Oct 21: The Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of India have signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Cooperation on Addressing Climate Change. The MOA was signed in India by the Minister of State for Environment and Forests Shri Jairam Ramesh and Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman, Minister, National Development and Reform Commission, China. According to a release, the Agreement would strengthen the cooperative activities between China and India on mitigation, programmes, projects, technology development and demonstration relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction including energy conservation efficiency, renewable energies, clean coal, methane recovery and utilization, afforestation and sustainable management of forests and ecosystems, transportation and sustainable habitat.
According to the MOA the two nations are, "Desirous of further promoting friendship between India and China, Acknowledging that climate change and its adverse effects are the common concern of humankind, which need to be addressed through international co-operation, Emphasizing that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol are the most appropriate framework for addressing climate change, Reaffirming the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, in particular that developed countries should take the lead in and continue to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and providing financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building support to developing countries, Noting that India and China have announced their National Action Plans on Climate Change to achieve a sustainable development path which provides, inter alia, for international cooperation for research, development, sharing and transfer of technologies in relation to climate change, Determined to enhance dialogue, communication and pragmatic bilateral cooperation between the Two Sides in addressing climate change . . ."
The agreement indicates that the Two Sides agree to establish the India-China Partnership on Combating Climate Change; agree to establish an India- China Working Group on Climate Change; agree to strengthen their exchange of views and cooperation, inter alia, on mitigation policies, programmes, projects, technology development and demonstration relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction; and agree to strengthen their cooperation in basic capacity building.
According to a report in China View, "China and India shared extensive common interests in tackling the climate change [and] the two countries are newly emerged major developing countries, which are seeking their own development while promoting international cooperation to deal with climate change. . . both countries are important participants of Copenhagen climate change negotiations. Their decisions on enhancing climate change cooperation are not only in their own interests, but also helpful to global efforts in combating climate change."
An article in China Daily, quotes India's Ramesh as saying, "There is no difference between the Indian and Chinese negotiating positions and we are discussing further what the two countries should be doing for a successful outcome at Copenhagen." China's Xie said that the "climate change is the result of unrestricted emission of greenhouse gases by developed countries in two centuries of industrialization. . . both China and India are developing countries and most vulnerable to climate change's adverse effects. Both countries are also in the accelerating stage of industrialization and urbanization and are faced with the multiple tasks of developing economy, wiping out poverty, improving people' s life standard and protecting environment. . .
"As long as China and India further coordinate and cooperation over climate change, they can surely help bring about a solution in negotiations by the international community, which would take into account both environment protection and development of all countries." Xie also said that "while all countries expect UN Copenhagen Climate Summit to be a milestone, the talks are being stalled because some developed countries are trying to minimize their duties on reducing emission and capital and technology transfer."
Bloomberg posted a lengthy article on the India-China deal quoting Olav Roenningen, senior analyst at the carbon markets advisory firm Markedskraft in Arendal, Norway who said, “They’re trying to gain leverage going into Copenhagen and show the world they have other options if the global talks break down." Bloomberg reported, "The New Delhi accord shows how support may be eroding for a global treaty that United Nations negotiators aim to conclude this December in Copenhagen. Led by China and India, developing nations are devising similar regional agreements after failing to convince wealthier countries including the U.S. to share clean-energy technology or to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent in 2020 from 1990 levels."
Access a release and the complete agreement (click here). Access the China View article (click here). Access the China Daily article (click here). Access the Bloomberg article (click here).
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
UNFCCC Releases Latest Industrialized Countries GHG Data
Oct 21: The UN Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, Germany has released the latest data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industrialized countries increased in 2007, which continued the upward trend of the previous six years. According to a release, data submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) show that greenhouse gas emissions of the 40 industrialized countries that have reporting obligations under the Convention rose by 1% from 2006 to 2007. The 2007 emissions of this group of countries are about 4% below 1990 levels. But there was overall a 3% growth in emissions in the period from 2000 to 2007.
For the smaller group of 37 industrialized countries that have targets under the Kyoto Protocol, emissions in 2007 were almost the same as in 2006 (+0.1%). The figure is around 16% below the 1990 Kyoto baseline for industrialized countries with targets. However, UNFCCC notes that much of the reduction comes from the economic decline of economies in transition (countries in eastern and central Europe) in the 1990s and since 2000, the emissions have also been growing for this group (+3%).
Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC said, “The continuing growth of emissions from industrialized countries remains worrying, despite the expectation of a momentary dip brought about by the global recession. So the numbers for 2007 underscore, once again, the urgent need to seal a comprehensive, fair and effective climate change deal in Copenhagen in December.
The UNFCCC secretariat has also released a report with summary data on transactions conducted in 2008 by industrialized countries in the course of implementing the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. According to the data, industrialized countries have 55 billion tonnes of Kyoto Protocol units in their accounts. Some of these units were already traded among countries in 2008, and trading is expected to increase significantly in the coming years.
De Boer said, “It is exciting to see how the carbon market evolved in 2008. I am sure that such data will become more conclusive as we move closer to 2012, the final year of the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and will show how policies and measures of the countries that have ratified the Protocol bear fruit. However, the ultimate size of the carbon market and its effectiveness to reduce global emissions will depend critically on the level of ambition shown by industrialized countries in Copenhagen."
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the Annual compilation and accounting report for 37 Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (click here). Access the Addendum to the Annual compilation and accounting report for 37 Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (click here). Access the National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990 - 2007, Annex I Parties (click here). Access a Q&A document on relating to the GHG data interface and data availability on the UNFCCC (click here).
For the smaller group of 37 industrialized countries that have targets under the Kyoto Protocol, emissions in 2007 were almost the same as in 2006 (+0.1%). The figure is around 16% below the 1990 Kyoto baseline for industrialized countries with targets. However, UNFCCC notes that much of the reduction comes from the economic decline of economies in transition (countries in eastern and central Europe) in the 1990s and since 2000, the emissions have also been growing for this group (+3%).
Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC said, “The continuing growth of emissions from industrialized countries remains worrying, despite the expectation of a momentary dip brought about by the global recession. So the numbers for 2007 underscore, once again, the urgent need to seal a comprehensive, fair and effective climate change deal in Copenhagen in December.
The UNFCCC secretariat has also released a report with summary data on transactions conducted in 2008 by industrialized countries in the course of implementing the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. According to the data, industrialized countries have 55 billion tonnes of Kyoto Protocol units in their accounts. Some of these units were already traded among countries in 2008, and trading is expected to increase significantly in the coming years.
De Boer said, “It is exciting to see how the carbon market evolved in 2008. I am sure that such data will become more conclusive as we move closer to 2012, the final year of the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and will show how policies and measures of the countries that have ratified the Protocol bear fruit. However, the ultimate size of the carbon market and its effectiveness to reduce global emissions will depend critically on the level of ambition shown by industrialized countries in Copenhagen."
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the Annual compilation and accounting report for 37 Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (click here). Access the Addendum to the Annual compilation and accounting report for 37 Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (click here). Access the National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990 - 2007, Annex I Parties (click here). Access a Q&A document on relating to the GHG data interface and data availability on the UNFCCC (click here).
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
NAS Report Estimates $120+ Billion/Yr. In Hidden Costs Of Energy
Oct 19: A report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) -- Hidden Costs Of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production And Use -- examines and, when possible, estimates "hidden" costs of energy production and use -- such as the damage air pollution imposes on human health -- that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them. The report estimates dollar values for several major components of the costs. The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.
Requested by Congress, the report assesses what economists call external effects caused by various energy sources over their entire life cycle -- for example, not only the pollution generated when gasoline is used to run a car but also the pollution created by extracting and refining oil and transporting fuel to gas stations. Because these effects are not reflected in energy prices, government, businesses and consumers may not realize the full impact of their choices. When such market failures occur, a case can be made for government interventions -- such as regulations, taxes or tradable permits -- to address these external costs, the report says.
The committee that wrote the report focused on monetizing the damage of major air pollutants -- sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter -- on human health, grain crops and timber yields, buildings, and recreation. When possible, it estimated both what the damages were in 2005 (the latest year for which data were available) and what they are likely to be in 2030, assuming current policies continue and new policies already slated for implementation are put in place.
The committee also separately derived a range of values for damages from climate change; the wide range of possibilities for these damages made it impossible to develop precise estimates of cost. However, all model results available to the committee indicate that climate-related damages caused by each ton of CO2 emissions will be far worse in 2030 than now; even if the total amount of annual emissions remains steady, the damages caused by each ton would increase 50 percent to 80 percent.
Coal accounts for about half the electricity produced in the U.S. In 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants, which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity, were about $62 billion; these nonclimate damages average about 3.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour (kwh) of energy produced. A relatively small number of plants -- 10 percent of the total number -- accounted for 43 percent of the damages. By 2030, nonclimate damages are estimated to fall to 1.7 cents per kwh. Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., emitting on average about a ton of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. Climate-related monetary damages range from 0.1 cents to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, based on previous modeling studies.
Burning natural gas generated far less damage than coal, both overall and per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. A sample of 498 natural gas fueled plants, which accounted for 71 percent of gas-generated electricity, produced $740 million in total nonclimate damages in 2005, an average of 0.16 cents per kwh. As with coal, there was a vast difference among plants; half the plants account for only 4 percent of the total nonclimate damages from air pollution, while 10 percent produce 65 percent of the damages. By 2030, nonclimate damages are estimated to fall to 0.11 cents per kwh. Estimated climate damages from natural gas were half that of coal, ranging from 0.05 cents to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The life-cycle damages of wind power, which produces just over 1 percent of U.S. electricity but has large growth potential, are small compared with those from coal and natural gas. So are the damages associated with normal operation of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors, which provide almost 20 percent of the country’s electricity. The report indicates, however, that the life cycle of nuclear power does pose some risks; if uranium mining activities contaminate ground or surface water, for example, people could potentially be exposed to radon or other radionuclides; this risk is borne mostly by other nations, the report says, because the U.S. mines only 5 percent of the world’s uranium. The potential risks from a proposed long-term facility for storing high-level radioactive waste need further evaluation before they can be quantified. Life-cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear, wind, biomass, and solar power appear to be negligible when compared with fossil fuels.
The report also looks at the "damages from heating" and the "damages from motor vehicles and fuels." It is estimated that the median damages in residential and commercial buildings were about 11 cents per thousand cubic feet. The committee evaluated damages for a variety of types of vehicles and fuels over their full life cycles, from extracting and transporting the fuel to manufacturing and operating the vehicle. In most cases, operating the vehicle accounted for less than one-third of the quantifiable nonclimate damages.
The report indicates that both for 2005 and 2030, vehicles using gasoline made from oil extracted from tar sands and those using diesel derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process -- which converts coal, methane, or biomass to liquid fuel -- had the highest life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Vehicles using ethanol made from corn stover or herbaceous feedstock such as switchgrass had some of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, as did those powered by compressed natural gas.
Access a lengthy release from NAS (click here). Access links to the full text and an expanded executive summary (click here).
Requested by Congress, the report assesses what economists call external effects caused by various energy sources over their entire life cycle -- for example, not only the pollution generated when gasoline is used to run a car but also the pollution created by extracting and refining oil and transporting fuel to gas stations. Because these effects are not reflected in energy prices, government, businesses and consumers may not realize the full impact of their choices. When such market failures occur, a case can be made for government interventions -- such as regulations, taxes or tradable permits -- to address these external costs, the report says.
The committee that wrote the report focused on monetizing the damage of major air pollutants -- sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter -- on human health, grain crops and timber yields, buildings, and recreation. When possible, it estimated both what the damages were in 2005 (the latest year for which data were available) and what they are likely to be in 2030, assuming current policies continue and new policies already slated for implementation are put in place.
The committee also separately derived a range of values for damages from climate change; the wide range of possibilities for these damages made it impossible to develop precise estimates of cost. However, all model results available to the committee indicate that climate-related damages caused by each ton of CO2 emissions will be far worse in 2030 than now; even if the total amount of annual emissions remains steady, the damages caused by each ton would increase 50 percent to 80 percent.
Coal accounts for about half the electricity produced in the U.S. In 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants, which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity, were about $62 billion; these nonclimate damages average about 3.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour (kwh) of energy produced. A relatively small number of plants -- 10 percent of the total number -- accounted for 43 percent of the damages. By 2030, nonclimate damages are estimated to fall to 1.7 cents per kwh. Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., emitting on average about a ton of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. Climate-related monetary damages range from 0.1 cents to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, based on previous modeling studies.
Burning natural gas generated far less damage than coal, both overall and per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. A sample of 498 natural gas fueled plants, which accounted for 71 percent of gas-generated electricity, produced $740 million in total nonclimate damages in 2005, an average of 0.16 cents per kwh. As with coal, there was a vast difference among plants; half the plants account for only 4 percent of the total nonclimate damages from air pollution, while 10 percent produce 65 percent of the damages. By 2030, nonclimate damages are estimated to fall to 0.11 cents per kwh. Estimated climate damages from natural gas were half that of coal, ranging from 0.05 cents to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The life-cycle damages of wind power, which produces just over 1 percent of U.S. electricity but has large growth potential, are small compared with those from coal and natural gas. So are the damages associated with normal operation of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors, which provide almost 20 percent of the country’s electricity. The report indicates, however, that the life cycle of nuclear power does pose some risks; if uranium mining activities contaminate ground or surface water, for example, people could potentially be exposed to radon or other radionuclides; this risk is borne mostly by other nations, the report says, because the U.S. mines only 5 percent of the world’s uranium. The potential risks from a proposed long-term facility for storing high-level radioactive waste need further evaluation before they can be quantified. Life-cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear, wind, biomass, and solar power appear to be negligible when compared with fossil fuels.
The report also looks at the "damages from heating" and the "damages from motor vehicles and fuels." It is estimated that the median damages in residential and commercial buildings were about 11 cents per thousand cubic feet. The committee evaluated damages for a variety of types of vehicles and fuels over their full life cycles, from extracting and transporting the fuel to manufacturing and operating the vehicle. In most cases, operating the vehicle accounted for less than one-third of the quantifiable nonclimate damages.
The report indicates that both for 2005 and 2030, vehicles using gasoline made from oil extracted from tar sands and those using diesel derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process -- which converts coal, methane, or biomass to liquid fuel -- had the highest life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Vehicles using ethanol made from corn stover or herbaceous feedstock such as switchgrass had some of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, as did those powered by compressed natural gas.
Access a lengthy release from NAS (click here). Access links to the full text and an expanded executive summary (click here).
Monday, October 19, 2009
Major Economies Forum Meets In London
Oct 19: UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) meeting in London on October 18-19, "In every era there are only one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history -- because they change the course of history. Copenhagen must be such a time. There are now fewer than fifty days to set the course of the next fifty years and more. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late."
The MEF consists of the 17 economies that emit the most carbon dioxide waste -- Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the U.K. and the U.S. The London MEF meeting follows two-weeks of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) tension-filled climate negotiations in Bangkok that concluded on October 9 [See WIMS 10/9/09] and precedes an upcoming continuing session in Barcelona on November 2-6 -- all preceding the major meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark December 7-18, just 48 days from now.
Brown continued in his MEF address that, "Only last week we saw new evidence of the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice. And in just 25 years the glaciers in the Himalayas which provide water for three-quarters of a billion people could disappear entirely." He said, "This is the great injustice of climate change: those being hit first and hardest by climate change are those who have done the least to cause it."
Brown indicated, "In just the last few weeks new commitments and announcements have spurred new progress. . . So I believe agreement at Copenhagen is possible. But we must frankly face the plain fact that our negotiators are not getting to agreement quickly enough. Before Copenhagen, there is just one more negotiating week: in Barcelona." Brown outlined what he considers the issues were negotiators "urgently need convergence" on 4 principal issues for any agreement: (1) binding economy-wide caps in the mid-term for developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing ones; (2) finance, including for adaptation, forestry, technology and capacity building; (3) technology co-operation, including specific action plans in areas such as solar power and carbon capture and storage; and (4) and national communications and monitoring, reporting and verification.
Access links to the MEF concluding press conference, PM Brown's statement and related information on the meeting from the official UK government website for activities in the lead up to global climate change negotiations (click here). Access a transcript of an interview with Ed Miliband , UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (click here). Access a Bloomberg article on Todd Stern comments (click here). Access a second Bloomberg article on the possible Obama attendance in Copenhagen (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to information on the Barcelona meetings (click here).
The MEF consists of the 17 economies that emit the most carbon dioxide waste -- Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the U.K. and the U.S. The London MEF meeting follows two-weeks of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) tension-filled climate negotiations in Bangkok that concluded on October 9 [See WIMS 10/9/09] and precedes an upcoming continuing session in Barcelona on November 2-6 -- all preceding the major meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark December 7-18, just 48 days from now.
Brown continued in his MEF address that, "Only last week we saw new evidence of the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice. And in just 25 years the glaciers in the Himalayas which provide water for three-quarters of a billion people could disappear entirely." He said, "This is the great injustice of climate change: those being hit first and hardest by climate change are those who have done the least to cause it."
Brown indicated, "In just the last few weeks new commitments and announcements have spurred new progress. . . So I believe agreement at Copenhagen is possible. But we must frankly face the plain fact that our negotiators are not getting to agreement quickly enough. Before Copenhagen, there is just one more negotiating week: in Barcelona." Brown outlined what he considers the issues were negotiators "urgently need convergence" on 4 principal issues for any agreement: (1) binding economy-wide caps in the mid-term for developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing ones; (2) finance, including for adaptation, forestry, technology and capacity building; (3) technology co-operation, including specific action plans in areas such as solar power and carbon capture and storage; and (4) and national communications and monitoring, reporting and verification.
Access links to the MEF concluding press conference, PM Brown's statement and related information on the meeting from the official UK government website for activities in the lead up to global climate change negotiations (click here). Access a transcript of an interview with Ed Miliband , UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (click here). Access a Bloomberg article on Todd Stern comments (click here). Access a second Bloomberg article on the possible Obama attendance in Copenhagen (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to information on the Barcelona meetings (click here).
Friday, October 16, 2009
Recommitting To The Clean Water Act After 37 Years
Oct 15: The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Chaired by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) held a hearing entitled, The Clean Water Act after 37 Years: Recommitting to the Protection of the Nation's Waters. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson; and representatives from the: Sandy Hook Waterman’s Alliance; American Nurses Association; Government Accountability Office (GAO); EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG); Environmental Council of the States; Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators; Environment America; Tulane University and Erb Institute, University of Michigan; Environmental Integrity Project; and a resident of the Town of Luxemburg in Kewaunee County Wisconsin. Full Committee Chair Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) and Representative Johnson both issued opening statements.
Chairman Oberstar opened the hearing stating, "Our charge today is to examine the implementation and effectiveness of the Clean Water Act as it stands in 2009. In doing so, we must distinguish between those goals met and unmet – and explore the reasons why. Nearly two years ago, we gathered in this room to celebrate the 35th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. That was a hearing of great personal significance to me. As many of you know, I was a staffer on the Committee on Public Works and Transportation when Congress overrode President Nixon’s veto to pass the Clean Water Act into law in 1972."
He continued, "Regrettably, we are faced today with a situation where these elements are incomplete and eroding, and as one might expect, it appears that we are losing ground with respect to the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act. . . I assure you, without an effective enforcement program, run by both the states and EPA, we will not fulfill the central goals of the Clean Water Act."
Representative Oberstar outlined three major questions which he said he would like to have answered: (1) Are we effectively using the tools given to us by the Clean Water Act to achieve our water quality goals? (2) Do we currently have a credible state and federal enforcement program that will help us protect the environment and public health? And, (3) is there a level playing field for environmental compliance – both to ensure fair treatment of facilities covered under the Clean Water Act, as well as to ensure consistent protection of the nation’s waters and public health.
EPA Administrator Jackson used the hearing to announce that the agency is stepping up its efforts on Clean Water Act enforcement. She indicated that the "Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan" is a first step in revamping the compliance and enforcement program. It seeks to improve the protection of the nation’s water quality, raise the bar in Federal and state performance and enhance public transparency. She said, “The safety of the water that we use in our homes -- the water we drink and give to our children -- is of paramount importance to our health and our environment. Having clean and safe water in our communities is a right that should be guaranteed for all Americans. Updating our efforts under the Clean Water Act will promote innovative solutions for 21st century water challenges, build stronger ties between EPA, state, and local actions, and provide the transparency the public rightfully expects.”
EPA's plan outlines how the Agency will strengthen the way it addresses the water pollution challenges of this century. EPA said the challenges include pollution caused by numerous, dispersed sources, such as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), sewer overflows, contaminated water that flows from industrial facilities, construction sites, and runoff from urban streets. The goals of the plan are to target enforcement to the most significant pollution problems, improve transparency and accountability by providing the public with access to better data on the water quality in their communities, and strengthen enforcement performance at the state and federal levels.
Elements of the plan include the following: (1) Develop more comprehensive approaches to ensure enforcement is targeted to the most serious violations and the most significant sources of pollution. (2) Work with states to ensure greater consistency throughout the country with respect to compliance and water quality. Ensure that states are issuing protective permits and taking enforcement to achieve compliance and remove economic incentives to violate the law. (3) Use 21st century information technology to collect, analyze and use information in new, more efficient ways and to make that information readily accessible to the public. Better tools will help federal and state regulators identify serious compliance problems quickly and take prompt actions to correct them.
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (Honigman), one of the WIMS Corporate Sponsors, has issued an Environmental Alert providing further details on EPA's Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan. Honigman said, "U.S. EPA’s proposed actions have the potential to change the relationship between state regulators and U.S. EPA, change how permits are written and enforced, and make additional information publicly available." [See link below]
GAO released testimony entitled, Longstanding Issues Impact EPA's and States' Enforcement Efforts (GAO-10-165T, October 15, 2009). GAO said that over the last 9 years it has undertaken a number of reviews of EPA’s environmental enforcement activities, including for the Clean Water Act. GAO said it was asked to summarize the results of five prior reports on the effectiveness of EPA’s enforcement program. Specifically, GAO statement includes information on the (1) factors that cause variations in enforcement activities and lead to inconsistencies across regions, (2) impact that inadequate resources and work force planning has had on enforcement, (3) efforts EPA has taken to improve priority planning, and (4) accuracy and transparency of measures of program effectiveness. GAO said its "prior recommendations have included the need for EPA to collect more complete and reliable data, develop improved guidance, and better performance measures. Although EPA has generally agreed with these recommendations, its implementation has been uneven."
Access the hearing website for an 8-page background document, a webcast and links to all testimony and opening statements (click here). Access a release from EPA and link to the details of the Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan (click here). Access the Honigman Environmental Law Department website for more information (click here). Access information on becoming a WIMS Corporate Sponsor (click here).
Chairman Oberstar opened the hearing stating, "Our charge today is to examine the implementation and effectiveness of the Clean Water Act as it stands in 2009. In doing so, we must distinguish between those goals met and unmet – and explore the reasons why. Nearly two years ago, we gathered in this room to celebrate the 35th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. That was a hearing of great personal significance to me. As many of you know, I was a staffer on the Committee on Public Works and Transportation when Congress overrode President Nixon’s veto to pass the Clean Water Act into law in 1972."
He continued, "Regrettably, we are faced today with a situation where these elements are incomplete and eroding, and as one might expect, it appears that we are losing ground with respect to the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act. . . I assure you, without an effective enforcement program, run by both the states and EPA, we will not fulfill the central goals of the Clean Water Act."
Representative Oberstar outlined three major questions which he said he would like to have answered: (1) Are we effectively using the tools given to us by the Clean Water Act to achieve our water quality goals? (2) Do we currently have a credible state and federal enforcement program that will help us protect the environment and public health? And, (3) is there a level playing field for environmental compliance – both to ensure fair treatment of facilities covered under the Clean Water Act, as well as to ensure consistent protection of the nation’s waters and public health.
EPA Administrator Jackson used the hearing to announce that the agency is stepping up its efforts on Clean Water Act enforcement. She indicated that the "Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan" is a first step in revamping the compliance and enforcement program. It seeks to improve the protection of the nation’s water quality, raise the bar in Federal and state performance and enhance public transparency. She said, “The safety of the water that we use in our homes -- the water we drink and give to our children -- is of paramount importance to our health and our environment. Having clean and safe water in our communities is a right that should be guaranteed for all Americans. Updating our efforts under the Clean Water Act will promote innovative solutions for 21st century water challenges, build stronger ties between EPA, state, and local actions, and provide the transparency the public rightfully expects.”
EPA's plan outlines how the Agency will strengthen the way it addresses the water pollution challenges of this century. EPA said the challenges include pollution caused by numerous, dispersed sources, such as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), sewer overflows, contaminated water that flows from industrial facilities, construction sites, and runoff from urban streets. The goals of the plan are to target enforcement to the most significant pollution problems, improve transparency and accountability by providing the public with access to better data on the water quality in their communities, and strengthen enforcement performance at the state and federal levels.
Elements of the plan include the following: (1) Develop more comprehensive approaches to ensure enforcement is targeted to the most serious violations and the most significant sources of pollution. (2) Work with states to ensure greater consistency throughout the country with respect to compliance and water quality. Ensure that states are issuing protective permits and taking enforcement to achieve compliance and remove economic incentives to violate the law. (3) Use 21st century information technology to collect, analyze and use information in new, more efficient ways and to make that information readily accessible to the public. Better tools will help federal and state regulators identify serious compliance problems quickly and take prompt actions to correct them.
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (Honigman), one of the WIMS Corporate Sponsors, has issued an Environmental Alert providing further details on EPA's Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan. Honigman said, "U.S. EPA’s proposed actions have the potential to change the relationship between state regulators and U.S. EPA, change how permits are written and enforced, and make additional information publicly available." [See link below]
GAO released testimony entitled, Longstanding Issues Impact EPA's and States' Enforcement Efforts (GAO-10-165T, October 15, 2009). GAO said that over the last 9 years it has undertaken a number of reviews of EPA’s environmental enforcement activities, including for the Clean Water Act. GAO said it was asked to summarize the results of five prior reports on the effectiveness of EPA’s enforcement program. Specifically, GAO statement includes information on the (1) factors that cause variations in enforcement activities and lead to inconsistencies across regions, (2) impact that inadequate resources and work force planning has had on enforcement, (3) efforts EPA has taken to improve priority planning, and (4) accuracy and transparency of measures of program effectiveness. GAO said its "prior recommendations have included the need for EPA to collect more complete and reliable data, develop improved guidance, and better performance measures. Although EPA has generally agreed with these recommendations, its implementation has been uneven."
Access the hearing website for an 8-page background document, a webcast and links to all testimony and opening statements (click here). Access a release from EPA and link to the details of the Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan (click here). Access the Honigman Environmental Law Department website for more information (click here). Access information on becoming a WIMS Corporate Sponsor (click here).
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Senate Hearings Explore Climate Change Cost & Compromise
Oct 14: While the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) has announced its schedule for considering climate change legislation including critical testimony during the week of October 27, and a Committee markup in early November [See WIMS 10/14/09], the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee (ENR), Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is also conducting a series of climate change hearings.
On October 14, ENR held a hearing on the economic effects of global climate change legislation which included testimony from experts from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and U.S. EPA on energy and related economic effects of global climate change legislation [See details below]. On October 21, ENR has scheduled another in its series of hearings on energy and climate change. The focal point will be on costs and benefits for energy consumers and energy prices associated with the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances.
On September 15, ENR examined potential costs and price volatility in the energy sector as a result of a greenhouse gas trading program, plus ways to reduce/contain those costs [See WIMS 9/16/09]. Also, on June 17, 2009, the ENR approved on a voted 15 to 8 to a bipartisan energy bill that was several months in the making. The bill, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462) was based on six major bills -- all with bipartisan sponsorship -- and five other bills with either Republican or Democratic sponsorship that were introduced in this session of Congress [See WIMS 6/17/09].
The October 14, ENR hearing included testimony from CBO, EIA, CRS and U.S. EPA. Chairman Bingaman indicated in an opening comment, “As the Senate continues to consider ways to deal with the global environmental problem of climate change, much of the discussion centers around the overall costs and benefits of such a program, and how the costs and benefits will be distributed throughout our economy. Addressing the issue of climate change will require a radical transformation of our energy sector, so this Committee will continue to take a great interest in this topic in the months ahead. . . in today’s hearing we will receive testimony on the various economic models and analyses of the American Clean Energy Security Act, or ACES, that was passed by the House of Representatives this past June.
“While no one can say for certain what the future holds, scientific and economic models can be used as tools to approximate reality and help us understand how the environment, or the economy, may react to policies we enact. Models can be very useful tools for estimating what a particular program may cost, showing how particular goals may be best achieved, and revealing where the economy may be most sensitive to the choices we make. They are imperfect tools, however, and models have often been used or manipulated to make a pre-determined point and show favorable or unfavorable results for any given policy. . .
“In the case of cap-and-trade programs and climate legislation, we can use real-world experiences alongside model analysis to keep us grounded in reality. For example, the cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide set up by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was an unprecedented environmental success in combating acid rain, and cost only about a quarter of the price that economic models were projecting. The greenhouse gas emissions trading program in Europe has shown that emissions trading can be successful at reducing emissions without having a disastrous effect on the economy. While it is true that the European Emissions Trading program experienced significant volatility in its initial, experimental phase, they have learned from their trial period and made important improvements to their system. We should keep these experiences in mind as we consider projections for the future under cap-and-trade. Today the witnesses will explain the strengths and weaknesses of the different models that have been used to analyze the ACES legislation . . .”
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ENR Ranking Member issued a statement saying, “We must ensure that climate change does not endanger our recovery, and we must seek to reduce energy prices, not drive them up. . . Economic assessments of climate change bills vary greatly. However, every analyses projects two things in common: higher energy prices and lower economic growth. The proposals before us will affect not only climate change, but every facet of our economy for decades to come. It’s incredibly difficult to conduct a sensitive and comprehensive analysis of climate change bills, but it’s equally important to know how those bills might work and what they may cost.”
Senator Murkowski also noted that she hoped the framework for climate policy laid out by Senators John Kerry (D-MA), and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), would mark a turning point in the climate debate. Referring to an October 11, op-ed published in the New York Times entitled, "Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)," by Senators Kerry and Graham; Murkowski said, “They wrote a column, not a bill, and I do believe it could be improved. But in my opinion, the framework they laid out in those 1,000 words is already better than the policies it took the House 1,400 pages to impose. Instead of cutting emissions at any cost, we should be working on policy that incorporates the best ideas of both parties -- a policy that accounts for our near-term energy needs, limits costs, and is flexible enough to work under different economic circumstances." In closing, Murkowski indicated she "supports addressing climate change in an economically safe and environmentally meaningful way."
The "Yes We Can. . ." column by Senators Kerry and Graham, indicated in part, ". . .we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. . . Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now -- with a road to 60 votes in the Senate. . ." In should be noted that Senator Graham was severely criticized by conservatives at a townhall meeting following the op-ed for "jumping in bed with" Senator Kerry.
The op-ed indicates that the two Senators are agreeing on the following: (1) that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security; (2) while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power; (3) climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil; (4) recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels; (5) committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration; (6) cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas and should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid environmental standards; and (7) developing a mechanism to protect businesses -- and ultimately consumers -- from increases in energy prices.
The Senators conclude, "The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action. We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. . ."
Access the ENR October 14 hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access a release from Sen. Bingaman (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the compete op-ed from Sens. Kerry & Graham (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1462 (click here).
On October 14, ENR held a hearing on the economic effects of global climate change legislation which included testimony from experts from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and U.S. EPA on energy and related economic effects of global climate change legislation [See details below]. On October 21, ENR has scheduled another in its series of hearings on energy and climate change. The focal point will be on costs and benefits for energy consumers and energy prices associated with the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances.
On September 15, ENR examined potential costs and price volatility in the energy sector as a result of a greenhouse gas trading program, plus ways to reduce/contain those costs [See WIMS 9/16/09]. Also, on June 17, 2009, the ENR approved on a voted 15 to 8 to a bipartisan energy bill that was several months in the making. The bill, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462) was based on six major bills -- all with bipartisan sponsorship -- and five other bills with either Republican or Democratic sponsorship that were introduced in this session of Congress [See WIMS 6/17/09].
The October 14, ENR hearing included testimony from CBO, EIA, CRS and U.S. EPA. Chairman Bingaman indicated in an opening comment, “As the Senate continues to consider ways to deal with the global environmental problem of climate change, much of the discussion centers around the overall costs and benefits of such a program, and how the costs and benefits will be distributed throughout our economy. Addressing the issue of climate change will require a radical transformation of our energy sector, so this Committee will continue to take a great interest in this topic in the months ahead. . . in today’s hearing we will receive testimony on the various economic models and analyses of the American Clean Energy Security Act, or ACES, that was passed by the House of Representatives this past June.
“While no one can say for certain what the future holds, scientific and economic models can be used as tools to approximate reality and help us understand how the environment, or the economy, may react to policies we enact. Models can be very useful tools for estimating what a particular program may cost, showing how particular goals may be best achieved, and revealing where the economy may be most sensitive to the choices we make. They are imperfect tools, however, and models have often been used or manipulated to make a pre-determined point and show favorable or unfavorable results for any given policy. . .
“In the case of cap-and-trade programs and climate legislation, we can use real-world experiences alongside model analysis to keep us grounded in reality. For example, the cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide set up by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was an unprecedented environmental success in combating acid rain, and cost only about a quarter of the price that economic models were projecting. The greenhouse gas emissions trading program in Europe has shown that emissions trading can be successful at reducing emissions without having a disastrous effect on the economy. While it is true that the European Emissions Trading program experienced significant volatility in its initial, experimental phase, they have learned from their trial period and made important improvements to their system. We should keep these experiences in mind as we consider projections for the future under cap-and-trade. Today the witnesses will explain the strengths and weaknesses of the different models that have been used to analyze the ACES legislation . . .”
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ENR Ranking Member issued a statement saying, “We must ensure that climate change does not endanger our recovery, and we must seek to reduce energy prices, not drive them up. . . Economic assessments of climate change bills vary greatly. However, every analyses projects two things in common: higher energy prices and lower economic growth. The proposals before us will affect not only climate change, but every facet of our economy for decades to come. It’s incredibly difficult to conduct a sensitive and comprehensive analysis of climate change bills, but it’s equally important to know how those bills might work and what they may cost.”
Senator Murkowski also noted that she hoped the framework for climate policy laid out by Senators John Kerry (D-MA), and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), would mark a turning point in the climate debate. Referring to an October 11, op-ed published in the New York Times entitled, "Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)," by Senators Kerry and Graham; Murkowski said, “They wrote a column, not a bill, and I do believe it could be improved. But in my opinion, the framework they laid out in those 1,000 words is already better than the policies it took the House 1,400 pages to impose. Instead of cutting emissions at any cost, we should be working on policy that incorporates the best ideas of both parties -- a policy that accounts for our near-term energy needs, limits costs, and is flexible enough to work under different economic circumstances." In closing, Murkowski indicated she "supports addressing climate change in an economically safe and environmentally meaningful way."
The "Yes We Can. . ." column by Senators Kerry and Graham, indicated in part, ". . .we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. . . Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now -- with a road to 60 votes in the Senate. . ." In should be noted that Senator Graham was severely criticized by conservatives at a townhall meeting following the op-ed for "jumping in bed with" Senator Kerry.
The op-ed indicates that the two Senators are agreeing on the following: (1) that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security; (2) while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power; (3) climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil; (4) recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels; (5) committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration; (6) cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas and should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid environmental standards; and (7) developing a mechanism to protect businesses -- and ultimately consumers -- from increases in energy prices.
The Senators conclude, "The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action. We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. . ."
Access the ENR October 14 hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access a release from Sen. Bingaman (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the compete op-ed from Sens. Kerry & Graham (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1462 (click here).
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Sen. Boxer Sets Stage For Climate & Energy Bill Consideration
Oct 13: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, held a press conference and issued a statement regarding further legislative actions on the Boxer-Kerry Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act (S. 1733) [See WIMS 9/30/09]. Boxer said, "I am here today to bring you up to date on our effort to report a strong clean energy jobs bill to the full Senate as soon as possible." The Committee will hear testimony during the week of October 27, and a Committee markup could be held the week of November 2 or November 9.
Senator Boxer continued, "Members of the Committee and their staff, along with the EPW Committee staff, have been working day and night since the bill was introduced, and we have made great progress on the Chairman's Mark for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Draft provisions of the Chairman's Mark have been sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for analysis. We expect the EPA's analysis to be completed in time for legislative hearings later this month.
"We will begin a week of intensive legislative hearings on S. 1733 and the Chairman's Mark on Tuesday, October 27. We will hold hearings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday that week. At our first hearing, on Tuesday, October 27th at 9:30 AM, we will hear testimony from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, before our full Committee. The complete schedule for Wednesday's and Thursday's legislative hearings will be announced shortly.
"We will schedule a full Committee markup of the bill as soon as possible after our hearings. I am pleased to report we are continuing to expand support for our bill. Momentum for this effort is growing every day, and we are broadening and deepening our coalition with each step in the process. At the September 30 press conference where we introduced the bill, we were joined by a powerful and diverse coalition of organizations and constituencies united in their strong support for action to create clean energy jobs, increase our energy independence, strengthen our national and economic security, and protect our children and our planet from dangerous pollution.
"Standing with us on that stage were business leaders, national security experts and veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Governors, mayors and other state and local officials were represented, as well as energy companies, labor unions, environmental organizations, entrepreneurs, and more. Since then, I can report that Evangelical groups and other religious communities have expressed their commitment to help us move the bill quickly. All of this adds up to growing momentum toward a successful vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee."
Access a release and link to an audio of the press conference (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1733 (click here).
Senator Boxer continued, "Members of the Committee and their staff, along with the EPW Committee staff, have been working day and night since the bill was introduced, and we have made great progress on the Chairman's Mark for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Draft provisions of the Chairman's Mark have been sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for analysis. We expect the EPA's analysis to be completed in time for legislative hearings later this month.
"We will begin a week of intensive legislative hearings on S. 1733 and the Chairman's Mark on Tuesday, October 27. We will hold hearings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday that week. At our first hearing, on Tuesday, October 27th at 9:30 AM, we will hear testimony from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, before our full Committee. The complete schedule for Wednesday's and Thursday's legislative hearings will be announced shortly.
"We will schedule a full Committee markup of the bill as soon as possible after our hearings. I am pleased to report we are continuing to expand support for our bill. Momentum for this effort is growing every day, and we are broadening and deepening our coalition with each step in the process. At the September 30 press conference where we introduced the bill, we were joined by a powerful and diverse coalition of organizations and constituencies united in their strong support for action to create clean energy jobs, increase our energy independence, strengthen our national and economic security, and protect our children and our planet from dangerous pollution.
"Standing with us on that stage were business leaders, national security experts and veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Governors, mayors and other state and local officials were represented, as well as energy companies, labor unions, environmental organizations, entrepreneurs, and more. Since then, I can report that Evangelical groups and other religious communities have expressed their commitment to help us move the bill quickly. All of this adds up to growing momentum toward a successful vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee."
Access a release and link to an audio of the press conference (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1733 (click here).
Friday, October 09, 2009
Bangkok Climate Negotiations End In Tensions & Turmoil
Oct 9: The two-week climate negotiations in Bangkok concluded with the US climate negotiator saying it will be "extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to commit to a specific number"; some developing countries walking out of the negotiations and accusing the EU of attempting to kill the Kyoto Protocol; and no clarity on finance and mid-term emission reduction targets. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer attempted to put a positive spin on the meetings saying, “A will has emerged in Bangkok to build the architecture to rapidly implement climate action; but, significant differences remain. In December, citizens everywhere in the world will have a right to know exactly what their governments will do to prevent dangerous climate change. It is time now to step back from self interest and let the common interest prevail.”
Tensions were already running high at the end of week one of the meetings as 180 countries met in Bangkok, Thailand at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings of two working groups -- the first part of the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP); and the first part of the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) [See WIMS 10/5/09]. Now, it appears that with just 58 days to go until the major meeting in Copenhagen, frustration levels are rising.
Despite the frustrations, Secretary de Boer reported in a final press briefing that parties made progress on the issues of adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building. He said they also reached agreement on technical issues such as forests and land use, how to assess the global warming potentials of new greenhouse gases and the number of options for strengthening the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
However, he emphasized that little progress was made on the issue of mid-term emission reduction targets for industrialized countries [See WIMS 10/07/09]. And clarity is lacking on the issue of finance that developing countries need to undertake additional actions to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. De Boer said, “A good example with regard to what industrialized countries can do to increase the level of their ambition in the context of an international agreement at Copenhagen is the minus 40% emissions reduction target announced by Norway today.”
The negotiations in Thailand will be followed by five days of pre-Copenhagen negotiations in Barcelona, Spain (November 2-6) before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 7-18). De Boer said, “Negotiators have three weeks back in their capitals to receive guidance from their political leaders to complete their work. Bold leadership must open the roadblocks around the essentials of targets and finance that the negotiators can complete their journey.
UNFCCC points out that one of the beacons to guide discussions identified by heads of state and government meeting in New York in September is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video of the closing press briefing (click here). Access a report on the negotiations from BNA (click here). Access a report from Bloomberg (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access additional links to various media reports on the meetings (click here).
Tensions were already running high at the end of week one of the meetings as 180 countries met in Bangkok, Thailand at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings of two working groups -- the first part of the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP); and the first part of the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) [See WIMS 10/5/09]. Now, it appears that with just 58 days to go until the major meeting in Copenhagen, frustration levels are rising.
Despite the frustrations, Secretary de Boer reported in a final press briefing that parties made progress on the issues of adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building. He said they also reached agreement on technical issues such as forests and land use, how to assess the global warming potentials of new greenhouse gases and the number of options for strengthening the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
However, he emphasized that little progress was made on the issue of mid-term emission reduction targets for industrialized countries [See WIMS 10/07/09]. And clarity is lacking on the issue of finance that developing countries need to undertake additional actions to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. De Boer said, “A good example with regard to what industrialized countries can do to increase the level of their ambition in the context of an international agreement at Copenhagen is the minus 40% emissions reduction target announced by Norway today.”
The negotiations in Thailand will be followed by five days of pre-Copenhagen negotiations in Barcelona, Spain (November 2-6) before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 7-18). De Boer said, “Negotiators have three weeks back in their capitals to receive guidance from their political leaders to complete their work. Bold leadership must open the roadblocks around the essentials of targets and finance that the negotiators can complete their journey.
UNFCCC points out that one of the beacons to guide discussions identified by heads of state and government meeting in New York in September is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video of the closing press briefing (click here). Access a report on the negotiations from BNA (click here). Access a report from Bloomberg (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access additional links to various media reports on the meetings (click here).
Thursday, October 08, 2009
GAO Reports On Mercury Controls At Coal-Fired Power Plants
Oct 8: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Clean Air Act: Mercury Control Technologies at Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Achieved Substantial Emissions Reductions (GAO-10-47, October 8, 2009). The report was prepared at the request of Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) who serves as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety under the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
GAO indicates that the 491 U.S. coal-fired power plants are the largest unregulated industrial source of mercury emissions nationwide, annually emitting about 48 tons of mercury -- a toxic element that poses health threats, including neurological disorders in children. In 2000, U.S. EPA determined that mercury emissions from these sources should be regulated, but the Agency has not set a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, as the Clean Air Act requires. Some power plants, however, must reduce mercury emissions to comply with state regulations or consent decrees.
After managing a long-term mercury control research and development program, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported in 2008 that systems that inject sorbents -- powdery substances to which mercury binds -- into the exhaust from boilers of coal-fired power plants were ready for commercial deployment. Tests of sorbent injection systems, the most mature mercury control technology, were conducted on a variety of coal types and boiler configurations -- that is, on boilers using different air pollution control devices. In this context, GAO was asked to examine (1) reductions achieved by mercury control technologies and the extent of their use at power plants; (2) the cost of mercury control technologies; and, (3) key issues EPA faces in regulating mercury emissions from power plants. GAO obtained data from power plants operating sorbent injection systems.
GAO reports that commercial deployments and 50 DOE and industry tests of sorbent injection systems have achieved, on average, 90 percent reductions in mercury emissions. These systems are being used on 25 boilers at 14 coal-fired plants, enabling them to meet state or other mercury emission requirements -- generally 80 percent to 90 percent reductions. Importantly, the substantial mercury reductions using these systems commercially and in tests were achieved with all three main types of coal and on boiler configurations that exist at nearly three-fourths of U.S. coal-fired power plants.
The cost of the mercury control technologies in use at power plants has varied, depending in large part on decisions regarding compliance with other pollution reduction requirements. The costs of purchasing and installing sorbent injection systems and monitoring equipment have averaged about $3.6 million for the 14 coal-fired boilers operating sorbent systems alone to meet state requirements. The cost is a fraction of the cost of other pollution control devices. When plants also installed a fabric filter device primarily to assist the sorbent injection system in mercury reduction, the average cost of $16 million is still relatively low compared with that of other air pollution control devices. Annual operating costs of sorbent injection systems, which often consist almost entirely of the cost of the sorbent itself, have been, on average, about $675,000. In addition, some plants have incurred other costs, primarily due to lost sales of a coal combustion byproduct -- fly ash -- that plants have sold for commercial use. The carbon in sorbents can render fly ash unusable for certain purposes.
EPA’s decisions on key regulatory issues will have implications for the effectiveness of its mercury emissions standard. In particular, the data EPA decides to use will impact: (1) the emissions reductions it starts with in developing its regulation; (2) whether it will establish varying standards for the three main coal types; and, (3) how the standard will take into account a full range of operating conditions at the plants. These issues can affect the stringency of the MACT standard EPA proposes. For example, if EPA uses data from its 1999 power plant survey as the basis for its mercury standard, the standard could be less stringent than what has been broadly demonstrated in recent commercial deployments and DOE tests of sorbent injection systems at power plants. On July 2, 2009, EPA announced that it would seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget to conduct an information collection request to update existing emissions data, among other things, from power plants.
Access the complete 47-page GAO report (click here).
GAO indicates that the 491 U.S. coal-fired power plants are the largest unregulated industrial source of mercury emissions nationwide, annually emitting about 48 tons of mercury -- a toxic element that poses health threats, including neurological disorders in children. In 2000, U.S. EPA determined that mercury emissions from these sources should be regulated, but the Agency has not set a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, as the Clean Air Act requires. Some power plants, however, must reduce mercury emissions to comply with state regulations or consent decrees.
After managing a long-term mercury control research and development program, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported in 2008 that systems that inject sorbents -- powdery substances to which mercury binds -- into the exhaust from boilers of coal-fired power plants were ready for commercial deployment. Tests of sorbent injection systems, the most mature mercury control technology, were conducted on a variety of coal types and boiler configurations -- that is, on boilers using different air pollution control devices. In this context, GAO was asked to examine (1) reductions achieved by mercury control technologies and the extent of their use at power plants; (2) the cost of mercury control technologies; and, (3) key issues EPA faces in regulating mercury emissions from power plants. GAO obtained data from power plants operating sorbent injection systems.
GAO reports that commercial deployments and 50 DOE and industry tests of sorbent injection systems have achieved, on average, 90 percent reductions in mercury emissions. These systems are being used on 25 boilers at 14 coal-fired plants, enabling them to meet state or other mercury emission requirements -- generally 80 percent to 90 percent reductions. Importantly, the substantial mercury reductions using these systems commercially and in tests were achieved with all three main types of coal and on boiler configurations that exist at nearly three-fourths of U.S. coal-fired power plants.
The cost of the mercury control technologies in use at power plants has varied, depending in large part on decisions regarding compliance with other pollution reduction requirements. The costs of purchasing and installing sorbent injection systems and monitoring equipment have averaged about $3.6 million for the 14 coal-fired boilers operating sorbent systems alone to meet state requirements. The cost is a fraction of the cost of other pollution control devices. When plants also installed a fabric filter device primarily to assist the sorbent injection system in mercury reduction, the average cost of $16 million is still relatively low compared with that of other air pollution control devices. Annual operating costs of sorbent injection systems, which often consist almost entirely of the cost of the sorbent itself, have been, on average, about $675,000. In addition, some plants have incurred other costs, primarily due to lost sales of a coal combustion byproduct -- fly ash -- that plants have sold for commercial use. The carbon in sorbents can render fly ash unusable for certain purposes.
EPA’s decisions on key regulatory issues will have implications for the effectiveness of its mercury emissions standard. In particular, the data EPA decides to use will impact: (1) the emissions reductions it starts with in developing its regulation; (2) whether it will establish varying standards for the three main coal types; and, (3) how the standard will take into account a full range of operating conditions at the plants. These issues can affect the stringency of the MACT standard EPA proposes. For example, if EPA uses data from its 1999 power plant survey as the basis for its mercury standard, the standard could be less stringent than what has been broadly demonstrated in recent commercial deployments and DOE tests of sorbent injection systems at power plants. On July 2, 2009, EPA announced that it would seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget to conduct an information collection request to update existing emissions data, among other things, from power plants.
Access the complete 47-page GAO report (click here).
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Developed Countries GHG Reduction Commitments Fall Short
Oct 6: One of the most contentious arguments in the current international negotiations on climate change is the individual level of commitment from various developed countries to greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions by the 2020 interim deadline and the 2050 long-term deadline. Also contentious is the base year from which the target reductions are measured from -- e.g. from 1990 or 2005, or something else. Underlying the argument is the level of reduction absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change consequences -- i.e. the so-called "tipping point." And, the begging question; if the international community does something less than what is absolutely necessary -- is it worth doing at all.
A new analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI) sheds some insight on the issues. WRI indicates that commitments made by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when added together, fall short of stabilizing global temperatures at a level that averts dangerous climate change. The analysis, Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, examines the pledges made by the European Union, Japan, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Belarus, Ukraine and Canada as negotiations on a new global climate agreement near their climax in Copenhagen this December. Also included is the United States’s emission reductions based on the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives in June.
WRI’s analysis reveals that commitments by these industrialized country parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would result in a 10 to 24 percent reduction of global emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 (the interim target). This is less than the 25 to 40 percent range of emission reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states would be necessary for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450ppm, a level associated with a 52 percent risk of overshooting a two degrees Celsius goal. Both the G8 and the Major Economies Forum - representing the world’s 17 leading economies - recently agreed to a goal of limiting average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
It should be noted, however, that the WRI analysis is based on the 450ppm science; while there is a major sector of interests that believe that number should actually be 350ppm. They (i.e. 350.org) argue that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
350.org indicates, "350 is a relatively new target being discussed in the scientific community, compared to 450ppm or 2 degrees Celsius that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports. Currently many policy-makers, institutions, and NGOs are still supporting targets that are out of date and greatly increase the risk of catastrophic climatic changes. . . the 350 target began to attract more endorsers as new scientific reports and evidence of early impacts made it clear that we are already above the safe level for CO2. In his annual speech, Nobel laureate Al Gore told delegates to the most recent climate negotiating session that we must now ‘toughen our goal’ to 350ppm. . ." The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) also support the 350ppm target. Also, NASA climate scientist James Hansen has issued papers about, and supporting the 350ppm target.
Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s climate and energy program said about the WRI analysis, “Our analysis provides a preliminary picture of where the world is headed in the run-up to Copenhagen. While emission reduction commitments by these countries could have an important and potentially substantial impact, they will not be enough to meet recommendations of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. WRI therefore urges industrialized countries to bring forward more ambitious pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
The WRI report, which covers pledges by countries responsible for 98% of all developed country emissions, uses three metrics to compare country commitments -- per capita reductions, emission intensity reductions, and absolute reductions. The 10 to 24 percent reduction is based on the inclusion or omission of factors, such as changes in land use, forestry data and low vs. high pledges. Other key findings include: (1) The choice of metrics used by countries (such as whether to include offsets, land-use change or forestry emissions) can alter their emission reduction calculations significantly. (2) High regulatory standards and robust accounting rules will be critical to ensure that international emission reductions are real and additional.
Access an overview of the WRI analysis (click here). Access a second overview with highlighted recommendations (click here). Access the complete 23-page analysis with extensive links to sources and background documents and data (click here). Access the 350.org website for extensive background and information on the 350ppm target (click here).
A new analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI) sheds some insight on the issues. WRI indicates that commitments made by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when added together, fall short of stabilizing global temperatures at a level that averts dangerous climate change. The analysis, Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, examines the pledges made by the European Union, Japan, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Belarus, Ukraine and Canada as negotiations on a new global climate agreement near their climax in Copenhagen this December. Also included is the United States’s emission reductions based on the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives in June.
WRI’s analysis reveals that commitments by these industrialized country parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would result in a 10 to 24 percent reduction of global emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 (the interim target). This is less than the 25 to 40 percent range of emission reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states would be necessary for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450ppm, a level associated with a 52 percent risk of overshooting a two degrees Celsius goal. Both the G8 and the Major Economies Forum - representing the world’s 17 leading economies - recently agreed to a goal of limiting average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
It should be noted, however, that the WRI analysis is based on the 450ppm science; while there is a major sector of interests that believe that number should actually be 350ppm. They (i.e. 350.org) argue that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
350.org indicates, "350 is a relatively new target being discussed in the scientific community, compared to 450ppm or 2 degrees Celsius that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports. Currently many policy-makers, institutions, and NGOs are still supporting targets that are out of date and greatly increase the risk of catastrophic climatic changes. . . the 350 target began to attract more endorsers as new scientific reports and evidence of early impacts made it clear that we are already above the safe level for CO2. In his annual speech, Nobel laureate Al Gore told delegates to the most recent climate negotiating session that we must now ‘toughen our goal’ to 350ppm. . ." The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) also support the 350ppm target. Also, NASA climate scientist James Hansen has issued papers about, and supporting the 350ppm target.
Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s climate and energy program said about the WRI analysis, “Our analysis provides a preliminary picture of where the world is headed in the run-up to Copenhagen. While emission reduction commitments by these countries could have an important and potentially substantial impact, they will not be enough to meet recommendations of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. WRI therefore urges industrialized countries to bring forward more ambitious pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
The WRI report, which covers pledges by countries responsible for 98% of all developed country emissions, uses three metrics to compare country commitments -- per capita reductions, emission intensity reductions, and absolute reductions. The 10 to 24 percent reduction is based on the inclusion or omission of factors, such as changes in land use, forestry data and low vs. high pledges. Other key findings include: (1) The choice of metrics used by countries (such as whether to include offsets, land-use change or forestry emissions) can alter their emission reduction calculations significantly. (2) High regulatory standards and robust accounting rules will be critical to ensure that international emission reductions are real and additional.
Access an overview of the WRI analysis (click here). Access a second overview with highlighted recommendations (click here). Access the complete 23-page analysis with extensive links to sources and background documents and data (click here). Access the 350.org website for extensive background and information on the 350ppm target (click here).
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
President's Signs Executive Order On Federal Sustainability
Oct 5: President Obama signed a new Executive Order on Federal Sustainability. The Executive Order (EO) challenges agencies to lead by example in energy and environmental performance and gives them 90 days to set a 2020 greenhouse reduction goal. It also sets targets for efficient, sustainable buildings, petroleum use reduction in fleets, water efficiency, waste reduction, purchasing green technologies and product, and supporting sustainable communities.
According to a blog post by Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), "By fulfilling the Executive Order, the Federal government will demonstrate that economic performance and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand. And by putting Federal purchasing power to work -- more than $500 billion per year in goods and services -- the government can build on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help turn good entrepreneurial ideas into great American enterprises that create jobs.
According to a release from the White House, the President said, "As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies. This Executive Order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the Federal government’s commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money."
The Federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. The Executive Order builds on and expands the energy reduction and environmental requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority of the Federal government, and by requiring agencies to develop sustainability plans focused on cost-effective projects and programs.
The new EO requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets. It describes a process by which agency goals will be set and reported to the President by the Chair of CEQ. The Executive Order also requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including: 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020; 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020; 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015; 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements; Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement; Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and U.S. EPA.
Access the White House blog post (click here). Access the release from the White House (click here). Access the 15-page EO (click here).
According to a blog post by Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), "By fulfilling the Executive Order, the Federal government will demonstrate that economic performance and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand. And by putting Federal purchasing power to work -- more than $500 billion per year in goods and services -- the government can build on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help turn good entrepreneurial ideas into great American enterprises that create jobs.
According to a release from the White House, the President said, "As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies. This Executive Order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the Federal government’s commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money."
The Federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. The Executive Order builds on and expands the energy reduction and environmental requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority of the Federal government, and by requiring agencies to develop sustainability plans focused on cost-effective projects and programs.
The new EO requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets. It describes a process by which agency goals will be set and reported to the President by the Chair of CEQ. The Executive Order also requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including: 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020; 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020; 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015; 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements; Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement; Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and U.S. EPA.
Access the White House blog post (click here). Access the release from the White House (click here). Access the 15-page EO (click here).
Monday, October 05, 2009
Expectations Dim; Tensions Mount In Climate Negotiations
Oct 2: At a Washington, DC "ideas forum" known as the First Draft of History, sponsored by the Atlantic magazine, Carol Browner, the White House climate chief offered some interesting insights into the Administration's thinking and expectations on climate change legislation in advance of the international meeting in Copenhagen in December. On the critical question of whether the White House expect to have climate change legislation by the end of the year or before Copenhagen, Browner said, "Obviously, we'd like to be through the process. However the chance of having a bill signed by the President and ready to go to Copenhagen. . . That's not likely to happen. But we could perhaps be out of committee... We could be out headed to the floor, there could be a leadership bill out there ... We will go to Copenhagen with whatever we have."
Another Atlantic magazine report indicates that Browner also floated the possibility of the EPA implementing cap-and-trade energy policies. . . (i.e. under the authority of the Clean Air Act). When asked, during an interview with Atlantic Media Political Director Ronald Brownstein, about the difficulties of passing the stalled energy/climate bill -- which would implement a cap-and-trade carbon emissions scheme -- through the Senate, Browner reportedly said, "We also have the reality of EPA, under current law, moving forward... to start the traditional regulatory clock." She then said that such an action would "obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress" -- since businesses could wind up with a less cohesive regulatory scheme, more difficult to comply with in multiple states, if the EPA moves forward on its own.
However, the Atlantic and Browner both emphasized that "the Obama administration strongly prefers a congressional consensus, as creating a cap-and-trade scheme would be a massive, controversial, and perhaps unprecedented undertaking for the EPA." Browner indicated "it's much better if Congress does it, and that's what the president wants," adding that legislation is "absolutely" the administration's preference over EPA action.
Meanwhile, as 180 countries begin their second week of talks in Bangkok, Thailand [See WIMS 9/28/09] the UK's Guardian is reporting that, developing countries are showing "their deep frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations on Kyoto's next round." Reportedly, Yu Qingtai China's special representative on climate talks said, "The reason why we are not making progress [in the talks] is the lack of political will by Annex 1 [industrialized] countries. There is a concerted effort to fundamentally sabotage the Kyoto protocol. We now hear statements that would lead to the termination of the protocol. They are introducing new rules, new formats. That's not the way to conduct negotiations."
Also reported is that, Lumumba Di-Aping, Sudanese chair of the G77, the UN's largest intergovernmental organization of developing states which represents 130 countries at the talks has said, "Feelings are running high in the G77. It is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement. It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities. This is an alarming development. The intention of developed countries is clearly to kill the protocol."
Another article in the Guardian reports that there is a high degree of secrecy in the Bangkok negotiations. They report, ". . .the press, the NGOs, even business - are not allowed to see or hear any of the negotiating sessions. And our EU leaders plan just one short session with the world's media on Friday afternoon when the talks here finish."
Additionally, the buzz in the climate change community is whether President Obama will make a return trip to Copenhagen in December after his recent trip to press for the Olympics to be held in Chicago. At a demonstration in Copenhagen, Greenpeace displayed a large banner St. Nicholas Church Tower reading Right city, wrong date.” Bloomberg reports that Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Environment Group’s U.S. Global Warming Campaign in Washington said, “I would hope since he went to push Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, he would go back in December to help save the world from climate change.” And, Annie Petsnok, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund said, "Other nations hope the president’s willingness to go to Copenhagen for the Olympics signals that he will be willing to do the same kind of outreach needed to move the climate issue forward."
In terms of what is being officially reported from the Bangkok meetings, at a press conference held midway through the Talks in Bangkok on October 2, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer spoke of encouraging signals that the Talks can deliver the tools and rules essential to a successful climate change deal in Copenhagen. He said, "Solid progress has been made already in some key areas of a global agreement, such as adaptation, technology and capacity-building in developing countries." However, he reported there is lack of clarity on two issues that are key to success in Copenhagen: rich nation emission reduction targets and financial support for climate change action in developing countries. He said progress on industrialized nations' emissions cuts "remains disappointing," and movement on raising money and deploy assistance to developing countries also "remains slow."
Access a report and videos of Browner's remarks from the Atlantic (click here). Access a second article on Browner's comments from the Atlantic (click here). Access the Atlantic's First Draft of History website for more information (click here). Access a detailed article in the Guardian (click here). Access Guardian series of articles and reports "Countdown to Copenhagen" (click here). Access the G-77 website (click here). Access the Bloomberg's article on the President's Copenhagen return trip (click here). Access a video of the de Boer press briefing (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access IISD Twitter feed (click here).
Another Atlantic magazine report indicates that Browner also floated the possibility of the EPA implementing cap-and-trade energy policies. . . (i.e. under the authority of the Clean Air Act). When asked, during an interview with Atlantic Media Political Director Ronald Brownstein, about the difficulties of passing the stalled energy/climate bill -- which would implement a cap-and-trade carbon emissions scheme -- through the Senate, Browner reportedly said, "We also have the reality of EPA, under current law, moving forward... to start the traditional regulatory clock." She then said that such an action would "obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress" -- since businesses could wind up with a less cohesive regulatory scheme, more difficult to comply with in multiple states, if the EPA moves forward on its own.
However, the Atlantic and Browner both emphasized that "the Obama administration strongly prefers a congressional consensus, as creating a cap-and-trade scheme would be a massive, controversial, and perhaps unprecedented undertaking for the EPA." Browner indicated "it's much better if Congress does it, and that's what the president wants," adding that legislation is "absolutely" the administration's preference over EPA action.
Meanwhile, as 180 countries begin their second week of talks in Bangkok, Thailand [See WIMS 9/28/09] the UK's Guardian is reporting that, developing countries are showing "their deep frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations on Kyoto's next round." Reportedly, Yu Qingtai China's special representative on climate talks said, "The reason why we are not making progress [in the talks] is the lack of political will by Annex 1 [industrialized] countries. There is a concerted effort to fundamentally sabotage the Kyoto protocol. We now hear statements that would lead to the termination of the protocol. They are introducing new rules, new formats. That's not the way to conduct negotiations."
Also reported is that, Lumumba Di-Aping, Sudanese chair of the G77, the UN's largest intergovernmental organization of developing states which represents 130 countries at the talks has said, "Feelings are running high in the G77. It is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement. It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities. This is an alarming development. The intention of developed countries is clearly to kill the protocol."
Another article in the Guardian reports that there is a high degree of secrecy in the Bangkok negotiations. They report, ". . .the press, the NGOs, even business - are not allowed to see or hear any of the negotiating sessions. And our EU leaders plan just one short session with the world's media on Friday afternoon when the talks here finish."
Additionally, the buzz in the climate change community is whether President Obama will make a return trip to Copenhagen in December after his recent trip to press for the Olympics to be held in Chicago. At a demonstration in Copenhagen, Greenpeace displayed a large banner St. Nicholas Church Tower reading Right city, wrong date.” Bloomberg reports that Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Environment Group’s U.S. Global Warming Campaign in Washington said, “I would hope since he went to push Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, he would go back in December to help save the world from climate change.” And, Annie Petsnok, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund said, "Other nations hope the president’s willingness to go to Copenhagen for the Olympics signals that he will be willing to do the same kind of outreach needed to move the climate issue forward."
In terms of what is being officially reported from the Bangkok meetings, at a press conference held midway through the Talks in Bangkok on October 2, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer spoke of encouraging signals that the Talks can deliver the tools and rules essential to a successful climate change deal in Copenhagen. He said, "Solid progress has been made already in some key areas of a global agreement, such as adaptation, technology and capacity-building in developing countries." However, he reported there is lack of clarity on two issues that are key to success in Copenhagen: rich nation emission reduction targets and financial support for climate change action in developing countries. He said progress on industrialized nations' emissions cuts "remains disappointing," and movement on raising money and deploy assistance to developing countries also "remains slow."
Access a report and videos of Browner's remarks from the Atlantic (click here). Access a second article on Browner's comments from the Atlantic (click here). Access the Atlantic's First Draft of History website for more information (click here). Access a detailed article in the Guardian (click here). Access Guardian series of articles and reports "Countdown to Copenhagen" (click here). Access the G-77 website (click here). Access the Bloomberg's article on the President's Copenhagen return trip (click here). Access a video of the de Boer press briefing (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access IISD Twitter feed (click here).
Friday, October 02, 2009
Major GAO Report Examines Critical Ethanol, Biofuels & RFS Issues
Oct 2: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a major 184-page report, requested by Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) entitled, Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in Production and Use (GAO-09-446, August 25, 2009). The report addresses issues surrounding the December 2007, expansion of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) by Congress, which requires increasing the use of ethanol and other biofuels, from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.
GAO says to meet the RFS, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Energy (DOE) are developing advanced biofuels that use cellulosic feedstocks, such as corn stover and switchgrass. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the RFS. Specifically, the report examines: (1) the known agricultural and related effects of increased biofuels feedstock production in the United States; (2) the known environmental effects of increased feedstock cultivation and conversion and biofuels use in the United States; (3) the results, assumptions, and limitations of key scientific analyses of the lifecycle greenhouse gas effects of biofuels produced from different feedstocks; (4) federal support for developing a domestic biofuels industry; (5) federal funding for advanced biofuels research and development (R&D); and (6) key challenges in meeting the RFS’s specified levels. GAO extensively reviewed scientific studies, interviewed experts and agency officials, and visited five DOE and USDA laboratories.
GAO indicates that to meet the RFS, domestic biofuels production must increase significantly, with uncertain effects for agriculture and the environment. For agriculture, many experts said that biofuels production has contributed to crop price increases as well as increases in prices of livestock and poultry feed and, to a lesser extent, food. They believe that this trend may continue as the RFS expands. For the environment, many experts believe that increased biofuels production could impair water quality -- by increasing fertilizer runoff and soil erosion -- and also reduce water availability, degrade air and soil quality, and adversely affect wildlife habitat. However, GAO says the extent of these effects is uncertain and could be mitigated by such factors as improved crop yields, feedstock selection, use of conservation techniques, and improvements in biorefinery processing.
Except for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, EPA is currently not required by statute to assess environmental effects to determine what biofuels are eligible for inclusion in the RFS. Many researchers told GAO there is general agreement on the approach for measuring the direct effects of biofuels production on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions but disagreement about how to estimate the indirect effects on global land use change, which EPA is required to assess in determining RFS compliance. In particular, researchers disagree about what nonagricultural lands will be converted to sustain world food production to replace land used to grow biofuels crops.
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), a 45-cent per gallon federal tax credit, was established to support the domestic ethanol industry. Unless crude oil prices rise significantly, the VEETC is not expected to stimulate ethanol consumption beyond the level the RFS specifies this year. The VEETC also may no longer be needed to stimulate conventional corn ethanol production because the domestic industry has matured, its processing is well understood, and its capacity is already near the effective RFS limit of 15 billion gallons per year for conventional ethanol. A separate $1.01 tax credit is available for producing advanced cellulosic biofuels.
The nation faces several key challenges in expanding biofuels production to achieve the RFS's 36-billion-gallon requirement in 2022. For example, farmers face risks in transitioning to cellulosic biofuels production and are uncertain whether growing switchgrass will eventually be profitable. USDA's new Biomass Crop Assistance Program may help mitigate these risks by providing payments to farmers through multi-year contracts. In addition, U.S. ethanol use is approaching the so-called blend wall -- the amount of ethanol that most U.S. vehicles can use, given EPA's 10 percent limit on the ethanol content in gasoline.
Research has been initiated on the long-term effects of using 15 percent or 20 percent ethanol blends, but expanding the use of 85 percent ethanol blends will require substantial new investment because ethanol is too corrosive for the petroleum distribution infrastructure and most vehicles. Alternatively, further R&D on biorefinery processing technologies might lead to price-competitive biofuels that are compatible with the existing petroleum distribution and storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles. GAO makes a number of recommendations as follows:
(1) To improve EPA's ability to determine biofuels' greenhouse gas emissions and define fuels eligible for consideration under the RFS, the U.S. EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should develop a coordinated approach for identifying and researching unknown variables and major uncertainties in the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of increased biofuels production. This approach should include a coordinated effort to develop parameters for using models and a standard set of assumptions and methods in assessing greenhouse gas emissions for the full biofuel lifecycle, such as secondary effects that would include indirect land-use changes associated with increased biofuels production.
(2) To minimize future blend wall issues and associated ethanol distribution infrastructure costs, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should give priority to research and development (R&D) on process technologies that produce biofuels that can be used by the existing petroleum-based distribution storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles.
(3) To address inconsistencies in existing statutory language, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, review and propose to the appropriate congressional committees any legislative changes the Administrator determines may be needed to clarify what biomass material - based on type of feedstock or type of land can be counted toward RFS.
Access the complete report (click here).
GAO says to meet the RFS, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Energy (DOE) are developing advanced biofuels that use cellulosic feedstocks, such as corn stover and switchgrass. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the RFS. Specifically, the report examines: (1) the known agricultural and related effects of increased biofuels feedstock production in the United States; (2) the known environmental effects of increased feedstock cultivation and conversion and biofuels use in the United States; (3) the results, assumptions, and limitations of key scientific analyses of the lifecycle greenhouse gas effects of biofuels produced from different feedstocks; (4) federal support for developing a domestic biofuels industry; (5) federal funding for advanced biofuels research and development (R&D); and (6) key challenges in meeting the RFS’s specified levels. GAO extensively reviewed scientific studies, interviewed experts and agency officials, and visited five DOE and USDA laboratories.
GAO indicates that to meet the RFS, domestic biofuels production must increase significantly, with uncertain effects for agriculture and the environment. For agriculture, many experts said that biofuels production has contributed to crop price increases as well as increases in prices of livestock and poultry feed and, to a lesser extent, food. They believe that this trend may continue as the RFS expands. For the environment, many experts believe that increased biofuels production could impair water quality -- by increasing fertilizer runoff and soil erosion -- and also reduce water availability, degrade air and soil quality, and adversely affect wildlife habitat. However, GAO says the extent of these effects is uncertain and could be mitigated by such factors as improved crop yields, feedstock selection, use of conservation techniques, and improvements in biorefinery processing.
Except for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, EPA is currently not required by statute to assess environmental effects to determine what biofuels are eligible for inclusion in the RFS. Many researchers told GAO there is general agreement on the approach for measuring the direct effects of biofuels production on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions but disagreement about how to estimate the indirect effects on global land use change, which EPA is required to assess in determining RFS compliance. In particular, researchers disagree about what nonagricultural lands will be converted to sustain world food production to replace land used to grow biofuels crops.
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), a 45-cent per gallon federal tax credit, was established to support the domestic ethanol industry. Unless crude oil prices rise significantly, the VEETC is not expected to stimulate ethanol consumption beyond the level the RFS specifies this year. The VEETC also may no longer be needed to stimulate conventional corn ethanol production because the domestic industry has matured, its processing is well understood, and its capacity is already near the effective RFS limit of 15 billion gallons per year for conventional ethanol. A separate $1.01 tax credit is available for producing advanced cellulosic biofuels.
The nation faces several key challenges in expanding biofuels production to achieve the RFS's 36-billion-gallon requirement in 2022. For example, farmers face risks in transitioning to cellulosic biofuels production and are uncertain whether growing switchgrass will eventually be profitable. USDA's new Biomass Crop Assistance Program may help mitigate these risks by providing payments to farmers through multi-year contracts. In addition, U.S. ethanol use is approaching the so-called blend wall -- the amount of ethanol that most U.S. vehicles can use, given EPA's 10 percent limit on the ethanol content in gasoline.
Research has been initiated on the long-term effects of using 15 percent or 20 percent ethanol blends, but expanding the use of 85 percent ethanol blends will require substantial new investment because ethanol is too corrosive for the petroleum distribution infrastructure and most vehicles. Alternatively, further R&D on biorefinery processing technologies might lead to price-competitive biofuels that are compatible with the existing petroleum distribution and storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles. GAO makes a number of recommendations as follows:
(1) To improve EPA's ability to determine biofuels' greenhouse gas emissions and define fuels eligible for consideration under the RFS, the U.S. EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should develop a coordinated approach for identifying and researching unknown variables and major uncertainties in the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of increased biofuels production. This approach should include a coordinated effort to develop parameters for using models and a standard set of assumptions and methods in assessing greenhouse gas emissions for the full biofuel lifecycle, such as secondary effects that would include indirect land-use changes associated with increased biofuels production.
(2) To minimize future blend wall issues and associated ethanol distribution infrastructure costs, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should give priority to research and development (R&D) on process technologies that produce biofuels that can be used by the existing petroleum-based distribution storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles.
(3) To address inconsistencies in existing statutory language, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, review and propose to the appropriate congressional committees any legislative changes the Administrator determines may be needed to clarify what biomass material - based on type of feedstock or type of land can be counted toward RFS.
Access the complete report (click here).
Thursday, October 01, 2009
EPA Proposes GHG Permits For Large Sources
Sep 30: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator announced a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. EPA is calling the proposed rule the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule." The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain NSR and title V permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters -- including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. The permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.
Administrator Jackson said, “By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources . . . This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best -- reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future -- all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
The large facilities would include power plants, refineries, and factories. Small businesses such as farms and restaurants, and many other types of small facilities, would not be included in these requirements. EPA said with the proposed emissions thresholds, it estimates that 400 new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year for GHG emissions. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions. Most of these sources are already subject to clean air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants. The proposed rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
EPA is proposing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as the preferred metric for determining GHG emissions rates for any combination of these six GHGs, but is requesting comment on alternatives. Emissions of greenhouse gases are typically expressed in a common metric, so that their impacts can be directly compared, as some gases are more potent (have a higher global warming potential or GWP) than others. The international standard practice is to express GHGs in CO2e. Emissions of gases other than CO2 are translated into CO2 equivalents by using the gases’ global warming potentials.
In addition, EPA is requesting public comment on its previous interpretation of when certain pollutants, including CO2 and other GHGs, would be covered under the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act. A different interpretation could mean that large facilities would need to obtain permits prior to the finalization of a rule regulating GHG emissions. EPA will accept comment on these proposals for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President for Energy & Resources Policy Keith McCoy issued a statement saying, "The EPA’s legal authority to exempt small manufacturers and businesses from permits mandated by the Clean Air Act is unclear at best. This new rule is a slippery slope that could lead to costly economy-wide regulation of “stationary sources” such as small factories, hospitals and farms. Congress, not the EPA, is the appropriate authority for amending the Clean Air Act. The NAM opposes use of the Clean Air Act as a means of regulating GHG emissions. Today’s announcement from the EPA sets the stage for regulation of large industrial sources that will add significant costs to manufacturers as they struggle to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression. The proposed rule establishes a precedent for economy-wide regulation that will cost jobs and hurt the nation’s economy at the worst possible time."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the full text of the Administrators (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 416-page proposed rule (click here). Access a fact sheet on the proposed rule (click here). Access the proposed rules and related information (click here). Access the NAM statement (click here).
Administrator Jackson said, “By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources . . . This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best -- reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future -- all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
The large facilities would include power plants, refineries, and factories. Small businesses such as farms and restaurants, and many other types of small facilities, would not be included in these requirements. EPA said with the proposed emissions thresholds, it estimates that 400 new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year for GHG emissions. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions. Most of these sources are already subject to clean air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants. The proposed rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
EPA is proposing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as the preferred metric for determining GHG emissions rates for any combination of these six GHGs, but is requesting comment on alternatives. Emissions of greenhouse gases are typically expressed in a common metric, so that their impacts can be directly compared, as some gases are more potent (have a higher global warming potential or GWP) than others. The international standard practice is to express GHGs in CO2e. Emissions of gases other than CO2 are translated into CO2 equivalents by using the gases’ global warming potentials.
In addition, EPA is requesting public comment on its previous interpretation of when certain pollutants, including CO2 and other GHGs, would be covered under the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act. A different interpretation could mean that large facilities would need to obtain permits prior to the finalization of a rule regulating GHG emissions. EPA will accept comment on these proposals for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President for Energy & Resources Policy Keith McCoy issued a statement saying, "The EPA’s legal authority to exempt small manufacturers and businesses from permits mandated by the Clean Air Act is unclear at best. This new rule is a slippery slope that could lead to costly economy-wide regulation of “stationary sources” such as small factories, hospitals and farms. Congress, not the EPA, is the appropriate authority for amending the Clean Air Act. The NAM opposes use of the Clean Air Act as a means of regulating GHG emissions. Today’s announcement from the EPA sets the stage for regulation of large industrial sources that will add significant costs to manufacturers as they struggle to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression. The proposed rule establishes a precedent for economy-wide regulation that will cost jobs and hurt the nation’s economy at the worst possible time."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the full text of the Administrators (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 416-page proposed rule (click here). Access a fact sheet on the proposed rule (click here). Access the proposed rules and related information (click here). Access the NAM statement (click here).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Boxer-Kerry Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act
Sep 30: Following preliminary releases of two different versions of a Senate Climate Change bill, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, and Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hosted an event to introduce the official Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. They were joined by a broad coalition which they said showed "support for action in the U.S. Senate to address global warming." They were joined by Democratic Members of the EPW committee and other senators, as well as leaders from the business, faith, national security, energy and environmental community, and local and state officials.
According to a release from Senators Kerry and Boxer, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will cut carbon pollution and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean energy sector. Senator Kerry said, "This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate change with American ingenuity. It is our country’s defense against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change. Our health, our security, our economy, our environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and risks our security. By taking decisive action, we can and will stop climate change from becoming a ‘threat multiplier’ that makes an already dangerous world staggeringly more so. I want to thank my partner in this important legislative mission, Senator Barbara Boxer, for helping to craft a bill that can put millions of Americans back to work, invest in homegrown innovation, and safeguard our children’s health and our environment.”
Senator Boxer said, “We know clean energy is the ticket to strong, stable economic growth -- it's right here in front of us, in the ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead. This is our time. Global warming is our challenge. Economic recovery is our challenge. American leadership is our challenge. Let's step up right now. Let's not quit until we have fulfilled our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. It is an honor to work side by side on this important legislation with Senator Kerry, who recognized very early that this issue is about America’s national and economic security.”
In advance of the Democrats release of the bill, Republicans on the EPW Committee, lead by Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), outspoken critic of climate change science and legislation, sent a letter to Chairman Boxer urging the introduction of "a complete cap-and-trade bill with no placeholders." Senator Inhofe said in a statement, “My hope is that Chairman Boxer avoids repeating the process of pushing climate change legislation in the House, in which key portions of the bill were inserted at the last minute, and the American people were left guessing as to how it would impact their energy costs, their jobs, and America’s energy security. We must have a fair, open, and transparent process so we can have a debate on the facts and the substance of legislation with all its provisions, no matter how politically sensitive they may be.”
In their letter, the Republican Senators indicate in their letter, "We understand that your bill, as currently drafted, is incomplete in several important respects -- most notably, it lacks a formula to determine the allocation of emission allowances. Leaving out these and other key provisions makes it impossible to get an objective estimate of the economic impacts of your bill on consumers, especially those in energy-intensive regions that rely on coal for electricity and manufacturing for jobs. Moreover, farmers, families and workers have no way of gauging how acutely they will be affected from job losses, higher electricity, food, and gasoline prices. . ."
Several documents are available including: a Bill Overview; a Bill Summary; a summary of the Pollution Reduction and Investment (PRI) is a mechanism; and a Section By Section Summary (See links below).
Some early reactions to the Senate legislation were available from : The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); Greenpeace; Center for Biological Diversity (CBD); Friends of the Earth (FOI); and the American Petroleum Institute (API).
NRDC said, “This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy, and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. . . This is the right step at the right time. It confronts the growing problem of global warming head-on – before it’s too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It calls for a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions by 2020. That’s a strong and achievable goal. It will reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, while accelerating the move to a clean energy future for our country. A new analysis from UC Berkeley confirms that clean energy and climate legislation can strengthen our economy and create jobs. According to the report, comprehensive energy legislation with strong efficiency measures can create as many as 1.9 million jobs between 2010 and 2020.”
UCS said, "A stronger short-term target makes scientific sense. U.S. emissions levels are now lower than expected, so we're already well on our way to meeting these goals. Additionally, more of the carbon dioxide we're emitting today is staying in the atmosphere because the ocean is absorbing less carbon from the air. That means early cuts in emissions are even more critical to keep temperatures down and prevent the worst consequences of climate change."
Greenpeace said, "While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the US to meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change. This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty. . . the legislation only proposes to cut emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 while the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that developed countries must cut emissions at least 25% – 40% under 1990 levels by 2020."
CBD said, "The Kerry-Boxer climate bill marks a baby step forward in the ever more urgent fight against climate catastrophe, but much bolder action is needed. . . While the Senate bill recognizes the absolute necessity of stronger emissions reduction targets, the targets in the Senate bill -- like those in the House bill -- are woefully inadequate. This legislation would not save the polar bear and numerous other species and ecosystems because it simply does not go far enough quickly enough. The scientific consensus is clear: We must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to no more than 350 parts per million. Leading climate scientists have called for reductions of approximately 40 percent below 1990 levels to avoid climate catastrophe, and yet this bill aims to deliver only a 20-percent reduction from 2005 levels.”
FOI said, "We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet."
API said, "Boxer-Kerry leaves unaddressed key elements of how it intends to constrain carbon emissions. Unfortunately, it appears to be following the pattern the House followed, which resulted in a political bidding process that picked winners and losers. The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies who rely on gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products to get to work and to school and to run their businesses. . . We strongly urge the Senate not to follow the same pattern. It should craft a bill that provides equal treatment across the U.S. economy, recognizes and encourages more use of clean-burning natural gas, preempts EPA climate regulation under the Clean Air Act, and avoids the severest consequences of Waxman-Markey."
Access a release from Senators Boxer & Kerry and links to the additional documents (click here). Access a separate release from Senator Boxer with more summary information (click here). Access the 821-page bill (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe and link to the letter (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from FOI (click here). Access a release from API (click here).
According to a release from Senators Kerry and Boxer, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will cut carbon pollution and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean energy sector. Senator Kerry said, "This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate change with American ingenuity. It is our country’s defense against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change. Our health, our security, our economy, our environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and risks our security. By taking decisive action, we can and will stop climate change from becoming a ‘threat multiplier’ that makes an already dangerous world staggeringly more so. I want to thank my partner in this important legislative mission, Senator Barbara Boxer, for helping to craft a bill that can put millions of Americans back to work, invest in homegrown innovation, and safeguard our children’s health and our environment.”
Senator Boxer said, “We know clean energy is the ticket to strong, stable economic growth -- it's right here in front of us, in the ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead. This is our time. Global warming is our challenge. Economic recovery is our challenge. American leadership is our challenge. Let's step up right now. Let's not quit until we have fulfilled our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. It is an honor to work side by side on this important legislation with Senator Kerry, who recognized very early that this issue is about America’s national and economic security.”
In advance of the Democrats release of the bill, Republicans on the EPW Committee, lead by Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), outspoken critic of climate change science and legislation, sent a letter to Chairman Boxer urging the introduction of "a complete cap-and-trade bill with no placeholders." Senator Inhofe said in a statement, “My hope is that Chairman Boxer avoids repeating the process of pushing climate change legislation in the House, in which key portions of the bill were inserted at the last minute, and the American people were left guessing as to how it would impact their energy costs, their jobs, and America’s energy security. We must have a fair, open, and transparent process so we can have a debate on the facts and the substance of legislation with all its provisions, no matter how politically sensitive they may be.”
In their letter, the Republican Senators indicate in their letter, "We understand that your bill, as currently drafted, is incomplete in several important respects -- most notably, it lacks a formula to determine the allocation of emission allowances. Leaving out these and other key provisions makes it impossible to get an objective estimate of the economic impacts of your bill on consumers, especially those in energy-intensive regions that rely on coal for electricity and manufacturing for jobs. Moreover, farmers, families and workers have no way of gauging how acutely they will be affected from job losses, higher electricity, food, and gasoline prices. . ."
Several documents are available including: a Bill Overview; a Bill Summary; a summary of the Pollution Reduction and Investment (PRI) is a mechanism; and a Section By Section Summary (See links below).
Some early reactions to the Senate legislation were available from : The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); Greenpeace; Center for Biological Diversity (CBD); Friends of the Earth (FOI); and the American Petroleum Institute (API).
NRDC said, “This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy, and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. . . This is the right step at the right time. It confronts the growing problem of global warming head-on – before it’s too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It calls for a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions by 2020. That’s a strong and achievable goal. It will reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, while accelerating the move to a clean energy future for our country. A new analysis from UC Berkeley confirms that clean energy and climate legislation can strengthen our economy and create jobs. According to the report, comprehensive energy legislation with strong efficiency measures can create as many as 1.9 million jobs between 2010 and 2020.”
UCS said, "A stronger short-term target makes scientific sense. U.S. emissions levels are now lower than expected, so we're already well on our way to meeting these goals. Additionally, more of the carbon dioxide we're emitting today is staying in the atmosphere because the ocean is absorbing less carbon from the air. That means early cuts in emissions are even more critical to keep temperatures down and prevent the worst consequences of climate change."
Greenpeace said, "While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the US to meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change. This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty. . . the legislation only proposes to cut emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 while the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that developed countries must cut emissions at least 25% – 40% under 1990 levels by 2020."
CBD said, "The Kerry-Boxer climate bill marks a baby step forward in the ever more urgent fight against climate catastrophe, but much bolder action is needed. . . While the Senate bill recognizes the absolute necessity of stronger emissions reduction targets, the targets in the Senate bill -- like those in the House bill -- are woefully inadequate. This legislation would not save the polar bear and numerous other species and ecosystems because it simply does not go far enough quickly enough. The scientific consensus is clear: We must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to no more than 350 parts per million. Leading climate scientists have called for reductions of approximately 40 percent below 1990 levels to avoid climate catastrophe, and yet this bill aims to deliver only a 20-percent reduction from 2005 levels.”
FOI said, "We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet."
API said, "Boxer-Kerry leaves unaddressed key elements of how it intends to constrain carbon emissions. Unfortunately, it appears to be following the pattern the House followed, which resulted in a political bidding process that picked winners and losers. The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies who rely on gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products to get to work and to school and to run their businesses. . . We strongly urge the Senate not to follow the same pattern. It should craft a bill that provides equal treatment across the U.S. economy, recognizes and encourages more use of clean-burning natural gas, preempts EPA climate regulation under the Clean Air Act, and avoids the severest consequences of Waxman-Markey."
Access a release from Senators Boxer & Kerry and links to the additional documents (click here). Access a separate release from Senator Boxer with more summary information (click here). Access the 821-page bill (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe and link to the letter (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from FOI (click here). Access a release from API (click here).
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Exelon Joins Others In Dropping U.S. Chamber Membership
Sep 28: Exelon Chairman and CEO John W. Rowe urged utility industry leaders, regulators and policymakers at the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE) national conference to continue pushing for sensible climate change legislation that puts a price on carbon. Rowe said, “The carbon-based free lunch is over. But while we can’t fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible. Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”
In his speech, Rowe recognized the need to balance our nation’s fragile economic recovery with the need to address climate change, and pointed to energy efficiency as a lower-cost way to meet those goals. Rowe discussed how Exelon utilities ComEd and PECO plan to spend $290 million per year over the next five years on energy-efficiency and demand response programs. The plan aims to help customers reduce their energy use by more than 3.7 million megawatt hours and cut peak load by 388 megawatts. Exelon’s energy-efficiency programs place the company third among the nation’s utilities in terms of customer energy savings.
Rowe announced that Exelon will not be renewing its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of their stance on climate change legislation. The company joins other recent similar announcements from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee; New Mexico power company PNM; and Duke Energy and Alstom who publicly gave up their membership in the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy. Also, Nike has said it fundamentally disagrees with the US Chamber of Commerce's position on climate change [See WIMS 9/24/09].
In making his announcement Rowe said, "Some see carbon legislation as just another issue they can use as a cudgel against President Obama. In the short term they may be right. But the EPA has received license from the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will. The result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable legislative solution. I am disappointed that Congressional Republicans and business groups can’t recognize this reality. Because of their stridency against carbon legislation, Exelon has decided not to renew its membership in the US Chamber this year."
Chicago-based Exelon Corporation is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities with approximately $19 billion in annual revenues. The company distribute electricity to approximately 5.4 million customers in Illinois (ComEd) and Pennsylvania (PECO), and gas to 485,000 customers in the Philadelphia area (PECO). Exelon has one of the industry’s largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon operates what it says is the largest and most efficient nuclear fleet in the United States and the third largest commercial nuclear fleet in the world.
Access a release from Exelon (click here). Access the full text of Rowe's speech (click here). Access the Exelon website for more information (click here). Access ACEEE's website on the 5th annual conference on energy efficiency (click here). Access an E&ETV interview with PG&E's Peter Darbee (click here). Access various media reports from NYT, WSJ, WP and others (click here).
In his speech, Rowe recognized the need to balance our nation’s fragile economic recovery with the need to address climate change, and pointed to energy efficiency as a lower-cost way to meet those goals. Rowe discussed how Exelon utilities ComEd and PECO plan to spend $290 million per year over the next five years on energy-efficiency and demand response programs. The plan aims to help customers reduce their energy use by more than 3.7 million megawatt hours and cut peak load by 388 megawatts. Exelon’s energy-efficiency programs place the company third among the nation’s utilities in terms of customer energy savings.
Rowe announced that Exelon will not be renewing its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of their stance on climate change legislation. The company joins other recent similar announcements from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee; New Mexico power company PNM; and Duke Energy and Alstom who publicly gave up their membership in the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy. Also, Nike has said it fundamentally disagrees with the US Chamber of Commerce's position on climate change [See WIMS 9/24/09].
In making his announcement Rowe said, "Some see carbon legislation as just another issue they can use as a cudgel against President Obama. In the short term they may be right. But the EPA has received license from the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will. The result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable legislative solution. I am disappointed that Congressional Republicans and business groups can’t recognize this reality. Because of their stridency against carbon legislation, Exelon has decided not to renew its membership in the US Chamber this year."
Chicago-based Exelon Corporation is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities with approximately $19 billion in annual revenues. The company distribute electricity to approximately 5.4 million customers in Illinois (ComEd) and Pennsylvania (PECO), and gas to 485,000 customers in the Philadelphia area (PECO). Exelon has one of the industry’s largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon operates what it says is the largest and most efficient nuclear fleet in the United States and the third largest commercial nuclear fleet in the world.
Access a release from Exelon (click here). Access the full text of Rowe's speech (click here). Access the Exelon website for more information (click here). Access ACEEE's website on the 5th annual conference on energy efficiency (click here). Access an E&ETV interview with PG&E's Peter Darbee (click here). Access various media reports from NYT, WSJ, WP and others (click here).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
