Jun 18: Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Rick Boucher (D-VA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality have issued a memo to members of the Committee regarding a set of Committee prints addressing energy efficiency standards, a smart electricity grid, loan guarantees for innovative energy technologies, renewable fuels infrastructure incentives, and advanced battery and plug-in hybrid vehicle promotion. The prints will form the basis for markup of energy legislation in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality this week and in the full Committee next week.
The memo notes that a number of the more controversial issues such as coal-to-liquids, fuel economy standards, a low carbon fuel standard, various mandates, and the role of Federal and State programs, are not included in the set of prints but will be taken up with comprehensive climate change legislation in the fall.
According to the memo, "This procedure for considering energy legislation at this time was discussed with the Speaker, and she understands the rationale for proceeding this way so that we can rapidly complete work on a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law. As we see in Senate consideration of energy legislation [See WIMS 6/14/07], many of these issues are complex and difficult, and it is our desire to avoid unnecessary delays in passing legislation that can accomplish much good. For example, the energy efficiency provisions of the Committee prints, when fully enacted, will remove from the atmosphere carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to those emitted from all cars currently on the road, according to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and the Alliance to Save Energy. This does not even count any savings from the smart grid or other provisions included in the prints."
Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and a Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released a statement in response to the announcement by Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher. Markey said, “I welcome Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher’s decision to back down from several controversial provisions in their draft energy legislation that would have taken our nation in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to energy independence and global warming.
“The original discussion draft would have overturned the Supreme Court’s decision on Massachusetts vs. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07] regarding regulation of CO2 emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes. It would have pre-empted California from adopting their own stronger standards, thereby blocking other states from adopting the California standard. It would have put in place weak fuel economy standards for cars and trucks [that] are insufficient in meeting the challenge our nation faces from its increasing dependence on imported oil from the Middle East. And finally, it would have increased emissions of carbon dioxide pollutants by promoting coal-to-liquids fuels. There was broad opposition to these provisions, from Governors, the Attorneys General, and the environmental and public interest community. Twelve Democratic members of the committee, including me, all opposed the draft, as did Speaker Pelosi [See WIMS 6/8/07, subscribers only]. A bill with these provisions in it was clearly not going to become law."
Access the memo (click here). Access the Committee prints and a section-by-section explanation of the prints (click here). Access the complete release from Representative Markey (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Report Finds Agreements On Nuclear Power Issues
Jun 14: The Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse – and perhaps surprising – group of stakeholders on the risks and benefits of nuclear power as they relate to climate change, safety and security, economics, waste, reprocessing and proliferation. The Joint Fact-Finding on Nuclear Power reports conclusions from 27 participants associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. The group met from September 2006 through May 2007 and agreed on several critical issues, including: Climate Change; Economics; Safety and Security; Waste; Reprocessing; Proliferation; and The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
Financial Support for the project came from American Electric Power, Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy Corporation, Exelon, Florida Power & Light, General Electric, National Commission on Energy Policy, Nuclear Energy Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Southern Company.
Some of the groups involved included: Union of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Nuclear Energy Institute; National Wildlife Federation; Maine Department of Environmental Protection; Duke Power; GE Energy; Entergy Corp.; American Electric Power; George Mason University; and others.
For example, on the issue of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership the report concludes, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." On the highly controversial issue of nuclear waste management, the report says: "Spent nuclear fuel must ultimately be placed in long-term disposal facilities. The best disposal option is deep underground geologic repositories, and suitable environments exist in the U.S. and the world. There is little confidence that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain will meet its already delayed schedule. Given this experience, the search for a second or an alternative site would benefit from a different approach. Until an operating repository is available, older spent fuel can be stored safely and securely, on-site. Centralized interim storage is a reasonable alternative for managing waste from decommissioned plant sites."
On the subject of Climate Change, the report indicates: "We considered hypothetical scenarios for nuclear expansion in order to better understand what role nuclear power might play in mitigating global climate change. In order to achieve a 25 gigatonne carbon reduction from nuclear power over 50 years (a Pacala/Socolow “wedge”), the nuclear industry would need to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past and sustain this growth rate. This projection is more ambitious than indicated by current announcements of proposed plant construction, and the group reached no consensus about the likely rate of expansion. In a carbon-constrained world, the relative economics of nuclear power will improve."
Mike Hughes, vice president of The Keystone Center said, “We congratulate the group for what it accomplished over many months of constructive work on these extraordinarily complex issues. The debate about nuclear power has endured for decades, and is not likely to disappear soon. However, this group has found agreement on a number of critical issues, and has significantly narrowed differences on others, which should help Congress, the administration, and the public as they consider the future of nuclear power in this country.”
The Keystone Center is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1975 to help facilitate cross-sector dialogues on pressing environmental, energy, and public health issues. The Keystone Center does not take positions or advocate particular points of view. Instead, it convenes meetings on issues and facilitates practical, consensus-based solutions that break old logjams or that avert unnecessary future disputes over science and public policy.
Access a release listing all 27 stakeholder participants (click here). Access links to an executive summary, briefing announcement, audio clips, and related information (click here). Access the 108-page final report (click here). Access the Keystone Center website (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Financial Support for the project came from American Electric Power, Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy Corporation, Exelon, Florida Power & Light, General Electric, National Commission on Energy Policy, Nuclear Energy Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Southern Company.
Some of the groups involved included: Union of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Nuclear Energy Institute; National Wildlife Federation; Maine Department of Environmental Protection; Duke Power; GE Energy; Entergy Corp.; American Electric Power; George Mason University; and others.
For example, on the issue of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership the report concludes, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." On the highly controversial issue of nuclear waste management, the report says: "Spent nuclear fuel must ultimately be placed in long-term disposal facilities. The best disposal option is deep underground geologic repositories, and suitable environments exist in the U.S. and the world. There is little confidence that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain will meet its already delayed schedule. Given this experience, the search for a second or an alternative site would benefit from a different approach. Until an operating repository is available, older spent fuel can be stored safely and securely, on-site. Centralized interim storage is a reasonable alternative for managing waste from decommissioned plant sites."
On the subject of Climate Change, the report indicates: "We considered hypothetical scenarios for nuclear expansion in order to better understand what role nuclear power might play in mitigating global climate change. In order to achieve a 25 gigatonne carbon reduction from nuclear power over 50 years (a Pacala/Socolow “wedge”), the nuclear industry would need to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past and sustain this growth rate. This projection is more ambitious than indicated by current announcements of proposed plant construction, and the group reached no consensus about the likely rate of expansion. In a carbon-constrained world, the relative economics of nuclear power will improve."
Mike Hughes, vice president of The Keystone Center said, “We congratulate the group for what it accomplished over many months of constructive work on these extraordinarily complex issues. The debate about nuclear power has endured for decades, and is not likely to disappear soon. However, this group has found agreement on a number of critical issues, and has significantly narrowed differences on others, which should help Congress, the administration, and the public as they consider the future of nuclear power in this country.”
The Keystone Center is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1975 to help facilitate cross-sector dialogues on pressing environmental, energy, and public health issues. The Keystone Center does not take positions or advocate particular points of view. Instead, it convenes meetings on issues and facilitates practical, consensus-based solutions that break old logjams or that avert unnecessary future disputes over science and public policy.
Access a release listing all 27 stakeholder participants (click here). Access links to an executive summary, briefing announcement, audio clips, and related information (click here). Access the 108-page final report (click here). Access the Keystone Center website (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Friday, June 15, 2007
NAS Report Calls For New Approach To Toxicity Testing
Jun 14: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) says that recent advances in systems biology, testing in cells and tissues, and related scientific fields offer the potential to fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for risks they may pose to humans. The report -- Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy -- outlines a new approach that would rely less heavily on animal studies and instead focus on in vitro methods that evaluate chemicals' effects on biological processes using cells, cell lines, or cellular components, preferably of human origin. The new approach would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinized, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing.
Today, researchers typically test the safety of commercial chemicals, pesticides, and other substances by administering large doses to groups of animals and observing them for symptoms of disease; these tests inform decisions about whether and how to regulate the chemicals' use. But how relevant the animal tests are for humans, usually exposed at much lower doses, has often been called into question. Moreover, the current approach is time-consuming and costly, resulting in an overburdened system that leaves many chemicals untested, despite potential human exposure to them, the report observes. Recognizing these limitations, the U.S. EPA -- which oversees the testing of many agricultural, commercial, and industrial chemicals -- asked the Research Council to develop a new approach and strategy for toxicity testing.
The report recommends an approach that would take advantage of rapidly evolving scientific understanding of how genes, proteins, and small molecules interact to maintain normal cell function and how some of these interactions can be perturbed in ways that could lead to health problems. Specifically, the new testing approach would focus on toxicity pathways -- cellular pathways that, when sufficiently perturbed, are expected to lead to adverse health effects. The committee recommends the use of "high-throughput assays" -- rapid, automated experiments that can test hundreds or thousands of chemicals over a wide range of concentrations -- to evaluate chemicals' effects on these toxicity pathways. On the basis of data from these and other experiments, researchers could develop models to describe responses in toxicity pathways, and other models to estimate the human exposure necessary to produce responses in these pathways.
According to the report, over time, the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced, and possibly even eliminated someday. For the foreseeable future, however, targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a whole animal. Studies observing human populations will be needed to provide information on human susceptibility and "background" exposures to chemicals that people face every day, so that results of the in vitro tests can be properly interpreted. These population studies may also reveal health risks not previously identified through toxicity testing. In addition, human exposure data can be used to select doses for toxicity testing, so that the tests generate information on biological effects at environmentally relevant exposures. By comparing human exposure data with concentrations that cause biologically significant alterations in toxicity pathways, researchers can identify potentially harmful exposures.
The report acknowledges that current toxicity-testing practices are long established and deeply ingrained in some sectors. But it emphasizes that the proposed changes will generate better data on the potential risks humans face from environmental agents, building a stronger scientific foundation that can improve regulatory decisions to mitigate those risks, and reducing the time, money, and animals needed for testing. Implementing the strategy envisioned by the committee will require a substantial research effort to develop and validate all of the new approach's components. A critical factor for success is the creation of an institution that fosters multidisciplinary research. If the research is dispersed among different locations and organizations without a core organizing institute to enable communication and problem-solving across disciplines, there will be less chance of success within a reasonable time frame.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 25-page executive summary and related information (click here). [*Toxics]
Today, researchers typically test the safety of commercial chemicals, pesticides, and other substances by administering large doses to groups of animals and observing them for symptoms of disease; these tests inform decisions about whether and how to regulate the chemicals' use. But how relevant the animal tests are for humans, usually exposed at much lower doses, has often been called into question. Moreover, the current approach is time-consuming and costly, resulting in an overburdened system that leaves many chemicals untested, despite potential human exposure to them, the report observes. Recognizing these limitations, the U.S. EPA -- which oversees the testing of many agricultural, commercial, and industrial chemicals -- asked the Research Council to develop a new approach and strategy for toxicity testing.
The report recommends an approach that would take advantage of rapidly evolving scientific understanding of how genes, proteins, and small molecules interact to maintain normal cell function and how some of these interactions can be perturbed in ways that could lead to health problems. Specifically, the new testing approach would focus on toxicity pathways -- cellular pathways that, when sufficiently perturbed, are expected to lead to adverse health effects. The committee recommends the use of "high-throughput assays" -- rapid, automated experiments that can test hundreds or thousands of chemicals over a wide range of concentrations -- to evaluate chemicals' effects on these toxicity pathways. On the basis of data from these and other experiments, researchers could develop models to describe responses in toxicity pathways, and other models to estimate the human exposure necessary to produce responses in these pathways.
According to the report, over time, the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced, and possibly even eliminated someday. For the foreseeable future, however, targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a whole animal. Studies observing human populations will be needed to provide information on human susceptibility and "background" exposures to chemicals that people face every day, so that results of the in vitro tests can be properly interpreted. These population studies may also reveal health risks not previously identified through toxicity testing. In addition, human exposure data can be used to select doses for toxicity testing, so that the tests generate information on biological effects at environmentally relevant exposures. By comparing human exposure data with concentrations that cause biologically significant alterations in toxicity pathways, researchers can identify potentially harmful exposures.
The report acknowledges that current toxicity-testing practices are long established and deeply ingrained in some sectors. But it emphasizes that the proposed changes will generate better data on the potential risks humans face from environmental agents, building a stronger scientific foundation that can improve regulatory decisions to mitigate those risks, and reducing the time, money, and animals needed for testing. Implementing the strategy envisioned by the committee will require a substantial research effort to develop and validate all of the new approach's components. A critical factor for success is the creation of an institution that fosters multidisciplinary research. If the research is dispersed among different locations and organizations without a core organizing institute to enable communication and problem-solving across disciplines, there will be less chance of success within a reasonable time frame.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 25-page executive summary and related information (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The Mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard Debate
Jun 13: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, released a letter to all Senators who are now debating on the Senate Floor a comprehensive energy bill -- S. 1419, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 [Previously passed House version is H.R. 6]. The letter indicates the Chamber's strong opposition to and urges a no vote on "an amendment expected to be offered by Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to establish a Federally mandated renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to S. 1419." The Chamber reminds Senators in the letter that it "may consider votes on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard."
The letter indicates, "The Chamber understands such legislation will require utilities to generate at least 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, or else purchase credits from the federal government or other companies. A mandatory RPS could raise electricity prices for all consumers, result in a wealth transfer among states, and impose new burdens on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid."
The Chamber further indicates, "The amendment’s one-size-fits-all mandate fails to take into account two critical factors: (1) the U.S. is made up of fifty individual states, not all of which possess enough renewable power capability to meet a 15 percent RPS; and (2) the 20 states able to meet this standard have already implemented renewable power programs on their own. A federal RPS will force those states lacking adequate renewable resources to purchase credits from the federal government -- essentially a direct tax on electricity used by businesses and other consumers, driving up energy costs, and hurting economic growth. Moreover, the federal mandate will undercut and/or preempt existing programs in the states that have imposed their own RPS... renewable generation sufficient to meet an unrealistic 15-percent mandatory federal requirement is neither cost-effective nor achievable nationwide."
The Chambers opposition echoes announced opposition also by Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). On June 11, On June 11, Domenici announced that Florida had joined what he called a "growing chorus of states and utilities to speak out against a federal renewable portfolio standard." He said, "A one-size-fits-all RPS is the wrong approach. It unfairly punishes states in the southeast -- and the citizens that live in them..." He said he would offer a "Clean Portfolio Standard (CPS) amendment" that will include what he said would be "more clean energy resources like nuclear, hydropower and efficiency standards, in an effort to bring more states into the fold and reduce our emissions.”
On June 12, Senator Bingaman issued a release saying he had "found the cure for the RPS blues!" Bingaman said, "Utility commissioners in the Southeast (and some lobbyists in Washington) are running a temperature about the prospects for a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS). They seem to be feeling under the weather because they think such a law would mean higher costs for consumers. This suspicion is supported by 'evidence' in a study commissioned by - surprise, surprise - the utility industry’s biggest trade association, the Edison Electric Institute..."
Bingaman released what he called the "cure" which he said "puts in context any overheated allegations that a national renewable portfolio standard would harm consumers." He announced the a new 29-page study, prepared by "experts" at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) entitled, Impacts of a 15 Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard. Bingaman indicates that a key finding of the EIA study is that, "The increased use of renewable energy in a national RPS leads to only slightly higher electricity expenditures (0.5 percent) by 2030 and lower coal and natural gas prices." He said, "So, if fear of renewables is the fever, EIA’s new analysis surely is the cure."
According to EIA, the specific 15% Bingaman RPS proposal which it analyzed would exempt smaller electricity providers – those with fewer than 4 billion kilowatthours in annual sales – from meeting the requirement, and would not allow current generation from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities to meet the requirement. However, retail sellers who generate from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities are allowed to exclude this generation from their sales base when calculating their required renewable share. The RPS would allow affected electricity providers to generate their own renewable energy or trade renewable energy credits to assure compliance. Compliance could also be achieved by purchasing credits from the government at an inflation-adjusted rate of 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit. Generation from distributed generators, represented by end-use photovoltaic installations in this analysis, would earn three credits for every kilowatthour of generation.
Some of the results of the EIA analysis included in an executive summary include:
The letter indicates, "The Chamber understands such legislation will require utilities to generate at least 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, or else purchase credits from the federal government or other companies. A mandatory RPS could raise electricity prices for all consumers, result in a wealth transfer among states, and impose new burdens on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid."
The Chamber further indicates, "The amendment’s one-size-fits-all mandate fails to take into account two critical factors: (1) the U.S. is made up of fifty individual states, not all of which possess enough renewable power capability to meet a 15 percent RPS; and (2) the 20 states able to meet this standard have already implemented renewable power programs on their own. A federal RPS will force those states lacking adequate renewable resources to purchase credits from the federal government -- essentially a direct tax on electricity used by businesses and other consumers, driving up energy costs, and hurting economic growth. Moreover, the federal mandate will undercut and/or preempt existing programs in the states that have imposed their own RPS... renewable generation sufficient to meet an unrealistic 15-percent mandatory federal requirement is neither cost-effective nor achievable nationwide."
The Chambers opposition echoes announced opposition also by Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). On June 11, On June 11, Domenici announced that Florida had joined what he called a "growing chorus of states and utilities to speak out against a federal renewable portfolio standard." He said, "A one-size-fits-all RPS is the wrong approach. It unfairly punishes states in the southeast -- and the citizens that live in them..." He said he would offer a "Clean Portfolio Standard (CPS) amendment" that will include what he said would be "more clean energy resources like nuclear, hydropower and efficiency standards, in an effort to bring more states into the fold and reduce our emissions.”
On June 12, Senator Bingaman issued a release saying he had "found the cure for the RPS blues!" Bingaman said, "Utility commissioners in the Southeast (and some lobbyists in Washington) are running a temperature about the prospects for a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS). They seem to be feeling under the weather because they think such a law would mean higher costs for consumers. This suspicion is supported by 'evidence' in a study commissioned by - surprise, surprise - the utility industry’s biggest trade association, the Edison Electric Institute..."
Bingaman released what he called the "cure" which he said "puts in context any overheated allegations that a national renewable portfolio standard would harm consumers." He announced the a new 29-page study, prepared by "experts" at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) entitled, Impacts of a 15 Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard. Bingaman indicates that a key finding of the EIA study is that, "The increased use of renewable energy in a national RPS leads to only slightly higher electricity expenditures (0.5 percent) by 2030 and lower coal and natural gas prices." He said, "So, if fear of renewables is the fever, EIA’s new analysis surely is the cure."
According to EIA, the specific 15% Bingaman RPS proposal which it analyzed would exempt smaller electricity providers – those with fewer than 4 billion kilowatthours in annual sales – from meeting the requirement, and would not allow current generation from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities to meet the requirement. However, retail sellers who generate from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities are allowed to exclude this generation from their sales base when calculating their required renewable share. The RPS would allow affected electricity providers to generate their own renewable energy or trade renewable energy credits to assure compliance. Compliance could also be achieved by purchasing credits from the government at an inflation-adjusted rate of 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit. Generation from distributed generators, represented by end-use photovoltaic installations in this analysis, would earn three credits for every kilowatthour of generation.
Some of the results of the EIA analysis included in an executive summary include:
- The RPS leads to a large increase in biomass generation, which grows to almost 320 billion kilowatthours in 2030, triple the level in the reference case. Wind and photovoltaics also show significant increases in generation.
- By 2030, solar installations produce about 8 percent of qualifying renewable generation, but account for approximately 20 percent of the total credits held because of the triple credits awarded to distributed photovoltaics.
- The increased use of renewable sources in the RPS case leads to lower coal generation. Nuclear and natural gas generation are also lowered to a lesser degree.
- Relative to the reference case, retail electricity prices rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030 period in the RPS case. Reduced demand for coal and natural gas in the RPS case results in slightly lower prices for these fuels by 2030 when compared to reference case projections.
- Compared with the reference case, end-use sector expenditures for electricity rise while end-use sector expenditures for natural gas fall. From 2005 through 2030, cumulative expenditures for electricity and natural gas by all end-use sectors taken together by all end-use sectors are $18 billion (0.3 percent) higher.
- Compared with the reference case, cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2030 are $7.2 billion (0.4 percent) higher, while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $1.0 billion (0.1 percent) lower.
- Total electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 222 million metric tons (6.7 percent) in 2030 relative to the reference case. Over the 2005 to 2030 period, cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 2,925 million metric tons (1.7 percent).
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Lester Brown Warns Senate Of Biofuels Blunder
Jun 13: Lester Brown, founder and President of the Earth Policy Institute has released a document entitled, Biofuels Blunder, subtitled, "Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain to Fuel Cars is Raising World Food Prices, Risking Political Instability." The document is presented as a briefing before U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair. Brown has been described as “one of the world’s most influential thinkers” and as “the guru of the global environmental movement.”
According to the document, "The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year's U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability.
"The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world's corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy...
"Already corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. Soybean prices are up by half. If the United States were to suffer intense heat and severe drought this summer in the Corn Belt, rising grain prices could quickly take the world into uncharted territory.
"The countries initially hit by rising food prices are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn-based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas...
"Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. What was for decades the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank...
"The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world's 2 billion poorest people. The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as rising food prices drop their consumption below the survival level."
Brown says there are alternatives to this "grim scenario," and they are to encourage a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and a new automotive fuel economy centered on plug-in hybrid cars and wind energy.He concludes, "Ethanol euphoria is not an acceptable substitute for a carefully thought through policy. Do we really want to subsidize a rise in food prices?"
Access the complete briefing statement (click here). Access the Earth Policy Institute website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
According to the document, "The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year's U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability.
"The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world's corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy...
"Already corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. Soybean prices are up by half. If the United States were to suffer intense heat and severe drought this summer in the Corn Belt, rising grain prices could quickly take the world into uncharted territory.
"The countries initially hit by rising food prices are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn-based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas...
"Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. What was for decades the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank...
"The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world's 2 billion poorest people. The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as rising food prices drop their consumption below the survival level."
Brown says there are alternatives to this "grim scenario," and they are to encourage a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and a new automotive fuel economy centered on plug-in hybrid cars and wind energy.He concludes, "Ethanol euphoria is not an acceptable substitute for a carefully thought through policy. Do we really want to subsidize a rise in food prices?"
Access the complete briefing statement (click here). Access the Earth Policy Institute website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Unanimous Supreme Ct Settles CERCLA Liability Issues
Jun 11: In a relatively brief, 11-page unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has decisively settled an important liability issue left open in a previous decision and which has been dealt with by three separate circuits. The case, U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. (Docket: 06-0562), appealed by the U.S. from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision of August 11, 2006 [See WIMS 8/14/06]. Oral arguments were held on April 23, 2007 [See WIMS 4/23/07].
The High Court succinctly summarizes its opinion saying, "Two provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) -- §§107(a) and 113(f) -- allow private parties to recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites. 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a), 9613(f). In this case, we must decide a question left open in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004): whether §107(a) provides so-called potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a)(1)–(4), with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs. We hold that it does."
The High Court explains that after SARA’s [Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986] enactment, some Courts of Appeals believed it necessary to “direc[t]traffic between” §107(a) and §113(f). As a result, many Courts of Appeals held that §113(f) was the exclusive remedy for PRPs. But as courts prevented PRPs from suing under§107(a), they expanded §113(f) to allow PRPs to seek “contribution” even in the absence of a suit under §106 or §107(a). Aviall Servs., Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 312 F. 3d 677, 681 (CA5 2002) (en banc). In Cooper Industries, we held that a private party could seek contribution from other liable parties only after having been sued under §106 or §107(a). 543 U. S., at 161. The High Court said, "This narrower interpretation of §113(f) caused several Courts of Appeals to reconsider whether PRPs have rights under §107(a)(4)(B), an issue we declined to address in Cooper Industries. Id., at 168."
The Eighth Circuit opinion in Atlantic Research Corp agreed with a similar ruling in the Second Circuit decision in Consolidated Edison Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir. 2005]; however, those decisions were in conflict with a decision of the Third Circuit in E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 460 F. 3d 515 (CA3 2006).
In brief review of the instant case, the High Court summarizes that Atlantic Research cleaned the site at its own expense and then sought to recover some of its costs by suing the United States under both §107(a) and §113(f). After our decision in Cooper Industries foreclosed relief under §113(f), Atlantic Research amended its complaint to seek relief under §107(a) and federal common law. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that §107(a) does not allow PRPs (such as Atlantic Research) to recover costs.The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, relying on a case decided prior to our decision in Cooper Industries, Dico, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 340 F. 3d 525 (CA8 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed.
The Supreme Court says, "The parties’ dispute centers on what 'other person[s]' may sue under §107(a)(4)(B). The Government argues that 'any other person' refers to any person not identified as a PRP in §§107(a)(1)–(4).2 In other words, subparagraph (B) permits suit only by non-PRPs and thus bars Atlantic Research’s claim. Atlantic Research counters that subparagraph (B) takes its cue from subparagraph (A), not the earlier paragraph (1)–(4). In accord with the Court of Appeals, Atlantic Research believes that subparagraph (B) provides a cause of action to anyone except the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe -- the persons listed in subparagraph (A). We agree with Atlantic Research... The Government’s interpretation makes little textual sense."
The Supreme Court summarizes the Government's arguments as follows: the Government maintains that our interpretation, by offering PRPs a choice between §107(a) and §113(f), effectively allows PRPs to circumvent §113(f)’s shorter statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Government argues, PRPs will eschew equitable apportionment under §113(f) in favor of joint and several liability under §107(a). Finally, the Government contends that our interpretation eviscerates the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2).
The High Court counters the three Government arguments and explains in some detail why "in the case of reimbursement, the PRP cannot choose the 6-year statute of limitations for cost-recovery actions over the shorter limitations period for §113(f) contribution claims." Likewise, the High Court says, "a PRP could not avoid §113(f)’s equitable distribution of reimbursement costs among PRPs by instead choosing to impose joint and several liability on another PRP in an action under §107(a). The choice of remedies simply does not exist. In any event, a defendant PRP in such a §107(a) suit could blunt any inequitable distribution of costs by filing a §113(f) counter-claim." And, finally the High Court says, "...permitting PRPs to seek recovery under §107(a) will not eviscerate the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2). That provision prohibits §113(f) contribution claims against '[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement . ..'”
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna hailed the decision as a victory for his State and explained why the decision is important to other states as well. McKenna said, "The Court’s decision ensures that many contaminated sites which might have been unaddressed for a significant time will be cleaned up. In Washington, more than 1,200 sites are listed on the state’s contaminated sites list. Of these, approximately 250 are in the process of being cleaned up by liable parties under the state’s formal oversight. Because the state does not have resources to address every known site in the state, the remaining sites will likely be addressed as voluntary cleanups. This means that a party who has liability for cleaning up the property will undertake the cleanup without any action by the federal or state government. The ability to obtain contribution to the costs of cleanup from other parties who have liability for a contaminated site is one of the key incentives for parties to perform these voluntary cleanups.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the U.S. Supreme Court Docket listing all amici curiae parties for the case (click here). Access a release from the Washington State AG (click here). Access a discussion of the opinion on the SCOTUS Blog (click here). [*Remed]
The High Court succinctly summarizes its opinion saying, "Two provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) -- §§107(a) and 113(f) -- allow private parties to recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites. 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a), 9613(f). In this case, we must decide a question left open in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004): whether §107(a) provides so-called potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a)(1)–(4), with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs. We hold that it does."
The High Court explains that after SARA’s [Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986] enactment, some Courts of Appeals believed it necessary to “direc[t]traffic between” §107(a) and §113(f). As a result, many Courts of Appeals held that §113(f) was the exclusive remedy for PRPs. But as courts prevented PRPs from suing under§107(a), they expanded §113(f) to allow PRPs to seek “contribution” even in the absence of a suit under §106 or §107(a). Aviall Servs., Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 312 F. 3d 677, 681 (CA5 2002) (en banc). In Cooper Industries, we held that a private party could seek contribution from other liable parties only after having been sued under §106 or §107(a). 543 U. S., at 161. The High Court said, "This narrower interpretation of §113(f) caused several Courts of Appeals to reconsider whether PRPs have rights under §107(a)(4)(B), an issue we declined to address in Cooper Industries. Id., at 168."
The Eighth Circuit opinion in Atlantic Research Corp agreed with a similar ruling in the Second Circuit decision in Consolidated Edison Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir. 2005]; however, those decisions were in conflict with a decision of the Third Circuit in E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 460 F. 3d 515 (CA3 2006).
In brief review of the instant case, the High Court summarizes that Atlantic Research cleaned the site at its own expense and then sought to recover some of its costs by suing the United States under both §107(a) and §113(f). After our decision in Cooper Industries foreclosed relief under §113(f), Atlantic Research amended its complaint to seek relief under §107(a) and federal common law. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that §107(a) does not allow PRPs (such as Atlantic Research) to recover costs.The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, relying on a case decided prior to our decision in Cooper Industries, Dico, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 340 F. 3d 525 (CA8 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed.
The Supreme Court says, "The parties’ dispute centers on what 'other person[s]' may sue under §107(a)(4)(B). The Government argues that 'any other person' refers to any person not identified as a PRP in §§107(a)(1)–(4).2 In other words, subparagraph (B) permits suit only by non-PRPs and thus bars Atlantic Research’s claim. Atlantic Research counters that subparagraph (B) takes its cue from subparagraph (A), not the earlier paragraph (1)–(4). In accord with the Court of Appeals, Atlantic Research believes that subparagraph (B) provides a cause of action to anyone except the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe -- the persons listed in subparagraph (A). We agree with Atlantic Research... The Government’s interpretation makes little textual sense."
The Supreme Court summarizes the Government's arguments as follows: the Government maintains that our interpretation, by offering PRPs a choice between §107(a) and §113(f), effectively allows PRPs to circumvent §113(f)’s shorter statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Government argues, PRPs will eschew equitable apportionment under §113(f) in favor of joint and several liability under §107(a). Finally, the Government contends that our interpretation eviscerates the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2).
The High Court counters the three Government arguments and explains in some detail why "in the case of reimbursement, the PRP cannot choose the 6-year statute of limitations for cost-recovery actions over the shorter limitations period for §113(f) contribution claims." Likewise, the High Court says, "a PRP could not avoid §113(f)’s equitable distribution of reimbursement costs among PRPs by instead choosing to impose joint and several liability on another PRP in an action under §107(a). The choice of remedies simply does not exist. In any event, a defendant PRP in such a §107(a) suit could blunt any inequitable distribution of costs by filing a §113(f) counter-claim." And, finally the High Court says, "...permitting PRPs to seek recovery under §107(a) will not eviscerate the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2). That provision prohibits §113(f) contribution claims against '[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement . ..'”
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna hailed the decision as a victory for his State and explained why the decision is important to other states as well. McKenna said, "The Court’s decision ensures that many contaminated sites which might have been unaddressed for a significant time will be cleaned up. In Washington, more than 1,200 sites are listed on the state’s contaminated sites list. Of these, approximately 250 are in the process of being cleaned up by liable parties under the state’s formal oversight. Because the state does not have resources to address every known site in the state, the remaining sites will likely be addressed as voluntary cleanups. This means that a party who has liability for cleaning up the property will undertake the cleanup without any action by the federal or state government. The ability to obtain contribution to the costs of cleanup from other parties who have liability for a contaminated site is one of the key incentives for parties to perform these voluntary cleanups.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the U.S. Supreme Court Docket listing all amici curiae parties for the case (click here). Access a release from the Washington State AG (click here). Access a discussion of the opinion on the SCOTUS Blog (click here). [*Remed]
Monday, June 11, 2007
Appeals Court Denies Rehearing Of South Coast Ozone Case
Jun 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 04-1200, 04-1201. The case, South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, involves five petitions for rehearing with regard to the vacatur and remand of a final rule implementing the eight-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone under the Clean Air Act (CAA) [See Final Phase 1 Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, 69 Fed. Reg. 23,951 (Apr. 30, 2004) (codified at 40 C.F.R. parts 40, 51, 81) (2004 Rule)]. The petitions were filed by a group of Environmental Petitioners, the Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge et al. (Baton Rouge), National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), American Chemistry Council et al. (ACC), and EPA.
According to the Appeals Court, the petitions overlap in part, challenging principally the court’s interpretation of the statutory gap, described in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), that arises from the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change from a one-hour to an eight-hour measurement system for ozone, and the court’s construction of the CAA’s anti-backsliding provision. See S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) [See WIMS 1/02/07].
The Appeals Court said, "None of these challenges has merit and we deny the petitions. However, we grant the joint request of EPA and the Environmental Petitioners to clarify the description of the required conformity determinations and to modify the scope of the vacatur of the 2004 Rule."
Earthjustice represented a group of public health and environmental organizations including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club; that challenged the EPA rule and then subsequently defended the court's December decision that overturned the rule. In explaining the decision, Earthjustice said, "Today's decision reaffirms that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by relaxing limits on ozone, or smog pollution, from large power plants, factories and other industrial sources. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the EPA and industry petitions for rehearing, and actually clarified in even stronger terms that weakening air protections is illegal under federal law. The court characterized the industry's desired readings of the law as a 'glaring loophole' that nothing suggests Congress intended." The Appeals Court said, "EPA is urged to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule that effectuates the statutory mandate by implementing the eight-hour standard, which was deemed necessary to protect the public health a decade ago."
Access the complete 8-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access other related South Coast articles posted on the WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog (click here). [*Air]
According to the Appeals Court, the petitions overlap in part, challenging principally the court’s interpretation of the statutory gap, described in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), that arises from the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change from a one-hour to an eight-hour measurement system for ozone, and the court’s construction of the CAA’s anti-backsliding provision. See S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) [See WIMS 1/02/07].
The Appeals Court said, "None of these challenges has merit and we deny the petitions. However, we grant the joint request of EPA and the Environmental Petitioners to clarify the description of the required conformity determinations and to modify the scope of the vacatur of the 2004 Rule."
Earthjustice represented a group of public health and environmental organizations including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club; that challenged the EPA rule and then subsequently defended the court's December decision that overturned the rule. In explaining the decision, Earthjustice said, "Today's decision reaffirms that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by relaxing limits on ozone, or smog pollution, from large power plants, factories and other industrial sources. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the EPA and industry petitions for rehearing, and actually clarified in even stronger terms that weakening air protections is illegal under federal law. The court characterized the industry's desired readings of the law as a 'glaring loophole' that nothing suggests Congress intended." The Appeals Court said, "EPA is urged to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule that effectuates the statutory mandate by implementing the eight-hour standard, which was deemed necessary to protect the public health a decade ago."
Access the complete 8-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access other related South Coast articles posted on the WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog (click here). [*Air]
Friday, June 08, 2007
Environmental Impacts Of The"Thirst for Corn"
Jun 7: A 10-page World Resources Institute (WRI) Policy Note entitled, Thirst for Corn: What 2007 Plantings Could Mean for the Environment, says that now that the ethanol industry has been jump-started by legislation, priorities should be directed less at the expansion of the industry and more at an evolution that offers the most benefits for the environment and energy security. The brief indicates that as a result, in large part from the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) -- legislative mandate for increased renewable fuels use that passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- the corn ethanol industry is expanding at an unprecedented rate in the United States.
The 115 ethanol plants operating in April 2007 have the capacity to produce 5.75 billion gallons per year (BGY) of ethanol, and an estimated 86 plants under construction are expected to produce an additional 6.34 BGY of capacity within the next 18 months. The cumulative total capacity -- more than 12 BGY by 2009 -- far exceeds the RFS blending mandate of 7.5 BGY by 2012, and has been the driving force behind skyrocketing corn prices in the last 12 months.
The brief points out, "Although ethanol is widely promoted as a green alternative to gasoline, there are many different ways to produce ethanol, using many different feedstocks, and some ways are greener than others. Production of the feedstock represents a significant share of the environmental footprint of ethanol production; to ensure sustainability of production, we need to pay close attention to the environmental impacts of producing those feedstocks and have policies in place to avoid or mitigate those impacts."
The brief provides a sophisticated analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ethanol production from corn. WRI uses a national scale agro-environmental production model, which integrates the Regional Environmental and Agricultural Production model (REAP) -- a national agricultural production model developed and maintained by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and formerly known as USMP -- with the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC), a plant growth and environmental impact model. The combined model allows projections indicating how increased corn demand will translate into regional changes in crops grown, tillage practices used, and crop rotations employed, and to then estimate the net environmental impacts of those changes. To measure environmental impacts WRI looked specifically at agricultural GHG emissions, which are often under-represented in the dialogue about greenhouse gas reductions, as well as at nitrogen and phosphorus loads into local waterways and rates of soil erosion, which have been the focus of most existing and pilot agricultural conservation programs.
The baseline agricultural production scenario for our analysis uses the USDA’s 2006 projected baseline for 2007 crop production patterns and a baseline ethanol production level of 6 BGY. Relative to that scenario, we explore how 2007 planting patterns are likely to respond to meet projected corn demands for 2008 ethanol production levels ranging from the baseline of 6 BGY up to 11 BGY.
The analysis results suggest that meeting projected demands for ethanol will require a substantial reallocation of land to corn production and that the shift to corn production will have significant negative environmental impacts if we assume that existing production practices continue under the current policy framework. The results of that analysis for each land-supply scenario are summarized and described in more detail in the briefing report.
Access the 10-page analysis and recommendations (click here). [*Energy]
The 115 ethanol plants operating in April 2007 have the capacity to produce 5.75 billion gallons per year (BGY) of ethanol, and an estimated 86 plants under construction are expected to produce an additional 6.34 BGY of capacity within the next 18 months. The cumulative total capacity -- more than 12 BGY by 2009 -- far exceeds the RFS blending mandate of 7.5 BGY by 2012, and has been the driving force behind skyrocketing corn prices in the last 12 months.
The brief points out, "Although ethanol is widely promoted as a green alternative to gasoline, there are many different ways to produce ethanol, using many different feedstocks, and some ways are greener than others. Production of the feedstock represents a significant share of the environmental footprint of ethanol production; to ensure sustainability of production, we need to pay close attention to the environmental impacts of producing those feedstocks and have policies in place to avoid or mitigate those impacts."
The brief provides a sophisticated analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ethanol production from corn. WRI uses a national scale agro-environmental production model, which integrates the Regional Environmental and Agricultural Production model (REAP) -- a national agricultural production model developed and maintained by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and formerly known as USMP -- with the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC), a plant growth and environmental impact model. The combined model allows projections indicating how increased corn demand will translate into regional changes in crops grown, tillage practices used, and crop rotations employed, and to then estimate the net environmental impacts of those changes. To measure environmental impacts WRI looked specifically at agricultural GHG emissions, which are often under-represented in the dialogue about greenhouse gas reductions, as well as at nitrogen and phosphorus loads into local waterways and rates of soil erosion, which have been the focus of most existing and pilot agricultural conservation programs.
The baseline agricultural production scenario for our analysis uses the USDA’s 2006 projected baseline for 2007 crop production patterns and a baseline ethanol production level of 6 BGY. Relative to that scenario, we explore how 2007 planting patterns are likely to respond to meet projected corn demands for 2008 ethanol production levels ranging from the baseline of 6 BGY up to 11 BGY.
The analysis results suggest that meeting projected demands for ethanol will require a substantial reallocation of land to corn production and that the shift to corn production will have significant negative environmental impacts if we assume that existing production practices continue under the current policy framework. The results of that analysis for each land-supply scenario are summarized and described in more detail in the briefing report.
Access the 10-page analysis and recommendations (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, June 07, 2007
G-8 Says GHG Must Stop Rising; Followed By Reductions
Jun 7: At the G-8 meeting being held in Heiligendamm, Germany from June 6-8, the member countries adopted a Summit Declaration that includes major provisions on climate change and energy efficiency and energy security. The forum brings together heads of state from the G-8 countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan) plus 5 countries (China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa), which together produce 75 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases.The European Commission and United Nations are also represented at the meetings.
As part of the 38-page Summit Declaration document entitled, Growth and Responsibility In The World Economy, the G-8 countries addressed the issue of climate change by saying, "Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies, while avoiding economic distortions...
"We recognize the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction... we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year...
"Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies... we herewith strongly reaffirm our commitment to Global Energy Security Principles... Improving energy efficiency worldwide is the fastest, the most sustainable and the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and enhance energy security.
Noting the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the G-8 nations said,"We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavor...
"We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognize however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development."
The countries also agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change, and said they are committed "to moving forward" by participating in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007, "with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters." The declaration further details the countries' positions on Technology, Market Mechanisms, Reducing Emissions by Curbing Deforestation, Adapting to Climate Change, Biodiversity, and a major section on Energy Efficiency; where they indicated energy efficiency policies could contribute to 80% of avoided greenhouse gases while substantially increasing security of supply. Under Energy Efficiency they agreed to principles on Sustainable Buildings, Transportation, Power Generation, and Energy Diversification.
Access the 38-page Summit Declaration (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access a June 6 press briefing including Jim Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality, with comments on the G-8 meeting (click here). Access links to various media reports on the G-8 climate change action (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
As part of the 38-page Summit Declaration document entitled, Growth and Responsibility In The World Economy, the G-8 countries addressed the issue of climate change by saying, "Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies, while avoiding economic distortions...
"We recognize the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction... we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year...
"Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies... we herewith strongly reaffirm our commitment to Global Energy Security Principles... Improving energy efficiency worldwide is the fastest, the most sustainable and the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and enhance energy security.
Noting the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the G-8 nations said,"We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavor...
"We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognize however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development."
The countries also agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change, and said they are committed "to moving forward" by participating in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007, "with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters." The declaration further details the countries' positions on Technology, Market Mechanisms, Reducing Emissions by Curbing Deforestation, Adapting to Climate Change, Biodiversity, and a major section on Energy Efficiency; where they indicated energy efficiency policies could contribute to 80% of avoided greenhouse gases while substantially increasing security of supply. Under Energy Efficiency they agreed to principles on Sustainable Buildings, Transportation, Power Generation, and Energy Diversification.
Access the 38-page Summit Declaration (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access a June 6 press briefing including Jim Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality, with comments on the G-8 meeting (click here). Access links to various media reports on the G-8 climate change action (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Sediment Dredging Has Fallen Short of Achieving Cleanup Goals
Jun 5: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) indicates that at many projects to dredge contaminated sediments from U.S. rivers and other bodies of water, it has not been demonstrated that dredging has reduced the long-term risks the sediments pose to people and wildlife. Many dredging projects have had difficulty meeting short-term goals for reducing pollution levels. Whether dredging alone can reduce long-term risks was difficult to determine at many sites because of inadequate monitoring data and other limitations. The report, Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites: Assessing the Effectiveness, calls on the U.S. EPA to improve and intensify its monitoring at dredging and other projects intended to remediate contaminated sediments at the nation's Superfund sites.
The report concludes that dredging's ability to achieve cleanup goals depends on a site's characteristics. If a particular site has one or more unfavorable conditions -- the presence of debris such as boulders or cables, for example, or bedrock lying beneath the contaminated sediment -- then dredging alone is unlikely to be sufficient. The presence or absence of such conditions should be a major consideration in deciding whether to dredge at a site.
Contaminated sediments can be found at the bottoms of many U.S. rivers and other water bodies near former mining, agricultural, or industrial sites. Tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, or other toxic substances, the sediments can pose risks to people, fish, and aquatic animals. Many of these sites are slated for cleanup by EPA under Federal Superfund legislation, and a minimum of 14 of them are sediment "megasites" -- sites where the cost of remediating sediments is expected to reach at least $50 million, or has already done so. Decisions about whether to dredge at these sites have proved controversial, so Congress asked the Research Council to evaluate the method's effectiveness. To inform its conclusions, the committee examined 26 dredging projects, five of them at megasites, and evaluated whether they had attained their cleanup and risk-reduction goals.
The report indicates that dredging is effective at removing contaminated sediment mass permanently from the environment. But removing mass may not be enough to achieve desired cleanup levels or long-term goals for reducing risks, because dredging inevitably leaves residual contamination behind. Dredging alone achieved expected cleanup results at only a few of the sites the committee analyzed. At many others, capping -- placing a layer of uncontaminated material over the tainted sediments -- was also necessary to contain the remaining contamination at acceptable levels. Assessments of the sites also revealed that the dredging process releases contaminants into the water, which in the short term can have adverse effects on fish and other aquatic animals and could potentially raise health risks in people who consume them.
Dredging remains one of the few approaches available for cleaning up contaminated sediments, and EPA should continue to consider its use among other methods. In locations where buried contaminated sediments could be dislodged by storms, for example, dredging the sediments to prevent them from being transported may reduce risks. If dredging is used, planners need to recognize that residual contamination and releases of chemicals into the water will invariably occur; they should estimate the effects of these processes in advance, and employ best practices to minimize them. Using a combination of methods should also be considered, particularly if a site has any characteristics unfavorable to dredging.
The report also says that the typical Superfund approach, in which EPA conducts an investigation and a feasibility study that establishes a single path to remediation, is not the best way to choose remedies for these sites. Given the long time frames and many unknowns involved in cleaning up megasites, adaptive management -- which uses monitoring data to review progress and adjust plans when needed -- should be used to select and implement cleanup methods. In addition, dredging and other remediation projects should be designed to meet long-term goals for reducing risks to people and wildlife, instead of objectives not directly related to risk, such as removing a specified amount of sediment. The report emphasizes that without adequate monitoring before and after dredging, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which cleanup objectives have been reached. EPA should invest in better and more consistent measurement tools to monitor conditions in the field reliably and efficiently.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 27-page summary and a 4-page report in brief (click here). [*Remed, *Water]
The report concludes that dredging's ability to achieve cleanup goals depends on a site's characteristics. If a particular site has one or more unfavorable conditions -- the presence of debris such as boulders or cables, for example, or bedrock lying beneath the contaminated sediment -- then dredging alone is unlikely to be sufficient. The presence or absence of such conditions should be a major consideration in deciding whether to dredge at a site.
Contaminated sediments can be found at the bottoms of many U.S. rivers and other water bodies near former mining, agricultural, or industrial sites. Tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, or other toxic substances, the sediments can pose risks to people, fish, and aquatic animals. Many of these sites are slated for cleanup by EPA under Federal Superfund legislation, and a minimum of 14 of them are sediment "megasites" -- sites where the cost of remediating sediments is expected to reach at least $50 million, or has already done so. Decisions about whether to dredge at these sites have proved controversial, so Congress asked the Research Council to evaluate the method's effectiveness. To inform its conclusions, the committee examined 26 dredging projects, five of them at megasites, and evaluated whether they had attained their cleanup and risk-reduction goals.
The report indicates that dredging is effective at removing contaminated sediment mass permanently from the environment. But removing mass may not be enough to achieve desired cleanup levels or long-term goals for reducing risks, because dredging inevitably leaves residual contamination behind. Dredging alone achieved expected cleanup results at only a few of the sites the committee analyzed. At many others, capping -- placing a layer of uncontaminated material over the tainted sediments -- was also necessary to contain the remaining contamination at acceptable levels. Assessments of the sites also revealed that the dredging process releases contaminants into the water, which in the short term can have adverse effects on fish and other aquatic animals and could potentially raise health risks in people who consume them.
Dredging remains one of the few approaches available for cleaning up contaminated sediments, and EPA should continue to consider its use among other methods. In locations where buried contaminated sediments could be dislodged by storms, for example, dredging the sediments to prevent them from being transported may reduce risks. If dredging is used, planners need to recognize that residual contamination and releases of chemicals into the water will invariably occur; they should estimate the effects of these processes in advance, and employ best practices to minimize them. Using a combination of methods should also be considered, particularly if a site has any characteristics unfavorable to dredging.
The report also says that the typical Superfund approach, in which EPA conducts an investigation and a feasibility study that establishes a single path to remediation, is not the best way to choose remedies for these sites. Given the long time frames and many unknowns involved in cleaning up megasites, adaptive management -- which uses monitoring data to review progress and adjust plans when needed -- should be used to select and implement cleanup methods. In addition, dredging and other remediation projects should be designed to meet long-term goals for reducing risks to people and wildlife, instead of objectives not directly related to risk, such as removing a specified amount of sediment. The report emphasizes that without adequate monitoring before and after dredging, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which cleanup objectives have been reached. EPA should invest in better and more consistent measurement tools to monitor conditions in the field reliably and efficiently.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 27-page summary and a 4-page report in brief (click here). [*Remed, *Water]
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
EPA & Corps Issue Wetland Guidance Documents
Jun 5: Just days after Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced legislation with over 150 cosponsors which he said is designed "to fix the Clean Water Act (CWA) after it was damaged by two U.S. Supreme Court rulings" [See WIMS 5/22/07]; U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued joint guidance for their field offices which they say will "ensure America's wetlands and other water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA)." The agencies said the action reinforces the Bush Administration's commitment to protect and enhance the quality of our nation's wetlands and water bodies.
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for Water said, "The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions. Today's action sends a clear signal we'll use our regulatory tools to meet the president's ambitious wetlands goals." John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works) said, "We are committed to protecting America's aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision. This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent, and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined."
EPA and Corps staff will also use the guidance when taking enforcement actions under the CWA. The guidance clarifies those circumstances where a person may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before conducting activities in wetlands, tributaries, and other waters. Individual tribal, state and local laws, regulations, or policies may further protect aquatic water resources. The guidance is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States regarding the scope of the agencies' jurisdiction under the CWA [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities].
Specifically, the guidance discusses the agencies' protection of three classes of waters through the following actions: (1) Continuing to regulate "traditionally navigable waters," including all rivers and other waters that are large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce and any wetlands adjacent to such waters; (2) Continuing to regulate "non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries"; and (3) Continuing to regulate based on case-by-case determinations for other tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have certain characteristics that significantly affect traditionally navigable waters.
The guidance supports a strong regulatory program that ensures no net loss of wetlands, which is one of three key elements to the Bush Administration wetlands policy. The other two elements include an active management program that will result in the restoration, enhancement and protection of three million acres of wetlands by 2009 and a commitment to conserve isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.
EPA said that during the first six months of implementing the guidance, the agencies are inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the guidance. The guidance notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register soon. The agencies said they will more broadly consider jurisdictional issues, including additional clarification and definition of key terminology, through rulemaking or other appropriate policy practice.
As part of the latest action, U.S. EPA has posted three new documents: (1) June 2007 Legal Memorandum (12 pp, discussing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.); (2) June 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (7 pp, regarding Coordination on Jurisdictional Determinations under Clean Water Act Section 404 in Light of the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions.); (3) June 2007 Questions and Answers (7 pp).
Access a joint EPA/COE release (click here). Access the legal memorandum and Q&A document and background information on EPA's website (click here). Access the prepublication copy of FR notice (click here). Access additional documents and a powerpoint presentation on the COE website (click here). [*Water]
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for Water said, "The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions. Today's action sends a clear signal we'll use our regulatory tools to meet the president's ambitious wetlands goals." John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works) said, "We are committed to protecting America's aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision. This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent, and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined."
EPA and Corps staff will also use the guidance when taking enforcement actions under the CWA. The guidance clarifies those circumstances where a person may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before conducting activities in wetlands, tributaries, and other waters. Individual tribal, state and local laws, regulations, or policies may further protect aquatic water resources. The guidance is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States regarding the scope of the agencies' jurisdiction under the CWA [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities].
Specifically, the guidance discusses the agencies' protection of three classes of waters through the following actions: (1) Continuing to regulate "traditionally navigable waters," including all rivers and other waters that are large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce and any wetlands adjacent to such waters; (2) Continuing to regulate "non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries"; and (3) Continuing to regulate based on case-by-case determinations for other tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have certain characteristics that significantly affect traditionally navigable waters.
The guidance supports a strong regulatory program that ensures no net loss of wetlands, which is one of three key elements to the Bush Administration wetlands policy. The other two elements include an active management program that will result in the restoration, enhancement and protection of three million acres of wetlands by 2009 and a commitment to conserve isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.
EPA said that during the first six months of implementing the guidance, the agencies are inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the guidance. The guidance notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register soon. The agencies said they will more broadly consider jurisdictional issues, including additional clarification and definition of key terminology, through rulemaking or other appropriate policy practice.
As part of the latest action, U.S. EPA has posted three new documents: (1) June 2007 Legal Memorandum (12 pp, discussing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.); (2) June 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (7 pp, regarding Coordination on Jurisdictional Determinations under Clean Water Act Section 404 in Light of the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions.); (3) June 2007 Questions and Answers (7 pp).
Access a joint EPA/COE release (click here). Access the legal memorandum and Q&A document and background information on EPA's website (click here). Access the prepublication copy of FR notice (click here). Access additional documents and a powerpoint presentation on the COE website (click here). [*Water]
Monday, June 04, 2007
Small, Poor Countries Hold Major Emitters Accountable For Climate Change
May 29: Oxfam America, an international non-profit organization that works to end global poverty has issued a new report saying that human-induced climate change is already causing harm to the world’s poorest people, and indicating that those people are the least responsible for emissions and least able to adapt to climatic shocks. The report, published ahead of the G-8 summit, called on G-8 countries to urgently take action to keep global warming below 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) and pledge to help poorest cope with the impacts. Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America said, “Poor countries should not have to pay for damage caused by the emissions of rich countries. As world leaders head to the G8 summit in Germany, they must be prepared to cut their emissions and to start helping poor countries to cope with the high costs of adaptation.”
The report, Adapting to Climate Change: What’s Needed in Poor Countries and Who Should Pay, estimates that poor countries will need around $50 billion a year to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, a conservative estimate that will rise sharply if emissions are not cut drastically. Offenheiser said, “Rich countries must find ways to help address the harm caused to those who are least responsible for the problem. It is important to not think of this as aid in a traditional sense, but as the world’s biggest and richest polluters covering the costs forced upon those who are most vulnerable -- an entirely separate and added responsibility.”
In a related matter, representatives of Arctic communities and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from the Caribbean, and Pacific have formed an alliance called Many Strong Voices to press for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions saying the cultures and economies of their countries and regions are the most affected by climate change. In an address, described as "passionate and forthright," supporting the establishment of the Many Strong Voices alliance, John Briceno, Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister of Belize said “we need action now, not tomorrow.” He urged participants to raise their voices and insist that those responsible for climate change be held accountable for their actions.
The participants, who came from 16 countries and regions, including Alaska, the Caribbean, Fiji, the Canadian Arctic and the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union, including Greenland and French Polynesia, met in Belize City to prepare a five-year action plan. The strategy includes plans to push for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It also includes an assessment of the SIDS to adapt to climate change and a plan to inform and warn the world of the dramatic effects of climate change in their regions. Taito Nakalevu, Climate Change Officer with the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, based in Samoa said, “Together, we have identified common problems as a consequence of climate change, and our communities are suffering. We insist that those countries that are causing the problems have a responsibility to those whose lives are being affected.”
Access a release from Oxfam America (click here). Access the complete 47-page report (click here). Access the Oxfam America website for additional information (click here). Access the Many Strong Voices website for extensive information (click here). [*Climate]
The report, Adapting to Climate Change: What’s Needed in Poor Countries and Who Should Pay, estimates that poor countries will need around $50 billion a year to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, a conservative estimate that will rise sharply if emissions are not cut drastically. Offenheiser said, “Rich countries must find ways to help address the harm caused to those who are least responsible for the problem. It is important to not think of this as aid in a traditional sense, but as the world’s biggest and richest polluters covering the costs forced upon those who are most vulnerable -- an entirely separate and added responsibility.”
In a related matter, representatives of Arctic communities and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from the Caribbean, and Pacific have formed an alliance called Many Strong Voices to press for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions saying the cultures and economies of their countries and regions are the most affected by climate change. In an address, described as "passionate and forthright," supporting the establishment of the Many Strong Voices alliance, John Briceno, Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister of Belize said “we need action now, not tomorrow.” He urged participants to raise their voices and insist that those responsible for climate change be held accountable for their actions.
The participants, who came from 16 countries and regions, including Alaska, the Caribbean, Fiji, the Canadian Arctic and the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union, including Greenland and French Polynesia, met in Belize City to prepare a five-year action plan. The strategy includes plans to push for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It also includes an assessment of the SIDS to adapt to climate change and a plan to inform and warn the world of the dramatic effects of climate change in their regions. Taito Nakalevu, Climate Change Officer with the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, based in Samoa said, “Together, we have identified common problems as a consequence of climate change, and our communities are suffering. We insist that those countries that are causing the problems have a responsibility to those whose lives are being affected.”
Access a release from Oxfam America (click here). Access the complete 47-page report (click here). Access the Oxfam America website for additional information (click here). Access the Many Strong Voices website for extensive information (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, June 01, 2007
White House Policy Change On Climate Change?
May 31: As part of a broader agenda of items leading up to the G-8 meeting on June 6-8, in Heiligendamm, Germany, [See WIMS 5/18/07], President Bush described his ideas that will be presented to the G8 ministers about the environment. While there are many critics and accusations of posturing in advance of the international meeting, other observers are calling the announcement a major turning point in the Administration's policy on global warming and 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.
In his overall remarks President Bush said, "In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012... It's important to ensure that we get results, and so we will create a strong and transparent system for measuring each country's performance. This new framework would help our nations fulfill our responsibilities under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States will work with all nations that are part of this convention to adapt to the impacts of climate change, gain access to clean and more energy-efficient technologies, and promote sustainable forestry and agriculture."
According to a White House fact sheet summarizing the President's proposals the U.S. announces its support for "an effort to develop a new post-2012 framework on climate change by the end of 2008. The plan recognizes that it is essential that a new framework include both major developed and developing economies that generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions and consume the most energy, and that climate change must be addressed in a way that enhances energy security and promotes economic growth.
The President said the U.S. will convene the major emitters and energy consumers to advance and complete the new framework by the end of 2008. The fact sheet indicates that: (1) The U.S. remains committed to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we expect the new framework to complement ongoing UN activity; (2) The President’s proposal breaks new ground in advancing areas of common interest between developed countries and the major emerging economies. (3) The effort will build on and advance U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and other technology and bilateral partnerships.
Further, the President's proposal is based on the principle that climate change must be addressed by fostering both energy security and economic security, by accelerating the development and deployment of "transformational clean energy technologies."
In developing the new framework, the White House is calling on the major emitters to work together to develop a long-term global goal to reduce greenhouse gasses. Importantly, the proposal says that, "Each country will work to achieve this emissions goal by establishing its own ambitious mid-term national targets and programs, based on national circumstances. They will ensure advancement towards the global goal with a review process that assesses each country’s performances."
White House press secretary Tony Snow and Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality held a press briefing to explain the new Administration initiative which Connaughton said was the "going forward strategy on the issue of energy security and climate change." Connaughton described a somewhat confusing, multi-part agenda that included the United States committing to "help lead the way on the development of a new framework on climate change" for the time after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. He said, "We are going to bring to the United States the countries that represent the largest energy use and the largest emissions of greenhouse gases" [i.e. about 10 to 15 countries]. We hope to find consensus on the statement of the statement of a long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gases."
Additionally the U.S. will facilitate industry sectors (e.g. power generation, fuels, buildings) representatives in each country to "see if they can come up with a common work program to share best practices, but also, we would anticipate they would set targets, too... The final element of part one is that we will have a stronger program of measuring performance and making that very transparent so we can compare apples to apples on how we're doing."
Also, the U.S. will work through the U.N. Framework on Climate Change to develop a common agenda around four: sustainable land use; better forestry practices; better agricultural practices; better thinking through our cities; halting illegal logging and deforestation.
There was considerable discussion about whether the U.S. is advocating voluntary or mandatory agreements. The answers from Connaughton reflected a great deal of flexibility, i.e. "The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term aspirational goal... There's a lot of misconception about what's binding and what's not binding. The issue is you agree on goals in the international process; you implement them through national strategies that include binding measures... it's just challenging because you're trying to deal with big economic issues."
[Note: We have included extensive links to various individual and organization reactions to the President's plan below]
Access the White House fact sheet on its climate change proposal (click here). Access the complete transcript of the White House press briefing on the proposal (click here). Access the President's overall international development remarks (click here). Access a release from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (click here). Access a release from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Representative Ed Markey (click here). Access a release from U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Pete Domenici (click here). Access a release from the National Environmental Trust (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
In his overall remarks President Bush said, "In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012... It's important to ensure that we get results, and so we will create a strong and transparent system for measuring each country's performance. This new framework would help our nations fulfill our responsibilities under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States will work with all nations that are part of this convention to adapt to the impacts of climate change, gain access to clean and more energy-efficient technologies, and promote sustainable forestry and agriculture."
According to a White House fact sheet summarizing the President's proposals the U.S. announces its support for "an effort to develop a new post-2012 framework on climate change by the end of 2008. The plan recognizes that it is essential that a new framework include both major developed and developing economies that generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions and consume the most energy, and that climate change must be addressed in a way that enhances energy security and promotes economic growth.
The President said the U.S. will convene the major emitters and energy consumers to advance and complete the new framework by the end of 2008. The fact sheet indicates that: (1) The U.S. remains committed to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we expect the new framework to complement ongoing UN activity; (2) The President’s proposal breaks new ground in advancing areas of common interest between developed countries and the major emerging economies. (3) The effort will build on and advance U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and other technology and bilateral partnerships.
Further, the President's proposal is based on the principle that climate change must be addressed by fostering both energy security and economic security, by accelerating the development and deployment of "transformational clean energy technologies."
In developing the new framework, the White House is calling on the major emitters to work together to develop a long-term global goal to reduce greenhouse gasses. Importantly, the proposal says that, "Each country will work to achieve this emissions goal by establishing its own ambitious mid-term national targets and programs, based on national circumstances. They will ensure advancement towards the global goal with a review process that assesses each country’s performances."
White House press secretary Tony Snow and Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality held a press briefing to explain the new Administration initiative which Connaughton said was the "going forward strategy on the issue of energy security and climate change." Connaughton described a somewhat confusing, multi-part agenda that included the United States committing to "help lead the way on the development of a new framework on climate change" for the time after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. He said, "We are going to bring to the United States the countries that represent the largest energy use and the largest emissions of greenhouse gases" [i.e. about 10 to 15 countries]. We hope to find consensus on the statement of the statement of a long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gases."
Additionally the U.S. will facilitate industry sectors (e.g. power generation, fuels, buildings) representatives in each country to "see if they can come up with a common work program to share best practices, but also, we would anticipate they would set targets, too... The final element of part one is that we will have a stronger program of measuring performance and making that very transparent so we can compare apples to apples on how we're doing."
Also, the U.S. will work through the U.N. Framework on Climate Change to develop a common agenda around four: sustainable land use; better forestry practices; better agricultural practices; better thinking through our cities; halting illegal logging and deforestation.
There was considerable discussion about whether the U.S. is advocating voluntary or mandatory agreements. The answers from Connaughton reflected a great deal of flexibility, i.e. "The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term aspirational goal... There's a lot of misconception about what's binding and what's not binding. The issue is you agree on goals in the international process; you implement them through national strategies that include binding measures... it's just challenging because you're trying to deal with big economic issues."
[Note: We have included extensive links to various individual and organization reactions to the President's plan below]
Access the White House fact sheet on its climate change proposal (click here). Access the complete transcript of the White House press briefing on the proposal (click here). Access the President's overall international development remarks (click here). Access a release from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (click here). Access a release from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Representative Ed Markey (click here). Access a release from U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Pete Domenici (click here). Access a release from the National Environmental Trust (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Thursday, May 31, 2007
NAS Report Claims A "Spectacular Future" In Plasma Science
May 29: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) entitled, Plasma Science: Advancing Knowledge in the National Interest, indicates that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science should reorient its research programs to promote plasma science research and create a focal point for federal efforts in that field. The report says that breakthroughs in plasma science have the potential to enhance national and economic security, energy production, and general scientific knowledge. In general, plasma science (the study of ionized gases) is critical to the development of fusion energy (involving the fusion of nuclei), which could be an abundant energy source in the future.
According to the report, "Plasma science is on the cusp of a new era. It is poised to make significant breakthroughs in the next decade that will transform the field. For example, the international magnetic fusion experiment, ITER, is expected to confine burning plasma for the first time -- a critical step on the road to commercial fusion. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) plans to ignite capsules of fusion fuel to acquire knowledge necessary to improve the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Low-temperature plasma applications are already ushering in new products and techniques that will change everyday lives. And plasma scientists are being called on to help crack the mysteries surrounding exotic phenomena in the cosmos. This dynamic future will be exciting, but also challenging for the field. It will demand a well-organized national plasma science enterprise. This report examines the broad themes that frame plasma research and offers a bold vision for the future."
The report concludes that, "The expanding scope of plasma research is creating an abundance of new scientific opportunities and challenges. These opportunities promise to further expand the role of plasma science in enhancing economic security and prosperity, energy and environmental security, national security, and scientific knowledge."
Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here). Access further information from DOE's Office of Science (click here). [*Energy]
According to the report, "Plasma science is on the cusp of a new era. It is poised to make significant breakthroughs in the next decade that will transform the field. For example, the international magnetic fusion experiment, ITER, is expected to confine burning plasma for the first time -- a critical step on the road to commercial fusion. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) plans to ignite capsules of fusion fuel to acquire knowledge necessary to improve the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Low-temperature plasma applications are already ushering in new products and techniques that will change everyday lives. And plasma scientists are being called on to help crack the mysteries surrounding exotic phenomena in the cosmos. This dynamic future will be exciting, but also challenging for the field. It will demand a well-organized national plasma science enterprise. This report examines the broad themes that frame plasma research and offers a bold vision for the future."
The report concludes that, "The expanding scope of plasma research is creating an abundance of new scientific opportunities and challenges. These opportunities promise to further expand the role of plasma science in enhancing economic security and prosperity, energy and environmental security, national security, and scientific knowledge."
Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here). Access further information from DOE's Office of Science (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Battle Lines Drawn On California Waiver Request
May 30: [Editor Note: The following three article and referenced article from last week, summarize positions of major interest groups involved in the debate over the State of California's request regarding a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act for its Greenhouse Gas Emissions regulation for cars and light-duty trucks.]
Automakers Request More Time On CA Waiver
May 22: At hearings conducted by U.S. EPA on California's waiver request for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines in Washington, DC (May 22) and Sacramento (May 30) [See WIMS 5/21&23/ 07], the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) formally requested a 30-day extension to the comment period because of what it said was "the scope of the issues involved." The current deadline for submitting public comments to EPA is June 15, 2007.
AAM, representing nine manufacturers including BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen, delivered testimony at the DC hearing and stated its position on the California waiver request. AAM said:
"Three important points about the waiver request need to be considered. First, California has the initial burden of fully explaining the basis for its waiver request in this proceeding. The waiver application presented to EPA contains many assumptions and undocumented claims about the benefits of the regulation and how the industry can comply with it.
"California needs to fully document those claims in order for EPA to move forward. For example, there has been no demonstration by the State in its waiver application that the regulations would help address the issue of climate change or global warming in a concrete manner. If California cannot show that its regulation has a demonstrable impact on global warming, EPA should reject the waiver request. It is impossible to contend that any measure is required to meet a compelling condition if the measure has no impact on the condition. For that simple reason, EPA must reject California’s waiver request.
"Second, and equally important, the Clean Air Act’s primary goal is to improve air quality, and in particular, to ensure that the air is healthy to breathe. The waiver provision of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review California’s evaluation of how the California regulations compare to the federal regulations in their ability to protect and improve air quality. The waiver application from California asserts that the California program is superior to the federal program as a method of reducing smog-forming emissions, but offers no direct comparison between federal and California programs taken as a whole. California’s omission of such a comparison requires EPA to deny the waiver.
"Finally, we believe that California’s threat to sue EPA is not helpful to this process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application contains no evidence that the new standards will have any beneficial impact on the environmental conditions of concern. In short, EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request. The Alliance member companies are committed to improving energy security and fuel economy, but piecemeal regulation at the state level is not the answer. Moreover, California has not demonstrated a basis for this waiver request, and EPA should deny the waiver."
NACAA Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 22: The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, formerly known as STAPPA and ALAPCO) testified at U.S. EPA's public hearing in Arlington, VA offering strong support for full and prompt approval of California's request for a waiver of federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions. California adopted its regulations in September 2005 and submitted its waiver request to EPA in December 2005.
Bill Becker, NACAA Executive Director urged EPA to respond to California's request without further delay and to grant complete approval of the waiver of Federal preemption. NACAA testified that EPA's role in considering a waiver request is narrow and deferential. NACAA said, "Under the law, EPA must grant California's request for a waiver unless it can demonstrate that California acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting its regulations, that there is no longer a compelling and extraordinary need for California to maintain its own motor vehicle program or that California's regulations are not consistent with Section 202(b) of the CAA." NACAA said that in the case of California's greenhouse gas regulations, none of these can be demonstrated and EPA does not have the discretion to deny the waiver request.
Sierra Club Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 30: Testifying at the Sacramento, CA hearing on California's request for a waiver of Federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, Sierra Club denounced what it called "more than a year and a half of delay by the federal government that has prevented California and 11 other states from implementing a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks." Sierra Club called on the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately approve a needed "waiver" to the Clean Air Act permitting states to exceed Federal standards in combating pollution.
Sierra Club's regional staff director Carl Zichella, told agency officials that further delay in approving California's waiver was "making global warming more dangerous and difficult to solve." This failure to act was "unacceptable, irresponsible and immoral." Zichella said, "The debate over the science of global warming and the role of human activities in causing the problem is over. The debate over whether EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 is now also over. EPA has refused to act on California's request for more than a year and a half. It is now time for this unnecessary and dangerous delay to end. In the face of scientific and legal consensus, further delay amounts to playing politics with a lethal problem."
Sierra Club's testimony adds to the environmental group positions announced last week by Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Both groups indicated that they had filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. EPA to force a long-delayed ruling on California’s request to establish new tailpipe emissions standards for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They indicated that they join California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown in promising legal action to force a decision if EPA fails to take prompt action. Governor Schwarzenegger said in April that he would give the Agency 180 days to reach a final decision before filing a lawsuit. California and eleven states including: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Maryland; are awaiting the waiver decision from EPA.
Additionally, on May 22, the Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Examining the Case for the California Waiver. Witnesses testifying included: Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General State of California; Professor Jonathan H. Adler Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Access the AAM testimony (click here). Access links to the Federal Register notice and complete background information and documents on the California request (click here). Access the complete NACAA testimony (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club and the complete testimony (click here). Access a joint release from Environmental Defense and NRDC (click here). Access the EPW hearing website for links to testimony and the hearing webcast (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Automakers Request More Time On CA Waiver
May 22: At hearings conducted by U.S. EPA on California's waiver request for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines in Washington, DC (May 22) and Sacramento (May 30) [See WIMS 5/21&23/ 07], the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) formally requested a 30-day extension to the comment period because of what it said was "the scope of the issues involved." The current deadline for submitting public comments to EPA is June 15, 2007.
AAM, representing nine manufacturers including BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen, delivered testimony at the DC hearing and stated its position on the California waiver request. AAM said:
"Three important points about the waiver request need to be considered. First, California has the initial burden of fully explaining the basis for its waiver request in this proceeding. The waiver application presented to EPA contains many assumptions and undocumented claims about the benefits of the regulation and how the industry can comply with it.
"California needs to fully document those claims in order for EPA to move forward. For example, there has been no demonstration by the State in its waiver application that the regulations would help address the issue of climate change or global warming in a concrete manner. If California cannot show that its regulation has a demonstrable impact on global warming, EPA should reject the waiver request. It is impossible to contend that any measure is required to meet a compelling condition if the measure has no impact on the condition. For that simple reason, EPA must reject California’s waiver request.
"Second, and equally important, the Clean Air Act’s primary goal is to improve air quality, and in particular, to ensure that the air is healthy to breathe. The waiver provision of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review California’s evaluation of how the California regulations compare to the federal regulations in their ability to protect and improve air quality. The waiver application from California asserts that the California program is superior to the federal program as a method of reducing smog-forming emissions, but offers no direct comparison between federal and California programs taken as a whole. California’s omission of such a comparison requires EPA to deny the waiver.
"Finally, we believe that California’s threat to sue EPA is not helpful to this process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application contains no evidence that the new standards will have any beneficial impact on the environmental conditions of concern. In short, EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request. The Alliance member companies are committed to improving energy security and fuel economy, but piecemeal regulation at the state level is not the answer. Moreover, California has not demonstrated a basis for this waiver request, and EPA should deny the waiver."
NACAA Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 22: The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, formerly known as STAPPA and ALAPCO) testified at U.S. EPA's public hearing in Arlington, VA offering strong support for full and prompt approval of California's request for a waiver of federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions. California adopted its regulations in September 2005 and submitted its waiver request to EPA in December 2005.
Bill Becker, NACAA Executive Director urged EPA to respond to California's request without further delay and to grant complete approval of the waiver of Federal preemption. NACAA testified that EPA's role in considering a waiver request is narrow and deferential. NACAA said, "Under the law, EPA must grant California's request for a waiver unless it can demonstrate that California acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting its regulations, that there is no longer a compelling and extraordinary need for California to maintain its own motor vehicle program or that California's regulations are not consistent with Section 202(b) of the CAA." NACAA said that in the case of California's greenhouse gas regulations, none of these can be demonstrated and EPA does not have the discretion to deny the waiver request.
Sierra Club Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 30: Testifying at the Sacramento, CA hearing on California's request for a waiver of Federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, Sierra Club denounced what it called "more than a year and a half of delay by the federal government that has prevented California and 11 other states from implementing a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks." Sierra Club called on the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately approve a needed "waiver" to the Clean Air Act permitting states to exceed Federal standards in combating pollution.
Sierra Club's regional staff director Carl Zichella, told agency officials that further delay in approving California's waiver was "making global warming more dangerous and difficult to solve." This failure to act was "unacceptable, irresponsible and immoral." Zichella said, "The debate over the science of global warming and the role of human activities in causing the problem is over. The debate over whether EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 is now also over. EPA has refused to act on California's request for more than a year and a half. It is now time for this unnecessary and dangerous delay to end. In the face of scientific and legal consensus, further delay amounts to playing politics with a lethal problem."
Sierra Club's testimony adds to the environmental group positions announced last week by Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Both groups indicated that they had filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. EPA to force a long-delayed ruling on California’s request to establish new tailpipe emissions standards for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They indicated that they join California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown in promising legal action to force a decision if EPA fails to take prompt action. Governor Schwarzenegger said in April that he would give the Agency 180 days to reach a final decision before filing a lawsuit. California and eleven states including: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Maryland; are awaiting the waiver decision from EPA.
Additionally, on May 22, the Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Examining the Case for the California Waiver. Witnesses testifying included: Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General State of California; Professor Jonathan H. Adler Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Access the AAM testimony (click here). Access links to the Federal Register notice and complete background information and documents on the California request (click here). Access the complete NACAA testimony (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club and the complete testimony (click here). Access a joint release from Environmental Defense and NRDC (click here). Access the EPW hearing website for links to testimony and the hearing webcast (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Congressional Climate Investigation Goes To Greenland & Europe
May 26-28: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is joining House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other members of the Select Committee on an international fact-finding mission on global warming impacts and solutions over the Memorial Day weekend and this week. The bipartisan delegation arrived in Greenland on Saturday, May 26, continuing on to Germany, Great Britain and Belgium to meet with leading scientists and political leaders working on solutions to combat global warming. In Greenland the delegation met with Dr. Konrad Steffen, who is the lead scientist at Swiss Camp located on the Jakobshavn Glacier. In Europe, the delegation was to meet with Chancellor Merkel, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, foreign and environmental ministers, members of parliament and leading environmentalists and scientists.
In a release, Markey said that reports had surfaced that the U.S. delegation to the Group of Eight Nations (G-8) has rejected a climate proposal from G-8 head and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that calls for limiting the worldwide temperature increase this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting global warming emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 [See WIMS 5/18/07]. Markey indicated that the congressional delegation will meet with Chancellor Merkel.
Speaker Pelosi said, “Scientific evidence and real-world examples tell us that global warming is an international crisis that must be solved with international cooperation and innovative solutions. As we begin to craft legislative solutions to address this international crisis, Members of Congress will see firsthand the economic and environmental impact of global warming, as well as the actions our allies are already taking to address this global challenge.”
Earlier this year, the Speaker called for legislation to curb global warming and created the Select Committee Energy Independence and Global Warming. She said Congress is drafting wide-ranging legislation on energy independence by July 4 and global warming later this year.
Along with Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Markey, the delegation includes Select Committee members Hilda Solis (D-CA), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin(D-SD), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Larson (D-CT), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). David Hobson (R-OH), Ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee is also traveling with the group. According to the release, the air travel was to be carbon "offset" through the Pacific Forest Trust - a forest conservation and stewardship project that will permanently reduce approximately 500,000 tons of CO2 emissions over a 100-year period. Speaker Pelosi will personally pay for this effort.
Access links to several releases on the mission and subsequent posts on further developments (click here). Access the Speaker's Blog for daily posts of the trip (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). [*Climate]
In a release, Markey said that reports had surfaced that the U.S. delegation to the Group of Eight Nations (G-8) has rejected a climate proposal from G-8 head and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that calls for limiting the worldwide temperature increase this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting global warming emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 [See WIMS 5/18/07]. Markey indicated that the congressional delegation will meet with Chancellor Merkel.
Speaker Pelosi said, “Scientific evidence and real-world examples tell us that global warming is an international crisis that must be solved with international cooperation and innovative solutions. As we begin to craft legislative solutions to address this international crisis, Members of Congress will see firsthand the economic and environmental impact of global warming, as well as the actions our allies are already taking to address this global challenge.”
Earlier this year, the Speaker called for legislation to curb global warming and created the Select Committee Energy Independence and Global Warming. She said Congress is drafting wide-ranging legislation on energy independence by July 4 and global warming later this year.
Along with Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Markey, the delegation includes Select Committee members Hilda Solis (D-CA), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin(D-SD), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Larson (D-CT), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). David Hobson (R-OH), Ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee is also traveling with the group. According to the release, the air travel was to be carbon "offset" through the Pacific Forest Trust - a forest conservation and stewardship project that will permanently reduce approximately 500,000 tons of CO2 emissions over a 100-year period. Speaker Pelosi will personally pay for this effort.
Access links to several releases on the mission and subsequent posts on further developments (click here). Access the Speaker's Blog for daily posts of the trip (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, May 25, 2007
Appeals Court Deals Blow To Industry MTBE Litigation Strategy
May 24: In the case of consolidated cases, In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case Nos. 04-5974 & 04-6056. The case includes the consolidated cases of: State of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. and State of New Hampshire v. Amerada Hess Corporation, et al. The two cases are among scores of related actions removed from state court and transferred to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to MDL No. 1358, In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation.
The case involves an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motions to remand. The Appeals Court ruled that, "Because the district court erroneously held that it had removal jurisdiction over these actions under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and/or the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, and no alternative ground for jurisdiction is satisfied, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with directions to return these cases to the forums from which they were removed." While the various states have been arguing that the cases should be tried in state courts; oil companies and refineries have argued that they were operating as "federal officers" in carrying out a mandate to add MTBE to their reformulated gasoline, and therefore, the cases should be heard in Federal courts.
According to the Appeals Court, two issues are presented: "(1) whether principles of sovereign immunity are violated when a state plaintiff voluntarily prosecutes a claim in state court and the action is removed from state to federal court pursuant to a statute that expressly authorizes removal; and (2) if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, or some other ground."
On the issue of "sovereign immunity," the Appeals Court ruled, "...California and New Hampshire have each made and acted upon the decision to commence a lawsuit. This voluntary act subjects them to the consequences that Congress may legitimately attach to such an action. Thus, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar the removal of these state-commenced actions to federal court."
On the second issue, the Appeals Court said in part, "The California and New Hampshire actions relate primarily to matters of public health and welfare, and the money damages sought will not inure, strictly speaking, to the economic benefit of the states. Instead, the clear goal of these proceedings is to remedy and prevent environmental damage with potentially serious consequences for public health, a significant area of state policy. Thus, even under the tests advocated by the defendant companies, these proceedings represent efforts by California and New Hampshire to enforce their 'police or regulatory power' and are not subject to removal..."
The Appeals Court also indicates that the district judge concluded, “defendants have sufficiently alleged that they added MTBE to gasoline at the direction of the EPA, a federal agency.” The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The conclusion of the district judge is not based on an explicit directive in either the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations. Significantly, after oral argument in this appeal, the district judge held that 'federal law did not require the use of MTBE...' the district judge and the defendants acknowledged that the EPA identified six other additives, besides MTBE, that could be blended into reformulated gasoline to meet the requirements imposed by the CAA and the regulations... That it may have been more convenient or less expensive for the defendants to use MTBE does not mean it would have been impossible for them to use other, less polluting additives..."
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte issued a release saying that New Hampshire’s lawsuit against oil companies for MTBE contamination of state waters will be returned to state court, as a result the decision by the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit appeals court. She said the Appeals Court ruled that there was no Federal jurisdiction to hear New Hampshire’s state case and that it must be returned to state court, where it was originally filed.
In 2003, the State had sued oil companies that added the chemical methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to gasoline sold in New Hampshire. The State sought full recovery for Statewide contamination of drinking water supplies. The oil companies immediately removed the case to Federal district court, which denied the State’s request to return to State court. The State appealed on grounds that there was no Federal jurisdiction over the State’s case. The appeals court agreed and remanded the state’s case to the Merrimack County Superior Court.
Ayotte said, “We are very pleased that the Federal appeals court agreed with us that the proper place to hear this important case about New Hampshire’s drinking water is in our State’s courts. We look forward to trying the case as soon as possible before a jury of New Hampshire citizens.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Hampshire AG (click here). [*Remed, *Water, *Drink]
The case involves an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motions to remand. The Appeals Court ruled that, "Because the district court erroneously held that it had removal jurisdiction over these actions under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and/or the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, and no alternative ground for jurisdiction is satisfied, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with directions to return these cases to the forums from which they were removed." While the various states have been arguing that the cases should be tried in state courts; oil companies and refineries have argued that they were operating as "federal officers" in carrying out a mandate to add MTBE to their reformulated gasoline, and therefore, the cases should be heard in Federal courts.
According to the Appeals Court, two issues are presented: "(1) whether principles of sovereign immunity are violated when a state plaintiff voluntarily prosecutes a claim in state court and the action is removed from state to federal court pursuant to a statute that expressly authorizes removal; and (2) if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, or some other ground."
On the issue of "sovereign immunity," the Appeals Court ruled, "...California and New Hampshire have each made and acted upon the decision to commence a lawsuit. This voluntary act subjects them to the consequences that Congress may legitimately attach to such an action. Thus, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar the removal of these state-commenced actions to federal court."
On the second issue, the Appeals Court said in part, "The California and New Hampshire actions relate primarily to matters of public health and welfare, and the money damages sought will not inure, strictly speaking, to the economic benefit of the states. Instead, the clear goal of these proceedings is to remedy and prevent environmental damage with potentially serious consequences for public health, a significant area of state policy. Thus, even under the tests advocated by the defendant companies, these proceedings represent efforts by California and New Hampshire to enforce their 'police or regulatory power' and are not subject to removal..."
The Appeals Court also indicates that the district judge concluded, “defendants have sufficiently alleged that they added MTBE to gasoline at the direction of the EPA, a federal agency.” The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The conclusion of the district judge is not based on an explicit directive in either the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations. Significantly, after oral argument in this appeal, the district judge held that 'federal law did not require the use of MTBE...' the district judge and the defendants acknowledged that the EPA identified six other additives, besides MTBE, that could be blended into reformulated gasoline to meet the requirements imposed by the CAA and the regulations... That it may have been more convenient or less expensive for the defendants to use MTBE does not mean it would have been impossible for them to use other, less polluting additives..."
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte issued a release saying that New Hampshire’s lawsuit against oil companies for MTBE contamination of state waters will be returned to state court, as a result the decision by the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit appeals court. She said the Appeals Court ruled that there was no Federal jurisdiction to hear New Hampshire’s state case and that it must be returned to state court, where it was originally filed.
In 2003, the State had sued oil companies that added the chemical methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to gasoline sold in New Hampshire. The State sought full recovery for Statewide contamination of drinking water supplies. The oil companies immediately removed the case to Federal district court, which denied the State’s request to return to State court. The State appealed on grounds that there was no Federal jurisdiction over the State’s case. The appeals court agreed and remanded the state’s case to the Merrimack County Superior Court.
Ayotte said, “We are very pleased that the Federal appeals court agreed with us that the proper place to hear this important case about New Hampshire’s drinking water is in our State’s courts. We look forward to trying the case as soon as possible before a jury of New Hampshire citizens.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Hampshire AG (click here). [*Remed, *Water, *Drink]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
