Mar 13: At a hearing before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming [See WIMS 3/13/08], U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson refused to turn over documents pertaining to global warming decisions within his agency, even though Congress has a right to the documents. Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) made it clear that this refusal would force his committee to explore the full range of options available to compel the EPA to hand over the documents.
In the hearing, Johnson did not claim executive privilege, but instead relied on what Representative Markey said is "an inapplicable argument that only applies to outside parties seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act. Congress has a right to documents without any FOIA request, and has a right to these documents." Markey said, "Administrator Johnson specifically did not claim executive privilege as a basis for refusing to turn over the documents, because he knows that it doesn't apply. Consequently, his stonewalling this committee cannot be accepted."
Markey continued, “The EPA is interfering with the work of my committee to understand why this administration is refusing to decide whether the planet is endangered. If the EPA does not make the documents available by the time the House returns, then this committee will use the full extent of its authority to make sure the public understands who in the Bush administration is blocking the professional scientists from concluding what the world already knows: that the planet is in danger because of global warming.”
On April 2, 2007, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120), and ruled that EPA has existing authority under the Federal Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles [See WIMS 4/2/07]. The Supreme Court decision directed EPA to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
If EPA makes this so-called “endangerment finding,” the Supreme Court said, then it must regulate these emissions from motor vehicles. In its response to the Supreme Court decision, EPA spent about six months conducting intensive analysis and, according to EPA staff disclosures to Congress, Johnson signed off on the Agency’s positive endangerment finding. The endangerment finding, as well as a completed proposal to regulate emissions from motor vehicles (to levels that correspond to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2018), were forwarded to other White House and federal agencies for review in December.
According to numerous statements made by Johnson and other Bush administration officials, the proposals were to be released publicly by the end of 2007 and finalized by the end of 2008. That has not occurred. Instead, reports have indicated that EPA has ceased all work in this area and, at the hearing, Johnson would not even commit to a firm date on which these documents would be released.
Markey said, “The Bush administration’s approach to global warming policy has been to deny the science, delay the regulation, and dismiss its critics, and Administrator Johnson’s refusal to move forward with this critical first step to limit greenhouse gas emissions is right out of that playbook. This EPA may be the last environmental ministry in the developed world to concede what the world’s scientists and governments already know: global warming emissions are dangerous, and must be controlled."
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Administrator Johnson; the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment; a Kansas House Member; Lisa Heinzerling, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Chief Climate Counsel for the Sierra Club; and Peter Glaser, Partner with Troutman Sanders.
Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and an audio file of the hearing (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
EPA Finalizes 8-Hour Ozone Standards At 0.075 Parts Per Million
Mar 12: At approximately 6 PM, on the court-ordered deadline date, U.S. EPA said it met its requirements under the Clean Air Act by signing what it said is "the most stringent 8-hour standard ever for ozone, revising the standards for the first time in more than a decade." The Agency said it based the changes on the "most recent scientific evidence about the effects of ozone," the primary component of smog. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "America's air is cleaner today than it was a generation ago. By meeting the requirement of the Clean Air Act and strengthening the national standard for ozone, EPA is keeping our clean air progress moving forward." Environmental groups, health advocates and EPA's Scientific Advisory Committee say the level is not low enough; while business groups say it is to high and will cost billions.
The new primary 8-hour standard is 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and the new secondary standard is set at a form and level identical to the primary standard. The previous primary and secondary standards were identical 8-hour standards, set at 0.08 ppm. Because ozone is measured out to three decimal places, the standard effectively became 0.084 ppm: areas with ozone levels as high as 0.084 ppm were considered as meeting the 0.08 ppm standard, because of rounding.
Earthjustice, on behalf of the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and other conservation groups filed suit against the EPA in 2003 for the Agency's failure to set smog standards as required by law. The new standard announced is in response to the court-ordered deadline in that lawsuit.
Johnson also used the opportunity to announce that he will be sending Congress "four principles" to guide legislative changes to the Clean Air Act. He said, "The Clean Air Act is not a relic to be displayed in the Smithsonian, but a living document that must be modernized to continue realizing results. So while the standards I signed today may be strict, we have a responsibility to overhaul and enhance the Clean Air Act to ensure it translates from paper promises into cleaner air."
The four principles outlined by the Administrator recommend that the Clean Air Act and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): (1) must protect the public health and improve the overall well-being of our citizens; (2) should allow decision-makers to consider benefits, costs, risk tradeoffs, and feasibility in making decisions about how to clean the air; (3) should provide greater accountability and effective enforcement to ensure not only paper requirements but also air quality requirements are met, especially in areas with the furthest to go in meeting our standards; (4) should allow the schedule for addressing NAAQS standards to be driven by the available science and the prioritization of health and environmental concerns, taking into account the multi-pollutant nature of air pollution.
EPA estimates that the final standards will yield health benefits valued between $2 billion and $19 billion. Those benefits include preventing cases of bronchitis, aggravated asthma, hospital and emergency room visits, nonfatal heart attacks and premature death, among others. EPA's Regulatory Impact analysis shows that benefits are likely greater than the cost of implementing the standards. Cost estimates range from $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion. As part of today's action, EPA also has updated the Air Quality Index (AQI) for ozone to reflect the change in the health standard. The AQI is EPA's color-coded tool for communicating daily air quality to the public.
EPA said it selected the levels for the final standards after reviewing more than 1,700 peer-reviewed scientific studies about the effects of ozone on public health and welfare, and after considering advice from the agency's external scientific advisors and staff, along with public comment. EPA held five public hearings and received nearly 90,000 written comments.
On June 21, 2007, U.S. EPA announced its proposal to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time since 1997 [See WIMS 6/21/07]. The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm.
On October 25, 2006, U.S. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Panel issued new recommendations for limiting ozone. The 23-member scientific advisory panel unanimously presented their view that there was no scientific justification for retention of the current 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) [i.e. 0.084]; and recommended instead that a substantially stronger standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm be adopted [See WIMS 10/25/08]. The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Chaired by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), held a major hearing on EPA’s Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS on July 11, 2007 [See WIMS 7/12/08].
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) it supports a NAAQS for ozone that is protective of public health and based on sound scientific information. ACC said it believes the existing 1997 ozone standard meets that test even as the level of ozone and other criteria pollutant emissions continue to drop. They said the available science is largely unchanged since the 1997 standard was issued and demonstrates that there is no clear and substantial basis for making the standard stricter at this time. ACC said EPA's decision, "unnecessarily will impose significant new burdens on states and others even as they continue to try and comply with the 1997 standard."
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), a private sector research organization promoting private alternatives to government regulation and control said EPA rule, "sets an unreasonable standard for ozone air pollution and is unnecessary." They said the standard "will put most regions of the country in violation. Cities and counties could well bankrupt themselves trying to meet it with little or no improvement in human health. . . Under the current standard, levels of ozone and pollutants thatcombine to form ozone are already so low as to have no effect on human health." NCPA said "EPA estimates that attempts to meet the lower standard will cost $10 billion to $22 billion per year, making it among the most expensive federal regulations ever."
The American Public Health Association (APHA) said the new standards were "a much needed improvement and a step in the right direction," but, "the allowed levels of ozone pollution still fall far short of the requirements of the Clean Air Act. . . by failing to lower the standard to the levels recommended unanimously by the EPA’s own expert scientific advisors, the EPA ignored an opportunity to set a truly protective standard that would better safeguard the public from respiratory illness and increased symptoms from allergies, asthma, emphysema and other lung diseases."
The American Lung Association (ALA) said, "Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the smog standard must be much stronger to protect public health from serious harm." ALA urged EPA to adopt an ozone standard of 0.060 parts per million (60 parts per billion).
The national organization, Environmental Defense said, "The White House today took the unprecedented step of overruling the chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in determining the nation’s ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone . . . The design of control strategies can and must take economics into account, but standards must be science-based. Any doubt on this issue was ended by a unanimous 2001 decision by Justice Antonin Scalia, in which the Supreme Court held that national air quality standards are to be based on science alone, consistent with 30 years of successful implementation of the Clean Air Act. Today, this time-tested framework for protecting health and the environment from air pollution were cast aside." Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for Environmental Defense Fund and a former attorney for the EPA General Counsel’s office said, “For generations, a time-tested commitment to science and law has protected America’s health and environment. The White House today cast aside science and law to impose its will upon EPA, leaving America’s health and environment behind.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “It is cynical and deeply irresponsible for the EPA administrator to suggest that defining air that is safe to breathe should be poisoned by economics and cost considerations. The American people have a right to healthy air being defined truthfully based on science and medicine -- not presented dishonestly based on economics and what big polluters are willing to pay. . . The administrator’s call to weaken the law to avoid health-protective standards – coupled with his adoption of unprotective standards today – also raises the very disturbing question whether EPA has short-circuited the law and acted based on unspoken, illegal cost considerations. Science cannot explain or justify the Administrator’s decision, so the public deserves to know whether the Administrator’s fervor for a weaker law in the future drove him to break the law today.”
Earthjustice said, "The science is clear: we need much stronger protection from smog than EPA gave us today. EPA's refusal to follow the recommendations of its science advisors and the uniform recommendations of the medical and public health community means that polluted areas like Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley will not see the aggressive action from air pollution agencies that is necessary to address the ongoing public health crises in these areas."
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty said, "I am disappointed the EPA administrator ignored the advice of his own scientific advisory committee in setting the new ozone level that is intended to protect people's health. Sound science must be used in setting public policy, and that has not happened in this case. Unfortunately, this action is in keeping with the EPA's track record of ignoring science and making decisions based on politics."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "Once again the EPA has rejected the recommendations of its scientific advisors and failed to protect our communities from dangerous air pollution. Smog kills, and scientific studies say that thousands of lives could have been saved if the standard had been set in the more protective range, between 60 and 70 parts per billion unanimously recommended by EPA's scientific experts. Today, EPA missed the mark, establishing a standard at 75 parts per billion. I support the standard of 60 parts per billion, the level endorsed by public health advocates like the American Lung Association."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) issued a statement saying, "Today’s announcement by EPA will have a severe economic impact on Oklahoma and the nation for too little environmental gain. Despite the fact that air pollution levels across the United States are at an all time low and our nation’s air quality continues to improve, EPA decided to further tighten the standard. The consequence of the Rule means that hundreds of counties across the country – which have worked long and hard to come into compliance with the current standard – will once again face potential stiff federal penalties, lose highway dollars, and become unattractive places to locate new businesses.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) which represents the state and local air quality agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country commented that it "had supported CASAC’s recommendation that the standard be set in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 [ppm], and had also advocated a distinct, cumulative seasonal secondary standard." The said, Administrator Johnson's announced intent to "overhaul" the Act by allowing costs to be considered in the standard-setting process, "sharply depart[ed] from the statutory mandate of the current Clean Air Act. NACAA said, "In the context of the current ozone NAAQS revisions, and in the 2006 PM NAAQS revisions, NACAA has consistently opposed mixing implementation issues, such as costs, into rules setting the health-based standard."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access links to the 312-page prepublication copy of the final rule, fact sheets, technical documents and extensive background information (click here). Access EPA's AQI (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). Access a release from NCPA (click here). Access a release from APHA (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here); and (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from PA DEP (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the comments from NACAA (click here). [*Air]
The new primary 8-hour standard is 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and the new secondary standard is set at a form and level identical to the primary standard. The previous primary and secondary standards were identical 8-hour standards, set at 0.08 ppm. Because ozone is measured out to three decimal places, the standard effectively became 0.084 ppm: areas with ozone levels as high as 0.084 ppm were considered as meeting the 0.08 ppm standard, because of rounding.
Earthjustice, on behalf of the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and other conservation groups filed suit against the EPA in 2003 for the Agency's failure to set smog standards as required by law. The new standard announced is in response to the court-ordered deadline in that lawsuit.
Johnson also used the opportunity to announce that he will be sending Congress "four principles" to guide legislative changes to the Clean Air Act. He said, "The Clean Air Act is not a relic to be displayed in the Smithsonian, but a living document that must be modernized to continue realizing results. So while the standards I signed today may be strict, we have a responsibility to overhaul and enhance the Clean Air Act to ensure it translates from paper promises into cleaner air."
The four principles outlined by the Administrator recommend that the Clean Air Act and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): (1) must protect the public health and improve the overall well-being of our citizens; (2) should allow decision-makers to consider benefits, costs, risk tradeoffs, and feasibility in making decisions about how to clean the air; (3) should provide greater accountability and effective enforcement to ensure not only paper requirements but also air quality requirements are met, especially in areas with the furthest to go in meeting our standards; (4) should allow the schedule for addressing NAAQS standards to be driven by the available science and the prioritization of health and environmental concerns, taking into account the multi-pollutant nature of air pollution.
EPA estimates that the final standards will yield health benefits valued between $2 billion and $19 billion. Those benefits include preventing cases of bronchitis, aggravated asthma, hospital and emergency room visits, nonfatal heart attacks and premature death, among others. EPA's Regulatory Impact analysis shows that benefits are likely greater than the cost of implementing the standards. Cost estimates range from $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion. As part of today's action, EPA also has updated the Air Quality Index (AQI) for ozone to reflect the change in the health standard. The AQI is EPA's color-coded tool for communicating daily air quality to the public.
EPA said it selected the levels for the final standards after reviewing more than 1,700 peer-reviewed scientific studies about the effects of ozone on public health and welfare, and after considering advice from the agency's external scientific advisors and staff, along with public comment. EPA held five public hearings and received nearly 90,000 written comments.
On June 21, 2007, U.S. EPA announced its proposal to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time since 1997 [See WIMS 6/21/07]. The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm.
On October 25, 2006, U.S. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Panel issued new recommendations for limiting ozone. The 23-member scientific advisory panel unanimously presented their view that there was no scientific justification for retention of the current 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) [i.e. 0.084]; and recommended instead that a substantially stronger standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm be adopted [See WIMS 10/25/08]. The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Chaired by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), held a major hearing on EPA’s Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS on July 11, 2007 [See WIMS 7/12/08].
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) it supports a NAAQS for ozone that is protective of public health and based on sound scientific information. ACC said it believes the existing 1997 ozone standard meets that test even as the level of ozone and other criteria pollutant emissions continue to drop. They said the available science is largely unchanged since the 1997 standard was issued and demonstrates that there is no clear and substantial basis for making the standard stricter at this time. ACC said EPA's decision, "unnecessarily will impose significant new burdens on states and others even as they continue to try and comply with the 1997 standard."
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), a private sector research organization promoting private alternatives to government regulation and control said EPA rule, "sets an unreasonable standard for ozone air pollution and is unnecessary." They said the standard "will put most regions of the country in violation. Cities and counties could well bankrupt themselves trying to meet it with little or no improvement in human health. . . Under the current standard, levels of ozone and pollutants thatcombine to form ozone are already so low as to have no effect on human health." NCPA said "EPA estimates that attempts to meet the lower standard will cost $10 billion to $22 billion per year, making it among the most expensive federal regulations ever."
The American Public Health Association (APHA) said the new standards were "a much needed improvement and a step in the right direction," but, "the allowed levels of ozone pollution still fall far short of the requirements of the Clean Air Act. . . by failing to lower the standard to the levels recommended unanimously by the EPA’s own expert scientific advisors, the EPA ignored an opportunity to set a truly protective standard that would better safeguard the public from respiratory illness and increased symptoms from allergies, asthma, emphysema and other lung diseases."
The American Lung Association (ALA) said, "Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the smog standard must be much stronger to protect public health from serious harm." ALA urged EPA to adopt an ozone standard of 0.060 parts per million (60 parts per billion).
The national organization, Environmental Defense said, "The White House today took the unprecedented step of overruling the chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in determining the nation’s ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone . . . The design of control strategies can and must take economics into account, but standards must be science-based. Any doubt on this issue was ended by a unanimous 2001 decision by Justice Antonin Scalia, in which the Supreme Court held that national air quality standards are to be based on science alone, consistent with 30 years of successful implementation of the Clean Air Act. Today, this time-tested framework for protecting health and the environment from air pollution were cast aside." Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for Environmental Defense Fund and a former attorney for the EPA General Counsel’s office said, “For generations, a time-tested commitment to science and law has protected America’s health and environment. The White House today cast aside science and law to impose its will upon EPA, leaving America’s health and environment behind.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “It is cynical and deeply irresponsible for the EPA administrator to suggest that defining air that is safe to breathe should be poisoned by economics and cost considerations. The American people have a right to healthy air being defined truthfully based on science and medicine -- not presented dishonestly based on economics and what big polluters are willing to pay. . . The administrator’s call to weaken the law to avoid health-protective standards – coupled with his adoption of unprotective standards today – also raises the very disturbing question whether EPA has short-circuited the law and acted based on unspoken, illegal cost considerations. Science cannot explain or justify the Administrator’s decision, so the public deserves to know whether the Administrator’s fervor for a weaker law in the future drove him to break the law today.”
Earthjustice said, "The science is clear: we need much stronger protection from smog than EPA gave us today. EPA's refusal to follow the recommendations of its science advisors and the uniform recommendations of the medical and public health community means that polluted areas like Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley will not see the aggressive action from air pollution agencies that is necessary to address the ongoing public health crises in these areas."
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty said, "I am disappointed the EPA administrator ignored the advice of his own scientific advisory committee in setting the new ozone level that is intended to protect people's health. Sound science must be used in setting public policy, and that has not happened in this case. Unfortunately, this action is in keeping with the EPA's track record of ignoring science and making decisions based on politics."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "Once again the EPA has rejected the recommendations of its scientific advisors and failed to protect our communities from dangerous air pollution. Smog kills, and scientific studies say that thousands of lives could have been saved if the standard had been set in the more protective range, between 60 and 70 parts per billion unanimously recommended by EPA's scientific experts. Today, EPA missed the mark, establishing a standard at 75 parts per billion. I support the standard of 60 parts per billion, the level endorsed by public health advocates like the American Lung Association."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) issued a statement saying, "Today’s announcement by EPA will have a severe economic impact on Oklahoma and the nation for too little environmental gain. Despite the fact that air pollution levels across the United States are at an all time low and our nation’s air quality continues to improve, EPA decided to further tighten the standard. The consequence of the Rule means that hundreds of counties across the country – which have worked long and hard to come into compliance with the current standard – will once again face potential stiff federal penalties, lose highway dollars, and become unattractive places to locate new businesses.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) which represents the state and local air quality agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country commented that it "had supported CASAC’s recommendation that the standard be set in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 [ppm], and had also advocated a distinct, cumulative seasonal secondary standard." The said, Administrator Johnson's announced intent to "overhaul" the Act by allowing costs to be considered in the standard-setting process, "sharply depart[ed] from the statutory mandate of the current Clean Air Act. NACAA said, "In the context of the current ozone NAAQS revisions, and in the 2006 PM NAAQS revisions, NACAA has consistently opposed mixing implementation issues, such as costs, into rules setting the health-based standard."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access links to the 312-page prepublication copy of the final rule, fact sheets, technical documents and extensive background information (click here). Access EPA's AQI (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). Access a release from NCPA (click here). Access a release from APHA (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here); and (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from PA DEP (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the comments from NACAA (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Nuclear Power In A Warming World: Solution or Illusion?
Mar 12: The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Chaired by Edward Markey (D-MA)held a hearing entitled, “Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?” The hearing explored the degree to which nuclear power can provide a solution for addressing climate change. According to an announcement, the contemplated future role of nuclear power in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions will clearly require a monumental capital investment, many years if not decades of planning and construction, extensive international coordination, and substantial assumption of risk by the general public and by investors. The hearing examine the feasibility of achieving such a nuclear expansion, the costs and benefits of this nuclear path, and whether nuclear power can play a leading role in solving the climate challenge.
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute; Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate in the Nonproliferation Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and David Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists; and Adam Flint, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute.
Lovins titled his presentation, "Why expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security… but can’t survive free-market capitalism." He said, "I’ll summarize why nuclear power isn’t needed for any civilian purpose; how and why it’s being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no- and low-carbon electrical resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster; and why nuclear expansion would inhibit climate protection, energy security, and reliably powering prosperity. Even if nuclear power could attract private risk capital, it could not in principle deliver its claimed climate and security benefits. But because it’s uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn’t inquire into its other attributes. Far from undergoing a renaissance, nuclear power is conspicuously failing in the marketplace, for the same forgotten reason it failed previously: it costs too much and it bears too much financial risk to attract private risk capital, despite federal subsidies now approaching or exceeding its total cost. . ." He concluded saying, "The capital markets are now injecting a welcome realism long absent from Federal policy. The straightest path to American energy security and to a richer, fairer, cooler, safer world is to let all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly, at honest prices, regardless of their type, technology, size, location, and ownership. That’s pretty much the opposite of the Federal energy policy we have."
Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace testified that the recent increase in Administration support for nuclear power (i.e. subsidies, presidential and official statements, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, etc.) have created "a confused debate that paints nuclear energy 'clean and green,' advocates nuclear energy for all, even though some states with nuclear reactors could pose significant safety and proliferation concerns, and suggests that nuclear energy is a path to energy security, while insisting that some states rely on market mechanisms for fuel supplies instead of developing their own indigenous resources and capabilities. Yet, this approach obscures important policy considerations as the United States and other countries consider nuclear investments on the order of several hundred billion dollars. A first order question is the extent to which nuclear energy can really make a difference in terms of global climate change."
Her analysis, based on a 2004 “wedge analysis” indicates that, "For nuclear energy to “solve” just one-seventh of the problem – lowering emissions by 1 billion tons per year – an additional 700 GWe of capacity would have to be built, assuming the reactors replaced 700 GWe of modern coal-electric plants.4 Because virtually all operating reactors will have to be retired in that time, this means building approximately 1070 reactors in 42 years [i.e. by 2050], or about 25 reactors per year. Current global reactor capacity is 373 GWe or 439 reactors worldwide. In short, one “nuclear wedge” would require almost tripling current capacity."
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) testified that it recently re-examined nuclear power’s role in combating global warming. He said, "We concluded that an expansion of nuclear power could help curb global warming because nuclear power plants do not emit global warming gases during operation and the emissions during the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction are relatively modest. Unfortunately, history has repeatedly shown that the safety and security risks of this nuclear curb are both significant and sustained. . ." UCS concludes, "If the NRC is not reformed, even existing reactors may not operate long into the future and new reactors are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to global warming. Thus, if the NRC is not reformed, UCS believes that nuclear power will be more of an illusion than a solution." UCS testimony includes an attachment of the Executive summary from UCS’s December 2007 report Nuclear Power in a Warming World [See WIMS 12/12/07]. The complete report is available from the link below.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) indicated that it is responsible for developing policy for the U.S. nuclear industry on generic technical, regulatory, business and other matters of industry-wide importance. More than 300 corporate and other members of NEI represent a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S. electric utility that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI said that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts global electricity demand to nearly double between 2004 and 2030 from 16.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2004 to 30.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2030.
NEI said, "It is extraordinarily challenging to imagine credible scenarios by which electricity production can double in the coming decades while reducing significantly the emission of greenhouse gases from electricity generation. To do so will take the successful implementation of a wide range of solutions, as Princeton Professors Stephen Pacala and David Socolow made clear in their wedge analysis. A credible program will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches, including the widespread use of nuclear energy, renewables, conservation, efficiency, and carbon sequestration from the use of fossil fuels. The magnitude of this challenge should not be underestimated.
"That conclusion is shared by leaders and governments around the world including Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who, in July 2007 said he had never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy. Similar conclusions have been reached by the G-8 in its declaration on “Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy” issued after the June 2007 G-8 summit. . .
"There are 34 nuclear units under construction worldwide including seven in Russian, six in India, and five in China. In the United States, we have one, the 5-year, $2.5 billion completion of TVA’s Watts Bar 2 underway. In the United States, 17 companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors. . .
"In closing, nuclear energy is the single largest source of non-carbon emitting generation. It is a mature technology, operated at high standards by an experienced industry that is committed to safety. It is the only energy option available today that can provide large-scale electricity 24/7 at a competitive cost without emitting greenhouse gases."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 74-page UCS report (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear, *Haz/Nuclear]
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute; Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate in the Nonproliferation Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and David Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists; and Adam Flint, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute.
Lovins titled his presentation, "Why expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security… but can’t survive free-market capitalism." He said, "I’ll summarize why nuclear power isn’t needed for any civilian purpose; how and why it’s being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no- and low-carbon electrical resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster; and why nuclear expansion would inhibit climate protection, energy security, and reliably powering prosperity. Even if nuclear power could attract private risk capital, it could not in principle deliver its claimed climate and security benefits. But because it’s uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn’t inquire into its other attributes. Far from undergoing a renaissance, nuclear power is conspicuously failing in the marketplace, for the same forgotten reason it failed previously: it costs too much and it bears too much financial risk to attract private risk capital, despite federal subsidies now approaching or exceeding its total cost. . ." He concluded saying, "The capital markets are now injecting a welcome realism long absent from Federal policy. The straightest path to American energy security and to a richer, fairer, cooler, safer world is to let all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly, at honest prices, regardless of their type, technology, size, location, and ownership. That’s pretty much the opposite of the Federal energy policy we have."
Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace testified that the recent increase in Administration support for nuclear power (i.e. subsidies, presidential and official statements, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, etc.) have created "a confused debate that paints nuclear energy 'clean and green,' advocates nuclear energy for all, even though some states with nuclear reactors could pose significant safety and proliferation concerns, and suggests that nuclear energy is a path to energy security, while insisting that some states rely on market mechanisms for fuel supplies instead of developing their own indigenous resources and capabilities. Yet, this approach obscures important policy considerations as the United States and other countries consider nuclear investments on the order of several hundred billion dollars. A first order question is the extent to which nuclear energy can really make a difference in terms of global climate change."
Her analysis, based on a 2004 “wedge analysis” indicates that, "For nuclear energy to “solve” just one-seventh of the problem – lowering emissions by 1 billion tons per year – an additional 700 GWe of capacity would have to be built, assuming the reactors replaced 700 GWe of modern coal-electric plants.4 Because virtually all operating reactors will have to be retired in that time, this means building approximately 1070 reactors in 42 years [i.e. by 2050], or about 25 reactors per year. Current global reactor capacity is 373 GWe or 439 reactors worldwide. In short, one “nuclear wedge” would require almost tripling current capacity."
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) testified that it recently re-examined nuclear power’s role in combating global warming. He said, "We concluded that an expansion of nuclear power could help curb global warming because nuclear power plants do not emit global warming gases during operation and the emissions during the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction are relatively modest. Unfortunately, history has repeatedly shown that the safety and security risks of this nuclear curb are both significant and sustained. . ." UCS concludes, "If the NRC is not reformed, even existing reactors may not operate long into the future and new reactors are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to global warming. Thus, if the NRC is not reformed, UCS believes that nuclear power will be more of an illusion than a solution." UCS testimony includes an attachment of the Executive summary from UCS’s December 2007 report Nuclear Power in a Warming World [See WIMS 12/12/07]. The complete report is available from the link below.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) indicated that it is responsible for developing policy for the U.S. nuclear industry on generic technical, regulatory, business and other matters of industry-wide importance. More than 300 corporate and other members of NEI represent a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S. electric utility that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI said that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts global electricity demand to nearly double between 2004 and 2030 from 16.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2004 to 30.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2030.
NEI said, "It is extraordinarily challenging to imagine credible scenarios by which electricity production can double in the coming decades while reducing significantly the emission of greenhouse gases from electricity generation. To do so will take the successful implementation of a wide range of solutions, as Princeton Professors Stephen Pacala and David Socolow made clear in their wedge analysis. A credible program will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches, including the widespread use of nuclear energy, renewables, conservation, efficiency, and carbon sequestration from the use of fossil fuels. The magnitude of this challenge should not be underestimated.
"That conclusion is shared by leaders and governments around the world including Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who, in July 2007 said he had never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy. Similar conclusions have been reached by the G-8 in its declaration on “Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy” issued after the June 2007 G-8 summit. . .
"There are 34 nuclear units under construction worldwide including seven in Russian, six in India, and five in China. In the United States, we have one, the 5-year, $2.5 billion completion of TVA’s Watts Bar 2 underway. In the United States, 17 companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors. . .
"In closing, nuclear energy is the single largest source of non-carbon emitting generation. It is a mature technology, operated at high standards by an experienced industry that is committed to safety. It is the only energy option available today that can provide large-scale electricity 24/7 at a competitive cost without emitting greenhouse gases."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 74-page UCS report (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear, *Haz/Nuclear]
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Climate Change Will Have A Significant Impact On Transportation
Mar 11: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) indicates that while every mode of transportation in the U.S. will be affected as the climate changes, potentially the greatest impact on transportation systems will be flooding of roads, railways, transit systems, and airport runways in coastal areas because of rising sea levels and surges brought on by more intense storms. The report says that although the impacts of climate change will vary by region, it is certain they will be widespread and costly in human and economic terms, and will require significant changes in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems.
The U.S. transportation system was designed and built for local weather and climate conditions, predicated on historical temperature and precipitation data. The report finds that climate predictions used by transportation planners and engineers may no longer be reliable, however, in the face of new weather and climate extremes. Infrastructure pushed beyond the range for which it was designed can become stressed and fail, as seen with loss of the U.S. 90 Bridge in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Henry Schwartz Jr., past president and chairman of Sverdrup/Jacobs Civil Inc., and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "The time has come for transportation professionals to acknowledge and confront the challenges posed by climate change, and to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge into the planning of transportation systems. It is now possible to project climate changes for large subcontinental regions, such as the Eastern United States, a scale better suited for considering regional and local transportation infrastructure."
The committee identified five climate changes of particular importance to U.S. transportation; 1) increases in very hot days and heat waves; 2) increases in Arctic temperatures; 3) rising sea levels; 4) increases in intense precipitation events; and 5) increases in hurricane intensity. In addition to climate changes, there are a number of contributing factors that will likely lead to vulnerabilities in coastal-area transportation systems. Population is projected to grow in coastal areas, which will boost demand for transportation infrastructure and increase the number of people and businesses potentially in harm's way; erosion and loss of wetlands have removed crucial buffer zones that once protected infrastructure; and an estimated 60,000 miles of coastal highways are already exposed to periodic storm flooding.
Schwartz said, "Rising temperatures may trigger weather extremes and surprises, such as more rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice than projected. The highways that currently serve as evacuation routes and endure periodic flooding could be compromised with strong hurricanes and more intense precipitation, making some of these routes impassable." Transportation providers will need to focus on evacuation planning and work more closely with weather forecasters and emergency planners.
Infrastructure vulnerabilities will extend beyond coastal areas as the climate continues to change. In the Midwest, for instance, increased intense precipitation could augment the severity of flooding, as occurred in 1993 when farmland, towns, and transportation routes were severely damaged from flooding along 500 miles of the Mississippi and Missouri river systems. On the other hand, drier conditions are likely to prevail in the watersheds supplying the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes as well as the Upper Midwest river system. Lower water levels would reduce vessel shipping capacity, seriously impairing freight movements in the region, such as occurred during the drought of 1988, which stranded barge traffic on the Mississippi River. And in California, heat waves may increase wildfires that can destroy transportation infrastructure.
Not all climate changes will be negative, however. Marine transportation could benefit from more open seas in the Arctic, creating new and shorter shipping routes and reducing transport time and costs. In cold regions, rising temperatures could reduce the costs of snow and ice control and would make travel conditions safer for passenger vehicles and freight.
Preparing for projected climate changes will be costly. Transportation decision makers continually make short- and long-term investment decisions that affect how the infrastructure will respond to climate change. Response measures range from rehabilitating and retrofitting infrastructure to making major additions to constructing entirely new infrastructure. The committee noted the need for "a more strategic, risk-based approach to investment decisions that trades off the costs of making the infrastructure more robust against the economic costs of failure." In the future, climate changes in some areas may necessitate permanent alterations. For example, roads, rail lines, and airport runways in low-lying coastal areas may become casualties of sea-level rise, requiring relocations or expensive protective measures, such as sea walls and levees.
The report calls for the federal government to have a strong role in implementing many of its recommendations that require broad-based action or regulation, such as the creation of a clearinghouse for information on transportation and climate change; the establishment of a research program to re-evaluate existing design standards and develop new standards for addressing climate change; creation of an interagency working group on adaptation; changes in federal regulations regarding long-range planning guidelines and infrastructure rehabilitation requirements; and re-evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program and updating flood insurance rate maps with climate change in mind.
The NRC report follows another major report on transportation issues -- the recent Transportation for Tomorrow report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released on January 15, 2008. That report was prepared by the specially convened Commission, under Section 1909 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Report includes detailed recommendations for creating and sustaining a pre-eminent surface transportation system in the United States [See WIMS 1/31/08]. GAO testified at a hearing on the report saying the nation has reached a critical juncture with its current surface transportation policies and programs. Demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, resulting in increased congestion. In addition, without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund -- the major source of federal highway and transit funding -- is projected to incur significant deficits in the years ahead [See WIMS 2/6/08].
The NRC report was a collaborative effort between the Transportation Research Board and the Division on Earth and Life Studies of NRC. The sponsors of the report are the Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Cooperative Research Program, U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Access a release (click here). Access a report summary (click here). Access the complete 234-page report (click here). Access various Commissioned Papers for the NRC report (click here). [*Transport, *Climate]
The U.S. transportation system was designed and built for local weather and climate conditions, predicated on historical temperature and precipitation data. The report finds that climate predictions used by transportation planners and engineers may no longer be reliable, however, in the face of new weather and climate extremes. Infrastructure pushed beyond the range for which it was designed can become stressed and fail, as seen with loss of the U.S. 90 Bridge in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Henry Schwartz Jr., past president and chairman of Sverdrup/Jacobs Civil Inc., and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "The time has come for transportation professionals to acknowledge and confront the challenges posed by climate change, and to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge into the planning of transportation systems. It is now possible to project climate changes for large subcontinental regions, such as the Eastern United States, a scale better suited for considering regional and local transportation infrastructure."
The committee identified five climate changes of particular importance to U.S. transportation; 1) increases in very hot days and heat waves; 2) increases in Arctic temperatures; 3) rising sea levels; 4) increases in intense precipitation events; and 5) increases in hurricane intensity. In addition to climate changes, there are a number of contributing factors that will likely lead to vulnerabilities in coastal-area transportation systems. Population is projected to grow in coastal areas, which will boost demand for transportation infrastructure and increase the number of people and businesses potentially in harm's way; erosion and loss of wetlands have removed crucial buffer zones that once protected infrastructure; and an estimated 60,000 miles of coastal highways are already exposed to periodic storm flooding.
Schwartz said, "Rising temperatures may trigger weather extremes and surprises, such as more rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice than projected. The highways that currently serve as evacuation routes and endure periodic flooding could be compromised with strong hurricanes and more intense precipitation, making some of these routes impassable." Transportation providers will need to focus on evacuation planning and work more closely with weather forecasters and emergency planners.
Infrastructure vulnerabilities will extend beyond coastal areas as the climate continues to change. In the Midwest, for instance, increased intense precipitation could augment the severity of flooding, as occurred in 1993 when farmland, towns, and transportation routes were severely damaged from flooding along 500 miles of the Mississippi and Missouri river systems. On the other hand, drier conditions are likely to prevail in the watersheds supplying the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes as well as the Upper Midwest river system. Lower water levels would reduce vessel shipping capacity, seriously impairing freight movements in the region, such as occurred during the drought of 1988, which stranded barge traffic on the Mississippi River. And in California, heat waves may increase wildfires that can destroy transportation infrastructure.
Not all climate changes will be negative, however. Marine transportation could benefit from more open seas in the Arctic, creating new and shorter shipping routes and reducing transport time and costs. In cold regions, rising temperatures could reduce the costs of snow and ice control and would make travel conditions safer for passenger vehicles and freight.
Preparing for projected climate changes will be costly. Transportation decision makers continually make short- and long-term investment decisions that affect how the infrastructure will respond to climate change. Response measures range from rehabilitating and retrofitting infrastructure to making major additions to constructing entirely new infrastructure. The committee noted the need for "a more strategic, risk-based approach to investment decisions that trades off the costs of making the infrastructure more robust against the economic costs of failure." In the future, climate changes in some areas may necessitate permanent alterations. For example, roads, rail lines, and airport runways in low-lying coastal areas may become casualties of sea-level rise, requiring relocations or expensive protective measures, such as sea walls and levees.
The report calls for the federal government to have a strong role in implementing many of its recommendations that require broad-based action or regulation, such as the creation of a clearinghouse for information on transportation and climate change; the establishment of a research program to re-evaluate existing design standards and develop new standards for addressing climate change; creation of an interagency working group on adaptation; changes in federal regulations regarding long-range planning guidelines and infrastructure rehabilitation requirements; and re-evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program and updating flood insurance rate maps with climate change in mind.
The NRC report follows another major report on transportation issues -- the recent Transportation for Tomorrow report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released on January 15, 2008. That report was prepared by the specially convened Commission, under Section 1909 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Report includes detailed recommendations for creating and sustaining a pre-eminent surface transportation system in the United States [See WIMS 1/31/08]. GAO testified at a hearing on the report saying the nation has reached a critical juncture with its current surface transportation policies and programs. Demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, resulting in increased congestion. In addition, without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund -- the major source of federal highway and transit funding -- is projected to incur significant deficits in the years ahead [See WIMS 2/6/08].
The NRC report was a collaborative effort between the Transportation Research Board and the Division on Earth and Life Studies of NRC. The sponsors of the report are the Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Cooperative Research Program, U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Access a release (click here). Access a report summary (click here). Access the complete 234-page report (click here). Access various Commissioned Papers for the NRC report (click here). [*Transport, *Climate]
Monday, March 10, 2008
Groups Sue Administration To Force Polar Bear Protection
Mar 10: As previously promised [See WIMS 1/8/08], the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace sued the Bush administration for missing the legal deadline to issue a final decision on whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act due to global warming. Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project at NRDC said, “The Endangered Species Act is absolutely unambiguous: the Fish and Wildlife Service was required to make a final decision months ago. Now it’s up to a federal court to throw this incredible animal a lifeline. We need urgent action from this administration, to protect the polar bear and reduce greenhouse gas pollution, not continued delay.” The groups filed their lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks a court order compelling the administration to issue the final decision on polar bear protection immediately.
According to an NRDC release, polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice for all of their essential needs. The rapid warming of the Arctic and melting of the sea ice pose an overwhelming threat to the polar bear, which could become the first mammal to lose 100 percent of its habitat to global warming. Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, and lead author of the 2005 petition seeking the Endangered Species Act listing said, “The Bush administration seems intent on slamming shut the narrow window of opportunity we have to save polar bears,” said We simply will not sit back and passively allow the administration to condemn polar bears to extinction.”
The Endangered Species Act listing process for the polar bear due to global warming was initiated with a scientific petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, and Greenpeace. In December, 2005, these groups sued the Bush administration for failing to respond to the petition. As a result of that first lawsuit, in February 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that protection of polar bears "may be warranted," and commenced a full status review of the species. A settlement agreement in that case committed the Service to make the second of three required findings in the listing process by December 27, 2007, at which time the Service announced the proposal to list the species as “threatened.” By law, the Service was required to make a final listing decision within one year of the proposal. The decision is now more than 2 months overdue.
The groups note that the Federal government initiated lease sales to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea earlier this month [See WIMS 2/7/08]. Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace USA said, “Our lawsuit has forced the Bush administration’s hand on the issue of global warming like no other, even as it rubberstamps drilling rights for Big Oil in pristine polar bear habitat. If the federal government is really serious about protecting the polar bear, then its next steps will be to cancel lease sales in the Chukchi Sea and immediately implement a plan for deep cuts in U.S. global warming pollution.”
Since the petition to protect polar bears under the Endangered Species Act was first filed in February 2005, new science paints a dim picture of the polar bear’s future. In September [See WIMS 9/7/07], the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that two-thirds of the world’s polar bear population would likely be extinct by 2050, including all polar bears within the United States. Several leading scientists now predict the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012. September 2007 shattered all previous records for sea ice loss when the Arctic ice cap shrank to a record one million square miles -- an equivalent of six times the size of California -- below the average summer sea-ice extent of the past several decades, reaching levels not predicted to occur until mid-century.
Shrinking sea ice also drastically restricts polar bears’ ability to hunt their main prey, ice seals. In the spring of 2006, scientists located the bodies of several bears that had starved to death. Unprecedented instances of polar bear cannibalism have also been documented along the north coast of Alaska and Canada. Listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act guarantees federal agencies will be obligated to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the polar bears’ continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for its protection.
To date, the groups say the government has received approximately 670,000 comments in support of protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, including letters from eminent polar bear experts, climate scientists, and more than 60 members of Congress. There have also been House and Senate hearings on the issue (see links below).
Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access extensive information on the Polar Bear listing from CBD (click here). Access a 1/7/08 release from FWS (click here). Access the FWS Polar Bear website for additional information (click here). Access links to the USGS reports and an executive summary on polar bears (click here). Access the 1/17/08 Markey hearing website with links to all testimony, videos of testimony, opening statement, detailed map and a release on the Markey legislation (click here). Access the 1/30/08 Senate EPW hearing website for links to all testimony and opening statements (click here). Access a 2/6/08 release from Minerals Management Service (MMS) on the Chukchi Sea sale with links to additional information (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 5058 (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate]
According to an NRDC release, polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice for all of their essential needs. The rapid warming of the Arctic and melting of the sea ice pose an overwhelming threat to the polar bear, which could become the first mammal to lose 100 percent of its habitat to global warming. Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, and lead author of the 2005 petition seeking the Endangered Species Act listing said, “The Bush administration seems intent on slamming shut the narrow window of opportunity we have to save polar bears,” said We simply will not sit back and passively allow the administration to condemn polar bears to extinction.”
The Endangered Species Act listing process for the polar bear due to global warming was initiated with a scientific petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, and Greenpeace. In December, 2005, these groups sued the Bush administration for failing to respond to the petition. As a result of that first lawsuit, in February 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that protection of polar bears "may be warranted," and commenced a full status review of the species. A settlement agreement in that case committed the Service to make the second of three required findings in the listing process by December 27, 2007, at which time the Service announced the proposal to list the species as “threatened.” By law, the Service was required to make a final listing decision within one year of the proposal. The decision is now more than 2 months overdue.
The groups note that the Federal government initiated lease sales to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea earlier this month [See WIMS 2/7/08]. Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace USA said, “Our lawsuit has forced the Bush administration’s hand on the issue of global warming like no other, even as it rubberstamps drilling rights for Big Oil in pristine polar bear habitat. If the federal government is really serious about protecting the polar bear, then its next steps will be to cancel lease sales in the Chukchi Sea and immediately implement a plan for deep cuts in U.S. global warming pollution.”
Since the petition to protect polar bears under the Endangered Species Act was first filed in February 2005, new science paints a dim picture of the polar bear’s future. In September [See WIMS 9/7/07], the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that two-thirds of the world’s polar bear population would likely be extinct by 2050, including all polar bears within the United States. Several leading scientists now predict the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012. September 2007 shattered all previous records for sea ice loss when the Arctic ice cap shrank to a record one million square miles -- an equivalent of six times the size of California -- below the average summer sea-ice extent of the past several decades, reaching levels not predicted to occur until mid-century.
Shrinking sea ice also drastically restricts polar bears’ ability to hunt their main prey, ice seals. In the spring of 2006, scientists located the bodies of several bears that had starved to death. Unprecedented instances of polar bear cannibalism have also been documented along the north coast of Alaska and Canada. Listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act guarantees federal agencies will be obligated to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the polar bears’ continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for its protection.
To date, the groups say the government has received approximately 670,000 comments in support of protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, including letters from eminent polar bear experts, climate scientists, and more than 60 members of Congress. There have also been House and Senate hearings on the issue (see links below).
Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access extensive information on the Polar Bear listing from CBD (click here). Access a 1/7/08 release from FWS (click here). Access the FWS Polar Bear website for additional information (click here). Access links to the USGS reports and an executive summary on polar bears (click here). Access the 1/17/08 Markey hearing website with links to all testimony, videos of testimony, opening statement, detailed map and a release on the Markey legislation (click here). Access the 1/30/08 Senate EPW hearing website for links to all testimony and opening statements (click here). Access a 2/6/08 release from Minerals Management Service (MMS) on the Chukchi Sea sale with links to additional information (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 5058 (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate]
Friday, March 07, 2008
DOE Denies Petitions For Rehearing National Corridors Designations
Mar 6: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) denied requests for rehearing of the Mid-Atlantic and the Southwest Area National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (National Corridors) designated by DOE in October 2007 [See WIMS 10/3/07] as areas of significant electricity congestion and constraint. The designation of national corridors was made in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and began with the release of the National Electric Transmission Congestion Study on August 8, 2006 [See WIMS 8/9/06].
In affirming the National Corridor designations, DOE dismissed as being without merit challenges raised by the applicants for rehearing, citing extensive data analysis conducted in its 2006 National Interest Electric Transmission study, ample opportunity for public review and comment, and several other key reasons. As a result of its denial, DOE said the National Corridor designations were effective October 5,2007, and will remain in effect until October 7,2019, unless the Department rescinds or renews the designations after notice and opportunity for comment.
DOE indicates that numerous parties in each of the designated corridors filed timely applications for rehearing of the Agencies designation Report and Order. Some parties also requested that the National Corridor designations be stayed. On January 10, eleven regional and national environmental organizations announced plans to file suit against the Department of Energy (DOE) over its final designation of the Mid-Atlantic National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor [See WIMS 1/10/08]. On the same day, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed suit in Federal court in the central district of California to challenge DOE's designation of the Southwest National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor [See WIMS 1/14/08]. The Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor includes some or all counties in: DE, OH, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV, and DC; and the Southwest Area National Corridor includes: seven counties in Southern California and three counties in western Arizona.
DOE said it reviewed the specific issues raised by applicants for rehearing and cited reasons for denying the requests in an Order sent to the Federal Register which should be published soon. DOE noted that the findings of congestion in the designated areas are well-founded and based on data and studies as required by statute, and were based on analysis demonstrating that persistent transmission congestion that adversely affects consumers exists in these two areas. DOE also highlighted that its approach to defining the geographic boundaries of the affected areas is consistent with the statutory requirements. The corridor designation process provided all interested parties with fair and ample opportunities to provide input and comments, including a 60-day public comment period and over 60 hours of public meetings across the country. Additionally, after issuing the draft National Corridors in April 2007, DOE consulted extensively with State officials and local agencies, regional entities, and the public.
In addition, DOE said while it encourages diversification of our nation’s energy sources, DOE is not required by statute to analyze non-transmission alternatives for relief of congestion prior to issuing a National Corridor designation. Lastly, DOE said, "Federal statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act are not applicable to DOE's designation of national corridors. Rather, reviews under these statutes would be conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before Federal approval could be granted under the Federal Power Act for the construction of a transmission project."
Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the 48-page prepublication denial Order to be published in the FR (click here). Access DOE documents related to the designations (click here). Access the DOE National Corridor website for extensive information (click here). Access a 1/10/08 release from National Wildlife Federation with links to additional information including the complaint filed by the groups (click here). Access a 1/10/08 release from CBD and link to the suit filed (click here). [*Energy]
In affirming the National Corridor designations, DOE dismissed as being without merit challenges raised by the applicants for rehearing, citing extensive data analysis conducted in its 2006 National Interest Electric Transmission study, ample opportunity for public review and comment, and several other key reasons. As a result of its denial, DOE said the National Corridor designations were effective October 5,2007, and will remain in effect until October 7,2019, unless the Department rescinds or renews the designations after notice and opportunity for comment.
DOE indicates that numerous parties in each of the designated corridors filed timely applications for rehearing of the Agencies designation Report and Order. Some parties also requested that the National Corridor designations be stayed. On January 10, eleven regional and national environmental organizations announced plans to file suit against the Department of Energy (DOE) over its final designation of the Mid-Atlantic National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor [See WIMS 1/10/08]. On the same day, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed suit in Federal court in the central district of California to challenge DOE's designation of the Southwest National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor [See WIMS 1/14/08]. The Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor includes some or all counties in: DE, OH, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV, and DC; and the Southwest Area National Corridor includes: seven counties in Southern California and three counties in western Arizona.
DOE said it reviewed the specific issues raised by applicants for rehearing and cited reasons for denying the requests in an Order sent to the Federal Register which should be published soon. DOE noted that the findings of congestion in the designated areas are well-founded and based on data and studies as required by statute, and were based on analysis demonstrating that persistent transmission congestion that adversely affects consumers exists in these two areas. DOE also highlighted that its approach to defining the geographic boundaries of the affected areas is consistent with the statutory requirements. The corridor designation process provided all interested parties with fair and ample opportunities to provide input and comments, including a 60-day public comment period and over 60 hours of public meetings across the country. Additionally, after issuing the draft National Corridors in April 2007, DOE consulted extensively with State officials and local agencies, regional entities, and the public.
In addition, DOE said while it encourages diversification of our nation’s energy sources, DOE is not required by statute to analyze non-transmission alternatives for relief of congestion prior to issuing a National Corridor designation. Lastly, DOE said, "Federal statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act are not applicable to DOE's designation of national corridors. Rather, reviews under these statutes would be conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before Federal approval could be granted under the Federal Power Act for the construction of a transmission project."
Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the 48-page prepublication denial Order to be published in the FR (click here). Access DOE documents related to the designations (click here). Access the DOE National Corridor website for extensive information (click here). Access a 1/10/08 release from National Wildlife Federation with links to additional information including the complaint filed by the groups (click here). Access a 1/10/08 release from CBD and link to the suit filed (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Groups Say EPA Commits To Mercury Regs For Cement Kilns
Mar 5: According to a release from Earthjustice, the citizens group Desert Citizens Against Pollution, and Sierra Club, U.S. EPA announced in a recent court document its plans to regulate mercury pollution from over 100 cement kilns across the country by September 2009. The groups said the announcement marks a dramatic shift in EPA policy which, until now, had been to resist requiring mercury controls for cement kilns.
The release indicates that three times in the last ten years, Federal courts have ordered EPA to set emission standards to control cement kilns’ mercury emissions. Until now, EPA has ignored these orders or sought to evade them. EPA finally indicated that it would set mercury emission standards in papers filed on February 20, 2008 in a fourth case brought by Sierra Club, Downwinders at Risk (TX), Friends of Hudson (NY), Montanans Against Toxic Burning, Desert Citizens Against Pollution (CA) and the Huron Environmental Activist League (MI), and the States of New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The groups indicate that cement kilns pumped nearly 12,000 pounds of mercury into the air in 2006, according to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). However, they say TRI depends on voluntary emissions estimates that may significantly understate kilns’ actual pollution levels. Individual cement kilns in New York, Michigan and Oregon routinely understated their emissions until being required by State officials to conduct emissions tests -- at which point it became evident that their actual emissions were approximately ten times higher than previously reported. The Lafarge kiln in Ravena, New York previously reported mercury emissions of only 40 pounds. It now acknowledges emitting more than 400 pounds per year.
Bill Freese, Director of the Huron Environmental Activist League said, “Michigan is the home of the largest cement plant in North America. It is the Lafarge cement plant here in Alpena, which is also the largest emitter of mercury in the state. It became number one when the power plant in S.E. Michigan, emitting the most, installed stack scrubbers and pollution control equipment which reduced their emissions by 70%. Lafarge could have reduced their mercury emissions by 50% by discontinuing the use of the mercury laden Canadian fly ash. . .”
Marti Sinclair, Sierra Club’s National Air Committee Chair said, “It is a good thing Americans can hold their government accountable for breaking the law. The cement industry [has] far too much clout at EPA. If the Courts hadn’t put a stop to its scofflaw behavior, the agency would never have made this industry clean up.”
The groups released the Respondents Motion To Govern in the case of Portland Cement Association v. EPA, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1046, consolidated with 07-1048, 07-1049, 07-1052; and a Declaration of Peter Tsirigotis, the Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division of EPA, within EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which develops virtually all standards implementing section 112 (d) (MACT of the Clean Air Act.
According to the Motion, " EPA anticipates that it will take until mid-September 2008, to analyze the data, determine floor levels for emission limitations, determine whether to proposed more stringent, beyond-the-floor emission limitations, and issue a proposed rule for public comment.
"After a proposed rule is issued, EPA estimates it will need nine to twelve additional months to receive and analyze comments and promulgate a final rule, although more time may be required depending upon the number and content of the comments it receives. . ."
Access the release (click here). Access the Motion and Declaration (click here). Access additional information on Cement Kiln rules from Earthjustice (click here). [*Toxics, *Air]
The release indicates that three times in the last ten years, Federal courts have ordered EPA to set emission standards to control cement kilns’ mercury emissions. Until now, EPA has ignored these orders or sought to evade them. EPA finally indicated that it would set mercury emission standards in papers filed on February 20, 2008 in a fourth case brought by Sierra Club, Downwinders at Risk (TX), Friends of Hudson (NY), Montanans Against Toxic Burning, Desert Citizens Against Pollution (CA) and the Huron Environmental Activist League (MI), and the States of New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The groups indicate that cement kilns pumped nearly 12,000 pounds of mercury into the air in 2006, according to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). However, they say TRI depends on voluntary emissions estimates that may significantly understate kilns’ actual pollution levels. Individual cement kilns in New York, Michigan and Oregon routinely understated their emissions until being required by State officials to conduct emissions tests -- at which point it became evident that their actual emissions were approximately ten times higher than previously reported. The Lafarge kiln in Ravena, New York previously reported mercury emissions of only 40 pounds. It now acknowledges emitting more than 400 pounds per year.
Bill Freese, Director of the Huron Environmental Activist League said, “Michigan is the home of the largest cement plant in North America. It is the Lafarge cement plant here in Alpena, which is also the largest emitter of mercury in the state. It became number one when the power plant in S.E. Michigan, emitting the most, installed stack scrubbers and pollution control equipment which reduced their emissions by 70%. Lafarge could have reduced their mercury emissions by 50% by discontinuing the use of the mercury laden Canadian fly ash. . .”
Marti Sinclair, Sierra Club’s National Air Committee Chair said, “It is a good thing Americans can hold their government accountable for breaking the law. The cement industry [has] far too much clout at EPA. If the Courts hadn’t put a stop to its scofflaw behavior, the agency would never have made this industry clean up.”
The groups released the Respondents Motion To Govern in the case of Portland Cement Association v. EPA, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1046, consolidated with 07-1048, 07-1049, 07-1052; and a Declaration of Peter Tsirigotis, the Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division of EPA, within EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which develops virtually all standards implementing section 112 (d) (MACT of the Clean Air Act.
According to the Motion, " EPA anticipates that it will take until mid-September 2008, to analyze the data, determine floor levels for emission limitations, determine whether to proposed more stringent, beyond-the-floor emission limitations, and issue a proposed rule for public comment.
"After a proposed rule is issued, EPA estimates it will need nine to twelve additional months to receive and analyze comments and promulgate a final rule, although more time may be required depending upon the number and content of the comments it receives. . ."
Access the release (click here). Access the Motion and Declaration (click here). Access additional information on Cement Kiln rules from Earthjustice (click here). [*Toxics, *Air]
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Diverse Coalition Calls For Senate Action On Energy Tax Credits
Mar 4: A release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) highlights the actions of a coalition of more than 100 business, trade and advocacy groups that have called on the U.S. Senate to pass bipartisan legislation as soon as possible that extends renewable energy and efficiency tax credits that have already expired or will expire at the end of this year. They say the tax incentives would strengthen the renewable energy industry and expand the market for energy-efficient products, which ultimately would reduce residential and commercial energy costs, generate new domestic jobs, and boost a flagging economy, according to the coalition. Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association said, "Renewable energy sources like solar and wind are a proven economic engine for our country. They've created tens of thousands of green collar jobs and billions of dollars in investment. Congress and the administration should seize this opportunity to support this high-growth sector."
The business-consumer coalition includes 47 manufacturers, including Dow Chemical, DuPont, Owens Corning and Whirlpool; eight retailers, including Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe's and Wal-Mart; 23 trade associations, including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the National Association of Homebuilders and the National Small Business Association; 25 advocacy groups, including Environment America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists; and 10 utilities, including Constellation Energy, Exelon and Florida Power & Light.
Historically, Congress has extended clean energy tax incentives in only two-year increments, creating a boom-bust cycle that impedes industry development. The groups said the ideal Senate tax incentive package would extend incentives for wind, solar and biomass for a number of years to provide the stability financial investors need to back new projects. In addition to extending tax credits for renewable energy sources, the coalition urges the Senate to extend tax incentives for constructing energy-efficient buildings, investing in solar electric systems, installing efficient home heating and cooling equipment, manufacturing efficient home appliances, and retrofitting existing homes to save energy.
On February 27, the U.S. House passed by a vote of 236 - 182, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax of 2008 (H.R. 5351) [See WIMS 2/28/08]. The bill, sponsored by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), contains revenue provisions that are expected to raise approximately $18 billion over 10 years. Among those opposing the bill are the American Petroleum Institute (API), the White House and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
The major revenue portions of the bill include: (1) Denial of "section 199 benefits" for certain major integrated oil companies (freeze current law section 199 benefits at 6% for oil and natural gas production income of other taxpayers). Otherwise, section 199 benefits would increase to 9% by 2010. Freezing the rate at 6% would save 13.57 billion over 10 years. (2) Clarification of foreign oil and gas extraction income. The tax code limits the ability of oil and gas companies to claim foreign tax credits with respect to foreign oil and gas extraction income. The bill would require oil and gas companies to use the ascertainable independent market values at the nearest point to the well for which an independent market exists in calculating their foreign oil and gas extraction income (FOGEI) and foreign oil related income (FORI). The bill would also require that where a foreign country collects foreign taxes that are limited in their application to taxpayers engaged in oil or gas activities that oil and gas companies treat these taxes as oil and gas extraction taxes subject to the FOGEI limitation. The proposal is estimated to raise $4.08 billion over ten years.
Access a release from UCS including a list of all coalition members (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 5351 (click here). Access a fact sheet on H.R. 5351 (click here). [*Energy]
The business-consumer coalition includes 47 manufacturers, including Dow Chemical, DuPont, Owens Corning and Whirlpool; eight retailers, including Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe's and Wal-Mart; 23 trade associations, including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the National Association of Homebuilders and the National Small Business Association; 25 advocacy groups, including Environment America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists; and 10 utilities, including Constellation Energy, Exelon and Florida Power & Light.
Historically, Congress has extended clean energy tax incentives in only two-year increments, creating a boom-bust cycle that impedes industry development. The groups said the ideal Senate tax incentive package would extend incentives for wind, solar and biomass for a number of years to provide the stability financial investors need to back new projects. In addition to extending tax credits for renewable energy sources, the coalition urges the Senate to extend tax incentives for constructing energy-efficient buildings, investing in solar electric systems, installing efficient home heating and cooling equipment, manufacturing efficient home appliances, and retrofitting existing homes to save energy.
On February 27, the U.S. House passed by a vote of 236 - 182, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax of 2008 (H.R. 5351) [See WIMS 2/28/08]. The bill, sponsored by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), contains revenue provisions that are expected to raise approximately $18 billion over 10 years. Among those opposing the bill are the American Petroleum Institute (API), the White House and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
The major revenue portions of the bill include: (1) Denial of "section 199 benefits" for certain major integrated oil companies (freeze current law section 199 benefits at 6% for oil and natural gas production income of other taxpayers). Otherwise, section 199 benefits would increase to 9% by 2010. Freezing the rate at 6% would save 13.57 billion over 10 years. (2) Clarification of foreign oil and gas extraction income. The tax code limits the ability of oil and gas companies to claim foreign tax credits with respect to foreign oil and gas extraction income. The bill would require oil and gas companies to use the ascertainable independent market values at the nearest point to the well for which an independent market exists in calculating their foreign oil and gas extraction income (FOGEI) and foreign oil related income (FORI). The bill would also require that where a foreign country collects foreign taxes that are limited in their application to taxpayers engaged in oil or gas activities that oil and gas companies treat these taxes as oil and gas extraction taxes subject to the FOGEI limitation. The proposal is estimated to raise $4.08 billion over ten years.
Access a release from UCS including a list of all coalition members (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 5351 (click here). Access a fact sheet on H.R. 5351 (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Pew Commission Questions EPA On CAFO Air Release Exemption
Feb 29: A release from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) indicates that as the U.S. EPA considers lifting a requirement that industrial farming facilities report their toxic gas emissions, the Commission's panel of experts told Congress that the vast amounts of animal waste and byproducts from such facilities pose significant risks to human health and the environment, requiring greater -- not lesser -- scrutiny. Members of the PCIFAP said the traditional methods used to dispose of animal waste are often insufficient to deal with the amount of waste generated by the high-volume industrial facilities that today produce food products for much of the nation. The waste run-off from these facilities can contaminate groundwater and drinking water supplies, and the toxic gas emissions can be harmful -- and even fatal -- to farm workers and surrounding communities.
PCIFAP says that as the production of meat, poultry, milk and eggs has become more concentrated, so too have the by-products of that production. Industrial food animal production (IFAP) facilities [a.k.a. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs] often house thousands to tens of thousands of animals in confined areas, producing large quantities of concentrated fecal matter and other wastes. The hundreds of thousands of gallons of manure from dairy cows and pigs are often stored in liquid form and held in large tanks or outdoor lagoons, until it can be sprayed or spread onto nearby fields, or pumped into the ground. PCIFAP said, "If left to the age-old methods of disposal, these extremely concentrated wastes can quickly overwhelm the ecosystem’s ability to deal with them, resulting in severe environmental degradation."
Conditions and waste management methods common to IFAP facilities can also produce emissions of harmful gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. PCIFAP indicated that, "Many of these compounds are known to be toxic to the nervous system in sufficient concentration, and can cause respiratory symptoms, disease and impaired function. . ." Moreover, the Commissioners explained, animal wastes are known to be a primary source of “zoonotic” pathogens -- disease-carrying microbes that pass between humans and animals -- that can lead to disease outbreaks. They said monitoring is a basic component of strategies to protect the public from harmful effects resulting from contamination or disease, yet "monitoring systems in IFAP are inadequate -- a situation that makes mandatory reporting of toxic emissions even more important."
On February 26, 2008, in a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the Pew Commission expressed their concerns about the Agency's proposal to lift reporting requirements on industrial farms. Commission Chairman John Carlin said, “Clearly we must balance the imperative of human and environmental health with an ever-growing consumer demand for safe, abundant animal-based food products. Through improved practices we can achieve both ends, but this means at a minimum not weakening the existing means of monitoring harmful emissions from IFAP operations.”
In its letter, the PCIFAP wrote, "The Pew Commission was under the impression that the recently formed Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee was going to be investigating issues such air pollution from agriculture and then make recommendations to the EPA about how to approach these important issues that directly affect public health. . . Given the opposition that the publication of this rule has generated, it seems there should have been, and should be, consultation with stakeholders and the Advisory Committee before decisions like this are made. A preemptive proposed rule on exempting large animal feeding operations from reporting ammonia or hydrogen sulfide releases without consulting your own advisory commission questions EPA’s commitment to making that advisory commission more than 'window dressing'."
On Feb 20, 2008, the EPA Administrator announced the appointment of 30 citizens to serve on a newly-formed Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) [See WIMS 2/20/08]. EPA said it EPA would ask the committee to focus on three issues: (1) How EPA's policies and regulations on climate change and renewable energy will affect the agriculture community. (2) An environmental strategy for managing waste from livestock operations that considers regulatory and voluntary approaches, and provides tools for producers to attain superior environmental performance. (3) Development of a constructive approach to advancing sustainable agriculture, protecting the environment, and addressing communication between environmental and agricultural interests. The first meeting of the committee is scheduled for March 13 and 14, 2008 at The Madison Hotel in Washington, DC.
The Pew Commission was convened in 2005 to study the impacts of dramatic changes in animal agriculture in America over the past 40 years. It is funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The decline of the family farm and the concentration of the industry into a relative few large corporations has meant greater efficiency and lowered costs for producers. But this shift has also brought environmental, public health, and socioeconomic problems, such as the threats posed by poorly managed farm waste.
PCIFAP has scheduled an April 29, 2008, release of a set of recommendations to address the risks and challenges of managing IFAP facilities. The PCIFAP’s two-year study encompassed site visits to production facilities across the country, consultation with industry stakeholders, public health, medical, and agriculture experts, public meetings, and peer-reviewed technical reports.
On December 28, 2007, EPA proposed a CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste in the Federal Register [72 FR 73700-73708]. Specifically, the proposed administrative reporting exemption applies to releases of hazardous substances to the air where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste at farms. EPA said, "This administrative reporting exemption is protective of human health and the environment and consistent with the Agency's goal to reduce reporting burden where there would likely be no Federal, state or local emergency response to such release reports. Eliminating such reporting will allow emergency response officials to better focus on releases where the Agency is more likely to take a response action." The comment deadline on the EPA proposed rule is March 27, 2008.
Access a release and the letter from the PCIFAP (click here). Access the PCIFAP website for extensive information (click here). Access the docket for the EPA rulemaking which includes the proposed rule, background information, comments received to date, and commenting instructions (click here). Access the FRRCC website for additional information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort CAFO links for additional information (click here). [*Air, *Agriculture]
PCIFAP says that as the production of meat, poultry, milk and eggs has become more concentrated, so too have the by-products of that production. Industrial food animal production (IFAP) facilities [a.k.a. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs] often house thousands to tens of thousands of animals in confined areas, producing large quantities of concentrated fecal matter and other wastes. The hundreds of thousands of gallons of manure from dairy cows and pigs are often stored in liquid form and held in large tanks or outdoor lagoons, until it can be sprayed or spread onto nearby fields, or pumped into the ground. PCIFAP said, "If left to the age-old methods of disposal, these extremely concentrated wastes can quickly overwhelm the ecosystem’s ability to deal with them, resulting in severe environmental degradation."
Conditions and waste management methods common to IFAP facilities can also produce emissions of harmful gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. PCIFAP indicated that, "Many of these compounds are known to be toxic to the nervous system in sufficient concentration, and can cause respiratory symptoms, disease and impaired function. . ." Moreover, the Commissioners explained, animal wastes are known to be a primary source of “zoonotic” pathogens -- disease-carrying microbes that pass between humans and animals -- that can lead to disease outbreaks. They said monitoring is a basic component of strategies to protect the public from harmful effects resulting from contamination or disease, yet "monitoring systems in IFAP are inadequate -- a situation that makes mandatory reporting of toxic emissions even more important."
On February 26, 2008, in a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the Pew Commission expressed their concerns about the Agency's proposal to lift reporting requirements on industrial farms. Commission Chairman John Carlin said, “Clearly we must balance the imperative of human and environmental health with an ever-growing consumer demand for safe, abundant animal-based food products. Through improved practices we can achieve both ends, but this means at a minimum not weakening the existing means of monitoring harmful emissions from IFAP operations.”
In its letter, the PCIFAP wrote, "The Pew Commission was under the impression that the recently formed Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee was going to be investigating issues such air pollution from agriculture and then make recommendations to the EPA about how to approach these important issues that directly affect public health. . . Given the opposition that the publication of this rule has generated, it seems there should have been, and should be, consultation with stakeholders and the Advisory Committee before decisions like this are made. A preemptive proposed rule on exempting large animal feeding operations from reporting ammonia or hydrogen sulfide releases without consulting your own advisory commission questions EPA’s commitment to making that advisory commission more than 'window dressing'."
On Feb 20, 2008, the EPA Administrator announced the appointment of 30 citizens to serve on a newly-formed Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) [See WIMS 2/20/08]. EPA said it EPA would ask the committee to focus on three issues: (1) How EPA's policies and regulations on climate change and renewable energy will affect the agriculture community. (2) An environmental strategy for managing waste from livestock operations that considers regulatory and voluntary approaches, and provides tools for producers to attain superior environmental performance. (3) Development of a constructive approach to advancing sustainable agriculture, protecting the environment, and addressing communication between environmental and agricultural interests. The first meeting of the committee is scheduled for March 13 and 14, 2008 at The Madison Hotel in Washington, DC.
The Pew Commission was convened in 2005 to study the impacts of dramatic changes in animal agriculture in America over the past 40 years. It is funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The decline of the family farm and the concentration of the industry into a relative few large corporations has meant greater efficiency and lowered costs for producers. But this shift has also brought environmental, public health, and socioeconomic problems, such as the threats posed by poorly managed farm waste.
PCIFAP has scheduled an April 29, 2008, release of a set of recommendations to address the risks and challenges of managing IFAP facilities. The PCIFAP’s two-year study encompassed site visits to production facilities across the country, consultation with industry stakeholders, public health, medical, and agriculture experts, public meetings, and peer-reviewed technical reports.
On December 28, 2007, EPA proposed a CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste in the Federal Register [72 FR 73700-73708]. Specifically, the proposed administrative reporting exemption applies to releases of hazardous substances to the air where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste at farms. EPA said, "This administrative reporting exemption is protective of human health and the environment and consistent with the Agency's goal to reduce reporting burden where there would likely be no Federal, state or local emergency response to such release reports. Eliminating such reporting will allow emergency response officials to better focus on releases where the Agency is more likely to take a response action." The comment deadline on the EPA proposed rule is March 27, 2008.
Access a release and the letter from the PCIFAP (click here). Access the PCIFAP website for extensive information (click here). Access the docket for the EPA rulemaking which includes the proposed rule, background information, comments received to date, and commenting instructions (click here). Access the FRRCC website for additional information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort CAFO links for additional information (click here). [*Air, *Agriculture]
Monday, March 03, 2008
Renewables 2007 Global Status Report
Feb 27: The renewable energy industry is stepping up its "meteoric rise" into the mainstream of the energy sector, according to the REN21 Renewables 2007 Global Status Report. Renewable energy production capacities are growing rapidly as a result of more countries enacting far-reaching policies. Prepared by the Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) in collaboration with the Worldwatch Institute, the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report paints an encouraging picture of rapidly expanding renewable energy markets, policies, industries, and rural applications around the world.
In 2007, global wind generating capacity is estimated to have increased 28 percent, while grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity rose 52 percent. Mohamed El-Ashry, Chair of REN21 said, “So much has happened in the renewable energy sector during the past five years that the perceptions of some politicians and energy-sector analysts lag far behind the reality of where the renewables industry is today."
Renowned researcher Dr. Eric Martinot led an international team of 140 researchers and contributors from both developed and developing countries to produce the report. He says renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower offer countries the means to improve their energy security and spur economic development. Citing the report, Martinot says the renewable energy sector now accounts for 2.4 million jobs globally, and has doubled electric generating capacity since 2004, to 240 gigawatts. According to the report in 2007, more than $100 billion was invested in new renewable energy capacity, manufacturing plants, and research and development -- a true global milestone.
More than 65 countries now have national goals for accelerating the use of renewable energy and are enacting far-reaching policies to meet those goals. Multilateral agencies and private investors alike are integrating renewable energy into their mainstream portfolios, capturing the interest of the largest global companies. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin says the report shows that renewable energy is poised to make a significant contribution to meeting energy needs and reducing the growth in carbon dioxide emissions in the years immediately ahead. He said, “The science is telling us we need to substantially reduce emissions now, but this will only happen with even stronger policies to accelerate the growth of clean energy."
The Renewables 2007 Global Status Report was released ahead of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC), taking place March 4–6 in Washington, DC. WIREC will be the third such international conference following those in Bonn in 2004 and Beijing in 2005.
REN21 is a global policy network that provides a forum for international leadership on renewable energy. Its goal is to bolster policy development for the rapid expansion of renewable energies in developing and industrialized economies. The establishment of the global policy network REN21 was embraced in the Political Declaration of the International Conference for Renewable Energies, renewables 2004, that took place in Bonn, Germany, from 1 to 4 June 2004.
Access a release and links to the complete 54-page report and a slide presentation (click here). Access the REN21 website (click here). Access the WIREC website for extensive information on the conference (click here). [*Energy]
In 2007, global wind generating capacity is estimated to have increased 28 percent, while grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity rose 52 percent. Mohamed El-Ashry, Chair of REN21 said, “So much has happened in the renewable energy sector during the past five years that the perceptions of some politicians and energy-sector analysts lag far behind the reality of where the renewables industry is today."
Renowned researcher Dr. Eric Martinot led an international team of 140 researchers and contributors from both developed and developing countries to produce the report. He says renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower offer countries the means to improve their energy security and spur economic development. Citing the report, Martinot says the renewable energy sector now accounts for 2.4 million jobs globally, and has doubled electric generating capacity since 2004, to 240 gigawatts. According to the report in 2007, more than $100 billion was invested in new renewable energy capacity, manufacturing plants, and research and development -- a true global milestone.
More than 65 countries now have national goals for accelerating the use of renewable energy and are enacting far-reaching policies to meet those goals. Multilateral agencies and private investors alike are integrating renewable energy into their mainstream portfolios, capturing the interest of the largest global companies. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin says the report shows that renewable energy is poised to make a significant contribution to meeting energy needs and reducing the growth in carbon dioxide emissions in the years immediately ahead. He said, “The science is telling us we need to substantially reduce emissions now, but this will only happen with even stronger policies to accelerate the growth of clean energy."
The Renewables 2007 Global Status Report was released ahead of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC), taking place March 4–6 in Washington, DC. WIREC will be the third such international conference following those in Bonn in 2004 and Beijing in 2005.
REN21 is a global policy network that provides a forum for international leadership on renewable energy. Its goal is to bolster policy development for the rapid expansion of renewable energies in developing and industrialized economies. The establishment of the global policy network REN21 was embraced in the Political Declaration of the International Conference for Renewable Energies, renewables 2004, that took place in Bonn, Germany, from 1 to 4 June 2004.
Access a release and links to the complete 54-page report and a slide presentation (click here). Access the REN21 website (click here). Access the WIREC website for extensive information on the conference (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, February 29, 2008
EPA Signs FR Notice & Releases Documents On CA Waiver Denial
Feb 29: U.S. EPA has posted documents on its website explaining its rationale for the Agency's decision to deny California's waiver request for its greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for motor vehicles [See WIMS 1/2/08]. The documents will soon be published in the Federal Register (FR). On January 24, 2008, U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), on his decision to deny the California waiver request [See WIMS 1/23/08]. The waiver would have allowed California and 16 other states to adopt the California-equivalent rules to curb GHG emission from vehicles.
At that time Johnson said he made the decision fully by himself after receiving input from staff, the public and others and reviewing available information. He said he was comfortable with his decision and repeatedly said it was the "right" decision. He said that EPA would complete submitting information to Congress by February 15, 2008, and indicated that he anticipated a full California denial document, explaining the decision, would be published in the Federal Register by the end of February. Until now the only official denial has been a letter to California dated December 19, 2007, setting forth EPA's intent to deny the waiver in favor of a national solution for vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. The documents posted by EPA include an officially signed, 47-page Federal Register Notice Denying a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles.
On January 2, 2008, California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., on behalf of the State of California, filed its lawsuit against U.S. EPA for “wrongfully and illegally” blocking the State's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards. Brown filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to challenge the EPA’s denial of California's request to implement its emissions law -- which requires a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle GHG emissions by 2016. Simultaneously, five nonprofit groups -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club -- also filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA decision. 15 states have also filed a motion to intervene in support of California [See WIMS 1/3/08].
According to the prepublication copy of the signed Federal Register announcement, "Under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ' 7543(b), the Environmental Protection Agency denies the California Air Resources Board’s request for a waiver of the Clean Air Act’s prohibition on adopting and enforcing its greenhouse gas emission standards as they affect 2009 and later model year new motor vehicles. This decision is based on the Administrator’s finding that California does not need its greenhouse gas standards for new motor vehicles to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions."
The notice explains further, "While I [Administrator Stephen Johnson] recognize that global climate change is a serious challenge, I have concluded that section 209(b) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles to address pollution problems that are local or regional. I do not believe section 209(b)(1)(B) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards for emissions from new motor vehicles designed to address global climate change problems; nor, in the alternative, do I believe that the effects of climate change in California are compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country. Based on this finding, pursuant to section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), CARB’s [California Air Resources Board’s] waiver request for its GHG standards for new motor vehicles must be denied. Because my finding regarding section 209(b)(1)(B) must, and is sufficient to, result in a denial of California’s waiver request, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the criteria for denial of a waiver under sections 209(b)(1)(A) and (C) have been met. I therefore will not address these criteria in this decision."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement on EPA's "decision document" released saying, "It is shocking that even though the whole world now knows that the professional staff at EPA strongly urged Mr. Johnson to grant California's waiver, he completely walked away from his advisors, the science, and precedent, and did the bidding of the special interests instead. This decision is especially disappointing and incomprehensible because the Administrator's position will not stand up in court, and the Presidential candidates have all said they will sign the waiver. It will only result in more delay in cleaning up our air and tackling the challenge of global warming." Boxer has been relentless in her pursuit of documents describing how Johnson made his decision. On January 26, she release a number of summary documents obtained and has instructed Johnson to provide all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008 [See WIMS 2/27/08].
Access EPA's website for the posted documents related to the California GHG Waiver (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here). [*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
At that time Johnson said he made the decision fully by himself after receiving input from staff, the public and others and reviewing available information. He said he was comfortable with his decision and repeatedly said it was the "right" decision. He said that EPA would complete submitting information to Congress by February 15, 2008, and indicated that he anticipated a full California denial document, explaining the decision, would be published in the Federal Register by the end of February. Until now the only official denial has been a letter to California dated December 19, 2007, setting forth EPA's intent to deny the waiver in favor of a national solution for vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. The documents posted by EPA include an officially signed, 47-page Federal Register Notice Denying a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles.
On January 2, 2008, California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., on behalf of the State of California, filed its lawsuit against U.S. EPA for “wrongfully and illegally” blocking the State's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards. Brown filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to challenge the EPA’s denial of California's request to implement its emissions law -- which requires a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle GHG emissions by 2016. Simultaneously, five nonprofit groups -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club -- also filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA decision. 15 states have also filed a motion to intervene in support of California [See WIMS 1/3/08].
According to the prepublication copy of the signed Federal Register announcement, "Under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ' 7543(b), the Environmental Protection Agency denies the California Air Resources Board’s request for a waiver of the Clean Air Act’s prohibition on adopting and enforcing its greenhouse gas emission standards as they affect 2009 and later model year new motor vehicles. This decision is based on the Administrator’s finding that California does not need its greenhouse gas standards for new motor vehicles to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions."
The notice explains further, "While I [Administrator Stephen Johnson] recognize that global climate change is a serious challenge, I have concluded that section 209(b) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles to address pollution problems that are local or regional. I do not believe section 209(b)(1)(B) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards for emissions from new motor vehicles designed to address global climate change problems; nor, in the alternative, do I believe that the effects of climate change in California are compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country. Based on this finding, pursuant to section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), CARB’s [California Air Resources Board’s] waiver request for its GHG standards for new motor vehicles must be denied. Because my finding regarding section 209(b)(1)(B) must, and is sufficient to, result in a denial of California’s waiver request, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the criteria for denial of a waiver under sections 209(b)(1)(A) and (C) have been met. I therefore will not address these criteria in this decision."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement on EPA's "decision document" released saying, "It is shocking that even though the whole world now knows that the professional staff at EPA strongly urged Mr. Johnson to grant California's waiver, he completely walked away from his advisors, the science, and precedent, and did the bidding of the special interests instead. This decision is especially disappointing and incomprehensible because the Administrator's position will not stand up in court, and the Presidential candidates have all said they will sign the waiver. It will only result in more delay in cleaning up our air and tackling the challenge of global warming." Boxer has been relentless in her pursuit of documents describing how Johnson made his decision. On January 26, she release a number of summary documents obtained and has instructed Johnson to provide all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008 [See WIMS 2/27/08].
Access EPA's website for the posted documents related to the California GHG Waiver (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here). [*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Ocean Policy Report Card Blames Feds; Praises States
Feb 27: The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative released its annual U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card, praising state and regional initiatives while criticizing the lack of significant progress at the Federal level to commit adequate funding and affect meaningful ocean policy reform. This year’s report card expands to include global threats associated with climate change and highlights the enduring failure of the United States to accede to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, jeopardizing the nation’s ability to benefit from and conserve ocean resources of economic and ecological importance.
While the nation’s overall grade inched up to a C from a C- average in 2006, the report card challenges our nation’s leaders to implement and fund policies that will ensure the longterm health and vitality of our oceans and our coastal communities. Leon Panetta, co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative said, “Because states and regions have done much of the groundwork for ocean and coastal protection on the local level, the building blocks are in place. But they can only go so far without federal collaboration and support. This nation cannot successfully protect the oceans with one hand tied behind our back.”
According to the Report Card, states and regions continue to lead the way, maintaining an A- grade. The report card praises the introduction, passage and implementation of new ocean-related legislation in states such as New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. There has also been substantial regional progress in the Gulf of Mexico and along the West Coast. To realize the full potential of these improvements and ensure their long-term sustainability, the report card states, the federal government must step up its support of these state and regional efforts.
Admiral James D. Watkins, (U.S. Navy, Ret.) co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative ““We have been waiting for five years for federal policymakers to implement the recommendations of these commissions. Time is no longer a luxury. The economic and security concerns alone caused by their failure to act should be enough to warrant great concern and unified action from Congress and the administration.”
(NRDC) issued a statement saying, "Our oceans are in a state of silent collapse and we need our government to act now in order to reverse this trend. The longer we wait to address problems like pollution, habitat degradation and overexploitation, the harder and more expensive it will be to fix them. Millions of Americans depend on the oceans for work, for recreation, and for the food on their plates, which makes this a crucial economic and environmental challenge for our entire nation. We need the federal government to bring order to this lawless frontier through comprehensive measures that will reform the nation’s lack of a cohesive ocean policy. To keep the oceans clean and healthy, we need a National Healthy Oceans Act, such as Oceans-21 legislation (H.R. 21) that is currently pending in Congress. This law would coordinate national efforts to reduce pollution and protect ocean habitats so that beaches are clean, and fish and other ocean animals can thrive."
The Pew Environmental Group issued a statement saying, "Within the next several months, the National Marine Fisheries Service is expected to finally issue two proposed rulemakings that could help end overfishing in the United States. One aims to set catch limits based on best available science, the other attempts to increase public participation in fishery management decisions. These core components of the recently-reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary law that governs our nation's fisheries, need strong backing from the federal government. But, with a C plus for fisheries management reform, down from a B plus last year, the JOCI report card calls into question the administration's commitment to end overfishing."
The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) applauded the Commission and said, "Several NOIA members have been involved in regional ocean governance efforts in the Gulf of Mexico; NOIA’s Board of Directors passed a resolution in support of calls for the United States to accede to the Law of the Sea Convention; and NOIA has worked closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as it develops the Integrated Ocean Observing System. The oceans are a vital economic, energy and environmental resource for the nation, and deserve a well-crafted, coordinated management regime that recognizes all these aspects. By issuing this annual report card, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative has been effective in keeping the attention of policymakers on the scope and interdependence of the challenges facing them.”
Access a release from the Commission (click here). Access the details in the 20-page report card (click here). Access the Ocean Commission website for more information (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access a statement from Pew Environmental Group (click here). Access a statement from NOIA (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 21 (click here). [*Water]
While the nation’s overall grade inched up to a C from a C- average in 2006, the report card challenges our nation’s leaders to implement and fund policies that will ensure the longterm health and vitality of our oceans and our coastal communities. Leon Panetta, co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative said, “Because states and regions have done much of the groundwork for ocean and coastal protection on the local level, the building blocks are in place. But they can only go so far without federal collaboration and support. This nation cannot successfully protect the oceans with one hand tied behind our back.”
According to the Report Card, states and regions continue to lead the way, maintaining an A- grade. The report card praises the introduction, passage and implementation of new ocean-related legislation in states such as New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. There has also been substantial regional progress in the Gulf of Mexico and along the West Coast. To realize the full potential of these improvements and ensure their long-term sustainability, the report card states, the federal government must step up its support of these state and regional efforts.
Admiral James D. Watkins, (U.S. Navy, Ret.) co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative ““We have been waiting for five years for federal policymakers to implement the recommendations of these commissions. Time is no longer a luxury. The economic and security concerns alone caused by their failure to act should be enough to warrant great concern and unified action from Congress and the administration.”
(NRDC) issued a statement saying, "Our oceans are in a state of silent collapse and we need our government to act now in order to reverse this trend. The longer we wait to address problems like pollution, habitat degradation and overexploitation, the harder and more expensive it will be to fix them. Millions of Americans depend on the oceans for work, for recreation, and for the food on their plates, which makes this a crucial economic and environmental challenge for our entire nation. We need the federal government to bring order to this lawless frontier through comprehensive measures that will reform the nation’s lack of a cohesive ocean policy. To keep the oceans clean and healthy, we need a National Healthy Oceans Act, such as Oceans-21 legislation (H.R. 21) that is currently pending in Congress. This law would coordinate national efforts to reduce pollution and protect ocean habitats so that beaches are clean, and fish and other ocean animals can thrive."
The Pew Environmental Group issued a statement saying, "Within the next several months, the National Marine Fisheries Service is expected to finally issue two proposed rulemakings that could help end overfishing in the United States. One aims to set catch limits based on best available science, the other attempts to increase public participation in fishery management decisions. These core components of the recently-reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary law that governs our nation's fisheries, need strong backing from the federal government. But, with a C plus for fisheries management reform, down from a B plus last year, the JOCI report card calls into question the administration's commitment to end overfishing."
The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) applauded the Commission and said, "Several NOIA members have been involved in regional ocean governance efforts in the Gulf of Mexico; NOIA’s Board of Directors passed a resolution in support of calls for the United States to accede to the Law of the Sea Convention; and NOIA has worked closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as it develops the Integrated Ocean Observing System. The oceans are a vital economic, energy and environmental resource for the nation, and deserve a well-crafted, coordinated management regime that recognizes all these aspects. By issuing this annual report card, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative has been effective in keeping the attention of policymakers on the scope and interdependence of the challenges facing them.”
Access a release from the Commission (click here). Access the details in the 20-page report card (click here). Access the Ocean Commission website for more information (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access a statement from Pew Environmental Group (click here). Access a statement from NOIA (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 21 (click here). [*Water]
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Senator Boxer Presses On For CA Waiver Denial Records
Feb 26: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), held a press conference to release details of U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's decision to deny California's request for a waiver to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles. Senator Boxer said, "These documents paint a picture of an Environmental Protection Agency in crisis. They show the dedicated professional staff of the EPA working hard to do what they are paid to do by the American people -- protect our health and our environment. At the same time, we see more and more evidence of Administrator Johnson ignoring the science and the facts, and discarding the advice of his professional staff.
"I believe this decision will be reversed by the next President or by the courts, but the Administrator can save the taxpayers time and money, and can get us started cleaning up our air if he would simply follow the law, the facts, and the advice of his agency professionals."
In a release, Senator Boxer highlighted excerpts from the EPA briefing documents shown to the EPW Committee staff. She said EPA has not released these documents to the committee or to the public, despite ongoing requests. Boxer also issued a statement regarding the role that former U.S. EPA Administrator William Reilly played in urging current EPA Administrator Johnson to grant California's request for a waiver to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles.
She said, "We now know that not only was the professional staff of the EPA advising Administrator Johnson to grant the California waiver, but Bill Reilly, the EPA Administrator under President Bush's father, also contacted the EPA and discussed the serious implications of the decision with senior EPA staff. He then communicated his concern directly to Administrator Johnson. The bipartisan chorus of respected voices urging Mr. Johnson to do the right thing is overwhelming. The impact of the decision to deny the waiver has been devastating on the EPA, and Administrator Johnson must reverse course and grant California's petition now. We are losing precious time in cleaning up our air."
In another letter to Administrator Johnson, dated February 26, Senator Boxer continues to press for the release of all documents related to the EPA denial of the California waiver. She reminds the Administrator that he promised the release of all documents by February 15, when he appeared before the EPW Committee on January 24. She said, "According to EPA staff, these documents are being withheld because they are still being reviewed by other executive agencies as well as by the White House Counsel's office." In addition, she adds, ". . .the continued provision of the heavily redacted documents remains unacceptable. EPA is obligated to produce all of these records -- in complete and un-redacted form, and without restrictions -- so that the EPW Committee can exercise its oversight jurisdiction." She has now requested that all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008.
Access a release with highlights and links to the 27-pages of information received thus far; a waiver chronology; the press conference charts; the letter to Administrator Johnson; and a webcast of the press conference (click here). Access a release on William Reilly (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here).[*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
"I believe this decision will be reversed by the next President or by the courts, but the Administrator can save the taxpayers time and money, and can get us started cleaning up our air if he would simply follow the law, the facts, and the advice of his agency professionals."
In a release, Senator Boxer highlighted excerpts from the EPA briefing documents shown to the EPW Committee staff. She said EPA has not released these documents to the committee or to the public, despite ongoing requests. Boxer also issued a statement regarding the role that former U.S. EPA Administrator William Reilly played in urging current EPA Administrator Johnson to grant California's request for a waiver to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles.
She said, "We now know that not only was the professional staff of the EPA advising Administrator Johnson to grant the California waiver, but Bill Reilly, the EPA Administrator under President Bush's father, also contacted the EPA and discussed the serious implications of the decision with senior EPA staff. He then communicated his concern directly to Administrator Johnson. The bipartisan chorus of respected voices urging Mr. Johnson to do the right thing is overwhelming. The impact of the decision to deny the waiver has been devastating on the EPA, and Administrator Johnson must reverse course and grant California's petition now. We are losing precious time in cleaning up our air."
In another letter to Administrator Johnson, dated February 26, Senator Boxer continues to press for the release of all documents related to the EPA denial of the California waiver. She reminds the Administrator that he promised the release of all documents by February 15, when he appeared before the EPW Committee on January 24. She said, "According to EPA staff, these documents are being withheld because they are still being reviewed by other executive agencies as well as by the White House Counsel's office." In addition, she adds, ". . .the continued provision of the heavily redacted documents remains unacceptable. EPA is obligated to produce all of these records -- in complete and un-redacted form, and without restrictions -- so that the EPW Committee can exercise its oversight jurisdiction." She has now requested that all remaining records no later than March 5, 2008.
Access a release with highlights and links to the 27-pages of information received thus far; a waiver chronology; the press conference charts; the letter to Administrator Johnson; and a webcast of the press conference (click here). Access a release on William Reilly (click here). Access various WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on the waiver denial (click here).[*Climate,*Energy,*Air]
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
House White Paper On Various Government Roles In Climate Change
Feb 25: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chaired by Representative John Dingell (D-MI) and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Chaired by Rick Boucher (D-VA) are continuing their strategy of issuing Legislation Design White Papers as the next step toward enactment of a mandatory, economy-wide climate change program. The latest White Paper entitled, Appropriate Roles for Different Levels of Government, is intended to foster discussion of these issues by raising key factors that should be considered in determining what roles are appropriate for each level of government.
The previous White Paper released on January 31, 2008, Competitiveness Concerns and Prospects for Engaging Developing Countries [See WIMS 2/4/08], will be the subject of a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on February 28, at 1:00 PM. The paper discusses potential domestic legislative provisions that could encourage developing countries to curb their emissions of greenhouse gases.
The latest White Paper indicates that, "The country is now at the difficult and familiar stage of transitioning from multiple, often unconnected, State and local climate change programs to a comprehensive, national approach to addressing the global problem of climate change. For a variety of reasons, State and local environmental programs have often led to enactment of Federal environmental legislation. Industry is often interested in Federal legislation to avoid or replace a patchwork of State regulations, which helps reduce the burden on companies involved in interstate commerce. . . Federal programs can also provide resources for environmental protection where State and local programs are insufficient. . . Addressing climate change will require employing a variety of tools. The primary tool at the Federal level will be a national, economy-wide cap-and-trade program that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050. . .
"A comprehensive, national approach to climate change will require a melding of different governmental roles and tools. Given the breadth of actions that will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to climate change, Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments will need to play a variety of roles.
"This White Paper is intended to explore the key factors that the Committee will need to consider and balance as it constructs a national greenhouse gas control program and seeks to rationalize the roles of different levels of government. These factors include: the global effect of greenhouse gas emissions; the effect on the level and cost of national greenhouse gas reductions; the efficient use of government and societal resources; the benefit of States, Tribes, and localities as laboratories; differing local circumstances; the burden on interstate Commerce; imposition of costs on other States; and stakeholder needs."
Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense issued a statement on the White Paper saying, “Though we strongly disagree with some of its conclusions, this paper could be an important examination of the state-federal issues facing the committee as it crafts legislation. In the absence of a federal legislative proposal, however, it remains, at best, largely an academic exercise. The sooner we have a bill, the sooner we can have a constructive debate. We’re pleased that the paper, in some ways, recognizes the important role of states, because state leadership has provided the only concrete steps toward solving the climate problem so far. But we’re disappointed that it raises questions about their future role, particularly without pointing to any concrete federal policy. Suggesting that states should never move beyond federal policy when it comes to tailpipe emissions ignores a long pattern of success under the Clean Air Act, and could be a recipe for failure on this most urgent of issues."
Access the latest 25-page Levels of Government White Paper (click here). Access the previous 16-page White Paper on Developing Countries (click here). Access links to all previous White Papers, letters, hearings, etc regarding the Committee activity on climate change (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
The previous White Paper released on January 31, 2008, Competitiveness Concerns and Prospects for Engaging Developing Countries [See WIMS 2/4/08], will be the subject of a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on February 28, at 1:00 PM. The paper discusses potential domestic legislative provisions that could encourage developing countries to curb their emissions of greenhouse gases.
The latest White Paper indicates that, "The country is now at the difficult and familiar stage of transitioning from multiple, often unconnected, State and local climate change programs to a comprehensive, national approach to addressing the global problem of climate change. For a variety of reasons, State and local environmental programs have often led to enactment of Federal environmental legislation. Industry is often interested in Federal legislation to avoid or replace a patchwork of State regulations, which helps reduce the burden on companies involved in interstate commerce. . . Federal programs can also provide resources for environmental protection where State and local programs are insufficient. . . Addressing climate change will require employing a variety of tools. The primary tool at the Federal level will be a national, economy-wide cap-and-trade program that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050. . .
"A comprehensive, national approach to climate change will require a melding of different governmental roles and tools. Given the breadth of actions that will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to climate change, Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments will need to play a variety of roles.
"This White Paper is intended to explore the key factors that the Committee will need to consider and balance as it constructs a national greenhouse gas control program and seeks to rationalize the roles of different levels of government. These factors include: the global effect of greenhouse gas emissions; the effect on the level and cost of national greenhouse gas reductions; the efficient use of government and societal resources; the benefit of States, Tribes, and localities as laboratories; differing local circumstances; the burden on interstate Commerce; imposition of costs on other States; and stakeholder needs."
Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense issued a statement on the White Paper saying, “Though we strongly disagree with some of its conclusions, this paper could be an important examination of the state-federal issues facing the committee as it crafts legislation. In the absence of a federal legislative proposal, however, it remains, at best, largely an academic exercise. The sooner we have a bill, the sooner we can have a constructive debate. We’re pleased that the paper, in some ways, recognizes the important role of states, because state leadership has provided the only concrete steps toward solving the climate problem so far. But we’re disappointed that it raises questions about their future role, particularly without pointing to any concrete federal policy. Suggesting that states should never move beyond federal policy when it comes to tailpipe emissions ignores a long pattern of success under the Clean Air Act, and could be a recipe for failure on this most urgent of issues."
Access the latest 25-page Levels of Government White Paper (click here). Access the previous 16-page White Paper on Developing Countries (click here). Access links to all previous White Papers, letters, hearings, etc regarding the Committee activity on climate change (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
