President Bush Delivers Last State Of The Union Address

Jan 28: President George W. Bush delivered his final State of the Union Address, Monday, January 28, 2008, at the U.S. Capitol. The Address dealt largely with the U.S. Economy and the war in Iraq. The word "environment" appeared once in the speech in a sentence stating, "Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil." The term "climate change" also appeared once in the speech in a sentence stating, "The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change."

The term "energy" appeared five times in sentences as follows: "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology... Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources... The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology..."

In his speech the President emphasized the need to generate coal power with carbon sequestration, said the nation should increase renewable and nuclear power; and stressed the need to develop new and advanced technology to deal with energy and climate change issues. He also re-emphasized his position that an international climate change agreement must include "commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride."

In context, approximately three paragraphs of the speech dealt with the subjects of environment, energy and climate change. The President said, "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

"This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth."


Congressional Democrats React To The State of the Union Address


Senate Democrats issued a broad-based response saying, "We agree with the President that we must work together to make progress on our most pressing challenges. Yet, tonight, the President offered little more than the status quo. At a time when our economy is on shaky ground and our leadership around the world is eroding, the status quo won't do." On their website they posted a list of what they would like to hear."

On the issue of climate change they said, "We need to hear a plan to take further significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are pushing us closer to the brink of global climate catastrophe -- and to make the U.S. a global leader in bringing all countries into binding agreement. We must build on the work of this Congress to lower vehicle emissions for the first time in 32 years with new CAFE standards, to increase efficiency for buildings, lighting, and appliances, and to increase clean, renewable fuel usage. We need to hear a plan to: design a carbon cap and trade system [and] set a renewable electricity standard nationwide."

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued some comments and a point-counterpoint response to some of the President's statements. Markey said, "During President Bush’s tenure, oil has risen from $26 per barrel to spiking above $100 barrel, and total U.S. heat-trapping emissions have risen by more than 3 percent, and by more than 210 million metric tons in carbon dioxide equivalent -- about the same as the total yearly output of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden combined.

“Too often, President Bush has used positive rhetoric to mask the reality that on his watch, the United States has undermined, not reinforced, the international effort to cap the emissions of heat-trapping gases that endanger the planet. In his short-sighted concession to ignore real solutions to global warming in favor of expediency and special interests, he is risking the fate of the world. History is not likely to judge this legacy kindly.

“But we in the Congress intend to give this president opportunities in his final year to reverse his pattern of negligence when it comes to global warming and be part of kick-starting a green revolution in our country. The president asked Congress to ‘cooperate for results’ tonight – I hope he will follow his own advice.”

The official Democratic response to the State of the Union Address was delivered by Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of the State of Kansas. In one passage, Governor Sebelius says, "You and I - stand ready - ready to protect our environment for future generations, and stay economically competitive. Mayors have committed their cities to going green; governors have joined together, leading efforts for energy security and independence; and the majority in Congress is ready to tackle the challenge of reducing global warming and creating a new energy future for America. So we ask you, Mr. President, will you join us? It's time to get to work..."

Pelosi and Reid issued a second, brief reaction saying in part, "We hope that the bipartisanship on the economic stimulus package that has marked the start of this new year is a sign of things to come. But the President must do much more than simply give speeches that promise progress and commit to cooperation – he must work with Congress to make it happen. If the President holds fast to the commitment he made to bipartisanship tonight, we can make great progress for the American people this year."


Groups React To State of the Union Address


The following is some reaction to the President's State of the Union Address. WIMS notes that very few industry groups issued statements commenting on the President's Address.

Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group (formerly the National Environmental Trust), issued a statement on advance text of the address saying, “The President’s proposal for a worldwide clean technology fund is a major landmark in addressing global warming. Developing countries will need billions in financial assistance to cut the growth of their global warming pollution over the next several decades.

“Still, $2 billion is a very small amount of money given the scale of the problem. China alone is investing over $100 billion a year through its state-owned enterprises in new energy projects and resources, mostly in oil and coal-fired electricity. The President’s proposed fund must be accompanied by a strong new climate treaty to direct global business investment into clean energy technologies.”

Greenpeace USA issued a statement saying in part, "Under his watch, greenhouse gas emissions have increased as the United States’ reputation has plummeted. The damage to both the environment and the U.S.’s international standing will take years to undo. Rather than offer real solutions to global warming, the President has repeatedly kowtowed to the oil and energy industries by sowing confusion on the science and offering policies that are comparable to throwing a thimble-full of water on a raging fire."

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "In his final State of the Union address, President Bush missed his last opportunity to confront America's global warming challenge and commit to enacting binding climate legislation by the end of his term... Any presumption that the crisis of global warming can be met through voluntary measures is a fantasy. Anything less than science-based, binding reductions in global warming pollution isn't going to meet the challenge. American researchers and entrepreneurs respond to market signals, which a market-based cap-and-trade program will send. If there are no mandatory controls there is very little incentive to invest or innovate..."

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) issued a statement saying, "Unfortunately, the president’s plan outlined tonight offers old approaches instead of bold solutions. Congress should act quickly to pass the bipartisan Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to energize America’s economy and reduce global warming pollution. Doing nothing on global warming is a recipe for economic failure. We need to reject the defeatist attitude of those who say that protecting our environment will harm our economy. In the fight against global warming, the science is clear: the path to avoid catastrophic climate change starts with mandatory limits on global warming pollution that create bold new opportunities for clean energy jobs and technologies. A voluntary approach adds up to lots of rhetoric and little actual change..."

Eileen Claussen, President of Pew Center on Global Climate Change issued a statement saying, "President Bush’s proposal tonight to invest $2 billion to deploy clean energy technologies in developing countries is a step in the right direction. A fair and effective global response to climate change is possible only with strong support from industrialized countries. But compared to the level of investment needed, and the $10 billion pledged two days ago by Japan, the president’s proposal appears modest at best.

"The White House must go much further if it wants to be seen as a leader on climate action. At home, the president should work with Congress to enact a mandatory cap-and-trade bill to significantly reduce U.S. emissions. Abroad, the United States must sit down with other countries and negotiate binding international commitments. The so-called national commitments the administration is advocating would be little more than promises, providing no assurance that China, India, and other countries would hold up their end of the bargain. American business and the American public are calling for mandatory federal action on climate change..."

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) issued a statement saying, “After seven years of a presidential assault on environmental protections, of siding with Big Oil over consumers and the environment, of refusing to address the global warming crisis and actively thwarting state efforts to do so, the President promised more of the same tonight. The best thing about President Bush’s State of the Union speech tonight is that it is his last. The very idea that the President would attempt to take credit for ‘leadership’ in the post-2012 global warming program is absurd, especially considering that his Administration was internationally shamed in Bali."

Access the full transcript of the 2008 State of the Union Address with links to video and related information (click here). Access the Senate Democrats "State of Our Union" website (click here). Access the transcript of general comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Markey (click here). Access the Governor Sebelius response (click here). Access the second release from Pelosi and Reid (click here). Access a release from the Pew Environment Group with links to additional information on China Investments (click here). Access the statement from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the NWF statement (click here). Access a release from the Pew Climate Center (click here). Access a release from LCV (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

EPA Launches Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program

Jan 28: U.S. EPA announced its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) and said it wants answers to "What are the human health and environmental risks and benefits of nanoscale chemical products?" Jim Gulliford, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances said, “This program will help strengthen the scientific understanding of nanoscale materials and allow the EPA to more quickly assemble the information needed to ensure appropriate oversight of the products of this promising technology. Participation in this program can help assure the responsible development, use, and acceptance of these materials in the marketplace.”

According to EPA the program calls on manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of engineered nanoscale materials to voluntarily report to EPA key information about these materials within six months. EPA is not requesting that participants develop additional data, only that participants submit existing data.

The Agency will evaluate the information to help ensure the safe manufacture and use of these nanoscale materials. EPA said it will also work with manufacturers, importers, processors and users of nanoscale materials to develop test data to provide a scientific basis for assessing the hazards, exposures, and risks of nanoscale materials. The NMSP is designed to complement and support EPA's new and existing chemical programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [See WIMS 8/2/07 & 10/19/06].

The NMSP includes, but is not limited to, existing chemical nanoscale materials manufactured or imported for commercial purposes as defined by TSCA. EPA encourages manufacturers and importers of new chemical nanoscale materials, which are subject to TSCA reporting requirements prior to manufacture, as well as researchers to consider reporting under the NMSP. EPA said the NMSP will help provide a firmer, scientific foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging the development of key scientific information and use of risk management practices in developing and commercializing nanoscale materials.

EPA said to would publish an interim report on the program in approximately a year from its launching on January 28, 2008. A more detailed report and program evaluation will be published after approximately two years. At the time of the two-year report, EPA intends to determine the future direction of both the basic reporting and in-depth data development phases, although adjustments or decisions on future steps may be made at an earlier point if sufficient experience is gained. This would also include consideration of use of regulatory authorities under TSCA.

Environmental Defense a persistent watchdog, participant and critic of EPA's approach thus far issued a release saying, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited voluntary reporting program for engineered nanomaterials will not deliver critically needed information and serves only to postpone key decisions on how best to mitigate nanotechnology’s potential risks to human health and the environment, according to Environmental Defense. The group harshly criticized the EPA’s new Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program... Richard Denison, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Senior Scientist said, “EPA is simply ‘kicking the can down the road’ by shunning approaches that could have delivered needed information faster, and by opting instead to pursue an open-ended approach with no end in sight."

In a related matter, EPA announced that it has awarded 21 grants totaling $7.34 million to universities to investigate potential adverse health and environmental effects of manufactured nanomaterials. The grants were awarded through EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program in partnership with the National Science Foundation's (NSF), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) who awarded another eight grants for a total of 29. Nine of the grants focus on potential toxicity, and 12 grants study the fate and transport of nanomaterials in the environment.

Access a release from EPA announcing the NMSP (click here). Access EPA's Federal Register announcement [73 FR 4861-4866] (click here). Access further details on the NMSP (click here). Access more information on Nanotechnology under the Toxic Substances Control Act (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release on the nanomaterials grants listing the recipients (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]

House Begins Investigation Into Bisphenol-A (BPA)

Jan 17: Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, have begun an inquiry with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the manufacturers of infant products regarding bisphenol-A (BPA). The two sent letters to seven manufacturers and the FDA asking questions and requesting information within two weeks. The inquiry focuses on the use of BPA in plastic baby bottles and to line cans that contain infant formula and possible leaching into the infant formula. As well, the letters request information on FDA's review of bisphenol A.

On December 5, 2007, a new investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that BPA is used to line nearly all infant formula cans. They said BPA levels found in liquid formula are likely to be far higher than those that leach from bottles under normal use.

On November 30, 2007, the National Toxicology Program (NTP); Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR); issued a Federal Register announcement [72 FR 67730-67731] indicating the availability of the Final 396-page bisphenol A Expert Panel Report and also requested comments on the report by January 25, 2008 [See WIMS 11/26/07]. The expert panel report is an evaluation of the reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A conducted by an independent, 12-member expert panel composed of scientists from the public and private sectors convened by CERHR.

Access links to the letters from Representatives Dingell and Stupak (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). Access a release from EWG for links to its complete study, an executive summary and on-line guide for parents (click here). Access the EWG website on BPA for additional information (click here). Access the 396-page final bisphenol A report (click here). [*Toxics]

European Commission Proposes Energy & Climate Change Package

Jan 23: The European Commission agreed on what they called "a far-reaching package of proposals that will deliver the European Council's commitments to fight climate change and promote renewable energy." According to a release the proposals demonstrate that the targets agreed last year are technologically and economically possible and provide a unique business opportunity for thousands of European companies. They said these measures will dramatically increase the use of renewable energy in each country and set legally enforceable targets for governments to achieve them. All major CO2 emitters will be given an incentive to develop clean production technologies through a thorough reform of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) that will impose an EU-wide cap on emissions.

The package seeks to deliver the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 20% and increases to 20% the share of renewable energies in the energy consumption by 2020, as agreed by EU leaders in March 2007. The emissions reduction will be increased to 30% by 2020 when a new global climate change agreement is reached. Commission President, José Manuel Barroso said, "Responding to the challenge of climate change is the ultimate political test for our generation. Our mission, indeed our duty, is to provide the right policy framework for transformation to an environment friendly European economy and to continue to lead the international action to protect our planet. Our package not only responds to this challenge, but holds the right answer to the challenge of energy security and is an opportunity that should create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs in Europe. We must grasp that opportunity".

Commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas said, "Building on Europe's pioneering emissions trading system, this package demonstrates to our global partners that strong action to fight climate change is compatible with continued economic growth and prosperity. It gives Europe a head start in the race to create a low-carbon global economy that will unleash a wave of innovation and create new jobs in clean technologies. These proposals implement the commitments made by EU leaders last year through a fair share-out of the effort. Now all Member States must make their full contribution."

Building on the EU Emission Trading System (ETS), the Commission proposes to strengthen the single, EU-wide carbon market which will include more greenhouse gases (currently only CO2 is included), and involve all major industrial emitters. The emission allowances put on the market will be reduced year-on-year to allow for emissions covered by the ETS to be reduced by 21% from 2005 levels in 2020.

The power sector -- forming the majority of EU emissions -- will face full auctioning from the start of the new regime in 2013. Other industrial sectors, as well as aviation, will step up to full auctioning gradually, although an exception may be made for sectors particularly vulnerable to competition from producers in countries without comparable carbon constraints. In addition, auctions will be open: any EU operator will be able to buy allowances in any Member State. Revenues resulting from the ETS will accrue to Member States and should be used to help the EU to adjust to an environment friendly economy by supporting innovation in areas such as renewables, carbon capture and storage and R&D. Part of the revenues should also go towards helping developing countries adapt to climate change. The Commission estimates that the revenues from the auctioning could amount to €50 billion annually by 2020.

The Commission said the EU Emissions Trading System, now in its fourth year of operation, has proved an effective instrument to find a market-based solution to provide incentives for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. At present the system covers some 10,000 industrial plants across the EU -- including power plants, oil refineries, and steel mills -- accounting for almost half the EU's CO2 emissions. Under the new system over 40% of total emissions will be covered by the ETS. To reduce the administrative burden, industrial plants emitting less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 will not have to participate in the ETS.

The proposal also addresses the minimum target of 10% for use of biofuels in transport in the EU to be reached by 2020. This is the same for each Member State. Sustainability is essential in implementing this target -- the directive includes clear sustainability criteria. The Commission has also adopted new State aid guidelines on environmental protection which will help Member States to develop a sustainable European climate and energy policy. In comparison with the 2001 guidelines, these new guidelines broaden the scope of aid projects as well as increase the aid intensities. The guidelines set out new conditions for State aid measures to promote environmental protection and strike a very important balance between delivering larger environmental benefits and minimizing distortions of competition.

Access a release from the Commission with further details (click here). Access details of the Commission's proposals (click here). Access a statement from Neelie Kroes European Commissioner for Competition Policy Guidelines (click here). Access a statement from Stavros Dimas Commissioner for the environment (click here). Access a EurActiv article on reactions to the proposals with numerous links to additional information (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

2008 Index Ranks Countries Environmental Performance: U.S. 39th

Jan 23: Switzerland tops the global list of countries ranked by environmental performance according to the 2008 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) produced by a team of environmental experts at Yale University and Columbia University. The 2008 EPI, was released at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and ranks 149 countries on 25 indicators tracked across six established policy categories: Environmental Health, Air Pollution, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Climate Change. The EPI identifies broadly-accepted targets for environmental performance and measures how close each country comes to these goals. As a quantitative gauge of pollution control and natural resource management results, the Index provides a powerful tool for improving policymaking and shifting environmental decisionmaking onto firmer analytic foundations.

The 2008 EPI ranks Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Costa Rica two to five, respectively. Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Angola, and Niger occupy the bottom five positions. The United States placed 39th in the rankings, significantly behind other industrialized nations like the United Kingdom (14th) and Japan (21st). The United States ranked 11th in the Americas, and 22 members of the European Union outrank the United States. According to a release, the U.S. score reflects top-tier performance in several indicators, including provision of safe drinking water, sanitation, and forest management. But poor scores on greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of air pollution on ecosystems dragged down the overall U.S. rank. Other major countries ranked as follows: China 104; Russia 28; India 120; Mexico 14.

Gus Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies said, “The United States’ performance indicates that the next administration must not ignore the ecosystem impacts of environmental as well as agricultural, energy and water management policies. The EPI’s climate change metrics ranking the United States alongside India and China near the bottom of the world’s table are a national disgrace.”

The Index also provides “peer group” rankings for each country showing how its performance stacks up against others facing similar environmental challenges. These benchmarks allow easy tracking of leaders and laggards on an issue-by-issue and aggregate basis. The data also support efforts to identify “best practices” in the environmental realm.

Analysis of the drivers underlying the 2008 rankings suggests that wealth is a major determinant of environmental success. At every level of development, however, some countries achieve results that far exceed their peers, demonstrating that policy choices also affect performance. For example, Costa Rica (5th), known for its substantial environmental efforts, significantly outperforms its neighbor Nicaragua (77th). Nicaragua’s history of poor governance and political corruption, violent conflicts, and budgets skewed towards the military instead of environmental infrastructure no doubt adds to the disparity. Top-ranked countries have all invested in water and air pollution control and other elements of environmental infrastructure and have adopted policy measures to mitigate the pollution harms caused by economic activities. Low-ranked countries typically have not made investments in environmental public health and have weak policy regimes.

Project leaders say the Environmental Performance Index aims to promote data-driven and analytically rigorous environmental decisionmaking by using the best global datasets available. Yet, they say, serious data gaps limit the ability to measure performance on a number of important issues, and the overall data quality and availability for some countries are poor. Incomplete data excluded 89 countries from the 2008 EPI. The absence of broadly collected and methodologically consistent indicators for even the most basic issues such as water quality -- and the complete lack of time-series data for most countries -- hampers efforts to shift pollution control and natural resource management onto more empirical foundations. Marc Levy, Deputy Director of Columbia’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network and one of the EPI project leaders said, “At a time when so much scientific evidence is telling us that the Earth's ecosystems are in crisis, it is inexcusable that our collective investment in environmental monitoring is so low. For some critical issues such as water it is actually decreasing. When a hospital patient's health worsens, doctors increase their monitoring, and we need to do the same for the planet.”

Access a release from Yale University (click here). Access the Summary for Policymakers (click here). Access the EPI website for complete information (click here). [*All]

Groups Report 59 Proposed Coal Plants Cancelled In 2007

Jan 17: Research compiled by Coal Moratorium NOW! (CMN) and Rainforest Action Network (RAN) indicates that fifty-nine proposed coal-fired power plants were cancelled or shelved during 2007. Both groups are calling for a moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants. The list, "Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007," including documentation, is posted online (See links below). It includes data supplied by Sierra Club, coalSwarm, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Lab, and utility industry sources.

Becky Tarbotton, director of Rainforest Action Network's Global Finance Campaign said, "Coal-fired power plants are the wrong investment for our climate, our health, and our economy. Utilities, regulators, and investors are realizing that the path ahead is energy efficiency and renewable energy. It's time to stop financing and building coal and to start funding the future." Ted Nace, founder of CWN said, "Although we knew that many plants were being nixed, we were stunned by the total number. It spells real hope for the movement seeking to blunt the coal rush."

Because coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, coal plants are at the top of the list of global warming threats cited by climate scientists. Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Center, the world's largest climate research agency, told Congress on April 26, 2007, that a moratorium on new coal plants is "the most critical action for saving the planet at this time."

Among the study's conclusions: Climate concerns played a role in at least 15 plant cancellations; Coal plants disappeared entirely from some utilities' long-range plans; Renewables began elbowing out coal; Grassroots opposition mounted, financial markets cooled to coal; More plants were abandoned than rejected; and Heavy spending but poor results for "clean coal."

According to the groups' release, after mainly building natural gas turbines during the 1980s and 1990s, utilities returned to coal when natural gas prices jumped in 2000. In May 2007, the Department of Energy's "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (5/07) study counted 151 proposed coal plants. Five months later, "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (10/07) counted 121 proposed plants. According to a survey completed in the first week of January 2008 by Coal Moratorium NOW! and Rainforest Action Network, the number of proposed plants (including those under construction or recently completed) now stands at 113.

Sierra Club also maintains up to date status information about proposed coal plants across the country. The detailed table with links to additional information includes: Status; State; Name; Size(MW); Technology/Plant Type; Fuel Type; Finance Info; and Estimated Annual CO2 Output (in metric tons).

Access a release with links to extensive background data (click here). Access the list of cancellations (click here). Access a Jan. 15, 2008, state-by-state list of new plant proposals with plant information and contacts (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy,*Climate]

House Subcommittee Hearing Sets Stage For Climate Change Debate

Jan 17: The House Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Chaired by Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), held a hearing entitled, Administration Perspectives on United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali [See WIMS 1/2/08]. The meeting set the stage for what will likely be a contentious debate between Democrats and Republicans in the House in the coming months. House leaders have indicated they want a climate change bill vote by this summer. In the Senate, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), approved S. 2191, the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act on December 5, 2007 [See WIMS 12/6/07]. The Senate bill was reported from Committee with an 11-8 vote that included all eight Democrats, two Independents, and one Republican, the cosponsor Senator Warner. The full Senate is expected to vote on the bill within the next few months.

The only witness for the hearing was James Connaughton, Chairman Council on Environmental Quality for the White House. Additionally, Chairman Boucher introduced the new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee Representative Fred Upton (R-MI). Representative Upton is a strong advocate for nuclear power and is against mandated CO2 limits. He says the solution must involve a global solution and a free market approach.

Representative Upton presented some extensive comments in his opening remarks. He said in part, "Emphasis must be placed on GLOBAL issue. While I feel strongly that addressing climate change is certainly important, I believe we must address this through a global voluntary framework that focuses on innovations in technology and efficiency rather than a pure government mandate. At the end of the day, we’ll need to demonstrate that the price paid – in both jobs and dollars – equates to some tangible environmental benefits to the American people. In my view, spending trillions of dollars and losing a countless number of jobs, to maybe alter temperatures by a tenth of a degree, while China and India continue to spew emissions is not the option that we’re looking for..."

Representative Upton said, "By the year 2030, our energy needs are going to grow by more than 50 percent." He indicated, "Just to stay even with these two zero emissions sources, we would need to build – by 2030 – over 50 new nuclear plants and more than 1,900 hydroelectric plants."

Members of the Subcommittee, including full Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), indicated their displeasure and concern with the brief 1-page testimony prepared James Connaughton. One member asked if this was an indication that the Administration thought the Subcommittee was not important enough for them to prepare full testimony.

Connaughton's full written testimony included the following: "Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify on the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference which took place last month in Bali, Indonesia. As my testimony, I am submitting the Bali Action Plan as agreed to by all parties attending the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the 13th Meeting of the Conference of Parties.

"Additionally, I have included for the Committee a presentation which I delivered on December 12, 2007, at the U.S. Side Event in Bali, entitled, “Partnerships in Action: Energy Security, Clean Development, and Climate Change”. I have also attached additional technical presentations which describe the potential of technologies and some of the actions the U.S. has undertaken to date. These presentations were delivered at the U.S. Side Event by Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; William Hohenstein, Director of USDA’s Global Change Program Office; and William Irving, Team Leader of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

"Lastly, I am submitting the President’s remarks at the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change, delivered on September 28, 2007, in Washington, DC. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to responding to your questions."

Access a the hearing website for a link to the brief testimony document and a webcast of the hearing (click here) [Note: the webcast is very instructional in setting the stage for upcoming U.S. climate change debate]. Access the a WIMS article on the Major Economies meeting with links to related documents (click here). Access the complete statement of Representative Upton (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC and a fact sheet on accomplishments (click here). Access the so-called Bali Action Plan (click here). Access details on all decisions adopted by the COP 13 and CMP 3 and related information (click here, scroll down). Access the U.S. Department of State COP 13 website for links to all releases and statements (click here). Access the UNFCCC COP13/MOP3 website for additional details (click here). Access the IPCC website for additional information including links to reports (click here). [*Climate]

$202.5 Billion Needed For Wastewater Management For 20 Years

Jan 16:A new report from U.S. EPA estimates $202.5 billion is the nationwide capital investment needed to control wastewater pollution for up to a 20-year period. Delivered to Congress this week, the 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey summarizes the results of the agency's 14th national survey on the needs of publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs). The estimate includes $134.4 billion for wastewater treatment and collection systems, $54.8 billion for combined sewer overflow corrections, and $9.0 billion for stormwater management. Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles said, "Water infrastructure is a lifeline for health and prosperity in communities across America. EPA is working with our partners to promote sustainable solutions and help utilities and households save money, water and energy."

EPA said communities across the country face challenges in sustaining their water infrastructure. EPA is working with states, tribes, utilities, and other partners to reduce the demand on infrastructure through improved asset management, improved technology, water efficiency, and watershed-based decision making, and is working with Congress to enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal.

The report provides information to help the nation make informed decisions about pollution control needs necessary to meet the environmental and human health objectives of the Clean Water Act. The figures represent documented wastewater investment needs, but do not account for expected investment and revenues. Wastewater treatment utilities pay for infrastructure using revenue from rates charged to customers and may finance large projects using loans or bonds. State and federal funding programs, such as EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, are also available to help communities meet their wastewater pollution control needs. The needs in this survey represent a $16.1 billion (8.6%) increase (in constant 2004 dollars) over the 2000 report. The increase in overall national needs is due to a combination of population growth, more protective water quality standards, and aging infrastructure.

The largest reported total publicly owned wastewater treatment works needs, both more than $20 billion, occur in New York and California. Florida, Illinois and Ohio each have needs in excess of $10 billion. The States with the largest needs per capita are the District of Columbia ($3,670), Hawaii ($1,660) and West Virginia ($1,400). Over three-fourths (76.8 percent) of the total needs reported are concentrated in 18 States; 20 States each reported less than 1 percent of the total needs.

In terms of providing funding for wastewater treatment needs, the CWSRF is one of many supplementary Federal, State and local funding sources. From July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2004, EPA provided an annual average of $1.3 billion in grants to State CWSRF programs to assist with point and nonpoint source pollution control needs. In the same period, States combined these CWSRF funds with State matching funds, bond proceeds and loan repayments to provide assistance, mostly in the form of loans, of approximately $4.4 billion per year to local communities. The gap between facilities’ funding and their total needs is addressed not only by other Federal, State and local funding sources, but also is expected to be increasingly addressed by activities related to EPA’s Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative.

In response to the EPA’s Gap Analysis and other recent 20-year estimations of wastewater treatment needs, the EPA Administrator convened a forum in January 2003 -- Closing the Gap: Innovative Responses for Sustainable Water Infrastructure. Using input from industry, government and academia obtained through this forum, EPA developed the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative. The goal of the initiative is to reduce the infrastructure funding gap through a four part strategy focused on advanced facility management practices, water efficiency promotion, full-cost pricing and a watershed management approach.

In testimony before Congress, EPA Administrator Johnson has described the Water Enterprise Bond proposal as follows. "EPA has worked with Treasury and other parts of the Administration to propose expanded use of tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds for capital investments in drinking water and wastewater projects. The President’s Budget proposes to exempt PABs from the private activity bond unified state volume cap. PABs are tax-exempt bonds issued by a state or local government, the proceeds of which are used by another entity for a public purpose or by the government entity itself for certain public-private partnerships. By removing drinking water and wastewater bonds from the volume cap, this proposal will provide states and communities greater access to PABs to help finance their water infrastructure needs and increase capital investment in the nation’s water infrastructure.

"This Water Enterprise Bond proposal would provide an exception to the unified annual State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for exempt facilities for the 'furnishing of water' or 'sewage facilities.' To ensure the long-term financial health and solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move towards full-cost pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private Activity Bonds. This will help water systems become self-financing and minimize the need for future subsidies."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Clean Watershed Needs Survey website for additional information and background documents (click here). Access links to the 166-page complete report, individual sections, appendices and a summary of findings (click here). Access Congressional testimony on the Water Enterprise Bond proposal (click here). [*Water]

Groups Issue Report Card On Oil Sands Of Alberta

Jan 10: The oil sands of Alberta, Canada contain the second largest known reserve of oil in the world. With global demand for oil expected to increase nearly 40 percent over the next quarter century and production becoming increasingly dominated by Middle Eastern countries, Canada's oil sands are an important global resource. However, mining this oil is extremely environmentally costly--producing one barrel of oil from the oil sands generates three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. Several environmental organizations are now calling for a halt on further oil sands project approvals until effective emissions reduction strategies are employed.

Pembina Institute and World Wildlife Fund (WWF-Canada) have released, Under-Mining The Environment, the Oil Sands Report Card, which they say is the most comprehensive comparative assessment of 10 of Alberta’s operating, approved or applied for oil sands mines. The mines, they say "for the most part, get a failing grade." According to a release, the average score among all oil sands projects surveyed was only 33 per cent, demonstrating substantial room for improvement across the sector. The leading operation in the survey was the Albian Sands Muskeg River Mine, scoring 56 per cent. The weakest operations were Syncrude and the proposed Synenco Northern Lights Mine both with scores of 18 per cent.

Oil sands mines were ranked on 20 different environmental indicators in five categories: environmental management, land impacts, air pollution, water use, and management of greenhouse gases. Companies were invited to complete the survey questionnaire and provided with two opportunities to comment on their performance. In total, seven of the 10 projects participated in the survey. Three companies, Total E&P, Syncrude and Canadian Natural declined to respond. Dan Woynillowicz of the Pembina Institute said, “There is growing concern in Alberta, in the rest of Canada and internationally about the environmental impacts of oil sands mining. Despite these concerns we found that oil sands companies are making weak efforts to manage their environmental impacts. We found only one mining operation came close to a passing grade and that substantial improvements in environmental performance were possible for all projects.”

Key findings of the report card include: (1) While the majority of oil sands operations have comprehensive environmental policies in place, only two companies provided evidence of having an independently-accredited environmental management system such as ISO 14001. (2) With the exception of the existing Albian Muskeg River Mine, no operation has voluntary targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions. (3) No project or company has publicly-reported targets to reduce water usage from the Athabasca River. (4) Despite more than 40 years of oil sands development, not a single hectare of land has been certified as reclaimed under Government of Alberta guidelines.

In the report card, Pembina Institute and WWF-Canada also provide recommendations to improve oil sands environmental management, including a need for greater transparency from Government and industry on environmental performance, the need to implement currently available best-practices and a stronger commitment to voluntary reductions in environmental impacts.

Access a release on the report from WWF-Canada with links to extensive information (click here). Access an overview of the report from the World Resources Institute (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

High Court Refuses To Hear "South Coast" Cases

Jan 14: The U.S. Supreme Court has denied hearing two important and related air quality cases -- National Petrochemical v. South Coast Air Quality (Case No. 07-311), and Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge v. South Coast Air Quality (Case No. 07-333). In doing so, the High Court has let stand decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

On June 8, 2007, the D.C. Circuit, in Case Nos. 04-1200, 04-1201, decided South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA. The case involved 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 overlapped 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 Appeals Court 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 Supreme Court order denying hearing (click here, Search South Coast Air). Access the Supreme Court Dockets for Case No. 07-311 (click here); and Case No. 07-333 (click here). Access the complete 8-page, June 8, 2007, Appeals Court opinion (click here). Access a June 8, 2007, release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the complete 40-page, December 22, 2006, Appeals Court opinion in the consolidated cases (click here). Access other related South Coast articles posted on the WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog (click here). [*Air]

Waxman Presses EPA On Releasing CA Waiver Documents

Jan 14: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is continuing to pressure EPA to release documents relating to the Agency's denial of the waiver request from the State of California to implement its landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards. Waxman announced his investigation into the decision on December 20, the day after EPA denied California request [See WIMS 1/2/08]. Other investigations are also underway from Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies [See WIMS 1/4/08], and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee [See WIMS 1/11/08].

Waxman's January 14, letter follows a January 11, letter from U.S. EPA's Associate Administrator Christopher Bliley. In his letter, Bliley tells Waxman that the Agency will not be able to meet the January 10, deadline that Waxman set, but that the Agency "respects your very strong interest in this issue and is committed to providing the Committee information necessary to satisfy its oversight interests to the extent possible and consistent with our Constitutional and statutory obligations." Bliley says that EPA may be able to complete its search for documents by January 18.

In his January 14th reply, Waxman says, "I appreciate the efforts EPA is taking to collect responsive documents, but I am concerned about the failure of the agency to meet the Committee's January 10 deadline. I am also concerned that no schedules for document production are proposed in your letters. In an effort to accommodate the agency without unduly delaying the Committee's investigation, I ask that your staff work with Committee staff to establish by the close of business on January 16 mutually agreeable deadlines for producing documents to the Committee. The Committee will also be conducting transcribed interviews or depositions of agency staff who may have knowledge of the agency's deliberations. As a first step in this process, I request that a schedule be established by the close of business on January 16 for the interview or deposition of the following officials..." Waxman requests depositions from seven top-ranking EPA officials.

In a related matter, Senator Boxer last week expressed her outrage at a field briefing in Los Angeles regarding U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson for not showing up at the briefing to explain why he refused California's request and for not making other EPA staff available. Boxer said, "The Administrator’s continuing refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s oversight of the EPA is absolutely unacceptable. What started off as foot-dragging is looking suspiciously like a cover-up. What is Stephen Johnson trying to hide?" [See WIMS 1/11/08]

Access the Committee website page for this matter with links to a various letters (click here). Access Senator Boxer's California field hearing website and links to all testimony and statements (click here). Access a release from Senator Dianne Feinstein calling for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of U.S. EPA to immediately open an investigation into the decision (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

Worldwatch Institute Issues State of the World 2008 Report

Jan 9: Pioneering entrepreneurs, nongovernmental organizations, and governments around the globe are inventing the Earth’s first sustainable global economy, according to the annual flagship report, State of the World 2008: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy, by the Worldwatch Institute. In response to climate change and other environmental problems, these leaders are field-testing a remarkable array of economic innovations that offer surprising and hopeful new opportunities for long-term prosperity. Project co-directors Gary Gardner and Thomas Prugh said, “Once regarded as irrelevant to economic activity, environmental problems are drastically rewriting the rules for business, investors, and consumers, affecting over $100 billion in annual capital flows."

The report describes a host of new economic opportunities that are attracting capital. An estimated $52 billion was invested in renewable energy in 2006, up 33 percent from 2005. Preliminary estimates indicate that the figure reached $66 billion in 2007. Carbon trading is growing even more explosively, reaching an estimated $30 billion in 2006, nearly triple the amount traded in 2005.

Some of the most powerful players in today’s economy have announced breakthrough environmental initiatives in the past two years, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, McKinsey & Company, and Wal-Mart. And many large companies are putting their political muscle where their investment capital is: 27 major corporations, including Alcoa, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, General Motors, and Xerox, are actively urging the U.S. Congress to pass legislation regulating greenhouse gas emissions -- something that would have been unthinkable two years ago.

Innovative companies are also revolutionizing industrial production to meet environmental challenges, while finding that they’re saving money: the chemical giant DuPont cut its greenhouse gas emissions 72 percent below 1991 levels by 2007, saving $3 billion in the process. Another sign of dramatic change is the 575 environmental and energy hedge funds now in existence, most of them formed in the last few years. “Clean tech” has rapidly grown to be the third largest recipient of venture capital, trailing only the Internet and biotechnology. And 54 banks, representing 85 percent of global private project finance capacity, have endorsed the Equator Principles, a new international standard of sustainability investment.

State of the World 2008 cites two major economic modeling studies that find that the damage from global climate change could equal as much as 8 percent of global economic output by the end of this century. Citing World Bank data, the report also notes that some 39 countries experienced a decline of 5 percent or more in wealth when accounting measures also included factors such as unsustainable forest harvesting, depletion of non-renewable resources, and damage from carbon emissions. For 10 countries, the decline ranged from 25 to 60 percent. To avoid economic collapse at the global level, the State of the World authors call for major reforms of government policy to steer investment away from destructive activities such as the extraction of fossil fuels and toward a new generation of environmentally sustainable industries. Specific recommendations include making prices tell the ecological truth by reducing subsidies and adopting environmental taxes.

The report urges a full assessment and valuation of the services that nature provides free of charge to the human economy and describes several efforts to create markets to protect biodiversity. The report cites a recent assessment that found green accounting programs in place in at least 50 countries and identified 20 other countries that were planning to initiate such programs. State of the World 2008 finds growing evidence suggesting that the global economy is now destroying its own ecological base. It quotes former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, author of the acclaimed Stern Review on the economics of climate change, who describes the changes now under way in Earth’s atmosphere as “the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.”

Worldwatch president Christopher Flavin said, “Continued human progress now depends on an economic transformation that is more profound than any seen in the last century. We should be practicing a sustainable approach to economics that takes advantage of the ability of markets to allocate scarce resources while explicitly recognizing that our economy is dependent on the broader ecosystem that contains it.”

Access a release on the State of the World 2008 report (click here). Access the State of the World 2008 website for links to additional information including the Foreward, a Discussion Guide, audio summaries, background reading and more (click here)Access information on ordering the State of the World 2008 report for $18.95 (click here). [*All]

Stakeholders Support Development Of Federal Nanotechnology Strategy

Jan 8: A diverse group of nanotechnology stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, large and small companies, and research organizations, applauded the inclusion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 of a measure that will aid in the development and implementation of a comprehensive federal nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research strategy. The legislation, signed by President Bush on December 26, 2007, expresses Congress’ intent that the U.S. EPA contract with the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST) to “develop and monitor implementation of a comprehensive, prioritized research roadmap for all Federal agencies on environmental, health and safety issues for nanotechnology.”

The diverse group that urged the Congressional measure is mindful of the significant efforts of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, but strongly believes that a comprehensive, independently developed research roadmap is urgently needed to ensure that sufficient federal resources are directed to address the pressing need for better information on the EHS implications of nanotechnology. Under the provisions included in the legislation, Congress urges EPA “to contract or enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences’ Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology within 90 days of enactment” (by March 21, 2008) to develop and monitor implementation of the research strategy.

A release from the group indicates, "BEST’s groundbreaking work in devising and overseeing EPA’s research on the health effects of airborne particulate matter serves as a useful model for the work BEST is expected to undertake for nanotechnology EHS research. We anticipate that BEST will build upon its experience while taking into account ongoing related efforts, to develop and oversee execution of an integrated strategy to guide federal EHS research needed to support the safe development and use of engineered nanoscale materials and technologies."

Some of the groups backing the initiative include: American Chemistry Council; DuPont; Environmental Defense; NanoBusiness Alliance; The Dow Chemical Company; and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Many of the organizations have been critical of national efforts to monitor and regulate the developing nanotechnology industry. Environmental Defense and DuPont announced their Nano Risk Framework last February. Environmental Defense has called U.S. EPA nanotechnology plan "too little, too late" [See WIMS 8/2/07]. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) accuses the U.S. government of gross failure to use its authority to protect citizens from the potentially dangerous effects of nano-scale chemistry [See WIMS 5/15/07].

In a related matter, the Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies will hold the 1st Annual Conference on Nanotechnology Law, Regulation and Policy, February 28-29, 2008, at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, in Washington, DC. The conference will bring together top officials at the agencies responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology products -- including the Food and Drug Administration, EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Department of Agriculture -- to discuss their plans for managing and monitoring these products. Food and drug industry representatives also will find out what’s happening internationally on nanotech regulation, how venture capitalists look at the future of nanotechnology and what the leading corporations, scientific laboratories and academic centers are focusing on in this dynamic field.

Nanotechnology was incorporated into more than $50 billion in manufactured goods last year, according to Lux Research. By 2014, the market will grow to $2.6 trillion. By 2011, over $15 billion in nano-enabled drugs and therapeutics will be sold -- up from more than $3 billion in 2006. And industry experts project that nanotechnology will be incorporated into $20 billion worth of consumer food products by 2010. Yet, despite this rapid commercialization, no nano-specific regulation exists anywhere in the world. Most regulatory agencies remain in an information-gathering mode -- lacking the legal and scientific tools, information and resources they need to adequately oversee expediential nanotechnology market growth.

Access a release from American Chemistry Council including the complete list of group members and link to additional information (click here). Access the Federal National Nanotechnology Initiative website for additional information (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). Access various articles on Nanotechnology on the eNewsUSA Blog (click here). Access the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (click here). Access complete information on the FDLI conference (click here). Access additional information from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (click here). [*Toxics]

Insurer Will Pay $42.5 Million To Cleanup MI, NJ & TN Sites

Jan 9: American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company Inc. (AISLIC) has agreed to pay $42.5 million to clean up contamination at four industrial facilities in a suit in which the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies. The four sites, formerly owned by Fruit of the Loom, are located in Michigan, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said, "Insurers should take note that they may be liable for the cost of cleaning up their bankrupt clients' environmental messes.EPA will keep pursuing companies who pollute the environment."

Fruit of the Loom filed for bankruptcy in 1999 and the court set up two trusts to receive and distribute the company's remaining assets, including its environmental insurance policies. The trusts subsequently tried to collect environmental cleanup costs from AISLIC, a member company of AIG Insurance, under the insurance policy which covered response costs and natural resource damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). AISLIC denied coverage and then brought a suit seeking to confirm that it was not obligated to pay the trusts for these costs.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit that began in 2005 over environmental insurance coverage between AISLIC and the two bankruptcy trusts, and concludes litigation in which the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of EPA, the Department of Interior, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The states of New Jersey, Tennessee, Illinois and Michigan have also joined the settlement.

Under the settlement agreement, AISLIC will make an initial $30 million payment plus interest from May 15, 2007 and ten annual payments of $1.25 million to the Fruit of the Loom trusts. The three largest sites -- the St. Louis, MI, the Bergen County, NJ, and the Toone, TN, sites -- will each receive more than $12.5 million for environmental cleanup and restoration activities. The Breckenridge, MI, site will receive $2.1 million for cleanup. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to a 30-day public comment period. Following public comment, if appropriate, the United States would file a motion for entry with the court, seeking final court approval of the settlement agreement.

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a fact sheet and link to the 139-page settlement agreement (click here). [*Remed]

Supreme Court Decides John R. Sand & Gravel Co. Case

Jan 8: The Michigan case of John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. U.S. (No. 06-1164) was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case on appeal from the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case No. 05-5033. decided on August 9, 2006. According to the Supreme Court docket, the issues in the case are: (1) Whether the statute of limitations in the Tucker Act limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; and (2) Whether a claim for a permanent physical taking of a portion of real property first accrues upon the government’s temporary exclusion of the property holder from another portion of the property.

The various briefs for Petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Co.; Brief for Respondent United States; Reply Brief for Petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Co.; and two amicus briefs from the Pacific Legal Foundation and National Association of Home Builders are available from the links below.

In its 7-2 opinion the Supreme Court said, "The question presented is whether a court must raise on its own the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims, despite the Government’s waiver of the issue. We hold that the special statute of limitations governing the Court of Federal Claims requires that sua sponte [spontaneous action without prompting from another party] consideration." The High Court opinion said a Federal Appeals Court was correct in raising the deadline question without being asked to do so (sua sponte), and to rule that the company had missed the deadline for suing the Federal government in property disputes. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Alito joined in the opinion. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined and Justice Ginsburg filed a separate dissenting opinion.

In the opinion, the High Court explains that petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Company filed an action in the Court of Federal Claims in May 2002. The complaint explained that petitioner held a 50-year mining lease on certain land [in Metamora Township in Lapeer County, MI]. And it asserted that various Environmental Protection Agency activities on that land (involving, e.g., the building and moving of various fences) amounted to an "unconstitutional taking of its leasehold rights."The Government initially asserted that petitioner’s several claims were all untimely in light of the statute providing that "[e]very claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” 28 U. S. C. §2501.

The Government subsequently won on the merits and petitioner appealed the adverse judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Government’s brief said nothing about the statute of limitations, but an amicus brief called the issue to the court’s attention. The court considered itself obliged to address the limitations issue, and it held that the action was untimely. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed to consider whether the Court of Appeals was right to ignore the Government’s waiver and to decide the timeliness question.

The Supreme Court majority affirmed the Appeals Court decision which said, "Because we conclude that JRS&G did not file its complaint within the six-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2501, we hold that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction. We therefore vacate the Court of Federal Claims’s decision and remand the case to the court with the instruction that it dismiss JRS&G’s complaint." [See WIMS 8/10/06]. Commentary on the SCOTUS Blog indicates the decision means that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must always consider whether cases making claims against the Federal government were filed on time, even if the Federal government has waived that issue. And, that the Supreme Court concluded the result was dictated by the Court’s precedents from 1883, 1887 and 1957, among others.

In the dissent of Justice Stevens, concurred in by Justice Ginsburg, he said, "With respect to provisions as common as time limitations, Congress, in enacting statutes, and judges, in applying them, ought to be able to rely upon a background rule of considerable clarity. Irwin [Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95–96 (1990)] announced such a rule, and I would apply that rule to the case before us. Because today’s decision threatens to revive the confusion of our pre-Irwin jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent." Justice Ginsburg indicated that her separate dissent was, "...to explain why I would regard this case as an appropriate occasion to revisit those precedents even if we had not already 'directly overrule[d]' them."

Access the complete opinion, syllabus and dissenting opinions (click here). Access the SCOTUS commentary (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket No. 06-1164 (click here). Access the complete Appeals Court opinion (click here). Access links to various briefs in the case (click here). Access a link to the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to various media reports on the decision (click here). [*Land]

SAB Report On Hypoxia In The Northern Gulf of Mexico

Jan 7: U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board has released a massive 333-page update report entitled, Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science Advisory Board. Over a year ago, EPA's Office of Water (OW) asked the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to evaluate the most recent science on the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico as well as potential options for reducing the size of the zone. The hypoxic zone, an area of low dissolved oxygen that cannot support most marine life, has been documented in the Gulf of Mexico since 1985 and was most recently measured at 20,500 km2. The SAB was asked to address the science that has emerged since the 2000 publication of, An Integrated Assessment: Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Integrated Assessment), the seminal study by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources that served as the basis for activities coordinated by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.

The SAB was also asked to address the most recent science on water quality in the Mississippi Atchafalaya River Basin, an area of 31 States and Tribes that drains approximately 40% of the contiguous United States. Further, the SAB was asked to discuss options for reducing hypoxia in terms of cost, feasibility and social welfare. To address this question, the SAB found it necessary to discuss recent research on water quality as well as research on policy options, in particular, those policies that create economic incentives.

Following OW’s request, the Science Advisory Board Staff Office convened an expert panel under the auspices of the chartered SAB. The SAB Panel consisted of 21 distinguished scientists from academia, industry and government agencies with expertise in the fields of oceanography, ecology, agronomy, agricultural engineering, economics and other fields. Over the past year, the SAB Panel held numerous public meetings and considered information from invited speakers as well as over 60 sets of public comments in the development of this report.

In issuing the report, the SAB reaffirms the major finding of the Integrated Assessment, namely that contemporary changes in the hypoxic area in the northern Gulf of Mexico are primarily related to nutrient loads from the Mississippi Atchafalaya River basin. If the size of the hypoxic zone is to be reduced, the SAB finds that a dual nutrient strategy is needed that achieves at least a 45% reduction in both riverine total nitrogen flux and riverine total phosphorus flux. The SAB offers these as initial targets while stressing the importance of moving in a directionally correct fashion and adjusting policy adaptively on the basis of future data, changing conditions and lessons learned. Climate change will likely contribute to changing conditions. A number of studies have suggested that climate change will create conditions where larger nutrient reductions, e.g., 50 – 60% for nitrogen, would be required to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone. An adaptive management approach, coupling nutrient reductions with continuous monitoring and evaluation, can provide valuable lessons to improve future decisions.

The SAB was asked to comment on the Task Force’s goal of reducing the size of the hypoxic zone to 5,000 km2 by 2015. With respect to the time frame, the SAB finds that such a significant reduction is not likely to be achievable over the next eight years. We conclude this for two reasons. First, there is limited current movement to implement policies, programs and strategies that reduce nutrients. Second, there are time lags between reductions in nutrient inputs and the response of the ecological system. Hence, while the 5,000 km2 target remains a reasonable objective in an adaptive management context; it may no longer be possible to achieve this goal by 2015. SAB says this makes it even more important to proceed in a directionally correct fashion to manage factors affecting hypoxia than to wait for greater precision in setting the goal for the size of the zone.

SAB finds that to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf, a systems view, looking at all sources and effects, is needed. The SAB urges the Agency to consider its options with respect to both non-point and point sources. Non-point sources have long been acknowledged as the primary source of nutrient loadings, however the SAB finds point sources are a more significant contributor than previously thought. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is also playing a role in hypoxia.

Access the complete report which includes an executive summary (click here). [*Water]

Senate Passes Farm Bill; Now Conference Committee

Dec 14: Mid-afternoon on December 14, 2007, as WIMS was beginning our holiday break, the U.S. Senate passed its version of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, with a bipartisan vote of 79-14 with 7 members not voting. The U.S. House of Representatives passed its hotly contested version of the Farm Bill by a largely party-line vote of 231-191, on July 27, 2007 [See WIMS 7/30/07]. The differences will now be resolved in a Conference Committee. According to a release from Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, the measure continues and improves farm income protection and makes historic investments for the future in energy, conservation, nutrition and rural development initiatives -- all while staying within strict budget limits.

Senator Harkin said, “This is a strong, bipartisan bill -- evident by the fact that it passed Committee after only one day of deliberation with no negative votes voiced against it and passed the Senate today by an overwhelming majority. After months of negotiations, we were able to work within a very strict budget allocation to complete our work and pass a farm bill that is good for agriculture, good for rural areas and good for the health of Americans. This is a forward-looking farm bill with greatly strengthened initiatives to support renewable energy, conservation, nutrition, rural development and to promote better diets and health for all Americans. It maintains a strong safety net for farm producers, and strengthens programs that will help agricultural producers of all kinds across our nation. I thank all Committee members for their cooperation and support in getting this bill passed and join them in looking forward to a swift conference with the House.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee also praised the passage of the bill and said it includes the most significant reforms to payment limitations in the history of American farm policy, as well as increased funding for nutrition, energy and conservation programs. Senator Chambliss, who coauthored the bill said, “Passage of the farm bill is a real victory for American agriculture. The legislation will strengthen the nation’s food security, protect the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, preserve our efforts to remain good stewards of the environment, and enhance our nation’s energy security efforts. I consider a safe, affordable and abundant food supply a critical national security interest and this bill takes us in the right direction to ensure those priorities.”

Despite the bipartisan Senate support for the bill, the Administration expressed displeasure with the bill and called it "fundamentally flawed." Acting USDA Secretary Chuck Conner issued a statement saying, "Farmers and ranchers face enormous uncertainties and deserve a safety net, and I am a firm believer in federal support of agriculture. Yet, the farm bill just passed by the Senate fails to strengthen the safety net and increases taxes to generate $15 billion in revenue used to grow the size and scope of government. The bill further increases price supports and continues to send farm subsidies to people who are among the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The Senate-passed farm bill does not represent fiscal stewardship and lacks farm program reform.

"This legislation is fundamentally flawed. Unless the House and Senate can come together and craft a measure that contains real reform, we are no closer to a good farm bill than we were before today's passage. Farmers need a stable safety net that helps in years they need it most. And farmers deserve a farm bill that is free of budget smoke and mirrors and tax increases. The measure passed today has $22 billion in unfunded commitments and budget gimmicks, and includes $15 billion in new taxes -- the first time a farm bill has relied on tax increases since 1933.

"The House and Senate need to address the concerns that matter to farmers the most. We have heard from farmers all across America in over 50 Farm Bill Forums since 2005, and most have made it clear that there must be an end to income subsidy payments for the richest people in the country. Farmers understand that a program that takes tax dollars from middle income America and transfers those dollars to the nation's wealthiest few is bad policy, and damages the credibility and the purpose of farm programs. As the House and Senate work to come to a consensus on their different bills, it is imperative that substantial changes are made to this legislation. I am eager to work with Congress on ways to make this a good farm bill that benefits our rural communities and America's farmers."

According to Senator Harkin's release, the bill includes a newly named Producer Income Protection title of that continues basic features of the 2002 bill, which have worked well, and it gives producers a new option, beginning with the 2010 crop year, to choose to participate in a state-level revenue protection system. The Average Crop Revenue program, modeled after legislation introduced by Senators Durbin and Brown, offers producers better options for managing risk on their farms in today’s uncertain, rapidly changing farm environment.

The conservation title extends key conservation programs and increases critical funding. This will allow CSP – now renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program -- to grow vigorously at a pace of more than 13 million acres a year, which with the 15 million acres already enrolled, will equal 80 million acres in 5 years. This funding will also continue to allow increased enrollment in the Wetland Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Grassland Reserve Program.

The energy title provides investments in farm-based energy by creating initiatives with financial incentives to help farmers transition into biomass crops, and supports the construction of biorefineries from cellulose ethanol with a loan guarantee program that will provide up to 80 percent of total project cost with a loan cap of $250 million. The bill expands markets for biobased products, and invests in farm-based energy R&D, and in helping farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses move to renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Harkin also indicated that the nutrition title strengthens our commitment to fighting hunger and promoting sound health and nutrition; the livestock title will promote market opportunities for producers, protect animal health, strengthen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act; the rural development title provides $400 million in budget authority for a variety of initiatives that will promote economic growth and create jobs in rural communities; the bill greatly increases assistance to growers of fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops; and it contains a full reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act until 2013.

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), one of the few environmental organizations to comment on the passage said it was pleased to see the Senate pass the Farm bill and hoped for a speedy conference with the House of Representatives. NWF said,“The Senate Farm Bill is a mixed bag for wildlife. We are disappointed that critical programs like the Grassland Reserve Program would see a cut from the 2002 Farm Bill levels -- not even factoring in inflation. We are pleased that the bill makes important strides in streamlining, focusing and adequately funding the Conservation Security Program.

“But clearly we have a lot of work to do in the conference. Farm Bill conservation programs provide wildlife habitat on over 40 million acres of land across the United States, and we cannot afford to retreat from investments in conservation that benefit farmers, ranchers, wildlife, and rural communities. Included in this overall package was the Endangered Species Recovery Act, which provides tens of millions of dollars in incentives for private landowners to conserve endangered species. The Senate’s enactment of this bill, which was introduced as S. 700 earlier this year by Senators Crapo (R-ID), Lincoln (D-AR), Baucus (D-MT), and Grassley (R-IA), represents an exciting step forward for endangered species conservation.”

Access links to releases, video and related information from Senators Harkin and Chambliss (click here). Access links to the Senate-passed version and the amendment list (click here). Access details of the Senate roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). Access the statement from Secretary Conner (click here). Access the statement from NWF (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]