorado-based Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the agency responsible for the “Truth” anti-tobacco campaign. The first “Reality” print ad shows a solitary door labeled “Clean Coal Facility Entrance.” Behind the door, though, lies a barren field. “In reality, there’s no such thing as clean coal,” the ad states.
The ad continues: “Coal is one of the leading causes of global warming. But that hasn’t stopped the coal industry from advertising clean coal. Yet, the truth is there isn’t a single commercial coal plant in America today that captures its global warming pollution. Learn more about what the coal industry is not telling you …” Reality’s first TV ad follows the same premise and can be viewed on the website indicated below.
Former Vice President Gore said, “The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions promoting ‘clean coal’ technology, but in reality, there is not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of coal’s CO2 emissions. The industry must make good its promise if they truly want to do their part to solve the climate crisis. Until that happens, coal cannot be called ‘clean’.” The “Reality” Coalition said it echoes the call made by Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection in a recent New York Times op-ed that "until coal is truly clean, there should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America."
Vice President for Communications Joe Lucas, of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a partnership of companies involved in producing electricity from coal, responded immediately with a lengthy statement saying, "I'm surprised that a coalition of environmental special interest groups has placed ads doubting the existence of clean coal technologies. For over 40 years, private industry, academia, and the federal government have been working in partnership to bring new technologies to the marketplace that reduces the environmental footprint of using coal to generate electricity. . .
"In our America's Power campaign (americaspower.org) we have consistently talked about the need to invest in advanced clean coal technologies to ensure that we can capture and safely store CO2 emissions at coal-based power plants both here at home and around the world. While this remains a complex and challenging task, anyone who is skeptical about the progress that is being made on this front would only need to visit the U.S. Department of Energy's website (Clean Power Initiative). . . to get a better appreciation and understanding of the industry's commitment to this cause.
"We join President-elect Barack Obama in calling for additional funding for advanced clean coal technologies to ensure that we meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time enjoying the benefits of relying upon coal, our most abundant domestic energy resource, to meet future energy needs. I would have hoped that the environmental special interest groups that are sponsoring this new ad would support such an effort, but they have obviously chosen a different path."
During his campaign for the Presidency, George W. Bush pledged to commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology - a pledge he has subsequently carried out in the National Energy Policy and in budget requests to Congress. The DOE website, identified by ACCCE in the statement describes the extensive effort of the Federal government in advancing and promoting "clean coal" technology.
In a related matter, on December 1, 2008, Greenpeace released an analysis showing that the global cost of coal was at least 360 billion (Euros, $US 456 billion) last year alone. The report, The True Cost of Coal, released with the independent Dutch Institute CE Delft, arrived at this figure by looking at very modest CO2 damage costs, health costs and mining accidents. Joris Thijssen, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace International said, "The relentless expansion of the coal industry is the single greatest threat to averting dangerous climate change. Coal is the most climate-polluting fossil fuel, responsible for one third of all CO2 emissions, and is projected to increase to 60% of emissions by 2030. Clearly, quitting coal will benefit not only the climate, but also reduce the other impacts which everybody else has to pay for."
President-elect Obama has said as part of his overall energy plan that he would "Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology." [See WIMS 10/21/08]. Specifically, the Plan says, "Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as we power our economy with domestically produced and secure energy. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has worked tirelessly to ensure that clean coal technology becomes commercialized. An Obama administration will provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero‐carbon coal facilities. In order to maximize the speed with which we advance this critical technology, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will instruct DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop 5 “first‐of‐a‐kind”commercial scale coal‐fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration."
Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the Reality Coalition website for links to the ads and additional information(click here). Access the statement from ACCCE (click here). Access the DOE website on Clean Power (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access the Greenpeace 92-page report (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
On December 4, the Reality Coalition launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign, running in print, broadcast and online media and supported by the website, "This Is Reality." The ads are designed and produced by Boulder, Colorado-based Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the agency responsible for the “Truth” anti-tobacco campaign. The first “Reality” print ad shows a solitary door labeled “Clean Coal Facility Entrance.” Behind the door, though, lies a barren field. “In reality, there’s no such thing as clean coal,” the ad states.
The ad continues: “Coal is one of the leading causes of global warming. But that hasn’t stopped the coal industry from advertising clean coal. Yet, the truth is there isn’t a single commercial coal plant in America today that captures its global warming pollution. Learn more about what the coal industry is not telling you …” Reality’s first TV ad follows the same premise and can be viewed on the website indicated below.
Former Vice President Gore said, “The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions promoting ‘clean coal’ technology, but in reality, there is not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of coal’s CO2 emissions. The industry must make good its promise if they truly want to do their part to solve the climate crisis. Until that happens, coal cannot be called ‘clean’.” The “Reality” Coalition said it echoes the call made by Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection in a recent New York Times op-ed that "until coal is truly clean, there should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America."
Vice President for Communications Joe Lucas, of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a partnership of companies involved in producing electricity from coal, responded immediately with a lengthy statement saying, "I'm surprised that a coalition of environmental special interest groups has placed ads doubting the existence of clean coal technologies. For over 40 years, private industry, academia, and the federal government have been working in partnership to bring new technologies to the marketplace that reduces the environmental footprint of using coal to generate electricity. . .
"In our America's Power campaign (americaspower.org) we have consistently talked about the need to invest in advanced clean coal technologies to ensure that we can capture and safely store CO2 emissions at coal-based power plants both here at home and around the world. While this remains a complex and challenging task, anyone who is skeptical about the progress that is being made on this front would only need to visit the U.S. Department of Energy's website (Clean Power Initiative). . . to get a better appreciation and understanding of the industry's commitment to this cause.
"We join President-elect Barack Obama in calling for additional funding for advanced clean coal technologies to ensure that we meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time enjoying the benefits of relying upon coal, our most abundant domestic energy resource, to meet future energy needs. I would have hoped that the environmental special interest groups that are sponsoring this new ad would support such an effort, but they have obviously chosen a different path."
During his campaign for the Presidency, George W. Bush pledged to commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology - a pledge he has subsequently carried out in the National Energy Policy and in budget requests to Congress. The DOE website, identified by ACCCE in the statement describes the extensive effort of the Federal government in advancing and promoting "clean coal" technology.
In a related matter, on December 1, 2008, Greenpeace released an analysis showing that the global cost of coal was at least 360 billion (Euros, $US 456 billion) last year alone. The report, The True Cost of Coal, released with the independent Dutch Institute CE Delft, arrived at this figure by looking at very modest CO2 damage costs, health costs and mining accidents. Joris Thijssen, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace International said, "The relentless expansion of the coal industry is the single greatest threat to averting dangerous climate change. Coal is the most climate-polluting fossil fuel, responsible for one third of all CO2 emissions, and is projected to increase to 60% of emissions by 2030. Clearly, quitting coal will benefit not only the climate, but also reduce the other impacts which everybody else has to pay for."
President-elect Obama has said as part of his overall energy plan that he would "Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology." [See WIMS 10/21/08]. Specifically, the Plan says, "Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as we power our economy with domestically produced and secure energy. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has worked tirelessly to ensure that clean coal technology becomes commercialized. An Obama administration will provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero‐carbon coal facilities. In order to maximize the speed with which we advance this critical technology, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will instruct DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop 5 “first‐of‐a‐kind”commercial scale coal‐fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration."
Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the Reality Coalition website for links to the ads and additional information(click here). Access the statement from ACCCE (click here). Access the DOE website on Clean Power (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access the Greenpeace 92-page report (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Changes For EPA's "Bogged Down" Risk Assessment Process
Dec 3: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) says the U.S. EPA's process of generating risk assessments -- which estimate the potential adverse effects posed by harmful chemicals found in the environment in order to protect public health -- is bogged down by unprecedented challenges, and as a decision-making tool it is often hindered by a disconnect between available scientific data and the information needs of officials. The report recommends EPA's risk assessment process should be streamlined to ensure the appropriate use of available science, technical accuracy, and tailoring to the specific needs of the problem.
According to a release from NAS, the risk assessment process entails four steps -- hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization -- which were described in a 1983 National Research Council report known as the Red Book. After a risk assessment is complete, officials and regulators use it to decide how to protect the public from exposure to toxic substances. However, the challenges of risk assessment have become increasingly complex.
As knowledge of environmental contaminants and potential health impacts advances, EPA must address issues of multiple exposure, multiple risks, and susceptibility of different populations. Recognizing this, the agency asked the NRC to identify improvements it could make to enhance risk assessment. In turn, the committee that wrote the report presented recommendations and a proposed framework for risk-based decision making to provide a template for risk assessment in EPA and strengthen the scientific basis, credibility, and effectiveness of future risk management decisions.
The committee found that EPA is struggling to keep up with demands for hazard and dose-response information and is challenged by a lack of resources. For example, the risk assessment for trichloroethylene, a chemical that is linked to cancer, has been under development since the 1980s and is not expected until 2010. However, state and federal officials often must continue to make risk management decisions in the absence of completed risk assessments. The Committee stressed, "If this practice continues, the value and credibility of risk assessment will erode. Perfection in scientific knowledge is unattainable; therefore, risk assessment should incorporate the best available scientific information and reasonably capture uncertainties in information so it is still useful for officials."
The Committee said, "EPA should focus more attention on the formative stages of risk assessment, specifically on planning, scoping, and problem formulation, which have been applied inconsistently, the committee said. This includes defining a clear set of options for consideration and involving decision makers, stakeholders, and risk assessors upfront to evaluate whether the design of the assessment will address the problems."
To this end, the Committee proposed that EPA adopt an expanded risk assessment framework that has the same core as the Red Book model but differs in its preliminary and final steps. The three-phase framework begins with enhanced problem formulation and scoping, in which risk management options and the types of technical analyses needed to evaluate and discriminate among the options are identified. The second phase involves planning, hazard identification, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and deciding whether the assessment is appropriate and allows discrimination among risk management options. The final phase examines the relative health or environmental benefits of the proposed risk management options for the purpose of reaching a decision.
Under this framework, the questions posed come from early and careful planning and stress the appropriate level of scientific depth that is needed to evaluate the relative options being considered. The goal of the new approach is to assure that risk assessments are focused on the right questions, use the best available science, and address the needs of decision makers.
The committee also recommended that EPA adopt a unified approach for the dose-response step of risk assessment, which estimates the amount of a chemical that would lead to an adverse health effect. Currently, dose-response assessments are conducted differently for chemicals that produce cancerous effects and those that produce other health effects. For carcinogens, EPA assumes that even a low exposure may result in cancer, and scientists estimate the probability of cancer developing in a certain population given different levels of exposure. For chemicals that could produce noncancerous effects, such as asthma or birth defects, scientists currently try to determine a threshold -- the amount below which effects of the chemical are not expected to occur or are extremely unlikely.
However, the current noncancer assessment process, while valuable in certain public-health situations, does not provide decision makers with information on varying estimates of risk at different exposure levels, nor does it allow for adjustment of background exposures and underlying disease that may lead to increased risk. Rather, it provides a distinct line between possible harm and safety for all populations. The Committee suggested unifying the cancer and noncancerous dose-response assessment approaches to include assessments of background disease processes and exposures, possible vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a chemical's dose-response relationship in humans. This unified approach would incorporate advances in scientific knowledge and provide clearer estimates of population risk -- information that is most useful for decision making, including informing risk trade-offs or cost-benefit analyses. Moving toward this approach would require new research and development, but the tools are available to do this.
The Committee cautions that EPA's current institutional structure and level of resources may pose a challenge to implementation of the report's recommendations, which are equivalent to major transformations in the Agency's culture. It would require a commitment to leadership, cross-program coordination and communication, and training to ensure the requisite expertise. EPA should initiate a senior-level strategic re-examination of its risk-related structures and processes to make sure that it has the institutional capacity and resources to implement the Committee's recommendations. In addition, EPA should develop a capacity building plan that includes budget estimates required for implementation.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the 478-page complete report --Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment -- and a 32-page executive summary (click here). Access a 4-page summary (click here). [*Toxics]
According to a release from NAS, the risk assessment process entails four steps -- hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization -- which were described in a 1983 National Research Council report known as the Red Book. After a risk assessment is complete, officials and regulators use it to decide how to protect the public from exposure to toxic substances. However, the challenges of risk assessment have become increasingly complex.
As knowledge of environmental contaminants and potential health impacts advances, EPA must address issues of multiple exposure, multiple risks, and susceptibility of different populations. Recognizing this, the agency asked the NRC to identify improvements it could make to enhance risk assessment. In turn, the committee that wrote the report presented recommendations and a proposed framework for risk-based decision making to provide a template for risk assessment in EPA and strengthen the scientific basis, credibility, and effectiveness of future risk management decisions.
The committee found that EPA is struggling to keep up with demands for hazard and dose-response information and is challenged by a lack of resources. For example, the risk assessment for trichloroethylene, a chemical that is linked to cancer, has been under development since the 1980s and is not expected until 2010. However, state and federal officials often must continue to make risk management decisions in the absence of completed risk assessments. The Committee stressed, "If this practice continues, the value and credibility of risk assessment will erode. Perfection in scientific knowledge is unattainable; therefore, risk assessment should incorporate the best available scientific information and reasonably capture uncertainties in information so it is still useful for officials."
The Committee said, "EPA should focus more attention on the formative stages of risk assessment, specifically on planning, scoping, and problem formulation, which have been applied inconsistently, the committee said. This includes defining a clear set of options for consideration and involving decision makers, stakeholders, and risk assessors upfront to evaluate whether the design of the assessment will address the problems."
To this end, the Committee proposed that EPA adopt an expanded risk assessment framework that has the same core as the Red Book model but differs in its preliminary and final steps. The three-phase framework begins with enhanced problem formulation and scoping, in which risk management options and the types of technical analyses needed to evaluate and discriminate among the options are identified. The second phase involves planning, hazard identification, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and deciding whether the assessment is appropriate and allows discrimination among risk management options. The final phase examines the relative health or environmental benefits of the proposed risk management options for the purpose of reaching a decision.
Under this framework, the questions posed come from early and careful planning and stress the appropriate level of scientific depth that is needed to evaluate the relative options being considered. The goal of the new approach is to assure that risk assessments are focused on the right questions, use the best available science, and address the needs of decision makers.
The committee also recommended that EPA adopt a unified approach for the dose-response step of risk assessment, which estimates the amount of a chemical that would lead to an adverse health effect. Currently, dose-response assessments are conducted differently for chemicals that produce cancerous effects and those that produce other health effects. For carcinogens, EPA assumes that even a low exposure may result in cancer, and scientists estimate the probability of cancer developing in a certain population given different levels of exposure. For chemicals that could produce noncancerous effects, such as asthma or birth defects, scientists currently try to determine a threshold -- the amount below which effects of the chemical are not expected to occur or are extremely unlikely.
However, the current noncancer assessment process, while valuable in certain public-health situations, does not provide decision makers with information on varying estimates of risk at different exposure levels, nor does it allow for adjustment of background exposures and underlying disease that may lead to increased risk. Rather, it provides a distinct line between possible harm and safety for all populations. The Committee suggested unifying the cancer and noncancerous dose-response assessment approaches to include assessments of background disease processes and exposures, possible vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a chemical's dose-response relationship in humans. This unified approach would incorporate advances in scientific knowledge and provide clearer estimates of population risk -- information that is most useful for decision making, including informing risk trade-offs or cost-benefit analyses. Moving toward this approach would require new research and development, but the tools are available to do this.
The Committee cautions that EPA's current institutional structure and level of resources may pose a challenge to implementation of the report's recommendations, which are equivalent to major transformations in the Agency's culture. It would require a commitment to leadership, cross-program coordination and communication, and training to ensure the requisite expertise. EPA should initiate a senior-level strategic re-examination of its risk-related structures and processes to make sure that it has the institutional capacity and resources to implement the Committee's recommendations. In addition, EPA should develop a capacity building plan that includes budget estimates required for implementation.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the 478-page complete report --Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment -- and a 32-page executive summary (click here). Access a 4-page summary (click here). [*Toxics]
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
GAO Report On Lessons From International Climate Change Programs
Dec 2: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report entitled, International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (GAO-09-151, November 18, 2008).
According to GAO, international policies to address climate change have largely relied on market-based programs; for example, under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) phase I (2005 to 2007) carbon dioxide emissions reductions were sought by setting a cap on each member state's allowable emissions and distributing tradable allowances to covered entities, such as power plants. Beginning operation in 2002, the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has relied on offsets, allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for emission reduction projects in developing countries -- where the cost of abatement may be less expensive -- in addition to reducing emissions within their borders.
Legislative proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under consideration in the United States. In this context, GAO was asked to examine the effects of and lessons learned from (1) the ETS phase I and (2) the CDM. GAO worked with the National Academy of Sciences to identify experts in market-based programs and gathered their opinions through a questionnaire, interviewed stakeholders, and reviewed available information.
GAO reports that according to available information and experts, the ETS phase I established a functioning market for carbon dioxide allowances, but its effects on emissions, the European economy, and technology investment are less certain. Nonetheless, experts suggest that it offers lessons that may prove useful in informing congressional decision making. By limiting the total number of emission allowances provided to covered entities under the program and enabling these entities to sell or buy allowances, the ETS set a price on carbon emissions. However, in 2006, a release of emissions data revealed that the supply of allowances -- the cap -- exceeded the demand, and the allowance price collapsed. Overall, the cumulative effect of phase I on emissions is uncertain because of a lack of baseline emissions data. The long-term effects on the economy also are uncertain.
One concern about design and implementation was that the economic activities associated with emissions from covered entities would shift from the European Union to countries that do not have binding emission limits -- a concept known as "leakage." However, leakage does not appear to have occurred, in part because covered entities did not purchase allowances but received them for free. The effect of the ETS on technology investment also is uncertain but was likely minimal, in part because phase I was not long enough to affect such investments.
Phase I of the ETS offers three key lessons: (1) accurate emissions data are essential to setting an effective emissions cap; (2) a trading program should provide enough certainty to influence technology investment; and (3) the method for allocating allowances may have important economic effects, namely, free allocation may distribute wealth to covered entities whereas auctioning could generate revenue for governments.
According to available information and experts, the CDM has provided flexibility to industrialized countries with emission targets and has involved developing countries in efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but the program's effects on emissions are uncertain, and its effects on sustainable development have been limited. Nonetheless, the CDM's effects reveal key lessons that can help inform congressional decision making. Specifically, the CDM has provided a way for industrialized countries to meet their targets that may cost less than reducing emissions at home; however, available evidence suggests that some offset credits were awarded for projects that would have occurred even in the absence of the CDM, despite a rigorous screening process.
Such projects do not represent net emission reductions and can compromise the integrity of programs -- including the ETS -- that allow the use of CDM credits for compliance. We also found that the cost-effectiveness and overall scale of emission reductions are limited by the current project approval process, although proposed changes may improve its effectiveness. Key lessons from the CDM include: (1) the resources necessary to obtain project approval may reduce the cost-effectiveness and quality of projects; (2) the need to ensure the credibility of emission reductions presents a significant regulatory challenge; and (3) due to the tradeoffs with offsets, the use of such programs may be, at best, a temporary solution.
Access the complete 64-page report (click here). Access more information on the EU ETS (click here). Access complete information on the CDM program (click here). [*Climate]
According to GAO, international policies to address climate change have largely relied on market-based programs; for example, under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) phase I (2005 to 2007) carbon dioxide emissions reductions were sought by setting a cap on each member state's allowable emissions and distributing tradable allowances to covered entities, such as power plants. Beginning operation in 2002, the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has relied on offsets, allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for emission reduction projects in developing countries -- where the cost of abatement may be less expensive -- in addition to reducing emissions within their borders.
Legislative proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under consideration in the United States. In this context, GAO was asked to examine the effects of and lessons learned from (1) the ETS phase I and (2) the CDM. GAO worked with the National Academy of Sciences to identify experts in market-based programs and gathered their opinions through a questionnaire, interviewed stakeholders, and reviewed available information.
GAO reports that according to available information and experts, the ETS phase I established a functioning market for carbon dioxide allowances, but its effects on emissions, the European economy, and technology investment are less certain. Nonetheless, experts suggest that it offers lessons that may prove useful in informing congressional decision making. By limiting the total number of emission allowances provided to covered entities under the program and enabling these entities to sell or buy allowances, the ETS set a price on carbon emissions. However, in 2006, a release of emissions data revealed that the supply of allowances -- the cap -- exceeded the demand, and the allowance price collapsed. Overall, the cumulative effect of phase I on emissions is uncertain because of a lack of baseline emissions data. The long-term effects on the economy also are uncertain.
One concern about design and implementation was that the economic activities associated with emissions from covered entities would shift from the European Union to countries that do not have binding emission limits -- a concept known as "leakage." However, leakage does not appear to have occurred, in part because covered entities did not purchase allowances but received them for free. The effect of the ETS on technology investment also is uncertain but was likely minimal, in part because phase I was not long enough to affect such investments.
Phase I of the ETS offers three key lessons: (1) accurate emissions data are essential to setting an effective emissions cap; (2) a trading program should provide enough certainty to influence technology investment; and (3) the method for allocating allowances may have important economic effects, namely, free allocation may distribute wealth to covered entities whereas auctioning could generate revenue for governments.
According to available information and experts, the CDM has provided flexibility to industrialized countries with emission targets and has involved developing countries in efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but the program's effects on emissions are uncertain, and its effects on sustainable development have been limited. Nonetheless, the CDM's effects reveal key lessons that can help inform congressional decision making. Specifically, the CDM has provided a way for industrialized countries to meet their targets that may cost less than reducing emissions at home; however, available evidence suggests that some offset credits were awarded for projects that would have occurred even in the absence of the CDM, despite a rigorous screening process.
Such projects do not represent net emission reductions and can compromise the integrity of programs -- including the ETS -- that allow the use of CDM credits for compliance. We also found that the cost-effectiveness and overall scale of emission reductions are limited by the current project approval process, although proposed changes may improve its effectiveness. Key lessons from the CDM include: (1) the resources necessary to obtain project approval may reduce the cost-effectiveness and quality of projects; (2) the need to ensure the credibility of emission reductions presents a significant regulatory challenge; and (3) due to the tradeoffs with offsets, the use of such programs may be, at best, a temporary solution.
Access the complete 64-page report (click here). Access more information on the EU ETS (click here). Access complete information on the CDM program (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Enviros Deliver Major Report To Obama Transition Team
Nov 25: Nearly 30 environmental, science and conservation groups presented their top policy recommendations to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team in a major, 391-page "Transition To Green" report. Representing millions of Americans, the groups provided the document laying out recommendations on key federal agencies and issues, including land, air, water, oceans and public health. They said the document "reflects President-elect Obama’s early indications that he will take bold measures to harness American ingenuity to solve the economic, climate and energy crises. The document demonstrates agreement with Obama’s call to increase investment in clean, renewable energy as his top priorities. Such investments would re-power America and help stabilize the economy over the long-term."
The groups said in a joint statement, “In November, Americans made their preference clear that the federal government has a critical role to play in unleashing homegrown, innovative energy solutions that would create new jobs, reduce global warming pollution and cut our nation's dependence on oil. We welcome this opportunity to collaborate with the transition team, and to work with President-elect Obama to move America forward and re-engage with the international community to reverse eight years of environmental neglect.”
The organizations support the establishment of a federal carbon cap-and-trade system, which would limit carbon emissions and provide incentives for companies to reduce global warming pollution. They said such a system is critical to address climate change and raise revenue needed to transition to a clean energy economy. The document urges the new administration to act quickly to restore scientific integrity at Federal agencies. The groups recommend that President-elect Obama should ensure that Federal science agencies’ decisions will be based on science, not politics.
The groups also called on the incoming administration to reinvest in America's commitment to protecting human health and the environment. They said "investing in clean water, clean air and conservation not only makes sound fiscal sense, it also offers the opportunity to create new jobs, boost local economies and protect America's natural heritage." The groups have also proposed a
detailed 149-page Green Budget of National Funding Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009.
The groups participating in the effort included: AMERICAN RIVERS - CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - CLEAN WATER ACTION- DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE - EARTHJUSTICE - ENVIRONMENT AMERICA - ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND - FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - GREENPEACE - IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE - LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS - NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY - NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL - NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION - NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - OCEANA - OCEAN CONSERVANCY - PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP - PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - POPULATION CONNECTION - POPULATION ACTION INTERNATIONAL- RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY - SIERRA CLUB - THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY - THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS – WORLD WILDLIFE FUND.
Access a release from the groups (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the Green Budget document (click here). Access the coalition's Save Our Environment Action Center website for more information (click here).
The groups said in a joint statement, “In November, Americans made their preference clear that the federal government has a critical role to play in unleashing homegrown, innovative energy solutions that would create new jobs, reduce global warming pollution and cut our nation's dependence on oil. We welcome this opportunity to collaborate with the transition team, and to work with President-elect Obama to move America forward and re-engage with the international community to reverse eight years of environmental neglect.”
The organizations support the establishment of a federal carbon cap-and-trade system, which would limit carbon emissions and provide incentives for companies to reduce global warming pollution. They said such a system is critical to address climate change and raise revenue needed to transition to a clean energy economy. The document urges the new administration to act quickly to restore scientific integrity at Federal agencies. The groups recommend that President-elect Obama should ensure that Federal science agencies’ decisions will be based on science, not politics.
The groups also called on the incoming administration to reinvest in America's commitment to protecting human health and the environment. They said "investing in clean water, clean air and conservation not only makes sound fiscal sense, it also offers the opportunity to create new jobs, boost local economies and protect America's natural heritage." The groups have also proposed a
detailed 149-page Green Budget of National Funding Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009.
The groups participating in the effort included: AMERICAN RIVERS - CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - CLEAN WATER ACTION- DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE - EARTHJUSTICE - ENVIRONMENT AMERICA - ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND - FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - GREENPEACE - IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE - LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS - NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY - NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL - NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION - NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - OCEANA - OCEAN CONSERVANCY - PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP - PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - POPULATION CONNECTION - POPULATION ACTION INTERNATIONAL- RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY - SIERRA CLUB - THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY - THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS – WORLD WILDLIFE FUND.
Access a release from the groups (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the Green Budget document (click here). Access the coalition's Save Our Environment Action Center website for more information (click here).
Monday, December 01, 2008
Poznań International Climate Change Conference Begins
Dec 1: The Poznań, Poland Climate Change Conference of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) begins today (December 1) and will conclude on December 12. The major international conference, the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC and the 4th meeting of Parties (CMP) to the Kyoto Protocol will draw an estimated 11,000 participants, including government delegates from the 187 Parties to the UNFCCC and representatives from business and industry. The conference provides the opportunity to draw together the advances made in 2008 and move from discussion to negotiation mode in 2009, building momentum towards an agreed outcome at Copenhagen in December 2009.
At COP14/CMP4 in Poznań, the Parties are expected to: Agree on a plan of action and programs of work for the final year of negotiations after a year of comprehensive and extensive discussions on crucial issues relating to future commitments, actions and cooperation; Make significant progress on a number of on-going issues required to enhance further the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, including capacity-building for developing countries, reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD), technology transfer and adaptation; Advance understanding and commonality of views on "shared vision" for a new climate change regime; and Strengthen commitment to the process and the agreed timeline.
The two-week meeting is the halfway mark in the negotiations on an ambitious and effective international climate change deal to be finalized in Copenhagen in 2009. Parties have little more than a year to agree on strengthened action on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. A compilation paper of proposals for solutions has been put together. The paper is expected to serve as a first version of a negotiating text in Poznań. UNFCCC indicates that because of the limited time still available, "it is critical that real progress is made and that Parties identify which proposals to take forward in 2009." The more than 700 pages of proposals have been distilled into a single document of 82 pages, which governments can now refine further in light of what they want to negotiate in 2009.
Briefing the media on the opening day of the conference, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, emphasized the crucial role of finance in reaching a long-term solution to climate change. He said, “Advancing the commitment of industrialized countries is intimately linked to enhancing the engagement of developing countries.” He indicated that Poznań would show progress on ongoing work under the Convention and allow Ministers to present their vision of long-term cooperative action. His expectations for the meeting included the launch of the Adaptation Fund, as well as significant advances on technology transfer, the CDM [Clean Development Mechanism] and the issue of deforestation. De Boer highlighted two important signals received in 2007 -- The IPCC report [See WIMS 5/4/07], confirming the reality and impacts of climate change; and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change [See WIMS 10/31/06], which said failure to act would equal economic failure on the scale of two World Wars and the Great Depression combined."
De Boer indicated that, “The conference needs to deliver on on-going issues, especially issues that are important to developing countries. And there is huge pressure on available time up to Copenhagen in 2009. So next to on-going work, the conference also needs to lay a solid foundation for an ambitious climate change deal at Copenhagen.” Discussing the global financial and economic crisis and the opportunities of green and sustainable economic growth, de Boer urged the delegates to, “increasingly focus on how the climate change regime could become self-financing and to link climate change policies to economic recovery.”
Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Dr. Paula Dobriansky will lead the U.S. delegation to Poznań. Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) James Connaughton will join in representing the United States at the high-level portion of the conference on December 11-12. Chairman Connaughton is a senior advisor to President Bush and his personal representative to the Major Economies Meetings on Energy Security and Climate Change. Ambassador and Special Envoy to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Dr. Harlan Watson will serve as the alternate head of the U.S. Delegation during the two week negotiation. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development Daniel Reifsnyder will serve as a senior member of the U.S. Delegation. U.S. Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe will also attend the high-level segment of the conference.
Access a release on the opening of COP14 (click here). Access the COP14 website for extensive information including links to all conference documents (click here). Access links to live webcasts of the meeting sessions (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
At COP14/CMP4 in Poznań, the Parties are expected to: Agree on a plan of action and programs of work for the final year of negotiations after a year of comprehensive and extensive discussions on crucial issues relating to future commitments, actions and cooperation; Make significant progress on a number of on-going issues required to enhance further the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, including capacity-building for developing countries, reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD), technology transfer and adaptation; Advance understanding and commonality of views on "shared vision" for a new climate change regime; and Strengthen commitment to the process and the agreed timeline.
The two-week meeting is the halfway mark in the negotiations on an ambitious and effective international climate change deal to be finalized in Copenhagen in 2009. Parties have little more than a year to agree on strengthened action on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. A compilation paper of proposals for solutions has been put together. The paper is expected to serve as a first version of a negotiating text in Poznań. UNFCCC indicates that because of the limited time still available, "it is critical that real progress is made and that Parties identify which proposals to take forward in 2009." The more than 700 pages of proposals have been distilled into a single document of 82 pages, which governments can now refine further in light of what they want to negotiate in 2009.
Briefing the media on the opening day of the conference, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, emphasized the crucial role of finance in reaching a long-term solution to climate change. He said, “Advancing the commitment of industrialized countries is intimately linked to enhancing the engagement of developing countries.” He indicated that Poznań would show progress on ongoing work under the Convention and allow Ministers to present their vision of long-term cooperative action. His expectations for the meeting included the launch of the Adaptation Fund, as well as significant advances on technology transfer, the CDM [Clean Development Mechanism] and the issue of deforestation. De Boer highlighted two important signals received in 2007 -- The IPCC report [See WIMS 5/4/07], confirming the reality and impacts of climate change; and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change [See WIMS 10/31/06], which said failure to act would equal economic failure on the scale of two World Wars and the Great Depression combined."
De Boer indicated that, “The conference needs to deliver on on-going issues, especially issues that are important to developing countries. And there is huge pressure on available time up to Copenhagen in 2009. So next to on-going work, the conference also needs to lay a solid foundation for an ambitious climate change deal at Copenhagen.” Discussing the global financial and economic crisis and the opportunities of green and sustainable economic growth, de Boer urged the delegates to, “increasingly focus on how the climate change regime could become self-financing and to link climate change policies to economic recovery.”
Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Dr. Paula Dobriansky will lead the U.S. delegation to Poznań. Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) James Connaughton will join in representing the United States at the high-level portion of the conference on December 11-12. Chairman Connaughton is a senior advisor to President Bush and his personal representative to the Major Economies Meetings on Energy Security and Climate Change. Ambassador and Special Envoy to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Dr. Harlan Watson will serve as the alternate head of the U.S. Delegation during the two week negotiation. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development Daniel Reifsnyder will serve as a senior member of the U.S. Delegation. U.S. Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe will also attend the high-level segment of the conference.
Access a release on the opening of COP14 (click here). Access the COP14 website for extensive information including links to all conference documents (click here). Access links to live webcasts of the meeting sessions (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Dingell Out; Waxman Will Lead Energy & Commerce Committee
Nov 20: Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI) has lost his Chairmanship of the powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), current Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform won approval from Democratic colleagues in a 137-122 vote to unseat Dingell. On November 5, Waxman (D-CA) announced that he would be seeking the Chairmanship of the Committee [See WIMS 11/13/8].
Dingell is the longest serving current Member of the House and second longest serving Member in the nation’s history. Dingell has been Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee for 28-years and has represented Monroe County and parts of Wayne and Washtenaw Counties since 1955. Dingell was born July 8, 1926 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Over the last five decades, Congressman Dingell has championed some of the best known laws protecting our health and our environment, as well as the rights of workers and consumers including the 1990 Clean Air Act the Endangered Species Act. Most recently, Dingell and Rick Boucher (D-VA) released their "discussion draft" of climate change legislation that has been two years in the making [See WIMS 10/7/08]. An effort which many environmental organizations said was short of what was needed to seriously address the global warming issue.
Representative Waxman represents California's 30th Congressional District, which includes the complete cities of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Westlake Village and West Hollywood, as well as such areas of Los Angeles as Beverly-Fairfax, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Beverlywood, Topanga, Agoura, Chatsworth, West Hills, Canoga Park, and Westwood. Waxman is regarded as a leader on health and environmental issues and during this past year has conducted extensive investigations of U.S. EPA's denial of California's petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and the President's use of executive privilege to withhold thousands of pages of documents. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act of 2006 [See WIMS 6/20/06] and was also one of the primary authors of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Waxman's Safe Climate Act would freeze the level of emissions in 2010; gradually reduced by 2% each year through 2020, and then reduced by 5% each year through 2050. The Act would achieve the targets through a flexible economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, along with measures to advance technology and reduce emissions through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, “Chairman Waxman has been a leader on global warming for many years, and we look forward to working closely with him in this new role. Our nation faces many challenges, including the climate crisis, and Congressman Waxman understands that we can’t delay in taking on these issues. After many years of working with Congressman Dingell on toxics, endangered species, and EPA-related issues, we recognize his important contributions. We will continue to work with him and others in Congress on our nation’s most pressing environmental, energy and global warming challenges.”
Access the Energy & Commerce Committee website (click here). Access Representative Waxman's website (click here). Access Representative Dingell's website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access various news reports on the Waxman victory (click here).
Dingell is the longest serving current Member of the House and second longest serving Member in the nation’s history. Dingell has been Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee for 28-years and has represented Monroe County and parts of Wayne and Washtenaw Counties since 1955. Dingell was born July 8, 1926 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Over the last five decades, Congressman Dingell has championed some of the best known laws protecting our health and our environment, as well as the rights of workers and consumers including the 1990 Clean Air Act the Endangered Species Act. Most recently, Dingell and Rick Boucher (D-VA) released their "discussion draft" of climate change legislation that has been two years in the making [See WIMS 10/7/08]. An effort which many environmental organizations said was short of what was needed to seriously address the global warming issue.
Representative Waxman represents California's 30th Congressional District, which includes the complete cities of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Westlake Village and West Hollywood, as well as such areas of Los Angeles as Beverly-Fairfax, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Beverlywood, Topanga, Agoura, Chatsworth, West Hills, Canoga Park, and Westwood. Waxman is regarded as a leader on health and environmental issues and during this past year has conducted extensive investigations of U.S. EPA's denial of California's petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and the President's use of executive privilege to withhold thousands of pages of documents. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act of 2006 [See WIMS 6/20/06] and was also one of the primary authors of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Waxman's Safe Climate Act would freeze the level of emissions in 2010; gradually reduced by 2% each year through 2020, and then reduced by 5% each year through 2050. The Act would achieve the targets through a flexible economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, along with measures to advance technology and reduce emissions through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, “Chairman Waxman has been a leader on global warming for many years, and we look forward to working closely with him in this new role. Our nation faces many challenges, including the climate crisis, and Congressman Waxman understands that we can’t delay in taking on these issues. After many years of working with Congressman Dingell on toxics, endangered species, and EPA-related issues, we recognize his important contributions. We will continue to work with him and others in Congress on our nation’s most pressing environmental, energy and global warming challenges.”
Access the Energy & Commerce Committee website (click here). Access Representative Waxman's website (click here). Access Representative Dingell's website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access various news reports on the Waxman victory (click here).
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Major Corporations & NGOs Call For Cap-And-Trade Legislation
Nov 18: The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of 26 major corporations and 6 non-profit environmental and conservation organizations [See WIMS 2/13/07], held a press conference in Washington, DC to make the economic case for cap-and-trade legislation. Ironically, in a pre-recorded video message aired the same day at the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, President-Elect Barack Obama promised that under his leadership, the U.S. will establish a Federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." [See WIMS 11/18/08].
The coalition called on Congress and the incoming Obama Administration to pass meaningful climate protection legislation next year despite the difficult economic conditions, pointing to the economic benefits and job creation that will result from taking such action. The call for action from USCAP echoed a similar call on November 11, when more than 130 leading investors, representing assets worth $6.4 trillion, issued a joint statement sent to Heads of State and climate negotiators, calling for a strong, binding framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, despite the financial crisis [See WIMS 11/13/08]
USCAP said that cap-and-trade legislation is urgently needed to prevent the serious impacts of climate change. They said, "While the magnitude of needed reductions are not free of costs, legislation is necessary to spur innovation in green technologies that will create jobs, increase economic activity and provide the foundation for a vibrant, low-carbon economy." James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy said, “Investment in new technologies and the infrastructure needed for a low-carbon economy are effective ways to generate the jobs and economic growth the U.S. needs to address the current economic crisis. We must position the U.S. to succeed in the new low-carbon, global economy and this is the best way to accomplish that.”
USCAP includes the following corporations and environmental NGOs: Alcoa, AIG, Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Chrysler, John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense Fund, Exelon, Ford, FPL Group, GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, NRG Energy, The Nature Conservancy, PepsiCo, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, World Resources Institute, and Xerox.
USCAP has taken a leadership role in support of climate protection legislation, calling for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 that are 60 percent to 80 percent below today’s levels. Its initial report on addressing climate change -- “A Call for Action” -- was issued in January 2007 and noted that each year of delay in controlling emissions increases the risk of consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption. The groups said, "The cost of inaction is also a significant concern. The longer the U.S. waits to implement a cap-and-trade program, the more ground it will cede to other economies that are already working on these new green technologies."
Jeff Sterba, CEO of PNM Resources said, "One of the main barriers to realizing economic benefits from reducing carbon emissions has been the uncertainty surrounding how this will be accomplished. Americans want clean energy, and we can produce it if there is a federal roadmap on carbon emissions. Only comprehensive greenhouse gas legislation -- one that recognizes the link between energy, the environment, the economy and security -- can bring us the clean, affordable and secure energy future we so desperately need."
Access a release from USCAP with further details (click here). Access a 3-page summary of USCAP member statements (click here). Access the USCAP website for more information (click here). [*Climate]
The coalition called on Congress and the incoming Obama Administration to pass meaningful climate protection legislation next year despite the difficult economic conditions, pointing to the economic benefits and job creation that will result from taking such action. The call for action from USCAP echoed a similar call on November 11, when more than 130 leading investors, representing assets worth $6.4 trillion, issued a joint statement sent to Heads of State and climate negotiators, calling for a strong, binding framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, despite the financial crisis [See WIMS 11/13/08]
USCAP said that cap-and-trade legislation is urgently needed to prevent the serious impacts of climate change. They said, "While the magnitude of needed reductions are not free of costs, legislation is necessary to spur innovation in green technologies that will create jobs, increase economic activity and provide the foundation for a vibrant, low-carbon economy." James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy said, “Investment in new technologies and the infrastructure needed for a low-carbon economy are effective ways to generate the jobs and economic growth the U.S. needs to address the current economic crisis. We must position the U.S. to succeed in the new low-carbon, global economy and this is the best way to accomplish that.”
USCAP includes the following corporations and environmental NGOs: Alcoa, AIG, Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Chrysler, John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense Fund, Exelon, Ford, FPL Group, GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, NRG Energy, The Nature Conservancy, PepsiCo, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, World Resources Institute, and Xerox.
USCAP has taken a leadership role in support of climate protection legislation, calling for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 that are 60 percent to 80 percent below today’s levels. Its initial report on addressing climate change -- “A Call for Action” -- was issued in January 2007 and noted that each year of delay in controlling emissions increases the risk of consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption. The groups said, "The cost of inaction is also a significant concern. The longer the U.S. waits to implement a cap-and-trade program, the more ground it will cede to other economies that are already working on these new green technologies."
Jeff Sterba, CEO of PNM Resources said, "One of the main barriers to realizing economic benefits from reducing carbon emissions has been the uncertainty surrounding how this will be accomplished. Americans want clean energy, and we can produce it if there is a federal roadmap on carbon emissions. Only comprehensive greenhouse gas legislation -- one that recognizes the link between energy, the environment, the economy and security -- can bring us the clean, affordable and secure energy future we so desperately need."
Access a release from USCAP with further details (click here). Access a 3-page summary of USCAP member statements (click here). Access the USCAP website for more information (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
President-Elect Obama Addresses Governors' Global Climate Summit
Nov 18: In Los Angeles , Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger welcomed more than 800 attendees from more than 50 states, provinces and countries to the Governors' Global Climate Summit. Following the Governor's opening remarks, a pre-recorded video message aired from President-Elect Barack Obama on global warming and supporting the states that have taken decisive action to address this urgent issue. The Governors' Summit brings together U.S. and international leaders to develop cooperative partnerships and promote collaborative actions needed to combat climate change. The forum also provides an opportunity for states and provinces to partner to reduce emissions, to grow their green economies and to influence the position their national governments take in the next global agreement on climate change.
The U.S. governors co-hosting the event and who were in attendance at the summit are Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich; Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius; and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. Governor Schwarzenegger said, "When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island, so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could. We teamed up with Great Britain, the Canadian provinces, the Western and Northeastern states and with states like those of my co hosts-Illinois, Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and more. And right here, for the first time, we have officials from China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and across the world in the same summit, working toward the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and growing green economies in our own backyards."
In a video address to the Summit's attendees, President-elect Obama emphasized his enthusiasm for the Poznan, Poland Conference and promised that his administration would mark a "new chapter in American leadership on climate change." He said, "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. Many of you are working to confront this challenge....but too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office.
"Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather in Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be President at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one President at a time, I’ve asked Members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there."
He also said, "Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security." He said the U.S. will establish a federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." He called for investments of "$15 billion each year" to assist private efforts to develop a clean energy future. He said, ". . . we'll tap nuclear power while making sure its safe, and we will develop clean coal technology." He said he looks forward to working with "all nations to meet this challenge in the coming year." He said when he takes office the United States will "engage vigorously" in the climate change negotiations and "help lead the world in a new era of global cooperation on climate change."
The Summit emphasizes a "sectoral" approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions with sector-specific breakout sessions focusing on specific actions in the following industries: forestry; cement, iron, steel and aluminum; energy; and transportation. Together, these sectors account for the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to a release, the approach is considered a "promising mechanism to support the actions of developing nations with technical and financial assistance from developed nations."
With representatives from the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the Governors' Summit provides "an important forum to discuss solutions to meeting our mutual environmental goals while creating an economic advantage for states, provinces and nations that take early and aggressive action." Showcasing the economic success of California's environmental leadership, the Governors' Summit will feature more than 30 clean-tech companies displaying innovative green technologies including electric cars, solar-powered flashlights and non-toxic cleaning products during the two-day Climate Solutions Showcase.
On September 17, in advance of the Conference, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 (EO) to streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. The Governor said, "I am proposing we set the most aggressive target in the nation for renewable energy -- 33 percent by the year 2020 -- that's a third of our energy from sources like solar, wind and geothermal. But we won't meet that goal doing business as usual, where environmental regulations are holding up environmental progress in some cases. This executive order will clear the red tape for renewable projects and streamline the permitting and siting of new plants and transmission lines. With this investment in renewable energy projects, California has a bright energy future ahead that will help us fight climate change while driving our state's green economy."
Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger (click here). Access a link to a high quality version of the Obama webcast released from the transition office (click here). Access the Conference website for complete details (click here). Access a live webcast and subsequent archival video and podcasts of all events in the International Ballroom (click here). Access a release on the Governor's executive order including the full text and related links (click here). [*Climate]
The U.S. governors co-hosting the event and who were in attendance at the summit are Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich; Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius; and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. Governor Schwarzenegger said, "When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island, so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could. We teamed up with Great Britain, the Canadian provinces, the Western and Northeastern states and with states like those of my co hosts-Illinois, Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and more. And right here, for the first time, we have officials from China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and across the world in the same summit, working toward the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and growing green economies in our own backyards."
In a video address to the Summit's attendees, President-elect Obama emphasized his enthusiasm for the Poznan, Poland Conference and promised that his administration would mark a "new chapter in American leadership on climate change." He said, "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. Many of you are working to confront this challenge....but too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office.
"Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather in Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be President at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one President at a time, I’ve asked Members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there."
He also said, "Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security." He said the U.S. will establish a federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." He called for investments of "$15 billion each year" to assist private efforts to develop a clean energy future. He said, ". . . we'll tap nuclear power while making sure its safe, and we will develop clean coal technology." He said he looks forward to working with "all nations to meet this challenge in the coming year." He said when he takes office the United States will "engage vigorously" in the climate change negotiations and "help lead the world in a new era of global cooperation on climate change."
The Summit emphasizes a "sectoral" approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions with sector-specific breakout sessions focusing on specific actions in the following industries: forestry; cement, iron, steel and aluminum; energy; and transportation. Together, these sectors account for the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to a release, the approach is considered a "promising mechanism to support the actions of developing nations with technical and financial assistance from developed nations."
With representatives from the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the Governors' Summit provides "an important forum to discuss solutions to meeting our mutual environmental goals while creating an economic advantage for states, provinces and nations that take early and aggressive action." Showcasing the economic success of California's environmental leadership, the Governors' Summit will feature more than 30 clean-tech companies displaying innovative green technologies including electric cars, solar-powered flashlights and non-toxic cleaning products during the two-day Climate Solutions Showcase.
On September 17, in advance of the Conference, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 (EO) to streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. The Governor said, "I am proposing we set the most aggressive target in the nation for renewable energy -- 33 percent by the year 2020 -- that's a third of our energy from sources like solar, wind and geothermal. But we won't meet that goal doing business as usual, where environmental regulations are holding up environmental progress in some cases. This executive order will clear the red tape for renewable projects and streamline the permitting and siting of new plants and transmission lines. With this investment in renewable energy projects, California has a bright energy future ahead that will help us fight climate change while driving our state's green economy."
Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger (click here). Access a link to a high quality version of the Obama webcast released from the transition office (click here). Access the Conference website for complete details (click here). Access a live webcast and subsequent archival video and podcasts of all events in the International Ballroom (click here). Access a release on the Governor's executive order including the full text and related links (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, November 17, 2008
FWS Notices New Wilderness Wildlife Refuge Stewardship Policy
Nov 17: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a notice in the Federal Register [73 FR 67876-67882] announcing an updated and revised Wilderness Stewardship Policy which they say will improve the National Wildlife Refuge System's stewardship of lands designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The policy is the Service's first revision since the original Wilderness Stewardship Policy was issued in 1986.
FWS said the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy clarifies that refuge visitors may use only non-motorized and non-mechanized equipment in designated wilderness areas while hunting, fishing or enjoying other appropriate wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. In addition, it provides Service managers with the first-ever guidance on wilderness review of Refuge System lands to help them determine whether those lands should be recommended for wilderness designation. Such reviews are primarily conducted during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, which establishes long-term management objectives for each refuge.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall said, "Our Wilderness Stewardship Policy reconfirms the Service's commitment to protecting and preserving the wilderness resource while accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System. This policy will preserve the wild and natural character of wilderness within the Refuge System while providing opportunities for the public to enjoy the solitude of these special areas." Among its many other provisions, the Wilderness Stewardship Policy also provides guidance on development of wilderness stewardship plans and clarifies when prohibited uses may be necessary for wilderness preservation.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and a process for Federal land management agencies -- including the Service -- to recommend wilderness areas to Congress. Only Congress has the authority to designate lands and water as wilderness. Congress has designated more than 20 million acres on 63 national wildlife refuges as wilderness. Nearly 20 percent of the 107-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System is on Refuge System lands.
FWS said the updated Wilderness Stewardship Policy will ensure consistency with several new management policies established in recent years -- including those governing the Mission, Goals and Refuge Purposes, Appropriate Refuge Uses, and Wildlife-Dependent Recreation -- as well as the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. It also reflects other developments in the policy and science of managing the Refuge System and wilderness.
According to a release from FWS, some provisions of the policy are: (1) The policy affirms that the Refuge System generally will not modify ecosystems, such as creating new impoundments, species population levels or natural processes in refuge wilderness unless doing so maintains or restores biological integrity, diversity or environmental health that has been degraded or is necessary to protect or recover threatened or endangered species. (2) The policy guides the determination of whether a proposed refuge management activity, such as protecting habitat for a threatened or endangered species, constitutes the minimum requirement for managing a refuge as wilderness.
(3) The policy permits appropriate recreational uses in wilderness areas in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act, if such wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) is non-motorized, non-mechanized and compatible with the refuge purpose and mission. (4) The policy describes the process that the Refuge System follows in conducting wilderness reviews in accordance with the refuge planning process as outlined in the planning policy. (5) The policy addresses special provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act for wilderness stewardship in Alaska.
Congress has designated 75 wilderness areas on 63 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 26 states. About 90 per cent -- or 18.6 million acres -- of Refuge System wilderness is in Alaska. The remaining 2.5 million wilderness acres are in the lower 48 states. This represents approximately 22% of the National Wilderness Preservation System (over 106 million acres), that the Refuge System administers in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. The largest wilderness area in the Refuge System is 8 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Access a release from FWS (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy (click here). Access the National Wildlife Refuge System website for links to additional information (click here). Access the Wilderness Information Network for more information (click here). [*Land]
FWS said the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy clarifies that refuge visitors may use only non-motorized and non-mechanized equipment in designated wilderness areas while hunting, fishing or enjoying other appropriate wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. In addition, it provides Service managers with the first-ever guidance on wilderness review of Refuge System lands to help them determine whether those lands should be recommended for wilderness designation. Such reviews are primarily conducted during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, which establishes long-term management objectives for each refuge.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall said, "Our Wilderness Stewardship Policy reconfirms the Service's commitment to protecting and preserving the wilderness resource while accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System. This policy will preserve the wild and natural character of wilderness within the Refuge System while providing opportunities for the public to enjoy the solitude of these special areas." Among its many other provisions, the Wilderness Stewardship Policy also provides guidance on development of wilderness stewardship plans and clarifies when prohibited uses may be necessary for wilderness preservation.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and a process for Federal land management agencies -- including the Service -- to recommend wilderness areas to Congress. Only Congress has the authority to designate lands and water as wilderness. Congress has designated more than 20 million acres on 63 national wildlife refuges as wilderness. Nearly 20 percent of the 107-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System is on Refuge System lands.
FWS said the updated Wilderness Stewardship Policy will ensure consistency with several new management policies established in recent years -- including those governing the Mission, Goals and Refuge Purposes, Appropriate Refuge Uses, and Wildlife-Dependent Recreation -- as well as the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. It also reflects other developments in the policy and science of managing the Refuge System and wilderness.
According to a release from FWS, some provisions of the policy are: (1) The policy affirms that the Refuge System generally will not modify ecosystems, such as creating new impoundments, species population levels or natural processes in refuge wilderness unless doing so maintains or restores biological integrity, diversity or environmental health that has been degraded or is necessary to protect or recover threatened or endangered species. (2) The policy guides the determination of whether a proposed refuge management activity, such as protecting habitat for a threatened or endangered species, constitutes the minimum requirement for managing a refuge as wilderness.
(3) The policy permits appropriate recreational uses in wilderness areas in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act, if such wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) is non-motorized, non-mechanized and compatible with the refuge purpose and mission. (4) The policy describes the process that the Refuge System follows in conducting wilderness reviews in accordance with the refuge planning process as outlined in the planning policy. (5) The policy addresses special provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act for wilderness stewardship in Alaska.
Congress has designated 75 wilderness areas on 63 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 26 states. About 90 per cent -- or 18.6 million acres -- of Refuge System wilderness is in Alaska. The remaining 2.5 million wilderness acres are in the lower 48 states. This represents approximately 22% of the National Wilderness Preservation System (over 106 million acres), that the Refuge System administers in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. The largest wilderness area in the Refuge System is 8 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Access a release from FWS (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy (click here). Access the National Wildlife Refuge System website for links to additional information (click here). Access the Wilderness Information Network for more information (click here). [*Land]
Friday, November 14, 2008
EPA Appeals Board Sets Stage For CO2 Pollutant Regulation
Nov 13: In a move that Sierra Club says "signals the start of the our clean energy future," the U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled that EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions. In the case, Sierra Club sought review of a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit that EPA Region 8 issued to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative on August 30, 2007. The permit would authorize Deseret to construct a new waste-coal-fired electric generating unit at Deseret’s existing Bonanza Power Plant, located near Bonanza, Utah.
The highly controversial case involved interventions by National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce who joined in filing the brief in the appeals supporting construction of the new power plant and arguing the U.S. EPA's permitting process should not be turned into a regulatory tool to control carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [See WIMS 3/26/08].
Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case said, “Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.”
The Deseret Power facility has also been the subject of an investigation of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Concern, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) which held a hearing on November 8, 2007, regarding EPA Approval of New Power Plants: Failure to Address Global Warming Pollutants. The hearing examined the implications of U.S. EPA's refusal to consider the global warming effects of a coal-fired power plant’s greenhouse gas emissions in a recent permitting decision in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07]. On March 11, 2008, Waxman introduced H.R. 5575, to require new coal-fired electric generating units to use state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester carbon dioxide emissions.
The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign said, “Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country. Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric. Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover.”
The Environmental Appeals Board said the Sierra Club petition raised two issues. First, Sierra Club argues that the Region’s permitting decision violates the public participation provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 165(a)(2), which require the Agency to consider “alternatives” to the proposed facility. Sierra Club argued that the Region erred by failing to consider alternatives to the proposed facility. Second, Sierra Club argues that the Region violated CAA sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3) by failing to apply best available control technology (BACT), to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the facility. Sierra Club pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, contending that because CO2 is an air pollutant, the permit violates the requirement to include a BACT emissions limit for “each pollutant subject to regulation under CAA.
The Appeals Board indicated that it, ". . . denies review of the Region’s alleged failure to consider alternatives to the proposed facility, but remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision."
Clarifying further, the Appeals Board said, "Having determined that the Region has discretion under the statute to interpret the term 'subject to regulation under this Act' and that the Region wrongly believed that its discretion was limited by an historical Agency interpretation, the Board remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision. In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding. The Board suggests that the Region consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase 'subject to regulation under this Act' in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding."
Access a release from Sierra Club with links to additional information (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board 69-page Deseret Power decision (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board Deseret Power website with links to all of the extensive briefs and filings in the case (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
The highly controversial case involved interventions by National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce who joined in filing the brief in the appeals supporting construction of the new power plant and arguing the U.S. EPA's permitting process should not be turned into a regulatory tool to control carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [See WIMS 3/26/08].
Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case said, “Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.”
The Deseret Power facility has also been the subject of an investigation of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Concern, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) which held a hearing on November 8, 2007, regarding EPA Approval of New Power Plants: Failure to Address Global Warming Pollutants. The hearing examined the implications of U.S. EPA's refusal to consider the global warming effects of a coal-fired power plant’s greenhouse gas emissions in a recent permitting decision in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07]. On March 11, 2008, Waxman introduced H.R. 5575, to require new coal-fired electric generating units to use state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester carbon dioxide emissions.
The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign said, “Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country. Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric. Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover.”
The Environmental Appeals Board said the Sierra Club petition raised two issues. First, Sierra Club argues that the Region’s permitting decision violates the public participation provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 165(a)(2), which require the Agency to consider “alternatives” to the proposed facility. Sierra Club argued that the Region erred by failing to consider alternatives to the proposed facility. Second, Sierra Club argues that the Region violated CAA sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3) by failing to apply best available control technology (BACT), to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the facility. Sierra Club pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, contending that because CO2 is an air pollutant, the permit violates the requirement to include a BACT emissions limit for “each pollutant subject to regulation under CAA.
The Appeals Board indicated that it, ". . . denies review of the Region’s alleged failure to consider alternatives to the proposed facility, but remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision."
Clarifying further, the Appeals Board said, "Having determined that the Region has discretion under the statute to interpret the term 'subject to regulation under this Act' and that the Region wrongly believed that its discretion was limited by an historical Agency interpretation, the Board remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision. In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding. The Board suggests that the Region consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase 'subject to regulation under this Act' in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding."
Access a release from Sierra Club with links to additional information (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board 69-page Deseret Power decision (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board Deseret Power website with links to all of the extensive briefs and filings in the case (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Investors Call For Climate Agreement Despite Financial Crisis
Nov 11: More than 130 leading investors, representing assets worth $6.4 trillion, warned world leaders that any global agreement on climate change must be strong and binding to guarantee necessary financing for global emissions reduction and adaptation efforts, and that the financial crisis should not delay efforts to address rising global temperatures. In a joint Statement sent to Heads of State and climate negotiators, investors called for a strong, binding framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, warning that clear and long-term policy signals are essential if investors are to allocate the huge amounts of private capital required to fund the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The Statement was sent by some of the world’s largest asset managers and pension funds, collectively representing $6.4 trillion in assets. It was coordinated by three leading investor groups on climate change -- (the US-based Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), and the Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC) in Australia and New Zealand). Peter Dunscombe, Chairman, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change said, "We are urging world leaders to provide the policy framework that will help investors drive the financial flows necessary to address this urgent crisis. A strong global agreement will provide companies, governments and investors with the incentives to act quickly and efficiently in tackling climate change”.
According to a release, the investors believe that the downturn in the global economy should not delay an international agreement on climate change, and that the agreement must be concluded by the end of 2009. As investors with diversified portfolios, they are concerned about the impacts of climate change on investments in individual companies and other asset classes such as property and the global economy as a whole. Mindy Lubber, Ceres President and Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, “The climate crisis is a multi-generational challenge that requires strong national and international policies immediately. World leaders must shun the excuse that it is too expensive to act to curb global warming. It is too expensive not to act.”
The Statement outlines in detail what investors are looking for from policymakers in order to allocate capital in a way that supports both the transformation to a low carbon economy and the development of adaptation measures. The investors are calling for: A binding global target for reducing greenhouse gas emission reductions informed by the latest available scientific evidence for avoiding dangerous climate change (which suggests that global greenhouse gas emissions must decline by 50-85% by 2050 against a base year of 2000); Long and medium-term emission reduction targets for developed countries which will be backed up by effective national action plans; Contributions from developing countries, initially in the form of national action plans focused on energy efficiency commitments, but with the ultimate aim of absolute emission reductions;
"Continuity in the legally binding framework underpinning the carbon markets and provisions for an expanded and more liquid global carbon market; A review, reform, and expansion of the Clean Development Mechanism; Clear measures to reverse deforestation and value forests as carbon sinks; A commitment to adaptation in order to prepare for, and respond to the physical impacts of climate change."
Access a joint release from the three groups (click here). Access the letter to Heads of State (click here). Access the complete Investor Statement (click here). [*Climate]
The Statement was sent by some of the world’s largest asset managers and pension funds, collectively representing $6.4 trillion in assets. It was coordinated by three leading investor groups on climate change -- (the US-based Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), and the Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC) in Australia and New Zealand). Peter Dunscombe, Chairman, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change said, "We are urging world leaders to provide the policy framework that will help investors drive the financial flows necessary to address this urgent crisis. A strong global agreement will provide companies, governments and investors with the incentives to act quickly and efficiently in tackling climate change”.
According to a release, the investors believe that the downturn in the global economy should not delay an international agreement on climate change, and that the agreement must be concluded by the end of 2009. As investors with diversified portfolios, they are concerned about the impacts of climate change on investments in individual companies and other asset classes such as property and the global economy as a whole. Mindy Lubber, Ceres President and Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, “The climate crisis is a multi-generational challenge that requires strong national and international policies immediately. World leaders must shun the excuse that it is too expensive to act to curb global warming. It is too expensive not to act.”
The Statement outlines in detail what investors are looking for from policymakers in order to allocate capital in a way that supports both the transformation to a low carbon economy and the development of adaptation measures. The investors are calling for: A binding global target for reducing greenhouse gas emission reductions informed by the latest available scientific evidence for avoiding dangerous climate change (which suggests that global greenhouse gas emissions must decline by 50-85% by 2050 against a base year of 2000); Long and medium-term emission reduction targets for developed countries which will be backed up by effective national action plans; Contributions from developing countries, initially in the form of national action plans focused on energy efficiency commitments, but with the ultimate aim of absolute emission reductions;
"Continuity in the legally binding framework underpinning the carbon markets and provisions for an expanded and more liquid global carbon market; A review, reform, and expansion of the Clean Development Mechanism; Clear measures to reverse deforestation and value forests as carbon sinks; A commitment to adaptation in order to prepare for, and respond to the physical impacts of climate change."
Access a joint release from the three groups (click here). Access the letter to Heads of State (click here). Access the complete Investor Statement (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
