May 18: According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A large expansion in ethanol production is underway in the United States. Cellulosic sources of feedstocks for ethanol production hold some promise for the future, but the primary feedstock in the United States currently is corn. Market adjustments to this increased demand extend well beyond the corn sector to supply and demand for other crops, such as soybeans and cotton, as well as to U.S. livestock industries. USDA’s long-term projections, augmented by farmers’ planting intentions for 2007, are used to illustrate anticipated changes in the agricultural sector."
The report, Ethanol Expansion in the United States: How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust? (Report No. FDS-07D-01, May 2007), indicates that ethanol production in the United States totaled almost 5 billion gallons in 2006, about 1 billion gallons more than in 2005. While this was a significant increase, further expansion in the industry is continuing, with production expected to exceed 10 billion gallons by 2009. This large and rapid expansion of U.S. ethanol production affects virtually every aspect of the field crops sector, ranging from domestic demand and exports to prices and the allocation of acreage among crops. Many aspects of the livestock sector are affected too. As a consequence of these commodity market impacts, farm income, government payments, and food prices also change. Adjustments in the agricultural sector are already underway and will continue for many years as interest grows in renewable sources of energy to lessen dependence on foreign oil.
In 2006, ethanol (by volume) represented about 3.5 percent of motor vehicle gasoline supplies in the United States. However, about 14 percent of corn use went to ethanol production in the 2005/06 crop year. With continued strong ethanol expansion, USDA’s 2007 long-term projections indicate that more than 30 percent of the corn crop will be used to produce ethanol by 2009/10, remaining near that share in subsequent years. Yet, even by 2017, ethanol production (by volume) is projected to represent less than 8 percent of annual gasoline use in the United States.
USDA says that its 2007 long-term projections show average corn prices reaching $3.75 a bushel in the 2009/10 marketing year and then declining to $3.30 by 2016/17 as the ethanol expansion slows. Higher corn prices affect corn’s role as an animal feed. Livestock feeding is the largest use of U.S. corn, typically accounting for 50-60 percent of the total. With higher prices, corn used for animal feeding declines to 40-50 percent of total use over the next decade.
The increased use of corn for ethanol production and higher corn prices have important implications for global trade and international markets. The United States has typically accounted for 60-70 percent of world corn exports. With the ethanol expansion and higher prices, however, the U.S. share of global corn trade drops to 55-60 percent. Global adjustments to higher corn prices include reduced foreign demand and increased foreign production.
With higher crop prices, farmland prices rise to reflect the increased value of crop production. This accelerates gains in farmland prices, which also reflect demand for land for nonagricultural uses, such as housing and recreation. As the livestock sector adjusts to higher feed costs resulting from the expansion in corn-based ethanol production, overall production of meats is reduced over the next few years. As a result, consumer prices for red meats, poultry, and eggs are expected to exceed the general inflation rate in 2008-10. Consequently, overall retail food prices in USDA’s 2007 long-term projections rise faster than the general inflation rate for several years.
Access the complete 20-page report which contains links to additional reference information (click here). Access a narrated slideshow providing an overview of this report (click here). Access additional information related to bioenergy is available from the USDA Economic Research Service Bioenergy Briefing Room (click here). [*Energy]
Monday, May 21, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Advice & Criticism On G-8 Meeting Climate Change Action
International Science Academies Urge G-8 Action
May 16: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 12 other worldwide national science academies in calling on world leaders -- particularly G-8 leaders who will meet in June [See related post below] -- to address global climate change and energy-access issues by promoting low carbon-emission energy systems and more efficient use of energy. The academies also urged leaders to facilitate scientific and technical innovation, and to simplify and enforce a balanced intellectual property regime.
The groups issued two statements: (1) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Promotion and Protection of Innovation; (2) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection. The 12 other academies include: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South America and United Kingdom.
In the statement addressing climate and energy the academies' said, "It is important that the 2007 G8 Summit is addressing the linked issues of energy security and climate change. These are defining issues of our time, and bring together the themes of growth and responsibility in a way that highlights our duties to future generations. In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasizing that "climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions...
"Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken...
"G8 countries bear a special responsibility for the current high level of energy consumption and the associated climate change. Newly industrialized countries will share this responsibility in the future."
The 13 Academies of Sciences have called on "world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to: (1) Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems and in the energy sector itself; (2) Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioral changes within our societies; (3) Define and implement measures to reduce global Deforestation; (4) Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies; (5) Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies."
Access the joint statement on Promotion and Protection of Innovation (click here). Access the joint statement on Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection (click here).
Markey Blasts Bush On G-8 Climate Negotiations
May 17: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued a statement highly critical of the Administration's attempts to weaken the upcoming G-8 meeting agenda as it relates to climate change. The G8+5 includes: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan; the plus 5 countries are China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. The European Commission is also represented at all the meetings.
Markey indicated that in the final meetings between resigning British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush, global warming is reportedly high on the agenda. But reports indicate that the Bush administration is cutting key language from the G-8 climate agreement set to be unveiled at the body’s next meeting in Germany in early June [June 6-8, Heiligendamm, Germany], "a reprise of the regressive role adopted by the Bush Administration at earlier international summits such as the 2005 G-8 summit which Blair hosted at Gleneagles.
Markey said the actions follow the Rose Garden announcement earlier this week from the White House on their plan to cut gasoline use and heat-trapping emissions from vehicles [See WIMS 05/15/07]. He said Bush reiterated his “twenty in ten” plan, which includes a goal of increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent a year for ten years, but does not have any mandatory elements and would not be a completed proposal until three weeks before the President leaves office.
Markey said, “When it comes to making progress on combating the threat of global warming, President Bush has become very adept at the cynical game of maintaining a sunny demeanor while ordering his operatives to rain on the climate change parade. The President needs to tell his minions to re-engage with the international community on global warming, not continue their resistance.” Markey's comments follow the May 16 announcement from his colleague Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chair of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, that he would introduce on May 23, "serious, substantive legislation to reinvigorate international negotiations to stop global warming and to help developing nations produce energy in a clean and sustainable way."
According to Markey, U.S. negotiators are reportedly trying to expunge several important parts of the G-8 climate statement, including the need to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius; that dealing with global warming is an “imperative not a choice”; and targets on reducing global warming emissions. He said cited a similar event in late April, where President Bush discussed achieving progress on global warming with E.U. leaders at the U.S.--E.U. summit in Washington. Meanwhile, half a world away, in Bangkok, Thailand, the U.S. delegation was "criticizing the findings of the IPCC and downplaying the importance of stabilizing emissions, specifically disputing recommendations from European governments."
Access the complete statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access the statement from Representative Lantos (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access background information on the G-8 upcoming climate negotiations (click here). Access a summary of actions entitled, The Road to Heiligendamm, compiled by the G-8 Research Group (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
May 16: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 12 other worldwide national science academies in calling on world leaders -- particularly G-8 leaders who will meet in June [See related post below] -- to address global climate change and energy-access issues by promoting low carbon-emission energy systems and more efficient use of energy. The academies also urged leaders to facilitate scientific and technical innovation, and to simplify and enforce a balanced intellectual property regime.
The groups issued two statements: (1) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Promotion and Protection of Innovation; (2) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection. The 12 other academies include: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South America and United Kingdom.
In the statement addressing climate and energy the academies' said, "It is important that the 2007 G8 Summit is addressing the linked issues of energy security and climate change. These are defining issues of our time, and bring together the themes of growth and responsibility in a way that highlights our duties to future generations. In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasizing that "climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions...
"Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken...
"G8 countries bear a special responsibility for the current high level of energy consumption and the associated climate change. Newly industrialized countries will share this responsibility in the future."
The 13 Academies of Sciences have called on "world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to: (1) Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems and in the energy sector itself; (2) Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioral changes within our societies; (3) Define and implement measures to reduce global Deforestation; (4) Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies; (5) Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies."
Access the joint statement on Promotion and Protection of Innovation (click here). Access the joint statement on Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection (click here).
Markey Blasts Bush On G-8 Climate Negotiations
May 17: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued a statement highly critical of the Administration's attempts to weaken the upcoming G-8 meeting agenda as it relates to climate change. The G8+5 includes: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan; the plus 5 countries are China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. The European Commission is also represented at all the meetings.
Markey indicated that in the final meetings between resigning British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush, global warming is reportedly high on the agenda. But reports indicate that the Bush administration is cutting key language from the G-8 climate agreement set to be unveiled at the body’s next meeting in Germany in early June [June 6-8, Heiligendamm, Germany], "a reprise of the regressive role adopted by the Bush Administration at earlier international summits such as the 2005 G-8 summit which Blair hosted at Gleneagles.
Markey said the actions follow the Rose Garden announcement earlier this week from the White House on their plan to cut gasoline use and heat-trapping emissions from vehicles [See WIMS 05/15/07]. He said Bush reiterated his “twenty in ten” plan, which includes a goal of increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent a year for ten years, but does not have any mandatory elements and would not be a completed proposal until three weeks before the President leaves office.
Markey said, “When it comes to making progress on combating the threat of global warming, President Bush has become very adept at the cynical game of maintaining a sunny demeanor while ordering his operatives to rain on the climate change parade. The President needs to tell his minions to re-engage with the international community on global warming, not continue their resistance.” Markey's comments follow the May 16 announcement from his colleague Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chair of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, that he would introduce on May 23, "serious, substantive legislation to reinvigorate international negotiations to stop global warming and to help developing nations produce energy in a clean and sustainable way."
According to Markey, U.S. negotiators are reportedly trying to expunge several important parts of the G-8 climate statement, including the need to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius; that dealing with global warming is an “imperative not a choice”; and targets on reducing global warming emissions. He said cited a similar event in late April, where President Bush discussed achieving progress on global warming with E.U. leaders at the U.S.--E.U. summit in Washington. Meanwhile, half a world away, in Bangkok, Thailand, the U.S. delegation was "criticizing the findings of the IPCC and downplaying the importance of stabilizing emissions, specifically disputing recommendations from European governments."
Access the complete statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access the statement from Representative Lantos (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access background information on the G-8 upcoming climate negotiations (click here). Access a summary of actions entitled, The Road to Heiligendamm, compiled by the G-8 Research Group (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Senate Passes Its Version Of Water Resources Development Act
May 16: The U.S. Senate, by a vote of 91-4, passed its $13.9 billion version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, H.R.1495). The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference to resolve the differences between the House-passed, $15 billion version, approved by a vote of by a vote of 394-25, on April 19, 2007 [See WIMS 4/30/07]. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senators James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, thanked their colleagues for their bipartisan support for the bill.
According to a release from Senator Boxer, the bill will authorize America’s essential flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects in a way that is fiscally responsible and technically sound. The bill authorizes nearly $2 billion for wetlands restoration and flood control projects to put Louisiana on the path to Category V storm protection, and authorizes dozens of other critical water projects nationwide. The passage of a WRDA bill is a top priority for the EPW Committee.
Boxer said, “This bill meets our communities’ and our nation’s acute and unmet water infrastructure needs and it does it in a fiscally responsible way. One of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina is that we ignore our water infrastructure needs at our nation’s peril. This bill makes a substantial commitment to protecting Louisiana’s coasts and communities. Some of the communities this bill will protect have waited seven years or more for these projects. This bill will end that wait, but it will also ensure that we avoid the mistakes of the past by making sure future projects receive the serious analysis and careful implementation they deserve. The Water Resources Development Act and the projects, policies, and programs it authorizes are essential components of keeping our economy growing. From trade to transportation, disaster prevention to rural recreation, this bill helps America compete in the world and stay strong and safe at home.”
Senator Inhofe said, “In passing WRDA today, the Senate took a significant step forward in improving our nation's water resource needs. The WRDA bill passed by the Senate meets many of the most critical water resource needs facing our nation today. For example, the WRDA bill improves navigation and increases capacity and efficiency of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, provides measure to increase hurricane and storm damage protection through wetlands preservation and restoration, and creates an inventory of the nation’s levees with assessments of high risk levees in order to protect people and property. I am pleased to work with my colleagues on the Committee to get this legislation passed. As the Ranking Member, I will continue to work with my EPW colleagues to expedite this bill back to conference with the House and to the President as soon as possible.”
The bill includes a provision authored by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that will authorize the use of Federal funds to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Asian Carp Barrier project. The barrier will prevent the spread of invasive species, including Asian Carp, between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Durbin said, "The Asian Carp threatens both the native fish and natural wildlife of the lake and in turn, the economy of the entire Great Lakes region. Currently, this invasive species threatens a $4.1 billion sport and commercial fishing industry in the Great Lakes. The bill passed today recognizes the threat of the Asian Carp by authorizing the permanent operation of the barrier system to prevent these harmful fish from entering the waters of the Great Lakes."
The legislation will authorize the Corps of Engineers to complete construction on a permanent barrier and to upgrade and make permanent the original demonstration barrier. This bill avoids potential construction delays and funding problems by allowing the federal government to fully fund the barrier project. In addition, the legislation authorizes federal funding for a feasibility study to investigate the options and technologies available to form a more comprehensive strategy to prevent the spread of invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways.
According to a release from American Rivers, "The Senate bill makes it clear that the status quo at the Corps is no longer acceptable. The Senate bill would establish meaningful, independent peer review of costly or controversial Corps projects; significant improvements to the Corps’ mitigation practices; updating of the Corps’ long-outdated planning guidelines; a new national policy for the Corps on floodplain protection; and an interagency assessment of the nation’s flood risks and flood protection programs."
An amendment offered by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), that would direct the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into all future water projects fell short by 9 votes of a 60 vote requirement imposed by opponents of the amendment. According to a release from Senator Kerry, the amendment would direct the Army Corps of Engineers to use the best available climate science, account for potential future impacts of climate change on storms and floods, and account for the costs and benefits associated with the loss and protection of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural systems that can buffer the effects of climate change. The Kerry amendment was supported by numerous national, state, and local conservation and environmental organizations.
Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Durbin (click here). Access a release from American Rivers (click here). Access a release from Senator Kerry and link to his amendment (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1495 (click here). Access links to the latest media coverage on the Senate passage (click here). [*Water, *Climate]
According to a release from Senator Boxer, the bill will authorize America’s essential flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects in a way that is fiscally responsible and technically sound. The bill authorizes nearly $2 billion for wetlands restoration and flood control projects to put Louisiana on the path to Category V storm protection, and authorizes dozens of other critical water projects nationwide. The passage of a WRDA bill is a top priority for the EPW Committee.
Boxer said, “This bill meets our communities’ and our nation’s acute and unmet water infrastructure needs and it does it in a fiscally responsible way. One of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina is that we ignore our water infrastructure needs at our nation’s peril. This bill makes a substantial commitment to protecting Louisiana’s coasts and communities. Some of the communities this bill will protect have waited seven years or more for these projects. This bill will end that wait, but it will also ensure that we avoid the mistakes of the past by making sure future projects receive the serious analysis and careful implementation they deserve. The Water Resources Development Act and the projects, policies, and programs it authorizes are essential components of keeping our economy growing. From trade to transportation, disaster prevention to rural recreation, this bill helps America compete in the world and stay strong and safe at home.”
Senator Inhofe said, “In passing WRDA today, the Senate took a significant step forward in improving our nation's water resource needs. The WRDA bill passed by the Senate meets many of the most critical water resource needs facing our nation today. For example, the WRDA bill improves navigation and increases capacity and efficiency of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, provides measure to increase hurricane and storm damage protection through wetlands preservation and restoration, and creates an inventory of the nation’s levees with assessments of high risk levees in order to protect people and property. I am pleased to work with my colleagues on the Committee to get this legislation passed. As the Ranking Member, I will continue to work with my EPW colleagues to expedite this bill back to conference with the House and to the President as soon as possible.”
The bill includes a provision authored by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that will authorize the use of Federal funds to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Asian Carp Barrier project. The barrier will prevent the spread of invasive species, including Asian Carp, between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Durbin said, "The Asian Carp threatens both the native fish and natural wildlife of the lake and in turn, the economy of the entire Great Lakes region. Currently, this invasive species threatens a $4.1 billion sport and commercial fishing industry in the Great Lakes. The bill passed today recognizes the threat of the Asian Carp by authorizing the permanent operation of the barrier system to prevent these harmful fish from entering the waters of the Great Lakes."
The legislation will authorize the Corps of Engineers to complete construction on a permanent barrier and to upgrade and make permanent the original demonstration barrier. This bill avoids potential construction delays and funding problems by allowing the federal government to fully fund the barrier project. In addition, the legislation authorizes federal funding for a feasibility study to investigate the options and technologies available to form a more comprehensive strategy to prevent the spread of invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways.
According to a release from American Rivers, "The Senate bill makes it clear that the status quo at the Corps is no longer acceptable. The Senate bill would establish meaningful, independent peer review of costly or controversial Corps projects; significant improvements to the Corps’ mitigation practices; updating of the Corps’ long-outdated planning guidelines; a new national policy for the Corps on floodplain protection; and an interagency assessment of the nation’s flood risks and flood protection programs."
An amendment offered by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), that would direct the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into all future water projects fell short by 9 votes of a 60 vote requirement imposed by opponents of the amendment. According to a release from Senator Kerry, the amendment would direct the Army Corps of Engineers to use the best available climate science, account for potential future impacts of climate change on storms and floods, and account for the costs and benefits associated with the loss and protection of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural systems that can buffer the effects of climate change. The Kerry amendment was supported by numerous national, state, and local conservation and environmental organizations.
Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Durbin (click here). Access a release from American Rivers (click here). Access a release from Senator Kerry and link to his amendment (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1495 (click here). Access links to the latest media coverage on the Senate passage (click here). [*Water, *Climate]
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
NRDC Sounds Alarm On Risks Of Nano-Scale Chemistry
May 15: A report released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) accuses the U.S. government of gross failure to use its authority to protect citizens from the potentially dangerous effects of nano-scale chemistry, according to scientists and policy experts at NRDC. NRDC said its scientists have created a regulatory framework for nanomaterials, a new breed of super-small industrial materials already being used in more than 500 consumer products such as baby wipes, sunscreen, toothpaste, and lipstick.
Jennifer Sass, nanotechnology expert with NRDC and author of the report said, “Precautionary regulation must play ‘catch up’ to ensure worker and public safety. Without requirements for product labeling, consumers are left ignorant and vulnerable to exposure to an untested and possibly unsafe new generation of chemicals. People deserve unbiased information to protect their families. In the face of government failure to take action, the new NRDC report proposes an immediate, three-part framework for regulating nanomaterials, based on already established precautionary approaches to managing toxic chemicals that are broadly agreed upon by environmental and worker protection groups.
The steps include; (1) Prohibit the untested or unsafe use of nanomaterials. Because preliminary data demonstrates the potential for toxicity, unsafe or untested nanomaterials should not be used in a manner that may result in human exposures or environmental releases over the lifecycle of the material. (2) Conduct full lifecycle environment, health, and safety impact assessments as a prerequisite to commercialization. Robust testing is urgently needed to identify potential risks early in development, across the lifecycle of the material. The results of testing should be made available to the public. (3) Facilitate full and meaningful participation by the public and workers in nanotechnologies development and control; consider the social and ethical impacts of nanotechnologies. The potential of nanotechnologies to transform the global social, economic, and political landscape means we must move the decision-making out of corporate boardrooms and into the public realm.
NRDC says several studies have associated nano-sized air pollutants with asthma attacks, heart disease, strokes and respiratory disease. Yet nanomaterials in consumer products remain essentially unregulated in the United States. Despite their unknown effects on human health, Lux Research, a consulting firm with expertise in science-driven innovation, projects that $2.6 trillion worth of manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnologies by 2014.
Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the NRDC report (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). [Note: On February 26, Environmental Defense and DuPont announced their Nano Risk Framework (click here).] [*Toxics]
Jennifer Sass, nanotechnology expert with NRDC and author of the report said, “Precautionary regulation must play ‘catch up’ to ensure worker and public safety. Without requirements for product labeling, consumers are left ignorant and vulnerable to exposure to an untested and possibly unsafe new generation of chemicals. People deserve unbiased information to protect their families. In the face of government failure to take action, the new NRDC report proposes an immediate, three-part framework for regulating nanomaterials, based on already established precautionary approaches to managing toxic chemicals that are broadly agreed upon by environmental and worker protection groups.
The steps include; (1) Prohibit the untested or unsafe use of nanomaterials. Because preliminary data demonstrates the potential for toxicity, unsafe or untested nanomaterials should not be used in a manner that may result in human exposures or environmental releases over the lifecycle of the material. (2) Conduct full lifecycle environment, health, and safety impact assessments as a prerequisite to commercialization. Robust testing is urgently needed to identify potential risks early in development, across the lifecycle of the material. The results of testing should be made available to the public. (3) Facilitate full and meaningful participation by the public and workers in nanotechnologies development and control; consider the social and ethical impacts of nanotechnologies. The potential of nanotechnologies to transform the global social, economic, and political landscape means we must move the decision-making out of corporate boardrooms and into the public realm.
NRDC says several studies have associated nano-sized air pollutants with asthma attacks, heart disease, strokes and respiratory disease. Yet nanomaterials in consumer products remain essentially unregulated in the United States. Despite their unknown effects on human health, Lux Research, a consulting firm with expertise in science-driven innovation, projects that $2.6 trillion worth of manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnologies by 2014.
Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the NRDC report (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). [Note: On February 26, Environmental Defense and DuPont announced their Nano Risk Framework (click here).] [*Toxics]
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
President Calls For Regulations & Coordination For 20-in-10 Plan
May 14: In a Rose Garden event at the White House, President George Bush discussed his plans on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and alternative fuel standards. The President said, "We now have reached a pivotal moment where advances in technology are creating new ways to improve energy security, strengthen national security, and protect the environment. To help achieve all these priorities, I set an ambitious goal in my State of the Union: to cut America's gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years. I call this goal 20-in-10, and I have said -- sent to Congress a proposal that would meet it in two steps: First, this proposal will set a mandatory fuel standard that requires 35 billion gallons of renewable and other alternative fuels by 2017. That's nearly five times the current target. Second, the proposal would continue our efforts to increase fuel efficiency. My administration has twice increased fuel economy standards for light trucks. Together, these reforms would save billions of gallons of fuel and reduce net greenhouse gas emissions without compromising jobs or safety."
The President also addressed last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120 [See WIMS 4/2/07]. saying, "...the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must take action under the Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. So today, I'm directing the EPA and the Department of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, using my 20-in-10 plan as a starting point. Developing these regulations will require coordination across many different areas of expertise. Today, I signed an executive order directing all our agencies represented here today to work together on this proposal. I've also asked them to listen to public input, to carefully consider safety, science, and available technologies, and evaluate the benefits and costs before they put forth the new regulation."
The President's Executive Order ... declares that, "It is the policy of the United States to ensure the coordinated and effective exercise of the authorities of the President and the heads of the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines, in a manner consistent with sound science, analysis of benefits and costs, public safety, and economic growth." The Order generally calls for coordination and cooperation between all levels of the executive branch and indicates that, "To implement this order, the heads of the agencies acting jointly may allocate as appropriate among the agencies administrative responsibilities relating to regulatory actions to which section 3 refers, such as publication of notices in the Federal Register and receipt of comments in response to notices."
According to a fact sheet on the President's actions, he has "directed these agencies to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, using as a starting point his "Twenty in Ten" plan to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years." In his statement he said, "...I have directed members of my administration to complete the process by the end of 2008."
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee said, “This is an Executive Order on interagency relationships. While good relations among agencies are important to the regulatory process, it’s also important to recognize that reducing gasoline consumption requires more than good interagency dynamics. The absence of any standards in today’s announcement is a reason why Americans will be looking to Congress for stronger leadership on energy policy..."
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee said, “In response to the Supreme Court’s decision EPA v. Massachusetts, President Bush today announced that he has issued an executive order instructing the EPA and other relevant agencies to develop new regulations that will raise the average fuel economy of American vehicles and increase the use of alternative fuels. News today that DailmerChrysler will sell a controlling interest in its struggling Chrysler Group reminds us of the significant financial troubles facing America’s auto industry. One of the reasons for these struggles is the failure of the Big Three to adapt to the growing need for vehicles that are more fuel efficient. The American consumer is now demanding vehicles that use less gasoline and emit less carbon dioxide."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement saying, “API is pleased that the Bush administration has decided to undertake a full rulemaking and comment approach that recognizes the technological challenges and significant infrastructure hurdles that must be resolved to significantly increase renewable and alternative fuels in the nation’s fuel mix... Ethanol has a role as a transportation energy source, but that role will be limited until significant technology breakthroughs permit economic production of ethanol from biomass (cellulosic). The timing of such breakthroughs is highly speculative. There is no guarantee that technologies would emerge to enable large-scale economic cellulosic ethanol production in the next decade and ensure reliable energy for U.S. consumers at affordable prices. It is critical that any alternative fuels standard include regular technology and feasibility reviews that would trigger appropriate adjustments to mandates to ensure companies and consumers are not penalized due to obstacles that might prevent meeting usage targets."
Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director, issued a release saying, "It is encouraging that the President is now also showing interest in tackling some of our most pressing problems; however, he already enjoys the clear authority to address these problems and he can and should act immediately to do so. There is no reason to wait until the end of 2008 for federal agencies to act... Most importantly, the President has existing authority to raise fuel economy standards the 4 percent per year he promised in the State of the Union... It's great that everyone from Ted Stevens to Barack Obama to President Bush wants to improve fuel economy at 4 percent a year. Such an increase would dramatically cut both our oil consumption and global warming emissions... "Fourteen states, representing some 40 percent of the U.S. auto market, have adopted California’s landmark global warming emissions standards for automobiles. California and the other states are still waiting for permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to implement them."
Access links to the President's comments, the Executive Order and a fact sheet (click here). Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access the Sierra Club statement (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
The President also addressed last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120 [See WIMS 4/2/07]. saying, "...the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must take action under the Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. So today, I'm directing the EPA and the Department of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, using my 20-in-10 plan as a starting point. Developing these regulations will require coordination across many different areas of expertise. Today, I signed an executive order directing all our agencies represented here today to work together on this proposal. I've also asked them to listen to public input, to carefully consider safety, science, and available technologies, and evaluate the benefits and costs before they put forth the new regulation."
The President's Executive Order ... declares that, "It is the policy of the United States to ensure the coordinated and effective exercise of the authorities of the President and the heads of the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines, in a manner consistent with sound science, analysis of benefits and costs, public safety, and economic growth." The Order generally calls for coordination and cooperation between all levels of the executive branch and indicates that, "To implement this order, the heads of the agencies acting jointly may allocate as appropriate among the agencies administrative responsibilities relating to regulatory actions to which section 3 refers, such as publication of notices in the Federal Register and receipt of comments in response to notices."
According to a fact sheet on the President's actions, he has "directed these agencies to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, using as a starting point his "Twenty in Ten" plan to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years." In his statement he said, "...I have directed members of my administration to complete the process by the end of 2008."
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee said, “This is an Executive Order on interagency relationships. While good relations among agencies are important to the regulatory process, it’s also important to recognize that reducing gasoline consumption requires more than good interagency dynamics. The absence of any standards in today’s announcement is a reason why Americans will be looking to Congress for stronger leadership on energy policy..."
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee said, “In response to the Supreme Court’s decision EPA v. Massachusetts, President Bush today announced that he has issued an executive order instructing the EPA and other relevant agencies to develop new regulations that will raise the average fuel economy of American vehicles and increase the use of alternative fuels. News today that DailmerChrysler will sell a controlling interest in its struggling Chrysler Group reminds us of the significant financial troubles facing America’s auto industry. One of the reasons for these struggles is the failure of the Big Three to adapt to the growing need for vehicles that are more fuel efficient. The American consumer is now demanding vehicles that use less gasoline and emit less carbon dioxide."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement saying, “API is pleased that the Bush administration has decided to undertake a full rulemaking and comment approach that recognizes the technological challenges and significant infrastructure hurdles that must be resolved to significantly increase renewable and alternative fuels in the nation’s fuel mix... Ethanol has a role as a transportation energy source, but that role will be limited until significant technology breakthroughs permit economic production of ethanol from biomass (cellulosic). The timing of such breakthroughs is highly speculative. There is no guarantee that technologies would emerge to enable large-scale economic cellulosic ethanol production in the next decade and ensure reliable energy for U.S. consumers at affordable prices. It is critical that any alternative fuels standard include regular technology and feasibility reviews that would trigger appropriate adjustments to mandates to ensure companies and consumers are not penalized due to obstacles that might prevent meeting usage targets."
Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director, issued a release saying, "It is encouraging that the President is now also showing interest in tackling some of our most pressing problems; however, he already enjoys the clear authority to address these problems and he can and should act immediately to do so. There is no reason to wait until the end of 2008 for federal agencies to act... Most importantly, the President has existing authority to raise fuel economy standards the 4 percent per year he promised in the State of the Union... It's great that everyone from Ted Stevens to Barack Obama to President Bush wants to improve fuel economy at 4 percent a year. Such an increase would dramatically cut both our oil consumption and global warming emissions... "Fourteen states, representing some 40 percent of the U.S. auto market, have adopted California’s landmark global warming emissions standards for automobiles. California and the other states are still waiting for permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to implement them."
Access links to the President's comments, the Executive Order and a fact sheet (click here). Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access the Sierra Club statement (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, May 14, 2007
WRI Report On The Business Case for Community Consent
May 14: A new report released by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and endorsed by a $110 billion coalition of faith-based institutional investors concludes that multinational corporations and financial institutions that seek local community consent for their operations will have a competitive advantage over those that fail to do so. The report, Development Without Conflict: The Business Case for Community Consent, is the first to document the precise financial and operational opportunities and risks a company faces when engaging with communities affected by environmentally sensitive development projects. It provides a roadmap for implementing community consent procedures into project and investment strategies.
The report's four case studies of industrial projects in the Philippines, Argentina, Thailand and Peru demonstrate the financial opportunities of achieving community consent including project cost savings, increased access to international capital and positive reputational benefits. Companies that fail to achieve consent face a range of financial implications including project cost-overrun risks, litigation, increased scrutiny and concern from Wall Street stock analysts, and significant reputational harm.
The report has received the endorsement of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a 35-year-old international coalition of 275 faith-based institutional investors, which include denominations, religious communities, pension funds, healthcare corporations, foundations and dioceses with combined portfolios worth an estimated $110 billion. Rev. David M. Schilling, program director of ICCR, said, "Companies that look to the principles laid down in the WRI report and learn from the valuable case studies will be better equipped to work with the communities in which they operate.
The central tenet of free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) is that local indigenous communities have the right to determine how projects that might affect their land or way of life are developed. The principle has been expanded by some companies and financial institutions to all communities impacted by their projects and investments. Jon Sohn, WRI senior associate and a co-author of the report said, "WRI supports companies and financial institutions that mainstream community consent-based policies into their projects and investments. Respecting local community rights makes plain sense from a business perspective and we expect trends towards this practice to increase."
WRI cites, for example, that in April 2007, religious institutional investors, led by Christian Brothers Investment Services, filed a shareholder resolution that required Newmont Mining Corporation (NEM) to produce a report addressing community-based opposition to its operations around the world. In an unprecedented move for a U.S. mining company, Newmont's board of directors supported the proposal. Newmont's shareholders overwhelmingly approved the resolution, with 91% of shares voting in favor. WRI also indicates that on May 15, 2007, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation is hosting a meeting of Equator Principle Banks, export credit agencies and other development banks to explore best risk management practices to achieve "broad community support" in projects they support.
Operationalizing FPIC is an evolving concept in development circles, yet several institutions have recently adopted strengthened consultation procedures and are considering ways to achieve "consent" based development outcomes. The report provides best practice principles to achieve that goal.
Access a release on the WRI report (click here). Access the complete 70-page report (click here). Access an overview and links to an executive summary and related information (click here). [*All]
The report's four case studies of industrial projects in the Philippines, Argentina, Thailand and Peru demonstrate the financial opportunities of achieving community consent including project cost savings, increased access to international capital and positive reputational benefits. Companies that fail to achieve consent face a range of financial implications including project cost-overrun risks, litigation, increased scrutiny and concern from Wall Street stock analysts, and significant reputational harm.
The report has received the endorsement of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a 35-year-old international coalition of 275 faith-based institutional investors, which include denominations, religious communities, pension funds, healthcare corporations, foundations and dioceses with combined portfolios worth an estimated $110 billion. Rev. David M. Schilling, program director of ICCR, said, "Companies that look to the principles laid down in the WRI report and learn from the valuable case studies will be better equipped to work with the communities in which they operate.
The central tenet of free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) is that local indigenous communities have the right to determine how projects that might affect their land or way of life are developed. The principle has been expanded by some companies and financial institutions to all communities impacted by their projects and investments. Jon Sohn, WRI senior associate and a co-author of the report said, "WRI supports companies and financial institutions that mainstream community consent-based policies into their projects and investments. Respecting local community rights makes plain sense from a business perspective and we expect trends towards this practice to increase."
WRI cites, for example, that in April 2007, religious institutional investors, led by Christian Brothers Investment Services, filed a shareholder resolution that required Newmont Mining Corporation (NEM) to produce a report addressing community-based opposition to its operations around the world. In an unprecedented move for a U.S. mining company, Newmont's board of directors supported the proposal. Newmont's shareholders overwhelmingly approved the resolution, with 91% of shares voting in favor. WRI also indicates that on May 15, 2007, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation is hosting a meeting of Equator Principle Banks, export credit agencies and other development banks to explore best risk management practices to achieve "broad community support" in projects they support.
Operationalizing FPIC is an evolving concept in development circles, yet several institutions have recently adopted strengthened consultation procedures and are considering ways to achieve "consent" based development outcomes. The report provides best practice principles to achieve that goal.
Access a release on the WRI report (click here). Access the complete 70-page report (click here). Access an overview and links to an executive summary and related information (click here). [*All]
Friday, May 11, 2007
Economic Impacts of Global Warming On Insurance
May 3: The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), held a hearing entitled, Economic Impacts of Global Warming: Part 1-Insurance. The Committee heard from insurance experts on how a riskier, warming would affect their business and the costs to consider. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report notes that insurers paid more than $320 billion in claims on weather-related losses from 1980 to 2005. Scientists predict that an unstable climate due to global warming will cause more severe and unpredictable weather events.
In an opening statement Chairman Markey said, "Over the last 25 years, extreme weather caused 88 percent of the $320 billion in total insured property losses. Since almost everything that is insured -- from property, to crops, to human life and health -- is susceptible to severe weather, the insurance industry is one of the most sensitive indicators of the economic repercussions of global warming. From a financial perspective, the insurance industry is our canary in the climate coal mine." Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: the Director of Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office; the Washington State Insurance Commissioner; and the President of the Reinsurance Association of America.
GAO testified that weather-related events in the United States have caused tens of billions of dollars in damages annually over the past decade. A major portion of these losses is borne by private insurers and by two Federal insurance programs -- the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which insures properties against flooding, and the Department of Agriculture’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), which insures crops against drought or other weather disasters. GAO said, "The growth in population in hazard-prone areas and resulting real estate development have generally increased liabilities for insurers, and have helped to explain the increase in losses. Due to these and other factors, federal insurers’ exposure has grown substantially. Since 1980, NFIP’s exposure nearly quadrupled to nearly $1 trillion in 2005, and program expansion increased FCIC’s exposure 26-fold to $44 billion.
GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Homeland Security analyze the potential long-term fiscal implications of climate change for the FCIC and the NFIP, respectively, and report their findings to the Congress. Both agencies expressed agreement with the recommendation.
Access the hearing website for links to an opening statement from Chairman Markey and the witness testimony (click here). [*Climate]
In an opening statement Chairman Markey said, "Over the last 25 years, extreme weather caused 88 percent of the $320 billion in total insured property losses. Since almost everything that is insured -- from property, to crops, to human life and health -- is susceptible to severe weather, the insurance industry is one of the most sensitive indicators of the economic repercussions of global warming. From a financial perspective, the insurance industry is our canary in the climate coal mine." Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: the Director of Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office; the Washington State Insurance Commissioner; and the President of the Reinsurance Association of America.
GAO testified that weather-related events in the United States have caused tens of billions of dollars in damages annually over the past decade. A major portion of these losses is borne by private insurers and by two Federal insurance programs -- the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which insures properties against flooding, and the Department of Agriculture’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), which insures crops against drought or other weather disasters. GAO said, "The growth in population in hazard-prone areas and resulting real estate development have generally increased liabilities for insurers, and have helped to explain the increase in losses. Due to these and other factors, federal insurers’ exposure has grown substantially. Since 1980, NFIP’s exposure nearly quadrupled to nearly $1 trillion in 2005, and program expansion increased FCIC’s exposure 26-fold to $44 billion.
GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Homeland Security analyze the potential long-term fiscal implications of climate change for the FCIC and the NFIP, respectively, and report their findings to the Congress. Both agencies expressed agreement with the recommendation.
Access the hearing website for links to an opening statement from Chairman Markey and the witness testimony (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, May 10, 2007
EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment: Science Report
May 10: U.S. EPA announced in a Federal Register notice [72 FR 26629-26631] a 45-day public comment period for the draft 539-page document entitled, EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment: Science Report (ROE SR) (EPA/600/R-07/045). The public comment period is to precede the formal public, scientific peer review of the document by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) on July 10-12, 2007. The public comment period begins May 10, 2007 and ends June 25, 2007.
EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment compiles the latest and most reliable indicators to help understand critical trends in the environment and human health. Additionally, the report identifies key limitations of the indicators and gaps where reliable indicators do not yet exist. The gaps and limitations highlight the disparity between the current state of knowledge and the goal of full, reliable, and insightful representation of environmental conditions and trends, and provide direction for future research and monitoring efforts. The indicators for EPA’s 2007 ROE SR, which comprise the main content of the report, underwent independent scientific peer review as well as public review and comment during the summer and fall of 2005. In addition to the EPA’s 2007 ROE SR, EPA is also producing the Highlights of Conditions and Trends document (EPA's 2007 ROE HD), which summaries the findings in an easier to understand format. The Highlights Document (HD) is undergoing a separate review under EPA's Office of Environmental Information. After the SAB and public reviews of the draft 2007 ROE SR, the comments and recommendations received from the experts and public will be considered and the resulting revisions discussed within EPA and with EPA’s Federal agency partners. EPA plans to publish the final EPA’s 2007 Report on the Environment: Science Report in late 2007.
The massive report, is written for environmental professionals and consists of five chapters: Air, Water, Land, Human Health, and Ecological Condition. The Air, Water, and Land chapters (Chapters 2, 3, and 4) focus on trends in air, water, and land media, and their effects on human health and ecological systems. The Human Health and Ecological Condition chapters (Chapters 5 and 6) follow with information on overall trends in human health and ecological systems. The latter two chapters address questions that are intrinsically affected by multiple factors across media.
For each of these five chapters, EPA identified a set of priority questions that it considers to be most important and relevant to the Agency’s mission to protect the environment and human health. The report is organized around these questions. The response to each of the questions has three components: An introduction that describes the scope of the question (see below) and provides relevant background information; A set of indicators that answer (or more often partially answer) the question; and A discussion of (1) the "answer" that the indicators collectively provide to the question; and (2) the most critical indicator gaps, limitations, and challenges that prevent the question from being fully answered.
The document concludes with Chapter 7, "Afterword," which discusses the next steps for improving indicators and summarizes the challenges to answering the questions and synthesizing and integrating information across indicators. Appendix A lists acronyms and provides a glossary of terms that have particular definitions within this document or whose definitions are not commonly available. Appendix B describes the process used to develop the 2007 ROE Science Report. Appendix C compares indicators used in the 2003 Draft ROE Technical Document with those in this 2007 version.
Access an overview and links to chapters and related information (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the ROE website (click here). [*All]
EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment compiles the latest and most reliable indicators to help understand critical trends in the environment and human health. Additionally, the report identifies key limitations of the indicators and gaps where reliable indicators do not yet exist. The gaps and limitations highlight the disparity between the current state of knowledge and the goal of full, reliable, and insightful representation of environmental conditions and trends, and provide direction for future research and monitoring efforts. The indicators for EPA’s 2007 ROE SR, which comprise the main content of the report, underwent independent scientific peer review as well as public review and comment during the summer and fall of 2005. In addition to the EPA’s 2007 ROE SR, EPA is also producing the Highlights of Conditions and Trends document (EPA's 2007 ROE HD), which summaries the findings in an easier to understand format. The Highlights Document (HD) is undergoing a separate review under EPA's Office of Environmental Information. After the SAB and public reviews of the draft 2007 ROE SR, the comments and recommendations received from the experts and public will be considered and the resulting revisions discussed within EPA and with EPA’s Federal agency partners. EPA plans to publish the final EPA’s 2007 Report on the Environment: Science Report in late 2007.
The massive report, is written for environmental professionals and consists of five chapters: Air, Water, Land, Human Health, and Ecological Condition. The Air, Water, and Land chapters (Chapters 2, 3, and 4) focus on trends in air, water, and land media, and their effects on human health and ecological systems. The Human Health and Ecological Condition chapters (Chapters 5 and 6) follow with information on overall trends in human health and ecological systems. The latter two chapters address questions that are intrinsically affected by multiple factors across media.
For each of these five chapters, EPA identified a set of priority questions that it considers to be most important and relevant to the Agency’s mission to protect the environment and human health. The report is organized around these questions. The response to each of the questions has three components: An introduction that describes the scope of the question (see below) and provides relevant background information; A set of indicators that answer (or more often partially answer) the question; and A discussion of (1) the "answer" that the indicators collectively provide to the question; and (2) the most critical indicator gaps, limitations, and challenges that prevent the question from being fully answered.
The document concludes with Chapter 7, "Afterword," which discusses the next steps for improving indicators and summarizes the challenges to answering the questions and synthesizing and integrating information across indicators. Appendix A lists acronyms and provides a glossary of terms that have particular definitions within this document or whose definitions are not commonly available. Appendix B describes the process used to develop the 2007 ROE Science Report. Appendix C compares indicators used in the 2003 Draft ROE Technical Document with those in this 2007 version.
Access an overview and links to chapters and related information (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the ROE website (click here). [*All]
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
UN Report Evaluates Bioenergy Trade-Offs For Decision Makers
May 8: The fast-growing bioenergy industry offers many opportunities, but also involves a number of trade-offs and risks, the United Nations said in its most comprehensive review of the likely impact of the emerging bioenergy market. The report indicates, “The economic, environmental and social impacts of bioenergy development must be assessed carefully before deciding if and how rapidly to develop the industry and what technologies, policies and investment strategies to pursue." The document, Sustainable Energy: A Framework for Decision Makers, was prepared by UN-Energy, a group of all UN agencies programs and organizations working in the area of energy. It was sponsored by the Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
UN-Energy Chair Mats Karlsson of the World Bank said, “The purpose of the study was to help ensure that the energy needs of people are met and the local and global environment is adequately protected. We hope to use the collective strength of the UN system to affect change”.
The report points out the many benefits of bioenergy systems in relation to poverty alleviation, access to energy services, rural development and rural infrastructure. It reviewed the likely impact of bioenergy in terms of food security, climate change, biodiversity and natural resources, employment and trade. It also identified the vital points decision makers need to consider and stresses that, “Unless new policies are enacted to protect threatened lands, secure socially acceptable land use, and steer bioenergy development in a sustainable direction overall, the environmental and social damage could in some cases outweigh the benefits”. Regarding the use of some grains as a biofuel feedstock, UN-Energy noted, “In general, crops that require high fossil energy inputs (such as conventional fertilizer) and valuable (farm) land, and that have relatively low energy yields per hectare, should be avoided.” It is noted that even “sustainably"-produced energy crops could have negative impacts if they replaced primary forests, “resulting in large releases of carbon from the soil and forest biomass that negate any benefits from biofuels for decades.”
Additionally, the report indicates, that the availability of adequate food supplies could be threatened by biofuel production as land, water and other resources were diverted from food production. Similarly, food access could be compromised by higher basic food prices resulting from increased bioenergy feedstock demand, thus driving the poor and food insecure into even greater poverty.
The FAO also introduced its International Bioenergy Platform (IBEP), a 26-page document, to the international community in the energy, agriculture and environment sectors as a mechanism for organizing and facilitating a multidisciplinary and global approach. IBEP is expected to provide analysis and information for policy and decision-making support; to build and strengthen institutional capacity at all levels; to enhance access to energy services from sustainable bioenergy systems; and to facilitate opportunities for effective international exchange and collaboration.
In a related matter, the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) unveiled its website on May 9, which was launched at the GBEP’s 3rd Steering Committee meeting, taking place in New York during the 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The site provides information on the Partnership, which was created in May 2006 to promote the use of bioenergy and whose secretariat is hosted at FAO. It also offers links to sources of information on bioenergy and features news and a regularly updated list of bioenergy events.
Access a lengthy release on the report and links to related information (click here). Access the complete 64-page report (click here). Access the IBEP document (click here). Access a release on the GBEP website (click here). Access the GBEP website (click here). [*Energy]
UN-Energy Chair Mats Karlsson of the World Bank said, “The purpose of the study was to help ensure that the energy needs of people are met and the local and global environment is adequately protected. We hope to use the collective strength of the UN system to affect change”.
The report points out the many benefits of bioenergy systems in relation to poverty alleviation, access to energy services, rural development and rural infrastructure. It reviewed the likely impact of bioenergy in terms of food security, climate change, biodiversity and natural resources, employment and trade. It also identified the vital points decision makers need to consider and stresses that, “Unless new policies are enacted to protect threatened lands, secure socially acceptable land use, and steer bioenergy development in a sustainable direction overall, the environmental and social damage could in some cases outweigh the benefits”. Regarding the use of some grains as a biofuel feedstock, UN-Energy noted, “In general, crops that require high fossil energy inputs (such as conventional fertilizer) and valuable (farm) land, and that have relatively low energy yields per hectare, should be avoided.” It is noted that even “sustainably"-produced energy crops could have negative impacts if they replaced primary forests, “resulting in large releases of carbon from the soil and forest biomass that negate any benefits from biofuels for decades.”
Additionally, the report indicates, that the availability of adequate food supplies could be threatened by biofuel production as land, water and other resources were diverted from food production. Similarly, food access could be compromised by higher basic food prices resulting from increased bioenergy feedstock demand, thus driving the poor and food insecure into even greater poverty.
The FAO also introduced its International Bioenergy Platform (IBEP), a 26-page document, to the international community in the energy, agriculture and environment sectors as a mechanism for organizing and facilitating a multidisciplinary and global approach. IBEP is expected to provide analysis and information for policy and decision-making support; to build and strengthen institutional capacity at all levels; to enhance access to energy services from sustainable bioenergy systems; and to facilitate opportunities for effective international exchange and collaboration.
In a related matter, the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) unveiled its website on May 9, which was launched at the GBEP’s 3rd Steering Committee meeting, taking place in New York during the 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The site provides information on the Partnership, which was created in May 2006 to promote the use of bioenergy and whose secretariat is hosted at FAO. It also offers links to sources of information on bioenergy and features news and a regularly updated list of bioenergy events.
Access a lengthy release on the report and links to related information (click here). Access the complete 64-page report (click here). Access the IBEP document (click here). Access a release on the GBEP website (click here). Access the GBEP website (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
WRI Report On Restoring Nature's Capital
May 7: Ecosystems must be viewed as huge capital assets, affected by nearly all development and investment decisions according to a new World Resources Institute (WRI) report -- Restoring Nature's Capital: An Action Agenda to Sustain Ecosystem Services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), conducted in 2005 by the United Nations, including UNEP, WRI, and 1,300 Assessment participants, found the extent to which economies depend on the capital lying within nature's lands, waters, forests, and reefs. Restoring Nature's Capital presents the results of the earliest concerted thinking about how to address both the stark realities and the enormous potential uncovered by the Assessment. Restoring Nature's Capital draws on the recommendations of its 17 contributing authors from around the world.
Using the Assessment as its backdrop, Restoring Nature's Capital proposes an action agenda for business, governments, and civil society to reverse ecosystem degradation. Drawing on the recommendations of the 17 contributing authors, WRI's own series of World Resources reports, and the good work of many others, it sets out to answer the thorny question of what changes must be made to ensure that ecosystems can meet the needs of today's and future generations.
The authors contend that governance -- who makes decisions, how they are made, and with what information -- is at the heart of sustaining healthy ecosystems. With this as their fundamental tenet, the authors present an action agenda for reversing degradation of ecosystems and sustaining their capacity to provide vital services for generations to come. The action agenda identifies how decisions about development projects and investments can be made in ways that lead to healthy ecosystem services. These decisions, made by local and national governments, corporations, and international financial institutions, involve billions of dollars, affect huge swaths of land and water, and affect millions of people.
Access a WRI announcement (click here). Access an overview and links to related information (click here). Access the complete 101-page report (click here). [*All]
Using the Assessment as its backdrop, Restoring Nature's Capital proposes an action agenda for business, governments, and civil society to reverse ecosystem degradation. Drawing on the recommendations of the 17 contributing authors, WRI's own series of World Resources reports, and the good work of many others, it sets out to answer the thorny question of what changes must be made to ensure that ecosystems can meet the needs of today's and future generations.
The authors contend that governance -- who makes decisions, how they are made, and with what information -- is at the heart of sustaining healthy ecosystems. With this as their fundamental tenet, the authors present an action agenda for reversing degradation of ecosystems and sustaining their capacity to provide vital services for generations to come. The action agenda identifies how decisions about development projects and investments can be made in ways that lead to healthy ecosystem services. These decisions, made by local and national governments, corporations, and international financial institutions, involve billions of dollars, affect huge swaths of land and water, and affect millions of people.
Access a WRI announcement (click here). Access an overview and links to related information (click here). Access the complete 101-page report (click here). [*All]
Monday, May 07, 2007
Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits And Risks
May 7: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has recently released a Special Report entitled, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks (April 2007). The report addresses the benefits and risks of nuclear power for the United States and other countries in light of increased concern over energy security and global climate change. As indicated in the report, the debate surrounding nuclear energy also intersects with critical U.S. foreign policy issues such as nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The Council Special Report was produced in partnership with Washington and Lee University and written by the Council’s Fellow for Science and Technology Charles D. Ferguson. CFR says the report provides the factual and analytical background to inform this debate.
According to the foreword to the report, written by CFR President Richard Haass, the report is a "sobering and authoritative lookat nuclear power. Dr. Ferguson argues that nuclear energy, despite its attributes, is unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in strengthening energy security or in countering the harmful effects of climate change. In particular, the rapid rate of nuclear reactor expansion required to make even a modest reduction in global warming would drive up construction costs and create shortages in building materials, trained personnel, and safety controls. There are also lingering questions over nuclear waste, as well as continued political opposition to siting new plants. Nonetheless, the report points out steps the United States could take -- such as imposing a fee on greenhouse gas emissions -- to level the economic playing field for all energy sectors, which over the long run would encourage the construction of new nuclear reactors (if only to replace existing ones that will need to be retired) and help reduce global warming.
Dr. Ferguson has written a fair and balanced report that brings the nuclear energy debate down from one of preferences and ideologies to one of reality. Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks is useful to anyone who wants to understand both thepotential and the limits of nuclear power to enhance energy security and slow climate change."
Among the report's recommendations are: "Nuclear energy produces one-fifth of U.S. electricity and one-sixth of global electricity; thus, the United States and its partners have a vested interest in ensuring safe and secure operation of the world’s nuclear industry. But the future of domestic and international commercial nuclear energy use faces large uncertainties in financial competitiveness and in external costs such as proliferation risks of the nuclear fuel cycle, safe and secure operation of nuclear power plants, and long-term disposal of highly radioactive waste. Generating electricity from any energy source comes with external costs. Traditionally, the U.S. government and many other governments have relied on subsidies to pick winners and losers among energy sectors. But providing subsidies to mature industries such as nuclear power have hidden the external costs. Governments should strive to identify and factor in as many of the external costs as possible into the price of energy sources." The report makes major recommendations for factoring in external costs and managing the risks.
Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. The Council takes no institutional position on policy issues and has no affiliation with the U.S. Government.
Access the complete 51-page report (click here). Access the CFR website for additional information (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
According to the foreword to the report, written by CFR President Richard Haass, the report is a "sobering and authoritative lookat nuclear power. Dr. Ferguson argues that nuclear energy, despite its attributes, is unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in strengthening energy security or in countering the harmful effects of climate change. In particular, the rapid rate of nuclear reactor expansion required to make even a modest reduction in global warming would drive up construction costs and create shortages in building materials, trained personnel, and safety controls. There are also lingering questions over nuclear waste, as well as continued political opposition to siting new plants. Nonetheless, the report points out steps the United States could take -- such as imposing a fee on greenhouse gas emissions -- to level the economic playing field for all energy sectors, which over the long run would encourage the construction of new nuclear reactors (if only to replace existing ones that will need to be retired) and help reduce global warming.
Dr. Ferguson has written a fair and balanced report that brings the nuclear energy debate down from one of preferences and ideologies to one of reality. Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks is useful to anyone who wants to understand both thepotential and the limits of nuclear power to enhance energy security and slow climate change."
Among the report's recommendations are: "Nuclear energy produces one-fifth of U.S. electricity and one-sixth of global electricity; thus, the United States and its partners have a vested interest in ensuring safe and secure operation of the world’s nuclear industry. But the future of domestic and international commercial nuclear energy use faces large uncertainties in financial competitiveness and in external costs such as proliferation risks of the nuclear fuel cycle, safe and secure operation of nuclear power plants, and long-term disposal of highly radioactive waste. Generating electricity from any energy source comes with external costs. Traditionally, the U.S. government and many other governments have relied on subsidies to pick winners and losers among energy sectors. But providing subsidies to mature industries such as nuclear power have hidden the external costs. Governments should strive to identify and factor in as many of the external costs as possible into the price of energy sources." The report makes major recommendations for factoring in external costs and managing the risks.
Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. The Council takes no institutional position on policy issues and has no affiliation with the U.S. Government.
Access the complete 51-page report (click here). Access the CFR website for additional information (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
Friday, May 04, 2007
IPCC Releases "Mitigation Of Climate Change" Report
May 4: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC), meeting in Bangkok, Thailand released its third in a series of three documents comprising its Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007", also referred to as AR4. The Working Group III, 35-page Summary for Policymakers report entitled, Mitigation of Climate Change, provides a comprehensive synthesis of research and analysis of climate change solutions, discussing measures such as energy efficiency, improved fuel economy and increased use of renewable energy. The Working Group III report follows the release of the Physical Science Basis [February 07, See WIMS 2/2/07] and Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [April 07, See WIMS 4/9/07] reports. A synthesis report, integrating the three reports will be released in November 2007.
The report focuses on mitigation of climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere. It analyzes mitigation options for the main sectors in the near-term, addressing also cross-sectorial matters such as synergies, co-benefits and trade-offs. It also provides information on long-term mitigation strategies for various concentration stabilization levels. The summary report is organized into five sections including: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends; Mitigation in the short and medium term, across different economic sectors (until 2030); Mitigation in the long-term (beyond 2030); Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change; and Sustainable development and climate change mitigation.
The report looks at many key mitigation technologies available now and beyond 2030 by various sectors including: energy supply; transport; buildings; industry; agriculture; forestry and waste management. The report also looks at the various policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change. It indicates that a wide variety of national policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and an understanding of their interactions, but experience from implementation in various countries and sectors shows there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument.
The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Yvo de Boer, issued a statement saying "the worst effects of climate change can be staved off if the appropriate international action is immediately taken." He said, "The third installment of the report presents us with an impressive array of response options to address the results of the IPCC’s first two installments published this year. With these options, we have a chance of preventing some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast."
A release from the U.S. State Department indicates that, "The United States supports the consensus summary report on climate change mitigation that was reviewed and approved by over 100 countries..." Dr. Harlan Watson, U.S. Department of State Senior Climate Negotiator and Special Representative and head of the interagency U.S. delegation to the Working Group III meeting said, "The United States was an active and constructive participant in the international dialogue among experts and governments meeting in Bangkok. The result of this exchange is a summary document that will help policy makers around the world make more informed decisions in addressing the economic, energy and associated technological implications of global climate change."
Access the WG III Summary for Policymakers report (click here). Access the webcast of the press conference (click here). Access the IPCC website for additional information including links to previous reports and advance information on the WG III report (click here). Access the statement from UNFCCC (click here). Access the State Department release (click here).[*Climate]
The report focuses on mitigation of climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere. It analyzes mitigation options for the main sectors in the near-term, addressing also cross-sectorial matters such as synergies, co-benefits and trade-offs. It also provides information on long-term mitigation strategies for various concentration stabilization levels. The summary report is organized into five sections including: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends; Mitigation in the short and medium term, across different economic sectors (until 2030); Mitigation in the long-term (beyond 2030); Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change; and Sustainable development and climate change mitigation.
The report looks at many key mitigation technologies available now and beyond 2030 by various sectors including: energy supply; transport; buildings; industry; agriculture; forestry and waste management. The report also looks at the various policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change. It indicates that a wide variety of national policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and an understanding of their interactions, but experience from implementation in various countries and sectors shows there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument.
The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Yvo de Boer, issued a statement saying "the worst effects of climate change can be staved off if the appropriate international action is immediately taken." He said, "The third installment of the report presents us with an impressive array of response options to address the results of the IPCC’s first two installments published this year. With these options, we have a chance of preventing some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast."
A release from the U.S. State Department indicates that, "The United States supports the consensus summary report on climate change mitigation that was reviewed and approved by over 100 countries..." Dr. Harlan Watson, U.S. Department of State Senior Climate Negotiator and Special Representative and head of the interagency U.S. delegation to the Working Group III meeting said, "The United States was an active and constructive participant in the international dialogue among experts and governments meeting in Bangkok. The result of this exchange is a summary document that will help policy makers around the world make more informed decisions in addressing the economic, energy and associated technological implications of global climate change."
Access the WG III Summary for Policymakers report (click here). Access the webcast of the press conference (click here). Access the IPCC website for additional information including links to previous reports and advance information on the WG III report (click here). Access the statement from UNFCCC (click here). Access the State Department release (click here).[*Climate]
IPCC Releases "Mitigation Of Climate Change" Report
May 4: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC), meeting in Bangkok, Thailand released its third in a series of three documents comprising its Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007", also referred to as AR4. The Working Group III, 35-page Summary for Policymakers report entitled, Mitigation of Climate Change, provides a comprehensive synthesis of research and analysis of climate change solutions, discussing measures such as energy efficiency, improved fuel economy and increased use of renewable energy. The Working Group III report follows the release of the Physical Science Basis [February 07, See WIMS 2/2/07] and Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [April 07, See WIMS 4/9/07] reports. A synthesis report, integrating the three reports will be released in November 2007.
The report focuses on mitigation of climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere. It analyzes mitigation options for the main sectors in the near-term, addressing also cross-sectorial matters such as synergies, co-benefits and trade-offs. It also provides information on long-term mitigation strategies for various concentration stabilization levels. The summary report is organized into five sections including: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends; Mitigation in the short and medium term, across different economic sectors (until 2030); Mitigation in the long-term (beyond 2030); Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change; and Sustainable development and climate change mitigation.
The report looks at many key mitigation technologies available now and beyond 2030 by various sectors including: energy supply; transport; buildings; industry; agriculture; forestry and waste management. The report also looks at the various policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change. It indicates that a wide variety of national policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and an understanding of their interactions, but experience from implementation in various countries and sectors shows there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument.
The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Yvo de Boer, issued a statement saying "the worst effects of climate change can be staved off if the appropriate international action is immediately taken." He said, "The third installment of the report presents us with an impressive array of response options to address the results of the IPCC’s first two installments published this year. With these options, we have a chance of preventing some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast."
A release from the U.S. State Department indicates that, "The United States supports the consensus summary report on climate change mitigation that was reviewed and approved by over 100 countries..." Dr. Harlan Watson, U.S. Department of State Senior Climate Negotiator and Special Representative and head of the interagency U.S. delegation to the Working Group III meeting said, "The United States was an active and constructive participant in the international dialogue among experts and governments meeting in Bangkok. The result of this exchange is a summary document that will help policy makers around the world make more informed decisions in addressing the economic, energy and associated technological implications of global climate change."
Access the WG III Summary for Policymakers report (click here). Access the webcast of the press conference (click here). Access the IPCC website for additional information including links to previous reports and advance information on the WG III report (click here). Access the statement from UNFCCC (click here). Access the State Department release (click here).[*Climate]
The report focuses on mitigation of climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere. It analyzes mitigation options for the main sectors in the near-term, addressing also cross-sectorial matters such as synergies, co-benefits and trade-offs. It also provides information on long-term mitigation strategies for various concentration stabilization levels. The summary report is organized into five sections including: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends; Mitigation in the short and medium term, across different economic sectors (until 2030); Mitigation in the long-term (beyond 2030); Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change; and Sustainable development and climate change mitigation.
The report looks at many key mitigation technologies available now and beyond 2030 by various sectors including: energy supply; transport; buildings; industry; agriculture; forestry and waste management. The report also looks at the various policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change. It indicates that a wide variety of national policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and an understanding of their interactions, but experience from implementation in various countries and sectors shows there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument.
The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Yvo de Boer, issued a statement saying "the worst effects of climate change can be staved off if the appropriate international action is immediately taken." He said, "The third installment of the report presents us with an impressive array of response options to address the results of the IPCC’s first two installments published this year. With these options, we have a chance of preventing some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast."
A release from the U.S. State Department indicates that, "The United States supports the consensus summary report on climate change mitigation that was reviewed and approved by over 100 countries..." Dr. Harlan Watson, U.S. Department of State Senior Climate Negotiator and Special Representative and head of the interagency U.S. delegation to the Working Group III meeting said, "The United States was an active and constructive participant in the international dialogue among experts and governments meeting in Bangkok. The result of this exchange is a summary document that will help policy makers around the world make more informed decisions in addressing the economic, energy and associated technological implications of global climate change."
Access the WG III Summary for Policymakers report (click here). Access the webcast of the press conference (click here). Access the IPCC website for additional information including links to previous reports and advance information on the WG III report (click here). Access the statement from UNFCCC (click here). Access the State Department release (click here).[*Climate]
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Senate Committee Approves Energy Bill
May 2: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), approved bipartisan legislation designed to improve efficiency, promote renewable fuels diversity and invest in research on carbon sequestration. On a 20-3 vote, the Committee approved a Bingaman-Domenici joint mark that combines measures introduced over the past month. The legislation is now ready for consideration by the full Senate.
Bingaman said, “This legislation is a big step forward in three key areas to three key areas to America’s energy future. It will help dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by requiring the more efficient use of energy and by putting a much greater emphasis on the use of renewable, homegrown fuels. It also increases our investment in research on the capture of carbon, so we can cut back on the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. I appreciate the help and support that Senator Domenici gave in this effort. This bill is a testament to the bipartisan strength that our Committee brings to tough issues.”
Committee Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) said, “Today, the Energy Committee came together on a bipartisan basis and passed a bill that makes significant strides in a number of areas important to our long-term energy security. In particular, this bill sets the stage for biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol to greatly expand in our fuel supply, and will also save consumers money by improving efficiency standards. I look forward to an open and vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate that will include these and other measures as we tackle our energy challenges.”
According to a release, the bipartisan legislation establishes an escalating requirement to reduce America’s gasoline consumption, beginning with a 20 percent savings target in 10 years -- equivalent to more than 32 billion gallons per year -- and enough to reduce world oil prices by more than $2.50/barrel under current Energy Information Administration assumptions. The bill places a particular focus on the development of advanced biofuels by requiring an increasing portion of renewable fuels to be from unconventional biomass feedstocks beginning in 2016.
The joint mark would also promote biofuels infrastructure development in more diverse regions of the country, so producers and consumers alike can benefit from new and better choices at the gas pump. By increasing funding for bioenergy research and development by 50 percent, it invests in the critical science programs that can propel America to the forefront of global research on bioenergy resources.
In addition, new efficiency benchmarks for appliances included in the bill -- which contribute as much as two-thirds of an average American household’s electricity costs -- would bring consumers more than $12 billion in benefits, according to an American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy analysis. These standards would save more than 50 billion kilowatt-hours per year in electricity, or enough to power 4.8 million typical American households. It would also save 17 trillion BTUs of natural gas per year, and more than 560 million gallons of water per day.
Since the Federal government itself spends more than $14 billion a year on energy costs, leading the way toward energy security can also save money for American taxpayers. Under the bill’s strengthened Federal efficiency requirements, the government alone is poised to save another 220 trillion BTUs of energy and 1.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Among the other efficiency provisions of note are programs that $2.3 billion for research related to automotive batteries; authorize $60 million for DOE to research and develop light-weight materials for vehicle construction; authorize $15 million for advanced lighting technology, and reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program at $750 million. Finally, the bill authorizes research and development spending of up to $120 million on carbon sequestration, with the goal of furthering development of this key technology to reduce carbon emissions.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President, John Engler, issued a statement that commended the bipartisan energy package voted out of the Senate Committee, but said the draft legislation did not go far enough to address the nation’s future energy use. Engler said, "Our nation is starving for a solution to our energy crisis. Any movement toward establishing a sound domestic energy policy is welcome news, but without substantial congressional action, the nation’s manufacturers and our economy will suffer. A foundation for future energy use demands comprehensive and aggressive reforms -- both of which we hope the Senate will take up when legislation moves to the floor.”
According to a release from Sierra Club the Committee voted 12-11 to defeat an attempt to attach an amendment supporting liquid coal to the renewable fuels bill. Sierra Club said, "Liquid coal has no place in a bill about renewable fuels, or anywhere else for that matter. This amendment would have started us down the dangerous and expensive road to establishing an entirely new and massively polluting industry in this country. Liquid coal is nothing but a multibillion dollar swindle of taxpayers in order to fund an expensive boondoggle for energy interests--one that will result in massive increases in air pollution, global warming emissions, and all of the other negative environmental consequences associated with irresponsibly mined and burned coal..."
Access a release from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [*Energy]
Bingaman said, “This legislation is a big step forward in three key areas to three key areas to America’s energy future. It will help dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by requiring the more efficient use of energy and by putting a much greater emphasis on the use of renewable, homegrown fuels. It also increases our investment in research on the capture of carbon, so we can cut back on the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. I appreciate the help and support that Senator Domenici gave in this effort. This bill is a testament to the bipartisan strength that our Committee brings to tough issues.”
Committee Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) said, “Today, the Energy Committee came together on a bipartisan basis and passed a bill that makes significant strides in a number of areas important to our long-term energy security. In particular, this bill sets the stage for biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol to greatly expand in our fuel supply, and will also save consumers money by improving efficiency standards. I look forward to an open and vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate that will include these and other measures as we tackle our energy challenges.”
According to a release, the bipartisan legislation establishes an escalating requirement to reduce America’s gasoline consumption, beginning with a 20 percent savings target in 10 years -- equivalent to more than 32 billion gallons per year -- and enough to reduce world oil prices by more than $2.50/barrel under current Energy Information Administration assumptions. The bill places a particular focus on the development of advanced biofuels by requiring an increasing portion of renewable fuels to be from unconventional biomass feedstocks beginning in 2016.
The joint mark would also promote biofuels infrastructure development in more diverse regions of the country, so producers and consumers alike can benefit from new and better choices at the gas pump. By increasing funding for bioenergy research and development by 50 percent, it invests in the critical science programs that can propel America to the forefront of global research on bioenergy resources.
In addition, new efficiency benchmarks for appliances included in the bill -- which contribute as much as two-thirds of an average American household’s electricity costs -- would bring consumers more than $12 billion in benefits, according to an American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy analysis. These standards would save more than 50 billion kilowatt-hours per year in electricity, or enough to power 4.8 million typical American households. It would also save 17 trillion BTUs of natural gas per year, and more than 560 million gallons of water per day.
Since the Federal government itself spends more than $14 billion a year on energy costs, leading the way toward energy security can also save money for American taxpayers. Under the bill’s strengthened Federal efficiency requirements, the government alone is poised to save another 220 trillion BTUs of energy and 1.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Among the other efficiency provisions of note are programs that $2.3 billion for research related to automotive batteries; authorize $60 million for DOE to research and develop light-weight materials for vehicle construction; authorize $15 million for advanced lighting technology, and reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program at $750 million. Finally, the bill authorizes research and development spending of up to $120 million on carbon sequestration, with the goal of furthering development of this key technology to reduce carbon emissions.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President, John Engler, issued a statement that commended the bipartisan energy package voted out of the Senate Committee, but said the draft legislation did not go far enough to address the nation’s future energy use. Engler said, "Our nation is starving for a solution to our energy crisis. Any movement toward establishing a sound domestic energy policy is welcome news, but without substantial congressional action, the nation’s manufacturers and our economy will suffer. A foundation for future energy use demands comprehensive and aggressive reforms -- both of which we hope the Senate will take up when legislation moves to the floor.”
According to a release from Sierra Club the Committee voted 12-11 to defeat an attempt to attach an amendment supporting liquid coal to the renewable fuels bill. Sierra Club said, "Liquid coal has no place in a bill about renewable fuels, or anywhere else for that matter. This amendment would have started us down the dangerous and expensive road to establishing an entirely new and massively polluting industry in this country. Liquid coal is nothing but a multibillion dollar swindle of taxpayers in order to fund an expensive boondoggle for energy interests--one that will result in massive increases in air pollution, global warming emissions, and all of the other negative environmental consequences associated with irresponsibly mined and burned coal..."
Access a release from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Supreme Court Defines Flow Control Public Sector Exception
Apr 30: The U.S. Supreme court has issued its opinion in the solid waste "flow control" case of United Haulers Assoc., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (Case No. 05-1345) [See WIMS 1/9/07]. The opinion, which must be characterized as a loss for the private solid waste management sector, is sure to precipitate new rounds of litigation on the highly controversial issue of local regulations which direct or control the "flow" of municipal solid waste to specifically designated facilities. The High Court has now ruled that there is a "public" versus "private" distinction when it comes to directing solid waste to designated facilities.
The Justices were divided in their opinions along non-traditional lines. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II–D. Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined that opinion in full. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring as to Parts I and II–A through II–C. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens and Kennedy joined.
For over a decade the matter local flow control ordinances has been somewhat legally settled with the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 386 (1994) which deemed local flow control regulations invalid. However, over the last several years the concept of a possible "Public Sector Exception" to the Carbone ruling has been evolving in the lower courts. In the United Haulers case which was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 2006, decision (Case No. 05-2024) the Appeals Court said, "In our view, then, the local benefits of the flow control measures substantially outweigh whatever modest differential burden they may place on interstate commerce." Contrarily, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in the case of National Solid Wastes v. Daviess County KY (Case No. 04-6498), ruled in a similar case saying that a proposed county ordinance was unconstitutional, and said, it refused to adopt what it termed, "the public-private distinction with respect to the dormant commerce clause;" as provided in the United Haulers case.
In the opening paragraph of its opinion the High Court focuses on the public versus private distinction saying, “'Flow control' ordinances require trash haulers to deliver solid waste to a particular waste processing facility. In C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U. S. 383 (1994), this Court struck down under the Commerce Clause a flow control ordinance that forced haulers to deliver waste to a particular private [emphasis contained in original] processing facility. In this case, we face flow control ordinances quite similar to the one invalidated in Carbone. The only salient difference is that the laws at issue here require haulers to bring waste to facilities owned and operated by a state-created public benefit corporation. We find this difference constitutionally significant."
The High Court continues to define the new exception saying, "Disposing of trash has been a traditional government activity for years, and laws that favor the government in such areas -- but treat every private business, whether in-state or out-of-state, exactly the same -- do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the Commerce Clause. Applying the Commerce Clause test reserved for regulations that do not discriminate against interstate commerce, we uphold these ordinances because any incidental burden they may have on interstate commerce does not outweigh the benefits they confer on the citizens of Oneida and Herkimer Counties."
Further explaining its decision, the Supreme Court says that in the Carbone decision the majority of Justices did not comment on the "public-private distinction." However, they say, "The parties in this case draw opposite inferences from the majority’s silence. The haulers say it proves that the majority agreed with the dissent’s characterization of the facility, but thought there was no difference under the dormant Commerce Clause between laws favoring private entities and those favoring public ones. The Counties disagree, arguing that the majority studiously avoided the issue because the facility in Carbone was private, and therefore the question whether public [emphasis included in original] facilities may be favored was not properly before the Court.
"We believe the latter interpretation of Carbone is correct. As the Second Circuit explained, “in Carbone the Justices were divided over the fact of whether the favored facility was public or private, rather than on the import of that distinction.” 261 F. 3d, at 259 (emphasis in original). The Carbone dissent offered a number of reasons why public entities should be treated differently from private ones under the dormant Commerce Clause. See 511 U. S., at 419–422 [opinion of Justice Souter]. It is hard to suppose that the Carbone majority definitively rejected these arguments without explaining why. The Carbone majority viewed Clarkstown’s flow control ordinance as 'just one more instance of local processing requirements that we long have held invalid.'” [emphasis included in original]
The Supreme Court said directly, "The flow control ordinances in this case benefit a clearly public facility, while treating all private companies exactly the same. Because the question is now squarely presented on the facts of the case before us, we decide that such flow control ordinances do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause... Unlike private enterprise, government is vested with the responsibility of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens... These important responsibilities set state and local government apart from a typical private business...
"Laws favoring local government, by contrast, may be directed toward any number of legitimate goals unrelated to protectionism. Here the flow control ordinances enable the Counties to pursue particular policies with respect to the handling and treatment of waste generated in the Counties, while allocating the costs of those policies on citizens and businesses according to the volume of waste they generate.
"The contrary approach of treating public and private entities the same under the dormant Commerce Clause would lead to unprecedented and unbounded interference by the courts with state and local government. The dormant Commerce Clause is not a roving license for federal courts to decide what activities are appropriate for state and local government to undertake, and what activities must be the province of private market competition..."
Access the complete Supreme Court opinion (click here). Access the Supreme Court docket in the case (click here). Access the Second Circuit opinion (click here). Access the Sixth Circuit opinion (click here). Access various parties' briefs in the case posted on the American Bar Association website (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Solid Waste issue website for links to additional legal issue resources (click here). [*Solid]
The Justices were divided in their opinions along non-traditional lines. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II–D. Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined that opinion in full. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring as to Parts I and II–A through II–C. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens and Kennedy joined.
For over a decade the matter local flow control ordinances has been somewhat legally settled with the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 386 (1994) which deemed local flow control regulations invalid. However, over the last several years the concept of a possible "Public Sector Exception" to the Carbone ruling has been evolving in the lower courts. In the United Haulers case which was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 2006, decision (Case No. 05-2024) the Appeals Court said, "In our view, then, the local benefits of the flow control measures substantially outweigh whatever modest differential burden they may place on interstate commerce." Contrarily, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in the case of National Solid Wastes v. Daviess County KY (Case No. 04-6498), ruled in a similar case saying that a proposed county ordinance was unconstitutional, and said, it refused to adopt what it termed, "the public-private distinction with respect to the dormant commerce clause;" as provided in the United Haulers case.
In the opening paragraph of its opinion the High Court focuses on the public versus private distinction saying, “'Flow control' ordinances require trash haulers to deliver solid waste to a particular waste processing facility. In C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U. S. 383 (1994), this Court struck down under the Commerce Clause a flow control ordinance that forced haulers to deliver waste to a particular private [emphasis contained in original] processing facility. In this case, we face flow control ordinances quite similar to the one invalidated in Carbone. The only salient difference is that the laws at issue here require haulers to bring waste to facilities owned and operated by a state-created public benefit corporation. We find this difference constitutionally significant."
The High Court continues to define the new exception saying, "Disposing of trash has been a traditional government activity for years, and laws that favor the government in such areas -- but treat every private business, whether in-state or out-of-state, exactly the same -- do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the Commerce Clause. Applying the Commerce Clause test reserved for regulations that do not discriminate against interstate commerce, we uphold these ordinances because any incidental burden they may have on interstate commerce does not outweigh the benefits they confer on the citizens of Oneida and Herkimer Counties."
Further explaining its decision, the Supreme Court says that in the Carbone decision the majority of Justices did not comment on the "public-private distinction." However, they say, "The parties in this case draw opposite inferences from the majority’s silence. The haulers say it proves that the majority agreed with the dissent’s characterization of the facility, but thought there was no difference under the dormant Commerce Clause between laws favoring private entities and those favoring public ones. The Counties disagree, arguing that the majority studiously avoided the issue because the facility in Carbone was private, and therefore the question whether public [emphasis included in original] facilities may be favored was not properly before the Court.
"We believe the latter interpretation of Carbone is correct. As the Second Circuit explained, “in Carbone the Justices were divided over the fact of whether the favored facility was public or private, rather than on the import of that distinction.” 261 F. 3d, at 259 (emphasis in original). The Carbone dissent offered a number of reasons why public entities should be treated differently from private ones under the dormant Commerce Clause. See 511 U. S., at 419–422 [opinion of Justice Souter]. It is hard to suppose that the Carbone majority definitively rejected these arguments without explaining why. The Carbone majority viewed Clarkstown’s flow control ordinance as 'just one more instance of local processing requirements that we long have held invalid.'” [emphasis included in original]
The Supreme Court said directly, "The flow control ordinances in this case benefit a clearly public facility, while treating all private companies exactly the same. Because the question is now squarely presented on the facts of the case before us, we decide that such flow control ordinances do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause... Unlike private enterprise, government is vested with the responsibility of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens... These important responsibilities set state and local government apart from a typical private business...
"Laws favoring local government, by contrast, may be directed toward any number of legitimate goals unrelated to protectionism. Here the flow control ordinances enable the Counties to pursue particular policies with respect to the handling and treatment of waste generated in the Counties, while allocating the costs of those policies on citizens and businesses according to the volume of waste they generate.
"The contrary approach of treating public and private entities the same under the dormant Commerce Clause would lead to unprecedented and unbounded interference by the courts with state and local government. The dormant Commerce Clause is not a roving license for federal courts to decide what activities are appropriate for state and local government to undertake, and what activities must be the province of private market competition..."
Access the complete Supreme Court opinion (click here). Access the Supreme Court docket in the case (click here). Access the Second Circuit opinion (click here). Access the Sixth Circuit opinion (click here). Access various parties' briefs in the case posted on the American Bar Association website (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Solid Waste issue website for links to additional legal issue resources (click here). [*Solid]
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The Downside Of Wind Power -- Impacts On Birds & Bats
May 1: The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Chaired by non-voting, Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), held an oversight hearing entitled, Gone with the Wind: Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV); Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Conservation Scientist, Bat Conservation International; Director, Birds and Pesticides, American Bird Conservancy; Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal; and the Director of Conservation Policy, National Audubon Society.
Representative Mollohan testified that, "Wind-energy developers have targeted the mountain ridges of my state of West Virginia, and for a number of years I’ve expressed my deep concern about their projects. Among the reasons for my concern are the environmental impacts of these massive projects, including their impacts on the natural beauty of my state, and their impacts on wildlife." As an example he cited the Mountaineer project that consists of 44 turbines, each 340-feet high 50 feet higher than the tip of the Capitol) and spread out over 4,000 acres of mountain ridges.
FWS testified that while there are clear benefits to wind energy development, some facilities, particularly older facilities or those sited in areas with a high presence of birds and bats have the potential to cause deaths due to collisions, with unspecified long-term results. Dale Hall said the Service is focusing its efforts on determining ways to balance wildlife needs when wind energy facilities are sited and constructed. He discussed the publication of interim guidelines relating to siting and evaluating wind power development proposals and establishment of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on development of measures to avoid or minimize impacts from land-based facilities to wildlife and habitat.
Dr. Fry of the American Bird Conservancy testified that, "Unfortunately, to date, collaborative efforts to successfully address the impacts of wind projects on birds and wildlife have been a failure. He cited the Department of Energy's consensus-based collaborative in 1994, the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) and said his experience with NWCC has been that "there has been much discussion and almost no real action on the part of the wind industry to resolve bird collision issues at wind project areas." He said the wind energy industry has "rejected as either too costly or unproven techniques recommended by NWCC to reduce bird deaths... [and] Federal and state oversight for wind energy projects has been virtually nonexistent."
Attorney Eric Glitzenstein of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, which provides legal representation to non-profit environmental, conservation, and animal protection organizations and President of the Wildlife Advocacy Project testified on the current legal and regulatory framework that applies to the impact of wind turbines on wildlife. He said at present, there is "no comprehensive, effective federal system for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the effects of wind power projects on migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife." However he said, "...it is important to stress that wind power facilities, if properly sited, constructed, and monitored, can and should be a part of the answer to the global climate change crisis."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and opening statements (click here). Access the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife (GAO-05-906, September 2005). [*Energy, *Wildlife]
Representative Mollohan testified that, "Wind-energy developers have targeted the mountain ridges of my state of West Virginia, and for a number of years I’ve expressed my deep concern about their projects. Among the reasons for my concern are the environmental impacts of these massive projects, including their impacts on the natural beauty of my state, and their impacts on wildlife." As an example he cited the Mountaineer project that consists of 44 turbines, each 340-feet high 50 feet higher than the tip of the Capitol) and spread out over 4,000 acres of mountain ridges.
FWS testified that while there are clear benefits to wind energy development, some facilities, particularly older facilities or those sited in areas with a high presence of birds and bats have the potential to cause deaths due to collisions, with unspecified long-term results. Dale Hall said the Service is focusing its efforts on determining ways to balance wildlife needs when wind energy facilities are sited and constructed. He discussed the publication of interim guidelines relating to siting and evaluating wind power development proposals and establishment of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on development of measures to avoid or minimize impacts from land-based facilities to wildlife and habitat.
Dr. Fry of the American Bird Conservancy testified that, "Unfortunately, to date, collaborative efforts to successfully address the impacts of wind projects on birds and wildlife have been a failure. He cited the Department of Energy's consensus-based collaborative in 1994, the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) and said his experience with NWCC has been that "there has been much discussion and almost no real action on the part of the wind industry to resolve bird collision issues at wind project areas." He said the wind energy industry has "rejected as either too costly or unproven techniques recommended by NWCC to reduce bird deaths... [and] Federal and state oversight for wind energy projects has been virtually nonexistent."
Attorney Eric Glitzenstein of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, which provides legal representation to non-profit environmental, conservation, and animal protection organizations and President of the Wildlife Advocacy Project testified on the current legal and regulatory framework that applies to the impact of wind turbines on wildlife. He said at present, there is "no comprehensive, effective federal system for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the effects of wind power projects on migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife." However he said, "...it is important to stress that wind power facilities, if properly sited, constructed, and monitored, can and should be a part of the answer to the global climate change crisis."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and opening statements (click here). Access the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife (GAO-05-906, September 2005). [*Energy, *Wildlife]
Monday, April 30, 2007
Supreme Court Denies Hearing Air Equipment Replacement Case
Apr 30: The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an Administration appeal of the March 17, 2006, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in State of New York v. U.S. EPA [See WIMS 3/17/06]. The case, EPA v. State of New York, et al (06-736) addressed the Equipment Replacement Provision (ERP), which amends the Routine Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Exclusion (RMRR) from the Clean Air Act New Source Review requirements. Under the Clean Air Act, sources that undergo “any physical change” that increases emissions are required to undergo the NSR permitting process. The exclusion has historically provided that routine maintenance, repair, and replacement do not constitute changes triggering NSR. The ERP both defined and expanded that exclusion. EPA explained: "[The] rule states categorically that the replacement of components with identical or functionally equivalent components that do not exceed 20% of the replacement value of the process unit and does not change its basic design parameters is not a change and is within the RMRR exclusion."
Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion, 68 Fed. Reg. 61,248, 61,270 (Oct. 27, 2003) (Final Rule); see also 70 Fed. Reg. 33,838 (June 10, 2005)(Reconsideration). Hence, the ERP would allow sources to avoid NSR when replacing equipment under the twenty-percent cap notwithstanding a resulting increase in emissions. The court stayed the effective date of the ERP on December 24, 2003. The Appeals Court vacated the ERP saying that "it is contrary to the plain language of section 111(a)(4) of the Act."
The Appeals Court further explained that it vacated the ERP because it violated section 111(a)(4) in two respects: "First, Congress’s use of the word 'any' in defining a 'modification' means that all types of 'physical changes' are covered. Although the phrase 'physical change' is susceptible to multiple meanings, the word 'any' makes clear that activities within each of the common meanings of the phrase are subject to NSR when the activity results in an emission increase. As Congress limited the broad meaning of 'any physical change,' directing that only changes that increase emissions will trigger NSR, no other limitation (other than to avoid absurd results) can be implied. The definition of 'modification,' therefore, does not include only physical changes that are costly or major. Second, Congress defined 'modification' in terms of emission increases, but the ERP would allow equipment replacements resulting in non-de minimis emission increases to avoid NSR."
A release from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) indicated that the loophole argued in the case would have allowed "more than 20,000 power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities to replace equipment with 'functionally equivalent' equipment without first undergoing the required clean air reviews. The exemption would have applied even if a facility's air pollution increased by thousands -- or tens of thousands -- of tons as a result of the new equipment."
The plaintiffs winning the case included Alabama Environmental Council, American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, Delaware Nature Society, Environmental Defense, Group Against Smog and Pollution, Michigan Environmental Council, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Ohio Environmental Council, Scenic Hudson, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and U.S. PIRG. The groups were represented by Earthjustice, the Clean Air Task Force and NRDC. A group of 15 state attorneys general, led by the State of New York, was also part of the successful lawsuit.
Access the Supreme Court denial order (click here, See page 8 of 10). Access the Supreme Court docket for case 06-736 (click here). Access the complete D.C. Circuit March 17, 2006 opinion (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). [*Air]
Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion, 68 Fed. Reg. 61,248, 61,270 (Oct. 27, 2003) (Final Rule); see also 70 Fed. Reg. 33,838 (June 10, 2005)(Reconsideration). Hence, the ERP would allow sources to avoid NSR when replacing equipment under the twenty-percent cap notwithstanding a resulting increase in emissions. The court stayed the effective date of the ERP on December 24, 2003. The Appeals Court vacated the ERP saying that "it is contrary to the plain language of section 111(a)(4) of the Act."
The Appeals Court further explained that it vacated the ERP because it violated section 111(a)(4) in two respects: "First, Congress’s use of the word 'any' in defining a 'modification' means that all types of 'physical changes' are covered. Although the phrase 'physical change' is susceptible to multiple meanings, the word 'any' makes clear that activities within each of the common meanings of the phrase are subject to NSR when the activity results in an emission increase. As Congress limited the broad meaning of 'any physical change,' directing that only changes that increase emissions will trigger NSR, no other limitation (other than to avoid absurd results) can be implied. The definition of 'modification,' therefore, does not include only physical changes that are costly or major. Second, Congress defined 'modification' in terms of emission increases, but the ERP would allow equipment replacements resulting in non-de minimis emission increases to avoid NSR."
A release from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) indicated that the loophole argued in the case would have allowed "more than 20,000 power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities to replace equipment with 'functionally equivalent' equipment without first undergoing the required clean air reviews. The exemption would have applied even if a facility's air pollution increased by thousands -- or tens of thousands -- of tons as a result of the new equipment."
The plaintiffs winning the case included Alabama Environmental Council, American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, Delaware Nature Society, Environmental Defense, Group Against Smog and Pollution, Michigan Environmental Council, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Ohio Environmental Council, Scenic Hudson, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and U.S. PIRG. The groups were represented by Earthjustice, the Clean Air Task Force and NRDC. A group of 15 state attorneys general, led by the State of New York, was also part of the successful lawsuit.
Access the Supreme Court denial order (click here, See page 8 of 10). Access the Supreme Court docket for case 06-736 (click here). Access the complete D.C. Circuit March 17, 2006 opinion (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). [*Air]
Friday, April 27, 2007
Most Cap & Trade Cost Will Be Borne By Consumers
Apr 25: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a brief 8-page report entitled, Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions. The report explores the implications of a “cap-and-trade” program to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide (CO2) which is currently being considered in Congress. Under a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions, policymakers would set a limit on the total amount of CO2 that could be emitted in a given period -- the “cap”—and would issue rights, or allowances, corresponding to that level of emissions. Entities that were subject to the cap (such as coal mines, oil importers, refineries, or electric utilities, depending on the proposal) would be required to hold allowances for their CO2 emissions. After the allowances were initially distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell them -- the “trade” part of the program—and the price of allowances would adjust to reflect the cost of meeting the emission cap.
The CBO brief focuses only on CO2 emissions and examines how policymakers’ decisions about allocating the allowances would affect the total cost of the policy to the U.S. economy, as well as the distribution of that cost among households in their various roles as workers, consumers, and investors. CBO points out that the emission allowances (e.g. right to emit, say, 1 ton of CO2) would have substantial value -- perhaps totaling tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Who received that value would depend on how the allowances were allocated. One option would be to have the government capture their value by selling the emission allowances, as it does for licenses to use the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possibility would be to give the allowances to energy producers or some energy users at no charge -- the approach that the U.S. government adopted in the sulfur dioxide program and that the European Union has used since 2005 in its cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions.
CBO says that, "Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those
price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would." In the most regressive of the strategies that CBO examined, average household income would fall by 3.0 percent for the lowest quintile and rise by 1.9 percent for the highest quintile.
Access the CBO report (click here). [*Climate]
The CBO brief focuses only on CO2 emissions and examines how policymakers’ decisions about allocating the allowances would affect the total cost of the policy to the U.S. economy, as well as the distribution of that cost among households in their various roles as workers, consumers, and investors. CBO points out that the emission allowances (e.g. right to emit, say, 1 ton of CO2) would have substantial value -- perhaps totaling tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Who received that value would depend on how the allowances were allocated. One option would be to have the government capture their value by selling the emission allowances, as it does for licenses to use the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possibility would be to give the allowances to energy producers or some energy users at no charge -- the approach that the U.S. government adopted in the sulfur dioxide program and that the European Union has used since 2005 in its cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions.
CBO says that, "Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those
price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would." In the most regressive of the strategies that CBO examined, average household income would fall by 3.0 percent for the lowest quintile and rise by 1.9 percent for the highest quintile.
Access the CBO report (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, April 26, 2007
No Progress On Toxic Wastes & Race
Apr 10: Environmental injustice in people-of-color communities is as much or more prevalent today than 20 years ago, according to researchers commissioned to conduct a follow-up to the 1987 landmark study, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. The new report, Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987-2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States, shows that 20 years later, disproportionately large numbers of people of color still live in hazardous waste host communities, and that they are not equally protected by environmental laws.
Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and the principal investigator for the study said, "People of color across the United States have learned the hard way that waiting for government to respond to toxic contamination can be hazardous to their health and health of their communities." The 160-page report, which was commissioned by the United Church of Christ and produced by scholars at Clark Atlanta University, the University of Michigan, the University of Montana and Dillard University, points to the dismal post-Katrina response in New Orleans as one poignant example of unequal treatment of minorities in hazardous waste emergencies. The findings also show that environmental laws don't protect communities of color any more than they did 20 years ago when the original report was commissioned.
According to a release, the report is the first national study to use a new method of data analysis that better locates people in relation to hazardous waste sites, and uses 2000 census data to show that the racial disparities are much greater than previously reported. Robin Saha, assistant professor of environmental studies at University of Montana said, "We think this study and the findings in it, as well as the case studies that show the human side to the national statistics, make a really strong case for environmental injustice to be on the policy agenda of Congress. It's clear the policies we are trying aren't working and that something else needs to be done."
The report indicates that more than nine million people are estimated to live in host neighborhoods within three kilometers of one of 413 hazardous waste facilities nationwide. Host neighborhoods are typically economically depressed, with poverty rates 1.5 times that of non-host communities. The report makes more than three dozen recommendations for action at the Congressional, state and local levels to help remedy the disparities. It also makes recommendations for nongovernmental agencies and industry.
Access a lengthy release with links to the complete report an Executive Summary and university contacts (click here). [*All]
Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and the principal investigator for the study said, "People of color across the United States have learned the hard way that waiting for government to respond to toxic contamination can be hazardous to their health and health of their communities." The 160-page report, which was commissioned by the United Church of Christ and produced by scholars at Clark Atlanta University, the University of Michigan, the University of Montana and Dillard University, points to the dismal post-Katrina response in New Orleans as one poignant example of unequal treatment of minorities in hazardous waste emergencies. The findings also show that environmental laws don't protect communities of color any more than they did 20 years ago when the original report was commissioned.
According to a release, the report is the first national study to use a new method of data analysis that better locates people in relation to hazardous waste sites, and uses 2000 census data to show that the racial disparities are much greater than previously reported. Robin Saha, assistant professor of environmental studies at University of Montana said, "We think this study and the findings in it, as well as the case studies that show the human side to the national statistics, make a really strong case for environmental injustice to be on the policy agenda of Congress. It's clear the policies we are trying aren't working and that something else needs to be done."
The report indicates that more than nine million people are estimated to live in host neighborhoods within three kilometers of one of 413 hazardous waste facilities nationwide. Host neighborhoods are typically economically depressed, with poverty rates 1.5 times that of non-host communities. The report makes more than three dozen recommendations for action at the Congressional, state and local levels to help remedy the disparities. It also makes recommendations for nongovernmental agencies and industry.
Access a lengthy release with links to the complete report an Executive Summary and university contacts (click here). [*All]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
