Jan 8: Twelve days before the Presidential Inauguration, President-elect Obama delivered a speech at George Mason University on his new American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. The overall plan, which is expected to be on the order of $750 billion (low end) could stimulate significant economic activity in the energy and infrastructure sectors. Obama said, "I am confident will save or create at least three million jobs over the next few years." He also said, "It is not just another public works program." Obama said, "Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy -- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit. That is why we need to act boldly and act now to reverse these cycles."
Major elements of the Plan include: Doubling the production of alternative energy in the next three years; Modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills; Making the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized; Equipping tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries; Expanding broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world; Investing in the science, research, and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries; and, 95% of working families will receive a $1,000 tax cut -- the first stage of a middle-class tax cut.
Precisely, the President-elect said on the alternative energy plan, "To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced -- jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain."
On the infrastructure and technology portions of the plan, he said, "To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America. Yes, we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy. That means updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. It means expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world. And it means investing in the science, research, and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries."
Obama indicated that the Plan "won’t just throw money at our problems -- we’ll invest in what works. The true test of the policies we’ll pursue won’t be whether they’re Democratic or Republican ideas, but whether they create jobs, grow our economy, and put the American Dream within reach of the American people. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made transparently, and informed by independent experts wherever possible. Every American will be able to hold Washington accountable for these decisions by going online to see how and where their tax dollars are being spent."
He said he is asking Congress to work with him and his team day and night, and on weekends if necessary, to get the plan passed in the next few weeks. Most observers are now saying that it will likely be early to mid-February before Congress can get the Plan to the President's desk.
Access a summary and the full text of the speech (click here). [*All]
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
President Bush Discusses Conservation & Environment
Jan 6: President Bush delivered a speech on conservation and environmental issues at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC. The President said that, "Since 2001, we have put common-sense policies in place, and I can say upon departure, our air is cleaner, our water is purer, and our lands are better protected."
He used the occasion to announce that under the Antiquities Act that Theodore Roosevelt signed in 1906, which allows the President to set aside places of historic or scientific significance to be protected as national monuments, he was issuing proclamations to designate what he called "three beautiful and biologically diverse areas of the Pacific Ocean as new marine national monuments."
The first is the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument that will protect much of the Marianas Trench -- the site of the deepest point on Earth -- and the surrounding arc of undersea volcanoes and thermal vents. The President said, "This unique geological region is more than five times longer than the Grand Canyon. It is deeper than Mount Everest is tall. It supports life in some of the harshest conditions imaginable. A fascinating array of species survive amid hydrogen-emitting volcanoes, hydrothermal vents that produce highly acidic and boiling water, and the only known location of liquid sulfur this side of Jupiter."
The second new monument announced will be the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The monument will span seven areas to the far south and west of Hawaii. One is Wake Island -- the site of a pivotal battle in World War II, and a key habitat for nesting seabirds and migratory shorebirds. The third new monument will be the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. Rose is a diamond-shaped island to the east of American Samoa -- the nation's southernmost territory. It includes rare species of nesting petrels, shearwaters, and terns -- which account for its native name, "Island of Seabirds."
The President said, "Taken together, these three new national monuments cover nearly 200,000 square miles, and they will now receive our nation's highest level of environmental recognition and conservation. This decision came after a lot of consultation -- consultation with local officials, consultation with prominent scientists, consultation with environmental advocates, consultation with the United States military and the fishing community. Based on these consultations, as well as sound resource management principles, the monuments will prohibit resource destruction or extraction, waste dumping, and commercial fishing. They will allow for research, free passage, and recreation -- including the possibility of recreational fishing one day. For seabirds and marine life, they will be sanctuaries to grow and thrive. For scientists, they will be places to extend the frontiers of discovery. And for the American people, they will be places that honor our duty to be good stewards of the Almighty's creation."
The President also discussed his Administration's actions on cleaning the air, water, establishing conservation areas and protecting wildlife. He noted that "more than 11,000 abandoned industrial brownfields are on their way back to productive use"; "aggressive steps to make America's energy supply cleaner and more secure"; and, "developing clean and efficient technologies like biofuels, advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, and clean, safe nuclear power." He said, "We built international consensus on an approach that will replace the Kyoto Protocol with a global climate agreement that calls for meaningful commitments to reduce greenhouse gases from all major economies, including India and China."
He concluded saying, "With all these steps, we have charted the way toward a more promising era in environmental stewardship. We have pioneered a new model of cooperative conservation in which government and private citizens and environmental advocates work together to achieve common goals. And while there's a lot more work to be done, we have done our part to leave behind a cleaner and healthier and better world for those who follow us on this Earth."
The designation of the three new protected areas -- Marianas Marine National Monument, Pacific Remote Island National Monument, and Rose Atoll National Monument -- was generally praised by environmental, marine and conservation groups. David Yarnold, executive director of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's announcement marks an enormous step in conserving the biodiversity of our planet. These new marine monuments rank right up there with our nation’s greatest national parks. We are gratified that the president has given careful consideration to the scientific evidence and our recommendations to protect these areas." Elliott Norse, President of Marine Conservation Biology Institute said, "President Bush has now protected more ocean sites than anyone else in the history of the world. We greatly appreciate this bold, visionary action.”
While the Marine Monument designations drew praise, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released its own rendition of the "The Bush Record." NRDC said it "culled through eight years of policies and actions under the Bush administration to create a dynamic, online timeline that highlights the government’s systematic undermining of environmental protections." Karen Wayland, legislative director for NRDC said, “Eight years of environmental abuse is finally coming to its bitter end, but its impact will take years to overcome. In November, Americans sent a clear message that they’re ready for a new direction. The Obama administration will have a lot of work ahead of it to restore environmental protections that ensure safety for people, endangered species and our national treasures.”
Access the speech and links to the Bush Record, and fact sheets on the National Monuments and the Environment (click here). Access the NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries website for more information (click here). Access a release and links to the completed management plan and associated environmental assessments for Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (click here). Access an interesting legal article on Marine Protected Areas including Marine National Monuments and National Marine Sanctuaries (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to its timeline website and related information (click here). [*All]
He used the occasion to announce that under the Antiquities Act that Theodore Roosevelt signed in 1906, which allows the President to set aside places of historic or scientific significance to be protected as national monuments, he was issuing proclamations to designate what he called "three beautiful and biologically diverse areas of the Pacific Ocean as new marine national monuments."
The first is the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument that will protect much of the Marianas Trench -- the site of the deepest point on Earth -- and the surrounding arc of undersea volcanoes and thermal vents. The President said, "This unique geological region is more than five times longer than the Grand Canyon. It is deeper than Mount Everest is tall. It supports life in some of the harshest conditions imaginable. A fascinating array of species survive amid hydrogen-emitting volcanoes, hydrothermal vents that produce highly acidic and boiling water, and the only known location of liquid sulfur this side of Jupiter."
The second new monument announced will be the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The monument will span seven areas to the far south and west of Hawaii. One is Wake Island -- the site of a pivotal battle in World War II, and a key habitat for nesting seabirds and migratory shorebirds. The third new monument will be the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. Rose is a diamond-shaped island to the east of American Samoa -- the nation's southernmost territory. It includes rare species of nesting petrels, shearwaters, and terns -- which account for its native name, "Island of Seabirds."
The President said, "Taken together, these three new national monuments cover nearly 200,000 square miles, and they will now receive our nation's highest level of environmental recognition and conservation. This decision came after a lot of consultation -- consultation with local officials, consultation with prominent scientists, consultation with environmental advocates, consultation with the United States military and the fishing community. Based on these consultations, as well as sound resource management principles, the monuments will prohibit resource destruction or extraction, waste dumping, and commercial fishing. They will allow for research, free passage, and recreation -- including the possibility of recreational fishing one day. For seabirds and marine life, they will be sanctuaries to grow and thrive. For scientists, they will be places to extend the frontiers of discovery. And for the American people, they will be places that honor our duty to be good stewards of the Almighty's creation."
The President also discussed his Administration's actions on cleaning the air, water, establishing conservation areas and protecting wildlife. He noted that "more than 11,000 abandoned industrial brownfields are on their way back to productive use"; "aggressive steps to make America's energy supply cleaner and more secure"; and, "developing clean and efficient technologies like biofuels, advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, and clean, safe nuclear power." He said, "We built international consensus on an approach that will replace the Kyoto Protocol with a global climate agreement that calls for meaningful commitments to reduce greenhouse gases from all major economies, including India and China."
He concluded saying, "With all these steps, we have charted the way toward a more promising era in environmental stewardship. We have pioneered a new model of cooperative conservation in which government and private citizens and environmental advocates work together to achieve common goals. And while there's a lot more work to be done, we have done our part to leave behind a cleaner and healthier and better world for those who follow us on this Earth."
The designation of the three new protected areas -- Marianas Marine National Monument, Pacific Remote Island National Monument, and Rose Atoll National Monument -- was generally praised by environmental, marine and conservation groups. David Yarnold, executive director of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's announcement marks an enormous step in conserving the biodiversity of our planet. These new marine monuments rank right up there with our nation’s greatest national parks. We are gratified that the president has given careful consideration to the scientific evidence and our recommendations to protect these areas." Elliott Norse, President of Marine Conservation Biology Institute said, "President Bush has now protected more ocean sites than anyone else in the history of the world. We greatly appreciate this bold, visionary action.”
While the Marine Monument designations drew praise, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released its own rendition of the "The Bush Record." NRDC said it "culled through eight years of policies and actions under the Bush administration to create a dynamic, online timeline that highlights the government’s systematic undermining of environmental protections." Karen Wayland, legislative director for NRDC said, “Eight years of environmental abuse is finally coming to its bitter end, but its impact will take years to overcome. In November, Americans sent a clear message that they’re ready for a new direction. The Obama administration will have a lot of work ahead of it to restore environmental protections that ensure safety for people, endangered species and our national treasures.”
Access the speech and links to the Bush Record, and fact sheets on the National Monuments and the Environment (click here). Access the NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries website for more information (click here). Access a release and links to the completed management plan and associated environmental assessments for Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (click here). Access an interesting legal article on Marine Protected Areas including Marine National Monuments and National Marine Sanctuaries (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to its timeline website and related information (click here). [*All]
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
OIG Reports EPA’s Perchlorate RfD Is Health Protective
Dec 30: The U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has release a major 213-page report entitled, Office of Inspector General Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate (Assignment No. 2008-0010, December 30, 2008). In a cover letter accompanying the report, OIG indicates it is providing an opportunity to the environmental risk assessor community to review and provide scientific comment on its analysis of perchlorate. OIG notes that on February 18, 2005, EPA established a perchlorate reference dose (RfD) that corresponds to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). A U.S. EPA regulatory determination is pending on whether to issue a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for perchlorate.
OIG says that EPA’s potential regulation of perchlorate has garnered significant interest. Of concern, according to OIG, is whether EPA’s perchlorate RfD is protective of human health at all life stages. OIG says, "We analyzed the science supporting EPA’s perchlorate RfD. Congressional interest in this public health issue is reflected in bills H.R. 1747 and S.150, which would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EPA to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. We found that EPA guidance supports the use of a cumulative risk assessment when multiple stressors act through the same mode of toxicity. However, both EPA’s 2002 proposed RfD and the National Academy of Sciences Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion used single chemical risk assessment to derive the perchlorate RfD. By contrast, we used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors.
"Based on our scientific analysis documented in our report, perchlorate is only one of many chemicals that stress the thyroid’s ability to uptake iodide. The other NIS stressors include thiocyanate, nitrate, and the lack of iodide. All four of these NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. Our analysis includes a cumulative risk assessment of this public health issue using all four NIS stressors. A cumulative risk assessment approach is required to better characterize the risk to the public from a low total iodide uptake (TIU) during pregnancy and lactation. Further, a cumulative risk assessment approach is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health.
"For our review of the perchlorate science, we are seeking scientific comments on the use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are seeking scientific comments from scientists, environmental risk assessors, and related organizations. Because we are only seeking scientific comments for consideration, we are requiring responders to provide the following information: name of individual and/or organization; contact information, and scientific background or credentials. We are seeking specific, scientifically supported comments on the OIG’s use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are requiring any discussion or comments on scientific studies or observations to be appropriately cited and available in the public literature." Scientific comments are being requested by no later than March 10, 2009.
In summary, OIG indicates, "The OIG Analysis indicates that although EPA used a single chemical risk assessment for perchlorate, a cumulative risk assessment that assesses and characterizes the combined human health risk from all NIS stressors would better describe the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. The major findings, which directly address each of seven scientific issues identified in the 'Purpose' section of this report, are as follows:
"1) NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Unconventional RfD Approach Is Conservative and Protective; 2) Increasing Uncertainty Factors Not Effective for Protecting Public Health; 3) Hypothyroxinemia Occurs Before Hypothyroidism; 4) Low Fetal TIU First Adverse Effect; 5) Perchlorate RfD Alone Does Not Protect Most Sensitive Populations; 6) Thiocyanate and Nitrate Need to be Included in Risk Assessment; and, 7) Lack of Iodide Is Dominant NIS Stressor Impacting this Public Health Issue."
OIG concludes, "The OIG Analysis of the scientific literature identified that the risk from perchlorate exposure is only part of a larger public health issue that is defined by the subtle mental deficits occurring in children born to mothers with low maternal TIU during pregnancy and nursing. The TIU results from the combined biological effect of four NIS stressors acting on the thyroid: thiocyanate, nitrate, perchlorate, and lack of iodide. The diet constantly exposes everyone to each of the four NIS stressors, and an individual’s TIU level is the result of the combined effect of all four NIS stressors, not just perchlorate exposure. The OIG Analysis concludes that a single chemical risk assessment of perchlorate is not sufficient to assess and characterize the combined human health risk from all four NIS stressors. However, both EPA’s draft perchlorate RfD from the Argus rat study and the NAS Committee’s recommended perchlorate RfD from the Greer human exposure study used a single chemical risk assessment approach. Only a cumulative risk assessment can fully characterize the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. Furthermore, a cumulative risk assessment allows an informed environmental decision to be made on how to mitigate the risk effectively.
"All four NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance requirements for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. In the OIG Analysis, we conducted a cumulative risk assessment and determined that the risk from each of the four NIS stressors is not equal. The OIG Analysis also confirmed that EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk. By contrast, addressing moderate and mild iodide deficiency occurring in about 29% of the U.S. pregnant and nursing population appears to be the most effective approach of increasing TIU to healthy levels during pregnancy and nursing, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of permanent mental deficits in children."
On October 3, 2008, immediately after U.S. EPA announced that it had made a preliminary determination that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for exposure to perchlorate [See WIMS 10/3/08], environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they plan to sue the Agency. EPA said it had conducted an extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern [See WIMS 10/6/08].
Access the complete OIG report including the cover letter and commenting instructions (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]
OIG says that EPA’s potential regulation of perchlorate has garnered significant interest. Of concern, according to OIG, is whether EPA’s perchlorate RfD is protective of human health at all life stages. OIG says, "We analyzed the science supporting EPA’s perchlorate RfD. Congressional interest in this public health issue is reflected in bills H.R. 1747 and S.150, which would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EPA to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. We found that EPA guidance supports the use of a cumulative risk assessment when multiple stressors act through the same mode of toxicity. However, both EPA’s 2002 proposed RfD and the National Academy of Sciences Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion used single chemical risk assessment to derive the perchlorate RfD. By contrast, we used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors.
"Based on our scientific analysis documented in our report, perchlorate is only one of many chemicals that stress the thyroid’s ability to uptake iodide. The other NIS stressors include thiocyanate, nitrate, and the lack of iodide. All four of these NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. Our analysis includes a cumulative risk assessment of this public health issue using all four NIS stressors. A cumulative risk assessment approach is required to better characterize the risk to the public from a low total iodide uptake (TIU) during pregnancy and lactation. Further, a cumulative risk assessment approach is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health.
"For our review of the perchlorate science, we are seeking scientific comments on the use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are seeking scientific comments from scientists, environmental risk assessors, and related organizations. Because we are only seeking scientific comments for consideration, we are requiring responders to provide the following information: name of individual and/or organization; contact information, and scientific background or credentials. We are seeking specific, scientifically supported comments on the OIG’s use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are requiring any discussion or comments on scientific studies or observations to be appropriately cited and available in the public literature." Scientific comments are being requested by no later than March 10, 2009.
In summary, OIG indicates, "The OIG Analysis indicates that although EPA used a single chemical risk assessment for perchlorate, a cumulative risk assessment that assesses and characterizes the combined human health risk from all NIS stressors would better describe the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. The major findings, which directly address each of seven scientific issues identified in the 'Purpose' section of this report, are as follows:
"1) NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Unconventional RfD Approach Is Conservative and Protective; 2) Increasing Uncertainty Factors Not Effective for Protecting Public Health; 3) Hypothyroxinemia Occurs Before Hypothyroidism; 4) Low Fetal TIU First Adverse Effect; 5) Perchlorate RfD Alone Does Not Protect Most Sensitive Populations; 6) Thiocyanate and Nitrate Need to be Included in Risk Assessment; and, 7) Lack of Iodide Is Dominant NIS Stressor Impacting this Public Health Issue."
OIG concludes, "The OIG Analysis of the scientific literature identified that the risk from perchlorate exposure is only part of a larger public health issue that is defined by the subtle mental deficits occurring in children born to mothers with low maternal TIU during pregnancy and nursing. The TIU results from the combined biological effect of four NIS stressors acting on the thyroid: thiocyanate, nitrate, perchlorate, and lack of iodide. The diet constantly exposes everyone to each of the four NIS stressors, and an individual’s TIU level is the result of the combined effect of all four NIS stressors, not just perchlorate exposure. The OIG Analysis concludes that a single chemical risk assessment of perchlorate is not sufficient to assess and characterize the combined human health risk from all four NIS stressors. However, both EPA’s draft perchlorate RfD from the Argus rat study and the NAS Committee’s recommended perchlorate RfD from the Greer human exposure study used a single chemical risk assessment approach. Only a cumulative risk assessment can fully characterize the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. Furthermore, a cumulative risk assessment allows an informed environmental decision to be made on how to mitigate the risk effectively.
"All four NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance requirements for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. In the OIG Analysis, we conducted a cumulative risk assessment and determined that the risk from each of the four NIS stressors is not equal. The OIG Analysis also confirmed that EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk. By contrast, addressing moderate and mild iodide deficiency occurring in about 29% of the U.S. pregnant and nursing population appears to be the most effective approach of increasing TIU to healthy levels during pregnancy and nursing, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of permanent mental deficits in children."
On October 3, 2008, immediately after U.S. EPA announced that it had made a preliminary determination that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for exposure to perchlorate [See WIMS 10/3/08], environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they plan to sue the Agency. EPA said it had conducted an extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern [See WIMS 10/6/08].
Access the complete OIG report including the cover letter and commenting instructions (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]
Monday, January 05, 2009
D.C. Appeals Court Overturns CAIR Vacatur
Dec 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 05-1244, consolidated with 31 other cases and involving scores of attorneys. Just in time to meet the January 1, 2009, first major compliance deadline under U.S. EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Appeals Court responded in part to a request by EPA and other parties and remanded the case, "without vacatur," for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with the court's prior opinion. Previously, on July 11, 2008 [See WIMS 7/14/08], the Appeals Court had ruled, ". . . we find more than several fatal flaws in the rule and . . . we vacate the rule in its entirety and remand to EPA to promulgate a rule that is consistent with this opinion." EPA, environmental groups, states and others had asked the court to reconsider its July 11 opinion. The program was designed to reduce millions of tons of smog- and particulate-forming pollution from coal-fired power plants in 28 eastern states.
The Appeals Court said in the latest reconsideration, "On July 11, 2008, we issued an opinion, in which we found 'more than several fatal flaws in the rule.' North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In light of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted CAIR as an integral action, we vacated the rule in its entirety and remanded to EPA to promulgate a rule consistent with our opinion. Id. at 929-30. On September 24, 2008, Respondent EPA filed a petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for a remand of the case without vacatur. On October 21, 2008, we issued an order on our own motion directing the parties to file a response to EPA’s petition. (Order at 1, Oct. 21, 2008.) We also required the parties to 'address (1) whether any party is seeking vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and (2) whether the court should stay its mandate until Respondent [EPA] promulgates a revised rule.' Id. Respondent EPA was given leave to 'reply to the question whether a stay of the court’s mandate in lieu of immediate vacatur would suffice.' Id.
"Having considered the parties’ respective positions with respect to the remedy in this case, the court hereby grants EPA’s petition only to the extent that we will remand the case without vacatur for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion. . . In addition, some of the Petitioners have suggested that this court impose a definitive deadline by which EPA must correct CAIR’s flaws. Notwithstanding these requests, the court will refrain from doing so. Though we do not impose a particular schedule by which EPA must alter CAIR, we remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fundamental flaws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion."
In a separate concurring opinion, one of the Judges indicated, "The parties’ persuasive demonstration, extending beyond short-term health benefits to impacts on planning by states and industry with respect to interference with the states’ ability to meet deadlines for attaining national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone, shows that the rule has become so intertwined with the regulatory scheme that its vacatur would sacrifice clear benefits to public health and the environment while EPA fixes the rule."
Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's court decision is a welcome gift for the millions of American's that face serious health threats from power plant pollution. Power plants across the East will reduce millions of tons of smog and soot pollution today while America's new leadership fixes the mistakes made by the Bush Administration."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access EPA's CAIR website for additional information (click here). [*Air]
The Appeals Court said in the latest reconsideration, "On July 11, 2008, we issued an opinion, in which we found 'more than several fatal flaws in the rule.' North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In light of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted CAIR as an integral action, we vacated the rule in its entirety and remanded to EPA to promulgate a rule consistent with our opinion. Id. at 929-30. On September 24, 2008, Respondent EPA filed a petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for a remand of the case without vacatur. On October 21, 2008, we issued an order on our own motion directing the parties to file a response to EPA’s petition. (Order at 1, Oct. 21, 2008.) We also required the parties to 'address (1) whether any party is seeking vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and (2) whether the court should stay its mandate until Respondent [EPA] promulgates a revised rule.' Id. Respondent EPA was given leave to 'reply to the question whether a stay of the court’s mandate in lieu of immediate vacatur would suffice.' Id.
"Having considered the parties’ respective positions with respect to the remedy in this case, the court hereby grants EPA’s petition only to the extent that we will remand the case without vacatur for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion. . . In addition, some of the Petitioners have suggested that this court impose a definitive deadline by which EPA must correct CAIR’s flaws. Notwithstanding these requests, the court will refrain from doing so. Though we do not impose a particular schedule by which EPA must alter CAIR, we remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fundamental flaws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion."
In a separate concurring opinion, one of the Judges indicated, "The parties’ persuasive demonstration, extending beyond short-term health benefits to impacts on planning by states and industry with respect to interference with the states’ ability to meet deadlines for attaining national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone, shows that the rule has become so intertwined with the regulatory scheme that its vacatur would sacrifice clear benefits to public health and the environment while EPA fixes the rule."
Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's court decision is a welcome gift for the millions of American's that face serious health threats from power plant pollution. Power plants across the East will reduce millions of tons of smog and soot pollution today while America's new leadership fixes the mistakes made by the Bush Administration."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access EPA's CAIR website for additional information (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
WIMS. . . December 24, 2008
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
From WIMS
We're on our Holiday break right now.
But, we'll be back on January 5, 2009
We wish you a happy Holiday Season!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Senator Boxer Says EPA's Johnson Has "Run Amok"
Dec 22: In a sternly worded letter, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, made clear that U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson "has run amok and will waste taxpayer dollars in his most recent action to avoid controlling global warming pollution in Clean Air Act permits." Senator Boxer's outrage is over Johnson's December 18 memo to Regional Administrators outlining his policy calling for no regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Clean Air Act. Johnson said he was clarifying the recent EPA Environmental Appeals Board ruling that concluded EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming [See WIMS 11/14/08].
Senator Boxer said, "This illegal document issued by Stephen Johnson makes it clear that he has become a renegade Administrator. He defies the clear language of our environmental laws and acts without legal authority. Mr. Johnson's latest action is intended to make the job of combating global warming more difficult and will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars he has wasted in defending his illegal decisions. The Attorney General has an obligation to intervene when the actions of the Administration are so clearly outside the law."
In her letter to the Attorney General, Senator Boxer refers to the Johnson document as a "blatantly illegal memo." She said, "Swift and decisive action on your part to ensure that Administrator Johnson immediately withdraws this unauthorized document will not only prevent a gross waste of taxpayer money defending an illegal decision, but it will also make clear that the waning days of the Bush Administration should not be used to issue 'midnight rules' that undermine the law and threaten the health of our people and our planet. Given the urgency of this matter, please contact me immediately regarding your next steps to ensure that this illegal policy is suspended and that more taxpayer dollars are not wasted."
Access a release and link to the complete letter (click here). Access the Johnson Memo (click here). [*Air, *Climate]
Senator Boxer said, "This illegal document issued by Stephen Johnson makes it clear that he has become a renegade Administrator. He defies the clear language of our environmental laws and acts without legal authority. Mr. Johnson's latest action is intended to make the job of combating global warming more difficult and will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars he has wasted in defending his illegal decisions. The Attorney General has an obligation to intervene when the actions of the Administration are so clearly outside the law."
In her letter to the Attorney General, Senator Boxer refers to the Johnson document as a "blatantly illegal memo." She said, "Swift and decisive action on your part to ensure that Administrator Johnson immediately withdraws this unauthorized document will not only prevent a gross waste of taxpayer money defending an illegal decision, but it will also make clear that the waning days of the Bush Administration should not be used to issue 'midnight rules' that undermine the law and threaten the health of our people and our planet. Given the urgency of this matter, please contact me immediately regarding your next steps to ensure that this illegal policy is suspended and that more taxpayer dollars are not wasted."
Access a release and link to the complete letter (click here). Access the Johnson Memo (click here). [*Air, *Climate]
Monday, December 22, 2008
A National Carbon Tax: Another Option For Carbon Pricing
Dec 22: In early December, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) held a briefing on the issue of a "carbon tax" as opposed to a "cap and trade" system to control carbon emissions. The controversial topic has been debated for years but is still unsettled in the political discussions of methods to address climate change. The immediacy and simplicity of the carbon tax system is still attracting attention. Speakers at the EESI briefing included: Representative John Larson (D-CT) and sponsor of America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act (H.R.3416 of 2007); James Hansen, PhD, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; Gilbert Metcalf, PhD, Professor of Economics, Tufts University; Robert Shapiro, PhD, Co-Founder and Chairman, Sonecon; former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs; James Hoggan, British Columbia Public Affairs Advisor; Chair, David Suzuki Foundation; and Brent Blackwelder, PhD, President, Friends of the Earth (Moderator).
In his presentation NASA's James Hansen summarized the carbon tax benefits saying, "A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. . . A rising carbon price is the most effective way to encourage compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency. A rising carbon price is needed to decarbonize the economy and move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. . . The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No bureaucracy is needed. . . The tax will spur development of renewable energies and other no-carbon or low-carbon energies. . . A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. . . The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend. . ."
Last February, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report entitled, Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions [See WIMS 2/13/08], which said that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” means of reducing global warming pollution. CBO Director Peter Orszag, who oversaw the preparation of the report has now been nominated by President-elect Obama to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Obama is on record as an advocate for 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]. Perhaps, Orszag presence in the Obama Administration and the strong position of NASA's James Hansen, will raise the issue for Presidential reconsideration. Hansen has already prepared an 8-page draft letter to President-elect Obama that discusses the urgency of addressing the climate change issue and the reasons a carbon tax is the best approach (See contact information below).
Following the CBO report release, Friends of the Earth (FOE) commented saying, "This underscores the fact that a carbon tax is a serious policy option that should be considered alongside other ways of fighting global warming. A majority of Californians already support a corporate carbon tax, and with leadership from top elected officials, the majority of Americans might ultimately feel the same way -- especially if revenue from such a tax were returned directly to middle class voters through tax rebates or other mechanisms."
Even one of the most cynical climate change opponents, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, commented on the report saying it shows that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” way to regulate CO2 emissions and “could offer significant advantages” over the cap-and-trade approach [See WIMS 2/22/08]. . And, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, at the 2007 Mayors Climate Protection Summit in Seattle [See WIMS 11/06/07], and at the February, 2008 United Nations General Assembly thematic debate on Climate Change said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden -- but they're still there. . . A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start -- and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first."
Access the EESI briefing website for links to available presentations and a video (click here). Access the Hansen draft letter to Obama (click here). Access Hansen's Columbia University website (click here). Access an article on the carbon tax issue and many links from the Worldwatch Institute (click here). Access links to previous EESI briefings on the carbon tax issue (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the carbon tax issue (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
In his presentation NASA's James Hansen summarized the carbon tax benefits saying, "A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. . . A rising carbon price is the most effective way to encourage compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency. A rising carbon price is needed to decarbonize the economy and move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. . . The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No bureaucracy is needed. . . The tax will spur development of renewable energies and other no-carbon or low-carbon energies. . . A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. . . The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend. . ."
Last February, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report entitled, Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions [See WIMS 2/13/08], which said that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” means of reducing global warming pollution. CBO Director Peter Orszag, who oversaw the preparation of the report has now been nominated by President-elect Obama to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Obama is on record as an advocate for 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]. Perhaps, Orszag presence in the Obama Administration and the strong position of NASA's James Hansen, will raise the issue for Presidential reconsideration. Hansen has already prepared an 8-page draft letter to President-elect Obama that discusses the urgency of addressing the climate change issue and the reasons a carbon tax is the best approach (See contact information below).
Following the CBO report release, Friends of the Earth (FOE) commented saying, "This underscores the fact that a carbon tax is a serious policy option that should be considered alongside other ways of fighting global warming. A majority of Californians already support a corporate carbon tax, and with leadership from top elected officials, the majority of Americans might ultimately feel the same way -- especially if revenue from such a tax were returned directly to middle class voters through tax rebates or other mechanisms."
Even one of the most cynical climate change opponents, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, commented on the report saying it shows that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” way to regulate CO2 emissions and “could offer significant advantages” over the cap-and-trade approach [See WIMS 2/22/08]. . And, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, at the 2007 Mayors Climate Protection Summit in Seattle [See WIMS 11/06/07], and at the February, 2008 United Nations General Assembly thematic debate on Climate Change said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden -- but they're still there. . . A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start -- and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first."
Access the EESI briefing website for links to available presentations and a video (click here). Access the Hansen draft letter to Obama (click here). Access Hansen's Columbia University website (click here). Access an article on the carbon tax issue and many links from the Worldwatch Institute (click here). Access links to previous EESI briefings on the carbon tax issue (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the carbon tax issue (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Friday, December 19, 2008
NAS Recommends Cumulative Risk Assessment For Phthalates, Etc.
Dec 18: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) -- Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks Ahead -- indicates that U.S. EPA should examine whether combined exposures to chemicals known as phthalates could cause adverse health effects in humans. In addition, the cumulative risk assessment, should consider other chemicals that could potentially cause the same health effects as phthalates, instead of focusing on chemicals that are similar in structure, which is EPA's current practice. Furthermore, EPA should consider using the recommended approach for future cumulative risk assessments on other kinds of chemicals.
Phthalates are used in a wide variety of consumer products, such as cosmetics, medical devices, children's toys, and building materials. In light of concerns, the European Union and the United States have passed legislation that restricts the concentrations of several phthalates in children's toys, and the European Union has also banned several phthalates from cosmetics. EPA asked the Research Council to recommend whether it should conduct a cumulative risk assessment for phthalates, and if so, how it should be framed. Accordingly, the NRC report is not a comprehensive profile on the health effects of phthalates.
The NRC committee that wrote the report said recent animal studies have increased understanding of the potential risks from phthalates, although few human studies on the health effects of phthalates are available. To decide whether a cumulative risk assessment is warranted, two factors needed to be determined: (1) whether humans are exposed to multiple phthalates at any given time; and, (2) whether sufficient evidence exists linking exposures to similar adverse health effects. The committee established that recent studies have shown widespread human exposure to multiple phthalates, including "in utero exposure."
Then, the committee reviewed animal research and found that exposure to various phthalates in lab animals produced similar health outcomes, including a range of effects on the development of the male reproductive system. The most notable effects in male rats are infertility, undescended testes, malformation of the penis, and other reproductive tract malformations. However, the severity of effects differs among phthalates; some exhibit less severe or no effects. Furthermore, the age of the animals at the time of exposure is critical to the severity of the effects. For example, the fetus is most sensitive. Given that multiple human exposures to phthalates occur and that research shows exposure to different phthalates leads to similar outcomes in lab animals, the commitee said, "a cumulative risk assessment is called for."
The animal studies reviewed by the committee also indicated that some phthalates reduce testosterone concentrations. Depending on when this drop occurs, it can cause a variety of effects in animals that are critical for male reproductive development. Other chemicals known as antiandrogens, which prevent or inhibit male hormones from working, can produce similar effects in lab animals. The committee recommended that phthalates and other chemicals that affect male reproductive development in animals, including antiandrogens, be considered in the cumulative risk assessment. The committee emphasized, "A focus solely on phthalates to the exclusion of other chemicals would be artificial and could seriously underestimate risk."
The committee indicated that, currently when conducting cumulative risk assessments, EPA often considers only chemicals that are structurally related, on the assumption that they have the same chain of reactions that lead to a final health outcome. That practice ignores how exposures to different chemicals may result in the same health effects. The conceptual approach taken for phthalates -- to consider chemicals that cause similar health effects -- should also be applied when completing any cumulative risk assessment. For instance, "EPA could evaluate the risk of combined exposures to lead, methylmercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls because all contribute to cognitive deficits consistent with IQ reduction in children."
In addition, the report recommends "further research should be conducted to allow greater refinement of the cumulative risk assessment associated with phthalates and reduce uncertainty associated with such an assessment. Moving beyond the constraints of grouping chemicals based on structural similarity may appear challenging, but it is feasible to evaluate the multiplicity of human exposures. It also directly reflects EPA's mission to protect human health. Such a shift in approach would entail substantial efforts by EPA, such as defining and setting priorities among the most prominent adverse health effects. However, a focus on similar outcomes facilitates the process by identifying the groups of chemicals that should be included."
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report and a 28-page executive summary (click here). Access a 4-page brief summary (click here). [*Toxics]
Phthalates are used in a wide variety of consumer products, such as cosmetics, medical devices, children's toys, and building materials. In light of concerns, the European Union and the United States have passed legislation that restricts the concentrations of several phthalates in children's toys, and the European Union has also banned several phthalates from cosmetics. EPA asked the Research Council to recommend whether it should conduct a cumulative risk assessment for phthalates, and if so, how it should be framed. Accordingly, the NRC report is not a comprehensive profile on the health effects of phthalates.
The NRC committee that wrote the report said recent animal studies have increased understanding of the potential risks from phthalates, although few human studies on the health effects of phthalates are available. To decide whether a cumulative risk assessment is warranted, two factors needed to be determined: (1) whether humans are exposed to multiple phthalates at any given time; and, (2) whether sufficient evidence exists linking exposures to similar adverse health effects. The committee established that recent studies have shown widespread human exposure to multiple phthalates, including "in utero exposure."
Then, the committee reviewed animal research and found that exposure to various phthalates in lab animals produced similar health outcomes, including a range of effects on the development of the male reproductive system. The most notable effects in male rats are infertility, undescended testes, malformation of the penis, and other reproductive tract malformations. However, the severity of effects differs among phthalates; some exhibit less severe or no effects. Furthermore, the age of the animals at the time of exposure is critical to the severity of the effects. For example, the fetus is most sensitive. Given that multiple human exposures to phthalates occur and that research shows exposure to different phthalates leads to similar outcomes in lab animals, the commitee said, "a cumulative risk assessment is called for."
The animal studies reviewed by the committee also indicated that some phthalates reduce testosterone concentrations. Depending on when this drop occurs, it can cause a variety of effects in animals that are critical for male reproductive development. Other chemicals known as antiandrogens, which prevent or inhibit male hormones from working, can produce similar effects in lab animals. The committee recommended that phthalates and other chemicals that affect male reproductive development in animals, including antiandrogens, be considered in the cumulative risk assessment. The committee emphasized, "A focus solely on phthalates to the exclusion of other chemicals would be artificial and could seriously underestimate risk."
The committee indicated that, currently when conducting cumulative risk assessments, EPA often considers only chemicals that are structurally related, on the assumption that they have the same chain of reactions that lead to a final health outcome. That practice ignores how exposures to different chemicals may result in the same health effects. The conceptual approach taken for phthalates -- to consider chemicals that cause similar health effects -- should also be applied when completing any cumulative risk assessment. For instance, "EPA could evaluate the risk of combined exposures to lead, methylmercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls because all contribute to cognitive deficits consistent with IQ reduction in children."
In addition, the report recommends "further research should be conducted to allow greater refinement of the cumulative risk assessment associated with phthalates and reduce uncertainty associated with such an assessment. Moving beyond the constraints of grouping chemicals based on structural similarity may appear challenging, but it is feasible to evaluate the multiplicity of human exposures. It also directly reflects EPA's mission to protect human health. Such a shift in approach would entail substantial efforts by EPA, such as defining and setting priorities among the most prominent adverse health effects. However, a focus on similar outcomes facilitates the process by identifying the groups of chemicals that should be included."
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report and a 28-page executive summary (click here). Access a 4-page brief summary (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Annual Energy Outlook 2009: No Growth In U.S. Oil Consumption
Dec 17: The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released its Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO2009) reference case that presents updated projections for U.S. energy consumption and production through 2030. EIA notes that for the first time in more than 20 years, the new AEO reference case projects virtually no growth in U.S. oil consumption, reflecting the combined effect of recently enacted CAFE standards, requirements for increased use of renewable fuels, and an assumed rebound in oil prices as the world economy recovers. With overall liquid fuel demand in the AEO2009 reference case growing by only 1 million barrels per day between 2007 and 2030, increased use of domestically-produced biofuels, and rising domestic oil production spurred by higher prices, the net import share of total liquids supplied, including biofuels, declines from 58 percent in 2007 to less than 40 percent in 2025 before increasing to 41 percent in 2030. The following is a brief EIA summary of major issues.
Natural Gas Use and Import Dependence: The reference case raises EIA’s projection for U.S. production and consumption of natural gas, reflecting increased availability of resources and higher demand for electric power generation. With growing production of natural gas from unconventional onshore sources, the Outer Continental Shelf, and Alaska, the net import share of total natural gas use also declines, from 16 percent in 2007 to less than 3 percent in 2030.
Total Primary Energy Use and Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Efficiency policies and higher energy prices in AEO2009 slow the rise in U.S. energy use, which is projected to grow from 101.9 quadrillion Btu in 2007 to 113.3 quadrillion Btu in 2030. When combined with the increased use of renewables and a reduction in projected additions of new coal-fired conventional power plants, this slows the growth in energy-related GHG emissions. Energy-related CO2 emissions grow at 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030 in the AEO2009 reference case, reaching a level of 6,410 million metric tons in 2030, as compared with 6,851 million metric tons in the AEO2008 reference case.
Oil Prices: The assumption of a higher world oil price path in the AEO2009 reference case reflects tighter constraints on access to low cost oil supplies in a setting where the forces driving growth in long-term demand in non-OECD countries remains as strong as previously expected. In 2007 dollars, the world crude oil price, averaging near $60 in 2009, rises as the global economy rebounds and global demand once again grows more rapidly than non-OPEC liquids supply. In 2030, the average real price of crude oil is $130 per barrel in 2007 dollars ($189 per barrel in nominal dollars).
Renewable Energy Use: Total consumption of marketed renewable fuels -- including wood, municipal waste, and biomass in the end use sectors; hydroelectricity, geothermal, municipal waste, biomass, solar, and wind for electric power generation; ethanol for gasoline blending; and biomass-based diesel -- grows by 3.3 percent per year in the AEO2009 reference case. This rapid growth reflects the EISA2007 renewable fuel standard and strong growth in the use of renewables for electricity generation that is spurred by renewable portfolio standards for electricity generators in many States.
Vehicle Characteristics: A sharp increase in the sale of unconventional vehicle technologies, such as flex-fuel, hybrid, and diesel vehicles, and a significant decline in the new light-truck share of total light-duty vehicle sales are projected. Hybrid vehicle sales (all varieties) increase from 2 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in 2007 to 38 percent in 2030. Sales of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) grow to 90,000 vehicles annually by 2014, supported by recently enacted tax credits. By 2030, PHEVs account for 2 percent of new light vehicle sales.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) completed an initial review of the AEO2009 and reports that it contains a "dramatic turnaround" in the projection of new coal-fired power plants which are significantly reduced from earlier projections. UCS says, "EIA has reduced its 2030 projection of new coal plants from 104 GW to 46 GW. . . This is the equivalent of nearly 100 typical-size new coal plants (600 MW), and indicates that EIA expects the trend of coal plant cancellations and rejections to continue."
Access a release from EIA (click here). Access links to a summary presentation and the various AEO2009 tables (click here). Access a release from UCS and brief analysis (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Natural Gas Use and Import Dependence: The reference case raises EIA’s projection for U.S. production and consumption of natural gas, reflecting increased availability of resources and higher demand for electric power generation. With growing production of natural gas from unconventional onshore sources, the Outer Continental Shelf, and Alaska, the net import share of total natural gas use also declines, from 16 percent in 2007 to less than 3 percent in 2030.
Total Primary Energy Use and Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Efficiency policies and higher energy prices in AEO2009 slow the rise in U.S. energy use, which is projected to grow from 101.9 quadrillion Btu in 2007 to 113.3 quadrillion Btu in 2030. When combined with the increased use of renewables and a reduction in projected additions of new coal-fired conventional power plants, this slows the growth in energy-related GHG emissions. Energy-related CO2 emissions grow at 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030 in the AEO2009 reference case, reaching a level of 6,410 million metric tons in 2030, as compared with 6,851 million metric tons in the AEO2008 reference case.
Oil Prices: The assumption of a higher world oil price path in the AEO2009 reference case reflects tighter constraints on access to low cost oil supplies in a setting where the forces driving growth in long-term demand in non-OECD countries remains as strong as previously expected. In 2007 dollars, the world crude oil price, averaging near $60 in 2009, rises as the global economy rebounds and global demand once again grows more rapidly than non-OPEC liquids supply. In 2030, the average real price of crude oil is $130 per barrel in 2007 dollars ($189 per barrel in nominal dollars).
Renewable Energy Use: Total consumption of marketed renewable fuels -- including wood, municipal waste, and biomass in the end use sectors; hydroelectricity, geothermal, municipal waste, biomass, solar, and wind for electric power generation; ethanol for gasoline blending; and biomass-based diesel -- grows by 3.3 percent per year in the AEO2009 reference case. This rapid growth reflects the EISA2007 renewable fuel standard and strong growth in the use of renewables for electricity generation that is spurred by renewable portfolio standards for electricity generators in many States.
Vehicle Characteristics: A sharp increase in the sale of unconventional vehicle technologies, such as flex-fuel, hybrid, and diesel vehicles, and a significant decline in the new light-truck share of total light-duty vehicle sales are projected. Hybrid vehicle sales (all varieties) increase from 2 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in 2007 to 38 percent in 2030. Sales of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) grow to 90,000 vehicles annually by 2014, supported by recently enacted tax credits. By 2030, PHEVs account for 2 percent of new light vehicle sales.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) completed an initial review of the AEO2009 and reports that it contains a "dramatic turnaround" in the projection of new coal-fired power plants which are significantly reduced from earlier projections. UCS says, "EIA has reduced its 2030 projection of new coal plants from 104 GW to 46 GW. . . This is the equivalent of nearly 100 typical-size new coal plants (600 MW), and indicates that EIA expects the trend of coal plant cancellations and rejections to continue."
Access a release from EIA (click here). Access links to a summary presentation and the various AEO2009 tables (click here). Access a release from UCS and brief analysis (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Reps. Report "Drastic Deterioration" Of CWA Enforcement
Dec 16: Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) have written to President-elect Obama regarding their investigation into what they called "the drastic deterioration of the Clean Water Act [CWA] enforcement program." Chairman Waxman said, "One of the legacies of the Bush Administration is its failure to protect the safety and health of the nation's waters. Our investigation reveals that the clean water program has been decimated as hundreds of enforcement cases have been dropped, downgraded, delayed, or never brought in the first place. We need to work with the new Administration to restore the effectiveness and integrity to this vital program."
The two Representatives reported that new internal documents obtained by the Committees show that "hundreds of Clean Water Act violations have not been pursued with enforcement actions. Dozens of existing enforcement cases have become informal responses, have had civil penalties reduced, and have experienced significant delays. Many violations are not even being detected because of the substantial reduction in investigations. Violations involving oil spills make up nearly half of the Clean Water Act violations that have been detected but are not being addressed."
They said EPA refused to produce hundreds of documents to the Committees and redacted many of the documents it did produce. EPA concealed the identity of corporations and individuals accused of polluting waters and the specific waters that may have been affected. In addition, the Committees' investigation revealed that the Assistant Secretary for the Army for Civil Works "placed the interests of corporate lobbyists over the scientific determinations of career officials in making Clean Water Act decisions about the Santa Cruz River in Arizona."
Chairman Oberstar said,"This Administration has only exacerbated a series of bad Supreme Court decisions by not enforcing the Clean Water Act and by placing development interests above those of the public. By withholding relevant information and misleading Congress our nation's waters have gone unprotected for too long. Only through Congressional action can we restore necessary Clean Water Act protections to our nation's waters."
The Committees' investigation included the review of more than 20,000 pages of documents produced to the Committees by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of the review relates to the June 2006, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rapanos v. United States that federal agencies could assert jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act for many waters only after going through a time-consuming and resource-intensive process of demonstrating a "significant nexus" to "traditional navigable waters."
In their 23-page Memo of findings, the Representatives say, "The documents indicate that the Supreme Court's decision . . . [in Rapanos] and the Administration's guidance implementing that decision have resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of Clean Water Act inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions. In numerous e-mails, memos, and other documents, EPA field offices across the country have expressed serious concerns about this negative trend, warning that they are no longer able to ensure the safety and health of the nation's waters. . ."
Jan Goldman-Carter Wetlands and Water Resources Counsel for National Wildlife Federation (NWF) reacted to the legislative investigation and said, “This memorandum reveals what we always feared -- the Clean Water Act is being crushed by the current legal uncertainty and our important water resources are suffering. It is time for Congress to stop the bleeding and restore full protections to our Nation’s waters.” NWF attorney Jim Murphy said, “It is now beyond question that leaving the status quo in place is a catastrophic choice for our children’s future. The new Congress, with vigorous support from the new Administration, must reverse the damage done to the Clean Water Act and put us back on the path to clean water.”
Joan Mulhern, Legislative Counsel for the public interest law firm Earthjustice said, "We have known for some time that the Clean Water Act is broken and that thousands of streams, rivers and wetlands have lost federal anti-pollution protections. But now we know the extent to which the Bush administration has been covering up the problem. While the committees' report is very revealing, the EPA's cover-up continues. They are still withholding documents on hundreds of dropped enforcement actions, and the information they did give the chairmen redacted identifying information that would tell the American people which water bodies have been contaminated illegally with oil spills, fills, and other industrial discharges by polluters. The new administration must immediately reverse this pattern of leaving waters unprotected and hiding the mess from the public, and support swift Congressional passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act."
Access a release and link to the text of the letter to President-elect Obama, a memorandum discussing the Committees' findings, and accompanying internal documents (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos for links and extensive information (click here). Access WIMS eNewsUSA Blog for various articles related to Rapanos (click here). [*Water]
The two Representatives reported that new internal documents obtained by the Committees show that "hundreds of Clean Water Act violations have not been pursued with enforcement actions. Dozens of existing enforcement cases have become informal responses, have had civil penalties reduced, and have experienced significant delays. Many violations are not even being detected because of the substantial reduction in investigations. Violations involving oil spills make up nearly half of the Clean Water Act violations that have been detected but are not being addressed."
They said EPA refused to produce hundreds of documents to the Committees and redacted many of the documents it did produce. EPA concealed the identity of corporations and individuals accused of polluting waters and the specific waters that may have been affected. In addition, the Committees' investigation revealed that the Assistant Secretary for the Army for Civil Works "placed the interests of corporate lobbyists over the scientific determinations of career officials in making Clean Water Act decisions about the Santa Cruz River in Arizona."
Chairman Oberstar said,"This Administration has only exacerbated a series of bad Supreme Court decisions by not enforcing the Clean Water Act and by placing development interests above those of the public. By withholding relevant information and misleading Congress our nation's waters have gone unprotected for too long. Only through Congressional action can we restore necessary Clean Water Act protections to our nation's waters."
The Committees' investigation included the review of more than 20,000 pages of documents produced to the Committees by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of the review relates to the June 2006, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rapanos v. United States that federal agencies could assert jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act for many waters only after going through a time-consuming and resource-intensive process of demonstrating a "significant nexus" to "traditional navigable waters."
In their 23-page Memo of findings, the Representatives say, "The documents indicate that the Supreme Court's decision . . . [in Rapanos] and the Administration's guidance implementing that decision have resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of Clean Water Act inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions. In numerous e-mails, memos, and other documents, EPA field offices across the country have expressed serious concerns about this negative trend, warning that they are no longer able to ensure the safety and health of the nation's waters. . ."
Jan Goldman-Carter Wetlands and Water Resources Counsel for National Wildlife Federation (NWF) reacted to the legislative investigation and said, “This memorandum reveals what we always feared -- the Clean Water Act is being crushed by the current legal uncertainty and our important water resources are suffering. It is time for Congress to stop the bleeding and restore full protections to our Nation’s waters.” NWF attorney Jim Murphy said, “It is now beyond question that leaving the status quo in place is a catastrophic choice for our children’s future. The new Congress, with vigorous support from the new Administration, must reverse the damage done to the Clean Water Act and put us back on the path to clean water.”
Joan Mulhern, Legislative Counsel for the public interest law firm Earthjustice said, "We have known for some time that the Clean Water Act is broken and that thousands of streams, rivers and wetlands have lost federal anti-pollution protections. But now we know the extent to which the Bush administration has been covering up the problem. While the committees' report is very revealing, the EPA's cover-up continues. They are still withholding documents on hundreds of dropped enforcement actions, and the information they did give the chairmen redacted identifying information that would tell the American people which water bodies have been contaminated illegally with oil spills, fills, and other industrial discharges by polluters. The new administration must immediately reverse this pattern of leaving waters unprotected and hiding the mess from the public, and support swift Congressional passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act."
Access a release and link to the text of the letter to President-elect Obama, a memorandum discussing the Committees' findings, and accompanying internal documents (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on Rapanos for links and extensive information (click here). Access WIMS eNewsUSA Blog for various articles related to Rapanos (click here). [*Water]
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
OIG Report Chronicles ESA Conflict Between Science & Policy
Dec 15: The U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a 141-page report entitled, Investigative Report: The Endangered Species Act and the Conflict between Science and Policy. According to the cover letter transmitting the report to Secretary Kempthorne, "This investigation was initiated by request of Senator Ron Wyden who believed that 18 ESA decisions may have been improperly affected by MacDonald [Former Fish, Wildlife and Parks Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald]. Our investigation was expanded by requests from Chairman Nick J. Rahall, II, House Committee on Natural Resources, and Congressmen Jay Inslee and Peter DeFazio, who requested that we add two other decisions to those under our review.
"As you know, in previous investigations we determined that MacDonald injected herself personally and profoundly in a number of ESA issues. We determined that MacDonald's management style was abrupt and abrasive, if not abusive, and that her conduct demoralized and frustrated her staff as well as her subordinate managers. Our findings from this investigation are much the same, although we found that the nature and extent of MacDonald's influence varied dramatically from one decision to another. For example, in one instance we found that MacDonald went to extraordinary efforts to influence a particular decision, but her efforts ultimately had no effect on the outcome. In other instances, her involvement clearly caused a particular result. Ironically, in several instances, she played no role in the decision-making process, but because of her reputation, FW personnel believed that she had, in fact, been exerting influence, as did members of Congress and the public. . ."
The OIG indicates that, "Recognizing that this comes late in your tenure as Secretary of the Interior, we are providing this report to you for whatever action you deem appropriate; however, it is also my intention to thoroughly brief and refer this report to your successor." That successor, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, is expected to be officially nominated as Secretary of the Department of Interior by President-elect Obama later this week.
Senator Wyden (D-OR), who chairs the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, the primary requestor of the report, issued a release saying, “This report makes it crystal clear how one person’s contempt for the public trust can infect an entire agency. Ms. MacDonald’s narrow focus on her own agenda not only endangered the Endangered Species Act, it opened the door for countless land-use decisions and developments that would have never otherwise been considered. “While I look forward to working with a new Administration with a much greater respect for the law, Congress needs to take immediate steps to make sure that Julie MacDonald’s legacy can never be repeated.”
Wyden continued, "Why my office needed to request an Inspector General’s investigation to get this information is beyond me; but as usual, General Devaney’s [the OIG] work is not only beyond reproach, it gives Congress what is needed to take action. I believe that General Devaney’s exemplary service during what is unquestionably one of the darkest periods in the Interior Department’s history more than merits his being kept on in the Obama Administration to continue prosecuting the case.”
Commenting on the report, Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, “Political interference by MacDonald and other Bush administration officials threatens the survival of numerous species like bull trout, marbled murrelet and the southwestern bald eagle.” CBD said, the report found that MacDonald “frequently contested the scientific findings of FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) biologists and often replaced their scientific conclusions with her own, even though she was not a biologist.”
CBD indicated that the report also found that MacDonald “acted as an economist in her efforts to restrict critical habitat designations,” even though she lacked such training. Greenwald said, "MacDonald’s reign of terror at the Department of Interior will have a lasting negative impact on endangered species, but she was not alone in this effort. MacDonald was the administration’s attack dog, not its general. The contempt for science and law that she came to symbolize goes much deeper than a single Department of Interior employee.”
Access the cover letter and report from DOI's OIG (click here). Access a release from Senator Wyden (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from Defenders of Wildlife (click here). [*Wildlife]
"As you know, in previous investigations we determined that MacDonald injected herself personally and profoundly in a number of ESA issues. We determined that MacDonald's management style was abrupt and abrasive, if not abusive, and that her conduct demoralized and frustrated her staff as well as her subordinate managers. Our findings from this investigation are much the same, although we found that the nature and extent of MacDonald's influence varied dramatically from one decision to another. For example, in one instance we found that MacDonald went to extraordinary efforts to influence a particular decision, but her efforts ultimately had no effect on the outcome. In other instances, her involvement clearly caused a particular result. Ironically, in several instances, she played no role in the decision-making process, but because of her reputation, FW personnel believed that she had, in fact, been exerting influence, as did members of Congress and the public. . ."
The OIG indicates that, "Recognizing that this comes late in your tenure as Secretary of the Interior, we are providing this report to you for whatever action you deem appropriate; however, it is also my intention to thoroughly brief and refer this report to your successor." That successor, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, is expected to be officially nominated as Secretary of the Department of Interior by President-elect Obama later this week.
Senator Wyden (D-OR), who chairs the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, the primary requestor of the report, issued a release saying, “This report makes it crystal clear how one person’s contempt for the public trust can infect an entire agency. Ms. MacDonald’s narrow focus on her own agenda not only endangered the Endangered Species Act, it opened the door for countless land-use decisions and developments that would have never otherwise been considered. “While I look forward to working with a new Administration with a much greater respect for the law, Congress needs to take immediate steps to make sure that Julie MacDonald’s legacy can never be repeated.”
Wyden continued, "Why my office needed to request an Inspector General’s investigation to get this information is beyond me; but as usual, General Devaney’s [the OIG] work is not only beyond reproach, it gives Congress what is needed to take action. I believe that General Devaney’s exemplary service during what is unquestionably one of the darkest periods in the Interior Department’s history more than merits his being kept on in the Obama Administration to continue prosecuting the case.”
Commenting on the report, Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, “Political interference by MacDonald and other Bush administration officials threatens the survival of numerous species like bull trout, marbled murrelet and the southwestern bald eagle.” CBD said, the report found that MacDonald “frequently contested the scientific findings of FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) biologists and often replaced their scientific conclusions with her own, even though she was not a biologist.”
CBD indicated that the report also found that MacDonald “acted as an economist in her efforts to restrict critical habitat designations,” even though she lacked such training. Greenwald said, "MacDonald’s reign of terror at the Department of Interior will have a lasting negative impact on endangered species, but she was not alone in this effort. MacDonald was the administration’s attack dog, not its general. The contempt for science and law that she came to symbolize goes much deeper than a single Department of Interior employee.”
Access the cover letter and report from DOI's OIG (click here). Access a release from Senator Wyden (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from Defenders of Wildlife (click here). [*Wildlife]
Monday, December 15, 2008
Climate Conference Ends With New Commitments Despite Economy
Dec 12: According to a release from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC), the 14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) and the 4th Meeting of the Parties (CMP 4) in Poznań, Poland ended with "a clear commitment from governments to shift into full negotiating mode next year" in order to shape an ambitious and effective international response to climate change, to be agreed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. UNFCCC indicated that progress was made in the area of technology with the endorsement of the Global Environment Facility’s “Poznań Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer”. The aim of that program is to scale up the level of investment by levering private investments that developing countries require for both mitigation and adaptation technologies.
The President of the conference, Polish Minister of the Environment Maciej Nowicki said, “We will now move to the next level of negotiations, which involves crafting a concrete negotiating text for the agreed outcome. Parties agreed that a first draft of the text would be available at a UNFCCC gathering in Bonn in June of 2009. In addition to having agreed [on] the work programme for next year, we have cleared the decks of many technical issues. Poznań is the place where the partnership between the developing and developed world to fight climate change has shifted beyond rhetoric and turned into real action. In that spirit, at Poznań, the finishing touches were put to the Kyoto Protocol’s adaptation fund, thereby enabling the fund to receive projects in the course of 2009. Parties agreed that the fund (Clean Development Mechanism, CDM), fed by a share of proceeds from the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism and voluntary contributions, would have a legal capacity granting developing countries direct access."
However, the release indicates that the Parties were unable to reach consensus on scaling up funding for adaptation by agreeing to put a levy on the other two Kyoto mechanisms, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading. Together with decisions aimed at streamlining and speeding up the CDM, Parties asked the CDM Executive Board to explore procedures and methodologies that would enhance regional and sub-regional distribution of projects. Parties also asked the Board to assess the implications of including carbon capture and storage projects and extending the eligibility criteria for afforestation and reforestation projects.
Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC indicated that a key event at the conference was a ministerial round table on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action on climate change. He said, “Governments have sent a strong political signal that despite the financial and economic crisis, significant funds can be mobilized for both mitigation and adaptation in developing countries with the help of a clever financial architecture and the institutions to deliver the financial support. We now have a much clearer sense of where we need to go in designing an outcome which will spell out the commitments of developed countries, the financial support required and the institutions that will deliver that support as part of the Copenhagen outcome."
The release states that countries meeting in Poznań made progress on a number of issues that are important in the short run - up to 2012 - particularly for developing countries, including adaptation, finance, technology and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. In addition , the conference discussed in detail the issue of disaster management, risk assessment and insurance, essential to help developing countries cope with the inevitable effects of climate change.
Governments meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agreed that commitments of industrialized countries post-2012 should principally take the form of quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, in line with the type of emission reduction targets they have assumed for the first commitment period of the protocol. In addition to the major COP/CMP meeting in Copenhagen (December 7-18, 2009), at least four other significant UNFCCC meetings will take place next year -- the first two in Bonn, Germany (March 29-April 08, and June 1-12 ) and a third in August/September.
In the listing of 13 specific items from the ministerial round table meeting, item 13 indicates, "Participants at the round table voiced their resounding commitment to and optimism for achieving an agreed outcome at COP 15 that can be ratified by all. The round table provided the opportunity to lay the foundations for further work on the components of an agreed outcome. Further, it sent a clear message regarding the need to continue to build momentum on the many points of convergence among all nations. The current financial and economic crisis should not weaken the determination to undertake decisive action."
On December 11, Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs and Head of the U.S. Delegation; James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; Harlan Watson, Alternate Head of the U.S. Delegation; and Daniel Reifsnyder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development held a press briefing. Dobriansky said, "We are working to ensure an efficient and effective handoff of responsibilities to the incoming administration in the United States, and part of that has involved making sure that many of our talented career officials -- who will remain in their positions -- are front and center here in Poznan. And that’s why I’m very delighted that we’re joined here by Dan Reifsnyder, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development, a real veteran of climate change negotiations from the late ‘80s to the present time. . . we’ve laid a solid foundation here in Poznan and, most importantly, it looks like we’re on track to agree to a comprehensive and flexible work plan going forward, including a transition to intensive negotiations in 2009."
Reifsnyder said briefly about his role in carrying on with the new Obama Administration, "I think I’m the bridge to the future, and I’m also the bridge to the past, having been here on this issue since 1989. I was thinking today that this will be my ninth transition in working for the federal government, and my fifth transition working on the climate issue. So I’ve seen a lot over the years. It’s been very interesting. I would characterize this transition so far as very smooth, collegial, and cooperative. "
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access links to documents of decisions adopted by COP 14 and CMP 4 (click here). Access a report on the informal ministerial round table on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action -- revised summary by the chair (click here). Access the link to the important background paper (FCCC/CP/2008/6) prepared with the objective of facilitating an optimal outcome of the ministerial round table, the first ministerial debate on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to related information (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access the transcript from the U.S. December 11 press briefing (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage and a 20-page summary from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
The President of the conference, Polish Minister of the Environment Maciej Nowicki said, “We will now move to the next level of negotiations, which involves crafting a concrete negotiating text for the agreed outcome. Parties agreed that a first draft of the text would be available at a UNFCCC gathering in Bonn in June of 2009. In addition to having agreed [on] the work programme for next year, we have cleared the decks of many technical issues. Poznań is the place where the partnership between the developing and developed world to fight climate change has shifted beyond rhetoric and turned into real action. In that spirit, at Poznań, the finishing touches were put to the Kyoto Protocol’s adaptation fund, thereby enabling the fund to receive projects in the course of 2009. Parties agreed that the fund (Clean Development Mechanism, CDM), fed by a share of proceeds from the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism and voluntary contributions, would have a legal capacity granting developing countries direct access."
However, the release indicates that the Parties were unable to reach consensus on scaling up funding for adaptation by agreeing to put a levy on the other two Kyoto mechanisms, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading. Together with decisions aimed at streamlining and speeding up the CDM, Parties asked the CDM Executive Board to explore procedures and methodologies that would enhance regional and sub-regional distribution of projects. Parties also asked the Board to assess the implications of including carbon capture and storage projects and extending the eligibility criteria for afforestation and reforestation projects.
Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC indicated that a key event at the conference was a ministerial round table on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action on climate change. He said, “Governments have sent a strong political signal that despite the financial and economic crisis, significant funds can be mobilized for both mitigation and adaptation in developing countries with the help of a clever financial architecture and the institutions to deliver the financial support. We now have a much clearer sense of where we need to go in designing an outcome which will spell out the commitments of developed countries, the financial support required and the institutions that will deliver that support as part of the Copenhagen outcome."
The release states that countries meeting in Poznań made progress on a number of issues that are important in the short run - up to 2012 - particularly for developing countries, including adaptation, finance, technology and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. In addition , the conference discussed in detail the issue of disaster management, risk assessment and insurance, essential to help developing countries cope with the inevitable effects of climate change.
Governments meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agreed that commitments of industrialized countries post-2012 should principally take the form of quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, in line with the type of emission reduction targets they have assumed for the first commitment period of the protocol. In addition to the major COP/CMP meeting in Copenhagen (December 7-18, 2009), at least four other significant UNFCCC meetings will take place next year -- the first two in Bonn, Germany (March 29-April 08, and June 1-12 ) and a third in August/September.
In the listing of 13 specific items from the ministerial round table meeting, item 13 indicates, "Participants at the round table voiced their resounding commitment to and optimism for achieving an agreed outcome at COP 15 that can be ratified by all. The round table provided the opportunity to lay the foundations for further work on the components of an agreed outcome. Further, it sent a clear message regarding the need to continue to build momentum on the many points of convergence among all nations. The current financial and economic crisis should not weaken the determination to undertake decisive action."
On December 11, Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs and Head of the U.S. Delegation; James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; Harlan Watson, Alternate Head of the U.S. Delegation; and Daniel Reifsnyder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development held a press briefing. Dobriansky said, "We are working to ensure an efficient and effective handoff of responsibilities to the incoming administration in the United States, and part of that has involved making sure that many of our talented career officials -- who will remain in their positions -- are front and center here in Poznan. And that’s why I’m very delighted that we’re joined here by Dan Reifsnyder, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development, a real veteran of climate change negotiations from the late ‘80s to the present time. . . we’ve laid a solid foundation here in Poznan and, most importantly, it looks like we’re on track to agree to a comprehensive and flexible work plan going forward, including a transition to intensive negotiations in 2009."
Reifsnyder said briefly about his role in carrying on with the new Obama Administration, "I think I’m the bridge to the future, and I’m also the bridge to the past, having been here on this issue since 1989. I was thinking today that this will be my ninth transition in working for the federal government, and my fifth transition working on the climate issue. So I’ve seen a lot over the years. It’s been very interesting. I would characterize this transition so far as very smooth, collegial, and cooperative. "
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access links to documents of decisions adopted by COP 14 and CMP 4 (click here). Access a report on the informal ministerial round table on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action -- revised summary by the chair (click here). Access the link to the important background paper (FCCC/CP/2008/6) prepared with the objective of facilitating an optimal outcome of the ministerial round table, the first ministerial debate on a shared vision for long-term cooperative action (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to related information (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access the transcript from the U.S. December 11 press briefing (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage and a 20-page summary from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, December 12, 2008
Auto Bucks Stop On President Bush's Desk
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]
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]
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]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
