May 8: Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and of the Senate-House conference committee on the new farm bill, announced a final farm bill conference agreement with principal negotiators at a press conference on Capitol Hill [See WIMS 4/29/08]. He said the agreement will lead to a formal conference report, which will then be passed by the Senate and House before being sent to the White House.
Immediately Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer issued a statement saying, "Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion. At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs. . . For a year and a half, the Administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the President can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face to face with our President and he was direct and plain. The President will veto this bill."
In announcing the compromise bill, Senator Harkin said, “This is a strong, bipartisan farm bill that benefits every American from Cumming, Iowa, population 162 to New York City, population 8 million. The bill provides a strong safety net, so it’s good for our farmers and producers. Consumers will like it because it will increase farmers’ markets and ensure a safe, dependable supply of high quality food. For low-income Americans, it ensures nutrition needs are met and for school children, increases their access to fresh fruits and vegetables. And as production increases, the farm bill will ensure our precious natural resources are protected. . .
“To meet soaring worldwide demand for food and energy crops, millions of new acres of land are being brought into production, including environmentally fragile land. To address this challenge, we authorize nearly $4.4 billion in additional funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program over the next 10 years. With this support, the Conservation Stewardship Program will enroll nearly 13 million acres each year. . . All-time high gasoline prices are wreaking havoc with family budgets, but, without the inputs of biofuels, prices at the pump would be as much as 50 cents higher. The new farm bill will dramatically ramp up the agricultural sector’s capacity to produce clean renewable energy. Significantly, it provides more than $1 billion to expand the supply of biofuels made from biomass and crop byproducts other than grain. The bill also provides new support to farmers who grow energy crops, and to entrepreneurs who build refineries to convert biomass into fuel.”
Harkin issued a separate statement on the President's announced veto plans saying, "Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among regional and other interests, this farm bill is far from perfect. But no piece of legislation is. It includes significant reforms, as well as these major advances. It deserves the President’s signature. Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted."
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an active participant in the Farm Bill issue, said the compromise bill was a "mixed bag." They said, "The good news is that conference committee members recognized the need to boost conservation funding at a time when very high commodity prices are increasing pressure on our land, water, and important wildlife habitat. The bad news is that this new funding falls short of what’s needed to provide farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners with the resources they need to help us solve some of the nation’s biggest environmental problems.” EDF also criticized the House-Senate conference committee for increasing, rather than decreasing, farm subsidies.
Access a release from Senator Harkin and link to a 12-page summary of the compromise bill (click here). Access the Senate Farm Bill Conference website (click here). Access Harkin's statement on the President's announced veto (click here). Access the House Farm Bill website including links to audio and video of the press conference (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). Access a May 8 release from USDA (click here). Access an audio (click here) and transcript of a May 9 USDA press conference on the bill (click here). Access the USDA Farm Bill website (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 08, 2008
U.S. Consumers Score Lowest On Geographic Society Greendex
May 7: The National Geographic Society (NGS) and the international polling firm GlobeScan unveiled a new mechanism for measuring and comparing individual consumer behavior as it relates to the environment. "Greendex™ 2008: Consumer Choice and the Environment -- A Worldwide Tracking Survey" looks at environmentally sustainable consumption and behavior among consumers in 14 countries. NGS said this first-of-its-kind study reveals surprising differences between consumers in developed and developing countries in terms of environmentally friendly actions. This year's results are a baseline against which results of future annual surveys will be compared, in order to monitor improvements or declines in environmentally sustainable consumption at both the global level and within countries.
The Greendex survey was conducted online earlier this year among 14,000 consumers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Spain and the United States. A panel of 27 international experts in global sustainability helped identify which consumer behaviors were most crucial to investigate. One thousand people in each country answered questions that measured their behavior in the areas of housing, transportation, food and consumption of goods; each respondent earned a score that reflected the environmental impact of his or her consumption patterns, which included size and energy-efficiency of residence, commuting mode and distance and use of fresh water, among dozens of other measures. Consumers were then assigned a Greendex score (a measure of the relative environmental sustainability of their consumption patterns) out of 100. Consumers in Brazil and India scored highest; U.S. consumers scored lowest.
NGS said that unlike other measures that rank countries according to the environmental performance of their governments, businesses and other factors, the Greendex is the first to rank the performance of individual consumers, rather than countries as a whole. The results are strikingly different from existing performance rankings like the Environmental Performance Index [See WIMS 1/23/08], the Environmental Sustainability Index or Ecological Footprint.
Terry Garcia, NGS's executive vice president of Mission Programs said, "The Greendex gives us an unprecedented, meaningful look at how consumers across the globe are behaving. It will allow us over time to assess the progress that people are making to conserve, minimize waste and protect natural resources for the future. Consumers who score highest have a responsibility to maintain their behavior and provide an example to those who need to improve. We hope the study inspires all consumers, particularly those in countries where consumers scored lowest, to adopt the best behaviors of those who scored well, and that consumers in countries with expanding economies, who may consume more in the future, will do so responsibly."
The findings show that consumers in Brazil and India tie for the highest Greendex score for environmentally sustainable consumption at 60 points each. They are followed by consumers in China (56.1), Mexico (54.3), Hungary (53.2) and Russia (52.4). Among consumers in wealthy countries, those in Great Britain, Germany and Australia each have a Greendex score of 50.2, those in Spain register a score of 50.0 and Japanese respondents, 49.1. U.S. consumers have the lowest Greendex score at 44.9. The other lowest-scoring consumers are Canadians with 48.5 and the French with 48.7.
Access a lengthy release with links to individual country profiles (click here). Access backgrounders, fact sheets and related release on the Greendex (click here). Access the Greendex website for additional information and links to calculate your personal Greendex score (click here). [*All]
The Greendex survey was conducted online earlier this year among 14,000 consumers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Spain and the United States. A panel of 27 international experts in global sustainability helped identify which consumer behaviors were most crucial to investigate. One thousand people in each country answered questions that measured their behavior in the areas of housing, transportation, food and consumption of goods; each respondent earned a score that reflected the environmental impact of his or her consumption patterns, which included size and energy-efficiency of residence, commuting mode and distance and use of fresh water, among dozens of other measures. Consumers were then assigned a Greendex score (a measure of the relative environmental sustainability of their consumption patterns) out of 100. Consumers in Brazil and India scored highest; U.S. consumers scored lowest.
NGS said that unlike other measures that rank countries according to the environmental performance of their governments, businesses and other factors, the Greendex is the first to rank the performance of individual consumers, rather than countries as a whole. The results are strikingly different from existing performance rankings like the Environmental Performance Index [See WIMS 1/23/08], the Environmental Sustainability Index or Ecological Footprint.
Terry Garcia, NGS's executive vice president of Mission Programs said, "The Greendex gives us an unprecedented, meaningful look at how consumers across the globe are behaving. It will allow us over time to assess the progress that people are making to conserve, minimize waste and protect natural resources for the future. Consumers who score highest have a responsibility to maintain their behavior and provide an example to those who need to improve. We hope the study inspires all consumers, particularly those in countries where consumers scored lowest, to adopt the best behaviors of those who scored well, and that consumers in countries with expanding economies, who may consume more in the future, will do so responsibly."
The findings show that consumers in Brazil and India tie for the highest Greendex score for environmentally sustainable consumption at 60 points each. They are followed by consumers in China (56.1), Mexico (54.3), Hungary (53.2) and Russia (52.4). Among consumers in wealthy countries, those in Great Britain, Germany and Australia each have a Greendex score of 50.2, those in Spain register a score of 50.0 and Japanese respondents, 49.1. U.S. consumers have the lowest Greendex score at 44.9. The other lowest-scoring consumers are Canadians with 48.5 and the French with 48.7.
Access a lengthy release with links to individual country profiles (click here). Access backgrounders, fact sheets and related release on the Greendex (click here). Access the Greendex website for additional information and links to calculate your personal Greendex score (click here). [*All]
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Senate Hearing On Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions
May 7: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection held a hearing on "Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions." Full committee Chair, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), serves as Chair of the Subcommittee. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: George Gray, PhD., U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and representatives of the Union of Concerned Scientists; Covanta Energy Corporation; George Washington University; New York University School of Medicine, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine; a Private Advisor on Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis; the Gradient Corporation; and Environmental Defense Fund.
Senator Boxer issued an opening statement saying, "EPA was created by President Nixon as an independent agency, designed to protect families, children, and our natural environment from harm. Unfortunately, what we will hear today is that the Bush Administration is discarding the best available science, and instead is seeking the advice of special interests that would benefit from weak environmental standards. A clear pattern has emerged at EPA. When it comes to who wins and who loses, time and time again, the polluting special interests come out on top, at the expense of the health of the American people. . .
"EPA has a special children’s health advisory committee, because children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of pollution. This important scientific advice has been repeatedly ignored by the agency. For example, the agency refused to follow that Committee’s proposals to better protect children from smog pollution, toxic fine soot pollution, lead contamination in air, and perchlorate contamination of tap water -- all of which are especially dangerous to children. . ." She recounted several examples of the "Administration’s rejection of scientific advice."
Finally, she said, "And just in the last few days, a senior EPA appointee, Mary Gade, told the Chicago Tribune she was forced to resign for aggressively pursuing the cleanup of a dioxin-contaminated site in Michigan [See WIMS 5/2/08, and related article below]. The Bush EPA is failing to meet its mandate to protect public health as an independent, science-driven institution. The American people are paying the price with their health. This is an unacceptable pattern, and it must be reversed."
On May 2, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Subcommittee, sharply criticized the Bush Administration for repeatedly putting politics before science at the Environmental Protection Agency. Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island U.S. Attorney and Attorney General who was deeply involved in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the Administration’s firing of several U.S. Attorneys, issued a lengthy statement on the Senate Floor saying Ms. Gade’s resignation “seems like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with a political agenda over the best interests of the American people.”
Full Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement indicating that,"Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in types of research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policy-makers and that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process better."
He said, "More science means better decisions—more defensible decisions. . . However, in the rush to try and dissect these individual cases and lay blame on whether science was adhered to properly or not, the bigger picture message gets lost. Our air is cleaner than it ever has been before; the levels of the six criteria pollutants are continuing to decline, air toxics monitoring is expanding and reductions in benzene, acid rain, and haze are contributing to significant improvements in air quality and environmental health.
"However, despite these improvements, in the last 2 years, EPA has significantly strengthened or proposed to strengthen 3 of the 6 criteria pollutants, all driven by citizen suits and court ordered deadlines, and the agency once again has been attacked by stakeholders on both sides for doing so. Reduction levels are now being debated so intensely and at such marginal levels that one must stop and consider if there ever will be a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety that will satisfy the critics. Instead, we are left with a brand new web of economic burdens that we are passing on to the states, many of which are just now beginning to make real improvements from the previous strengthening. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.
"I am pleased to recognize Dr. McClellan, a past Chair of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who has detailed the many flaws and questionable approaches taken in justification of the recent final ozone rule, as well as the 2006 PM rule and others. I look forward to his comments on how the science panel often no longer offers its judgment of the scientific integrity of the process, but its policy opinions."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release and floor statement from Senator Whitehouse (click here). [*All]
Senator Boxer issued an opening statement saying, "EPA was created by President Nixon as an independent agency, designed to protect families, children, and our natural environment from harm. Unfortunately, what we will hear today is that the Bush Administration is discarding the best available science, and instead is seeking the advice of special interests that would benefit from weak environmental standards. A clear pattern has emerged at EPA. When it comes to who wins and who loses, time and time again, the polluting special interests come out on top, at the expense of the health of the American people. . .
"EPA has a special children’s health advisory committee, because children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of pollution. This important scientific advice has been repeatedly ignored by the agency. For example, the agency refused to follow that Committee’s proposals to better protect children from smog pollution, toxic fine soot pollution, lead contamination in air, and perchlorate contamination of tap water -- all of which are especially dangerous to children. . ." She recounted several examples of the "Administration’s rejection of scientific advice."
Finally, she said, "And just in the last few days, a senior EPA appointee, Mary Gade, told the Chicago Tribune she was forced to resign for aggressively pursuing the cleanup of a dioxin-contaminated site in Michigan [See WIMS 5/2/08, and related article below]. The Bush EPA is failing to meet its mandate to protect public health as an independent, science-driven institution. The American people are paying the price with their health. This is an unacceptable pattern, and it must be reversed."
On May 2, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Subcommittee, sharply criticized the Bush Administration for repeatedly putting politics before science at the Environmental Protection Agency. Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island U.S. Attorney and Attorney General who was deeply involved in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the Administration’s firing of several U.S. Attorneys, issued a lengthy statement on the Senate Floor saying Ms. Gade’s resignation “seems like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with a political agenda over the best interests of the American people.”
Full Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement indicating that,"Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in types of research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policy-makers and that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process better."
He said, "More science means better decisions—more defensible decisions. . . However, in the rush to try and dissect these individual cases and lay blame on whether science was adhered to properly or not, the bigger picture message gets lost. Our air is cleaner than it ever has been before; the levels of the six criteria pollutants are continuing to decline, air toxics monitoring is expanding and reductions in benzene, acid rain, and haze are contributing to significant improvements in air quality and environmental health.
"However, despite these improvements, in the last 2 years, EPA has significantly strengthened or proposed to strengthen 3 of the 6 criteria pollutants, all driven by citizen suits and court ordered deadlines, and the agency once again has been attacked by stakeholders on both sides for doing so. Reduction levels are now being debated so intensely and at such marginal levels that one must stop and consider if there ever will be a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety that will satisfy the critics. Instead, we are left with a brand new web of economic burdens that we are passing on to the states, many of which are just now beginning to make real improvements from the previous strengthening. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.
"I am pleased to recognize Dr. McClellan, a past Chair of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who has detailed the many flaws and questionable approaches taken in justification of the recent final ozone rule, as well as the 2006 PM rule and others. I look forward to his comments on how the science panel often no longer offers its judgment of the scientific integrity of the process, but its policy opinions."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release and floor statement from Senator Whitehouse (click here). [*All]
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Senate Hearing On Perchlorate And TCE In Water
May 6: Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Perchlorate and TCE in Water. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. EPA; representatives of the California EPA; Ohio EPA; the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA); Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; a State of New York legislator; HealthRisk Strategies; Medical University of South Carolina; and the Environmental Working Group. Additionally, Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe delivered opening statements.
Senator Boxer said, "In fact, today we will hear about EPA’s particularly disturbing failures to address significant risks to our families from two widespread drinking water contaminants: perchlorate and trichloroethylene, usually just called 'TCE.' Perchlorate is used to make rocket fuel, but when it gets into drinking water, this toxic chemical can interfere with the thyroid and affect hormone systems, which control the way the body develops. Infants and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to perchlorate. Researchers have found that over 20 million Americans’ drinking water supplies contain perchlorate. GAO found in 2005 that there were nearly 400 sites in 35 states contaminated with perchlorate. My state of California had 106 sites. . . And we know that we are exposed to perchlorate from many sources, not just drinking water. A January 2008 study by the FDA found perchlorate in 74% of all foods tested, including baby food."
Boxer said that EPA had done "very little" to address the problem. She said, "I told EPA last week that if the Bush Administration failed to protect our people, Congress would step in. I have two bills to protect people from perchlorate contamination. The first bill, the “Perchlorate Monitoring and Right to Know Act,” S. 24, says that EPA is to restore the rule requiring that drinking water be tested for perchlorate, and that the results of those tests must be disclosed to the public. My second bill, the “Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act,” S. 150, requires EPA to quickly set a perchlorate standard for drinking water that protects pregnant women and children. In addition, Senator Clinton, Senator Dole, myself, and several colleagues have a bill, the “TCE Reduction Act,” S. 1911, that would protect people exposed the TCE."
Senator Inhofe indicated that he was opposed to all three of these pieces of legislation mentioned by Senator Boxer. He said, "Each bill assumes that the scientific data and findings are complete and that they require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, within a specified amount of time for both perchlorate and TCE. My concern isn’t that these chemicals may be harmful to human health at a certain level, but rather that politicians feel compelled to introduce legislation forcing EPA’s hand on what could become a 'contaminant of the month' scenario without scientific backing. It should also be noted that TCE already has a set MCL based on principals outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . .
"The legislative approach taken in S. 24, S. 150, and S. 1911 is simply politicians meddling in the scientific process clearly laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mike Baker from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will speak on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators about the current process and the concern of legislating contaminants rather than following the process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . ." [See WIMS 1/3/07]
EPA testified that the Agency has been working on the science related to perchlorate for more than ten years. "In 2003, EPA sent its January 2002 external review draft of the perchlorate risk assessment to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review. The NAS panel released a report in January 2005 which recommended that the Agency use a reference dose (RfD) of 0.0007 mg/kg/day (0.7 µg/kg/day) based on a human study (Greer et al., 2002). The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. EPA endorsed their recommendation and used the NAS panel report "Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion” as the basis for establishing its RfD which was subsequently posted to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database in February 2005."
He said in January 2006, EPA issued guidance for contaminated sites which recommended a revised preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 24.5 ppb perchlorate in water. The PRG was calculated from EPA’s RfD using standard exposure values of 70 kg body weight and 2 liters of water consumed per day. This calculation provides the drinking water equivalent level, assuming
no other sources of perchlorate exposure." He also said, "In addition, if a state has promulgated a drinking water standard for perchlorate (e.g., Massachusetts adopted 2 ppb as a drinking water standard), that value would be considered an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) and used as the ground water cleanup level for sites in that state."
He indicated that the Agency has "significant concerns with the bills introduced by Senators Boxer and Clinton. With respect to drinking water our primary concern with these bills is that they return the Agency to the time before 1996 when Congress dictated the drinking water regulations developed by the Agency." He concluded saying, the Agency is "working expeditiously to address potential risks from perchlorate and to evaluate the need for and feasibility of a stronger standard for TCE using this framework. We believe this framework is sound, and respectfully request that you allow us time to complete the required analyses and determinations to ensure appropriate science-based protection of public health from these and other contaminants, as envisioned in the 1996 amendments. As noted above, we are committed to making a final regulatory determination for perchlorate by the end of 2008, and for TCE as soon as the necessary analyses have been completed."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). [*Water/Drink, *Toxics]
Senator Boxer said, "In fact, today we will hear about EPA’s particularly disturbing failures to address significant risks to our families from two widespread drinking water contaminants: perchlorate and trichloroethylene, usually just called 'TCE.' Perchlorate is used to make rocket fuel, but when it gets into drinking water, this toxic chemical can interfere with the thyroid and affect hormone systems, which control the way the body develops. Infants and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to perchlorate. Researchers have found that over 20 million Americans’ drinking water supplies contain perchlorate. GAO found in 2005 that there were nearly 400 sites in 35 states contaminated with perchlorate. My state of California had 106 sites. . . And we know that we are exposed to perchlorate from many sources, not just drinking water. A January 2008 study by the FDA found perchlorate in 74% of all foods tested, including baby food."
Boxer said that EPA had done "very little" to address the problem. She said, "I told EPA last week that if the Bush Administration failed to protect our people, Congress would step in. I have two bills to protect people from perchlorate contamination. The first bill, the “Perchlorate Monitoring and Right to Know Act,” S. 24, says that EPA is to restore the rule requiring that drinking water be tested for perchlorate, and that the results of those tests must be disclosed to the public. My second bill, the “Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act,” S. 150, requires EPA to quickly set a perchlorate standard for drinking water that protects pregnant women and children. In addition, Senator Clinton, Senator Dole, myself, and several colleagues have a bill, the “TCE Reduction Act,” S. 1911, that would protect people exposed the TCE."
Senator Inhofe indicated that he was opposed to all three of these pieces of legislation mentioned by Senator Boxer. He said, "Each bill assumes that the scientific data and findings are complete and that they require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, within a specified amount of time for both perchlorate and TCE. My concern isn’t that these chemicals may be harmful to human health at a certain level, but rather that politicians feel compelled to introduce legislation forcing EPA’s hand on what could become a 'contaminant of the month' scenario without scientific backing. It should also be noted that TCE already has a set MCL based on principals outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . .
"The legislative approach taken in S. 24, S. 150, and S. 1911 is simply politicians meddling in the scientific process clearly laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mike Baker from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will speak on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators about the current process and the concern of legislating contaminants rather than following the process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . ." [See WIMS 1/3/07]
EPA testified that the Agency has been working on the science related to perchlorate for more than ten years. "In 2003, EPA sent its January 2002 external review draft of the perchlorate risk assessment to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review. The NAS panel released a report in January 2005 which recommended that the Agency use a reference dose (RfD) of 0.0007 mg/kg/day (0.7 µg/kg/day) based on a human study (Greer et al., 2002). The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. EPA endorsed their recommendation and used the NAS panel report "Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion” as the basis for establishing its RfD which was subsequently posted to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database in February 2005."
He said in January 2006, EPA issued guidance for contaminated sites which recommended a revised preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 24.5 ppb perchlorate in water. The PRG was calculated from EPA’s RfD using standard exposure values of 70 kg body weight and 2 liters of water consumed per day. This calculation provides the drinking water equivalent level, assuming
no other sources of perchlorate exposure." He also said, "In addition, if a state has promulgated a drinking water standard for perchlorate (e.g., Massachusetts adopted 2 ppb as a drinking water standard), that value would be considered an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) and used as the ground water cleanup level for sites in that state."
He indicated that the Agency has "significant concerns with the bills introduced by Senators Boxer and Clinton. With respect to drinking water our primary concern with these bills is that they return the Agency to the time before 1996 when Congress dictated the drinking water regulations developed by the Agency." He concluded saying, the Agency is "working expeditiously to address potential risks from perchlorate and to evaluate the need for and feasibility of a stronger standard for TCE using this framework. We believe this framework is sound, and respectfully request that you allow us time to complete the required analyses and determinations to ensure appropriate science-based protection of public health from these and other contaminants, as envisioned in the 1996 amendments. As noted above, we are committed to making a final regulatory determination for perchlorate by the end of 2008, and for TCE as soon as the necessary analyses have been completed."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). [*Water/Drink, *Toxics]
Monday, May 05, 2008
CBO Report On Nuclear Power’s Role In Generating Electricity
May 2: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 46-page report entitled, Nuclear Power’s Role In Generating Electricity. At the request of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, CBO assessed the competitiveness of nuclear power when compared with other sources of new capacity to generate electricity, focusing on the possible effects of constraints on carbon dioxide emissions and the impact of EPAct incentives.
The report indicates that concerns about the adequacy of electricity supply and the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on the environment have prompted policymakers to reevaluate the role that nuclear power might play in the future in meeting the nation’s demand for electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) offers incentives for expanding utilities’ capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil fuel technologies and a new generation of nuclear reactors that are designed to decrease costs and enhance safety. In addition, policymakers are considering various proposals that would impose charges on entities that emit carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. Such policies could further encourage the use of nuclear power, which emits no such gases, by increasing the cost of generating electricity with competing fossil-fuel technologies.
To assess the competitiveness of advanced nuclear technology in comparison with other base-load options, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the levelized cost of alternatives under a reference scenario reflecting the agency’s best judgment about future market conditions and the policy environment before the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under alternatives that consider the effects of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. To calculate those costs, CBO adopted base-case assumptions about an array of technical and economic choices confronting investors in new electricity-generating capacity.
The results section of the report indicates, "under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it is probable that at least a few nuclear power plants will be built over the next decade, most likely in markets where electricity usage and the corresponding demand for additional base-load capacity are expected to grow significantly. Ultimately, however, the longer-term competitiveness of nuclear technology as a source of electricity is likely to depend on policymakers’ decisions regarding carbon dioxide constraints. If such constraints are implemented, nuclear power will probably enjoy a cost advantage over conventional fossil-fuel alternatives as a source of electricity-generating capacity.
Today, even the anticipation that carbon dioxide emissions will be priced is a factor being weighed in investors’ decisions about new base-load capacity. Those conclusions are tentative, though, because the electricity industry faces numerous uncertainties. If expectations related to future market conditions -- especially those pertaining to construction costs or fuel prices-- shift before investors commit to the construction of new base-load capacity, the prospects for new nuclear capacity could change dramatically.
While the report does not make recommendations, it indicates that carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies as a source of new capacity and could lead utilities to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants. At charges below that threshold, conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of baseload capacity than coal technology. Below about $5 per metric ton, conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity.
The report notes however, that even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented, it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to be put in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. Replacing the 300,000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclear plants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to be built in the next decade.
Access the complete report (click here). Access a brief CBO blog summary of the study by the director (click here). Access a description of the Methodology Behind the Levelized Cost Analysis (click here). [*Energy]
The report indicates that concerns about the adequacy of electricity supply and the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on the environment have prompted policymakers to reevaluate the role that nuclear power might play in the future in meeting the nation’s demand for electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) offers incentives for expanding utilities’ capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil fuel technologies and a new generation of nuclear reactors that are designed to decrease costs and enhance safety. In addition, policymakers are considering various proposals that would impose charges on entities that emit carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. Such policies could further encourage the use of nuclear power, which emits no such gases, by increasing the cost of generating electricity with competing fossil-fuel technologies.
To assess the competitiveness of advanced nuclear technology in comparison with other base-load options, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the levelized cost of alternatives under a reference scenario reflecting the agency’s best judgment about future market conditions and the policy environment before the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under alternatives that consider the effects of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. To calculate those costs, CBO adopted base-case assumptions about an array of technical and economic choices confronting investors in new electricity-generating capacity.
The results section of the report indicates, "under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it is probable that at least a few nuclear power plants will be built over the next decade, most likely in markets where electricity usage and the corresponding demand for additional base-load capacity are expected to grow significantly. Ultimately, however, the longer-term competitiveness of nuclear technology as a source of electricity is likely to depend on policymakers’ decisions regarding carbon dioxide constraints. If such constraints are implemented, nuclear power will probably enjoy a cost advantage over conventional fossil-fuel alternatives as a source of electricity-generating capacity.
Today, even the anticipation that carbon dioxide emissions will be priced is a factor being weighed in investors’ decisions about new base-load capacity. Those conclusions are tentative, though, because the electricity industry faces numerous uncertainties. If expectations related to future market conditions -- especially those pertaining to construction costs or fuel prices-- shift before investors commit to the construction of new base-load capacity, the prospects for new nuclear capacity could change dramatically.
While the report does not make recommendations, it indicates that carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies as a source of new capacity and could lead utilities to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants. At charges below that threshold, conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of baseload capacity than coal technology. Below about $5 per metric ton, conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity.
The report notes however, that even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented, it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to be put in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. Replacing the 300,000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclear plants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to be built in the next decade.
Access the complete report (click here). Access a brief CBO blog summary of the study by the director (click here). Access a description of the Methodology Behind the Levelized Cost Analysis (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, May 02, 2008
EDF Says EPA's ChAMP Doesn’t Have The "REACH"
May 2: A new analysis by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) indicates that a set of mostly voluntary initiatives recently announced by the U.S. EPA to identify and manage the risks of thousands of chemicals "will provide far less protection than the more comprehensive approach taken under the European Union’s new REACH Regulation" [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), See WIMS 12/13/06, See EcoBizPort REACH]. EDF presented its latest critique of EPA’s Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) at a meeting held by EPA to receive input on its initiatives.
On March 18, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson at a presentation to the Global Chemical Regulation Conference indicated, "While EPA supports the health and environmental protection goals of REACH, we believe that effective protection can be obtained through a more targeted and strategic approach to chemical assessment and management. In that vein, this past August, the countries of North America came together to announce a strategic approach under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP. . . I believe this approach can provide a more focused, productive and workable scheme than the REACH framework. . ." As part of that effort EPA has made a commitment to complete initial assessments and take needed actions on the thousands of chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds-per-year in the U.S. by 2012. The commitment is ChAMPs. [See WIMS 3/19/08]
Dr. Richard Denison, EDF Senior Scientist said, “ChAMP just doesn’t have the reach of REACH, despite EPA’s efforts to claim otherwise. It will yield far less data on far fewer chemicals. In its haste to catch up with other global initiatives, EPA intends to make decisions about risk using incomplete or poor quality information, especially with respect to how chemicals are used and how people and the environment are exposed to them.” He said many of ChAMP’s shortcomings can be directly traced to structural deficiencies in the authority EPA has been provided under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the main U.S. statute that governs how tens of thousands of chemicals are produced, used and disposed of.
EDF’s analysis identified a number of additional shortcomings of ChAMP including: A lack of transparency in describing what information EPA possesses and relies on to judge the likelihood of exposure to the chemicals it is assessing; Failure to initiate steps to fill the gaps in safety data EPA has identified, and to compel testing of chemicals whose manufacturers have not volunteered to develop the needed data; Significantly overstating the number of high-volume chemicals for which EPA has data necessary to conduct screening-level hazard and risk characterizations; and Reliance on information provided by manufacturers on how a chemical is used even when other available information indicates additional uses that could cause greater exposure.
Access a release from EDF and link to their recent analysis as well as other recent analyses of chemicals policies in the U.S. and other jurisdictions (click here). Access the Federal Register notice of the meeting (click here). Access complete information on the SPP (click here). Access complete information on ChAMP (click here). [*Toxics]
On March 18, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson at a presentation to the Global Chemical Regulation Conference indicated, "While EPA supports the health and environmental protection goals of REACH, we believe that effective protection can be obtained through a more targeted and strategic approach to chemical assessment and management. In that vein, this past August, the countries of North America came together to announce a strategic approach under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP. . . I believe this approach can provide a more focused, productive and workable scheme than the REACH framework. . ." As part of that effort EPA has made a commitment to complete initial assessments and take needed actions on the thousands of chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds-per-year in the U.S. by 2012. The commitment is ChAMPs. [See WIMS 3/19/08]
Dr. Richard Denison, EDF Senior Scientist said, “ChAMP just doesn’t have the reach of REACH, despite EPA’s efforts to claim otherwise. It will yield far less data on far fewer chemicals. In its haste to catch up with other global initiatives, EPA intends to make decisions about risk using incomplete or poor quality information, especially with respect to how chemicals are used and how people and the environment are exposed to them.” He said many of ChAMP’s shortcomings can be directly traced to structural deficiencies in the authority EPA has been provided under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the main U.S. statute that governs how tens of thousands of chemicals are produced, used and disposed of.
EDF’s analysis identified a number of additional shortcomings of ChAMP including: A lack of transparency in describing what information EPA possesses and relies on to judge the likelihood of exposure to the chemicals it is assessing; Failure to initiate steps to fill the gaps in safety data EPA has identified, and to compel testing of chemicals whose manufacturers have not volunteered to develop the needed data; Significantly overstating the number of high-volume chemicals for which EPA has data necessary to conduct screening-level hazard and risk characterizations; and Reliance on information provided by manufacturers on how a chemical is used even when other available information indicates additional uses that could cause greater exposure.
Access a release from EDF and link to their recent analysis as well as other recent analyses of chemicals policies in the U.S. and other jurisdictions (click here). Access the Federal Register notice of the meeting (click here). Access complete information on the SPP (click here). Access complete information on ChAMP (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, May 01, 2008
EPA Proposes Lead NAAQS Between 0.1 - 0.3 Micrograms/M3
May 1: U.S. EPA announced it is taking steps toward revising the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead (Pb) for the first time in 30 years, proposing to "dramatically strengthen the standards" to reflect the latest science on lead and health. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "By tackling lead emissions, EPA is keeping America's clean air progress moving forward. With today's proposal, we can write the next chapter in America's clean air story."
EPA is under a judicial order in Missouri Coalition for the Environment, v. EPA (No. 4:04CV00660 ERW, Sept. 14, 2005). The order governing the review, entered by the court on September 14, 2005 and amended on April 29, 2008, specifies that EPA sign, for publication, notices of proposed and final rulemaking concerning its review of the Pb NAAQS no later than May 1, 2008 and September 15, 2008, respectively. EPA will accept public comment for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold two public hearings on June 12, 2008: one in St. Louis and one in Baltimore.
According to EPA the proposal would tighten the primary standard to protect public health by 80 to 93 percent. It would revise the existing standard of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air to a level within the range of 0.10 to 0.30 micrograms per cubic meter. The Agency is taking comment on alternative levels within a range from less than 0.10 to 0.50 micrograms per cubic meter. With regard to the averaging time and form of the standard, EPA proposes two options: to retain the current averaging time of a calendar quarter and the current not-to-be-exceeded form, revised to apply across a 3-year span; and to revise the averaging time to a calendar month and the form to the second-highest monthly average across a 3-year span.
EPA also solicits comment on revising the indicator to Pb-PM10 and on the same broad range of levels on which EPA is soliciting comment for the Pb-TSP indicator (up to 0.50 µg/m3). EPA also invites comment on when, if ever, it would be appropriate to set a NAAQS for Pb at a level of zero. EPA proposes to make the secondary standard identical in all respects to the proposed primary standard.
EPA is also proposing corresponding changes to data handling procedures, including the treatment of exceptional events, and to ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for Pb including those related to sampling and analysis methods, network design, sampling schedule, and data reporting. Finally, EPA is providing guidance on its proposed approach for implementing the proposed revised primary and secondary standards for Pb.
EPA notes that since 1980, emissions of lead to the air have dropped nearly 98 percent nationwide, largely the result of the Agency's phaseout of lead in gasoline. And average levels of lead in the air are far below the level of the 1978 standard. Lead in the air today comes from a variety of sources, including smelters, iron and steel foundries, and general aviation gasoline. About 1,300 tons of lead are emitted to the air each year, according to EPA's most recent estimates.
Lead that is emitted into the air can be inhaled or, after it settles out of the air, can be ingested. Ingestion is the main route of human exposure. Once in the body, lead is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream and can affect many organ systems. More than 6,000 studies since 1990 have examined the effects of lead on health and the environment. Evidence from health studies indicates that lead in the blood can cause harm at much lower levels than previously understood. Exposure to lead is associated with a broad range of health effects, including harm to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys and immune system. Children are particularly vulnerable: Exposures to low levels of lead early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, memory and behavior. Lead also can cause toxic effects in plants and can impair reproduction and growth in birds, mammals and other organisms.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 452-page proposed rule (click here). Access additional information including a fact sheet and background documents (click here). Access more information on lead in air (click here). [*Air]
EPA is under a judicial order in Missouri Coalition for the Environment, v. EPA (No. 4:04CV00660 ERW, Sept. 14, 2005). The order governing the review, entered by the court on September 14, 2005 and amended on April 29, 2008, specifies that EPA sign, for publication, notices of proposed and final rulemaking concerning its review of the Pb NAAQS no later than May 1, 2008 and September 15, 2008, respectively. EPA will accept public comment for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold two public hearings on June 12, 2008: one in St. Louis and one in Baltimore.
According to EPA the proposal would tighten the primary standard to protect public health by 80 to 93 percent. It would revise the existing standard of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air to a level within the range of 0.10 to 0.30 micrograms per cubic meter. The Agency is taking comment on alternative levels within a range from less than 0.10 to 0.50 micrograms per cubic meter. With regard to the averaging time and form of the standard, EPA proposes two options: to retain the current averaging time of a calendar quarter and the current not-to-be-exceeded form, revised to apply across a 3-year span; and to revise the averaging time to a calendar month and the form to the second-highest monthly average across a 3-year span.
EPA also solicits comment on revising the indicator to Pb-PM10 and on the same broad range of levels on which EPA is soliciting comment for the Pb-TSP indicator (up to 0.50 µg/m3). EPA also invites comment on when, if ever, it would be appropriate to set a NAAQS for Pb at a level of zero. EPA proposes to make the secondary standard identical in all respects to the proposed primary standard.
EPA is also proposing corresponding changes to data handling procedures, including the treatment of exceptional events, and to ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for Pb including those related to sampling and analysis methods, network design, sampling schedule, and data reporting. Finally, EPA is providing guidance on its proposed approach for implementing the proposed revised primary and secondary standards for Pb.
EPA notes that since 1980, emissions of lead to the air have dropped nearly 98 percent nationwide, largely the result of the Agency's phaseout of lead in gasoline. And average levels of lead in the air are far below the level of the 1978 standard. Lead in the air today comes from a variety of sources, including smelters, iron and steel foundries, and general aviation gasoline. About 1,300 tons of lead are emitted to the air each year, according to EPA's most recent estimates.
Lead that is emitted into the air can be inhaled or, after it settles out of the air, can be ingested. Ingestion is the main route of human exposure. Once in the body, lead is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream and can affect many organ systems. More than 6,000 studies since 1990 have examined the effects of lead on health and the environment. Evidence from health studies indicates that lead in the blood can cause harm at much lower levels than previously understood. Exposure to lead is associated with a broad range of health effects, including harm to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys and immune system. Children are particularly vulnerable: Exposures to low levels of lead early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, memory and behavior. Lead also can cause toxic effects in plants and can impair reproduction and growth in birds, mammals and other organisms.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 452-page proposed rule (click here). Access additional information including a fact sheet and background documents (click here). Access more information on lead in air (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Final Report On Industrial Farm Animal Production
Apr 29: The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), convened in 2005, to study the impacts of dramatic changes in animal agriculture in America over the past 40 years, has issued its final report -- Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America [See WIMS 3/4/08]. The PCIFAP is funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
John Carlin, Former Governor of Kansas and family farmer, who served as Chair of the PCIFAP said it, "sought to develop recommendations that protect what is best about American agriculture and to help to ensure its sustainability for the future. Our work focuses on four areas of concern that we believe are key to that future: public health, environment, animal welfare, and the vitality of rural communities; specifically, we focus on how these areas have been impacted by industrial farm animal production.
Robert Martin, Executive Director, of the project said, "There have been some serious obstacles to the Commission completing its review and approving consensus recommendations. The agriculture industry is not monolithic, and the formation of this Commission was greeted by industrial agriculture with responses ranging from open hostility to wary cooperation. In fact, while some industrial agriculture representatives were recommending potential authors for the technical reports to Commission staff, other industrial agriculture representatives were discouraging those same authors from assisting us by threatening to withhold research funding for their college or university. We found significant influence by the industry at every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, government regulation, and enforcement. . . The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food."
The 124-page report contains sections on How the Current System Developed; Public Health; Environmental Risks; Animal Welfare; Rural America; and includes Conclusion: Toward Sustainable Animal Agriculture and The Recommendations of the Commission, followed by various References. The PCIFAP concludes: "Among the many changes likely in the next 50 years, we believe the following three will be especially challenging to the US industrial food and agriculture system: the depletion of stored energy and water resources, and changing climate. These changes will be especially challenging because America’s successful industrial economy of the past century was based on the availability of cheap energy, a relatively stable climate, and abundant fresh water, and current methods have assumed the continued availability of these resources." [Emphasis in original]
The report indicates that "as industrial farm animal production (IFAP) systems have increased cost-efficient agricultural food production, they have also given rise to problems that are beginning to require attention by policymakers and the industry. Given the relatively rapid emergence of the technologies for industrial farm animal production, and the dependence on chemical inputs, energy, and water, many IFAP systems are not sustainable environmentally or economically."
The report makes detailed and documented recommendations within five issue areas: Public Health (12 recommendations); Environment (4 recommendations); Animal Welfare (5 recommendations); Community Impacts (2 recommendations); and a general recommendation for "Increase funding for, expand, and reform animal agriculture research." Each recommendation includes a background discussion and extensive details of the specific recommendations. Focusing here on the environmental and community impacts recommendations, the PCIFAP recommends:
John Carlin, Former Governor of Kansas and family farmer, who served as Chair of the PCIFAP said it, "sought to develop recommendations that protect what is best about American agriculture and to help to ensure its sustainability for the future. Our work focuses on four areas of concern that we believe are key to that future: public health, environment, animal welfare, and the vitality of rural communities; specifically, we focus on how these areas have been impacted by industrial farm animal production.
Robert Martin, Executive Director, of the project said, "There have been some serious obstacles to the Commission completing its review and approving consensus recommendations. The agriculture industry is not monolithic, and the formation of this Commission was greeted by industrial agriculture with responses ranging from open hostility to wary cooperation. In fact, while some industrial agriculture representatives were recommending potential authors for the technical reports to Commission staff, other industrial agriculture representatives were discouraging those same authors from assisting us by threatening to withhold research funding for their college or university. We found significant influence by the industry at every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, government regulation, and enforcement. . . The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food."
The 124-page report contains sections on How the Current System Developed; Public Health; Environmental Risks; Animal Welfare; Rural America; and includes Conclusion: Toward Sustainable Animal Agriculture and The Recommendations of the Commission, followed by various References. The PCIFAP concludes: "Among the many changes likely in the next 50 years, we believe the following three will be especially challenging to the US industrial food and agriculture system: the depletion of stored energy and water resources, and changing climate. These changes will be especially challenging because America’s successful industrial economy of the past century was based on the availability of cheap energy, a relatively stable climate, and abundant fresh water, and current methods have assumed the continued availability of these resources." [Emphasis in original]
The report indicates that "as industrial farm animal production (IFAP) systems have increased cost-efficient agricultural food production, they have also given rise to problems that are beginning to require attention by policymakers and the industry. Given the relatively rapid emergence of the technologies for industrial farm animal production, and the dependence on chemical inputs, energy, and water, many IFAP systems are not sustainable environmentally or economically."
The report makes detailed and documented recommendations within five issue areas: Public Health (12 recommendations); Environment (4 recommendations); Animal Welfare (5 recommendations); Community Impacts (2 recommendations); and a general recommendation for "Increase funding for, expand, and reform animal agriculture research." Each recommendation includes a background discussion and extensive details of the specific recommendations. Focusing here on the environmental and community impacts recommendations, the PCIFAP recommends:
- Improve enforcement of existing federal, state, and local IFAP facility regulations to improve the siting of IFAP facilities and protect the health of those who live near and downstream from them;
- Develop and implement a new system to deal with farm waste (that will replace the inflexible and broken system that exists today) to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste;
Increase and improve monitoring and research of farm waste to hasten the development of new and innovative systems to deal with IFAP waste and to better our understanding of what is happening with IFAP today; - Increase funding for research into improving waste handling systems and standardize measurements to allow better comparisons between systems;
- States, counties, and local governments should implement zoning and siting guidance governing new IFAP operations that fairly and effectively evaluate the suitability of a site for these types of facilities; and
- Implement policies to allow for a competitive marketplace in animal agriculture to reduce the environmental and public health impacts of IFAP.
Access the complete final report (click here). Access the PCIFAP website for extensive information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort CAFO links for additional information (click here). [*Air, *Agriculture *Water]
Note: On April 24, 2008, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released another report entitled, CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations, which is also critical of CAFO operations. Access a release from UCS (click here). Access links to the complete 94-page report and an executive summary (click here).
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Senate Hearing On EPA Toxic Chemical Policies
Apr 29: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held an Oversight Hearing on EPA Toxic Chemical Policies. Witnesses testifying at the hearing include James Gulliford, EPA Assistant Administrator for Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances; the U.S. Government and Accountability Office (GAO); and representatives of the Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences Department, University of California, San Francisco; the WELL Network; Fanwood Chemical, Inc. on the behalf of the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturers Association; Integrative Biostrategies, LLC; and Occupational and Environmental Health, Johns Hopkins University. Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe also delivered opening statements.
In her remarks, Senator Boxer said the hearing would reveal "some disturbing news about the White House and the Bush Administration’s efforts to corrupt EPA’s toxic chemical risk assessment process. By placing politics before science, the Bush Administration is putting the public in harms way. This according to the GAO and EPA scientists." Boxer said, EPA regulates toxic chemicals in the environment under several laws but the overall toxic chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or “TSCA,” was adopted in 1976 and was supposed to help assure that toxic chemicals would be restricted or banned if they were hazardous. She said, "TSCA puts the burden on the government to prove a toxic chemical is a risk. That is unlike the European program, called REACH [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), See WIMS 3/19/08, See EcoBizPort REACH]. REACH puts the burden on the chemical industry -- where it should be -- to show that their chemicals are safe."
On April 10, U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development, announced that the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and process for developing chemical assessments would undergo several changes "to increase its transparency and efficiency." EPA said the changes include: an expanded process for recommending a substance be assessed; the earlier involvement of other agencies and the public; hosting “listening sessions” to allow for the broader participation and engagement of interested parties; and an even more rigorous scientific peer review of IRIS assessments [See WIMS 4/10/08]. EPA’s IRIS program is a chemical evaluation program that is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental regulations and policies. The IRIS database contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals.
Senator Boxer released a GAO report entitled, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (GAO-08-440, March 7, 2008). She said the report "criticizes the Bush Administration changes to the risk assessment process and makes clear the danger faced by the public when political interference and the influence of polluters affects EPA’s ability to address the risks of toxic chemicals. Under EPA’s new approach politics can be -- and already has been -- injected into multiple stages in the process. Even worse, the new procedure effectively requires the White House the Department of Defense (DOD) -- which contracts out much of its weapons programs -- to agree with EPA on any risk assessment before it goes forward and is made public. The entire process of White House and interagency debate is kept secret, which GAO and EPA scientists say undermines the credibility of EPA’s scientific assessments. That is because EPA scientists are being pushed aside by White House operatives and polluters."
In its review GAO found, among other items, that the IRIS database is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments -- a total of 4 were completed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In its testimony GAO said that EPA’s new process is largely the same as the draft GAO evaluated [prior to the April 10 release], and some key changes also are likely to further exacerbate the productivity and credibility concerns GAO identified. GAO testified, "GAO continues to believe it is critical that input from all parties—particularly agencies that may be affected by the outcome of IRIS assessments—be publicly available. As recommended in GAO’s March 2008 report, to effectively maintain IRIS, EPA must, among other things, streamline its lengthy assessment process and adopt transparency practices that provide assurance that IRIS assessments are appropriately based on the best available science and that they are not inappropriately biased by policy considerations. Since EPA’s new process is not responsive to GAO’s recommendations, the viability of this critical database has been further jeopardized."
Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, opening statements, the full 89-page GAO report, related letters & documents and a webcast of the hearing (click here). Access an EPA release on it new IRIS process (click here). Access the IRIS website (click here). Access links to contacts, a 9-page EPA description of the process revisions, and a 5-page FAQ document (click here). [*Toxics]
In her remarks, Senator Boxer said the hearing would reveal "some disturbing news about the White House and the Bush Administration’s efforts to corrupt EPA’s toxic chemical risk assessment process. By placing politics before science, the Bush Administration is putting the public in harms way. This according to the GAO and EPA scientists." Boxer said, EPA regulates toxic chemicals in the environment under several laws but the overall toxic chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or “TSCA,” was adopted in 1976 and was supposed to help assure that toxic chemicals would be restricted or banned if they were hazardous. She said, "TSCA puts the burden on the government to prove a toxic chemical is a risk. That is unlike the European program, called REACH [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), See WIMS 3/19/08, See EcoBizPort REACH]. REACH puts the burden on the chemical industry -- where it should be -- to show that their chemicals are safe."
On April 10, U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development, announced that the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and process for developing chemical assessments would undergo several changes "to increase its transparency and efficiency." EPA said the changes include: an expanded process for recommending a substance be assessed; the earlier involvement of other agencies and the public; hosting “listening sessions” to allow for the broader participation and engagement of interested parties; and an even more rigorous scientific peer review of IRIS assessments [See WIMS 4/10/08]. EPA’s IRIS program is a chemical evaluation program that is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental regulations and policies. The IRIS database contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals.
Senator Boxer released a GAO report entitled, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (GAO-08-440, March 7, 2008). She said the report "criticizes the Bush Administration changes to the risk assessment process and makes clear the danger faced by the public when political interference and the influence of polluters affects EPA’s ability to address the risks of toxic chemicals. Under EPA’s new approach politics can be -- and already has been -- injected into multiple stages in the process. Even worse, the new procedure effectively requires the White House the Department of Defense (DOD) -- which contracts out much of its weapons programs -- to agree with EPA on any risk assessment before it goes forward and is made public. The entire process of White House and interagency debate is kept secret, which GAO and EPA scientists say undermines the credibility of EPA’s scientific assessments. That is because EPA scientists are being pushed aside by White House operatives and polluters."
In its review GAO found, among other items, that the IRIS database is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments -- a total of 4 were completed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In its testimony GAO said that EPA’s new process is largely the same as the draft GAO evaluated [prior to the April 10 release], and some key changes also are likely to further exacerbate the productivity and credibility concerns GAO identified. GAO testified, "GAO continues to believe it is critical that input from all parties—particularly agencies that may be affected by the outcome of IRIS assessments—be publicly available. As recommended in GAO’s March 2008 report, to effectively maintain IRIS, EPA must, among other things, streamline its lengthy assessment process and adopt transparency practices that provide assurance that IRIS assessments are appropriately based on the best available science and that they are not inappropriately biased by policy considerations. Since EPA’s new process is not responsive to GAO’s recommendations, the viability of this critical database has been further jeopardized."
Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, opening statements, the full 89-page GAO report, related letters & documents and a webcast of the hearing (click here). Access an EPA release on it new IRIS process (click here). Access the IRIS website (click here). Access links to contacts, a 9-page EPA description of the process revisions, and a 5-page FAQ document (click here). [*Toxics]
Monday, April 28, 2008
Bush Warming Proposal Gets Mixed Reviews
Apr 16: President Bush laid out the Administration's latest strategy on controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its relationship to domestic proposals being advanced in Congress and international proposals being developed in the aftermath of the so-called "Bali Roadmap." The President's plan was announced in advance of the Administration-led, third "Major Economies" meeting being held in Paris France, April 17-18, 2008. The meeting of major economies on energy and climate brought together Germany, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, South Korea, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Britain, Russia and South Africa, as well as the UN, the European Union (EU) and the IEA.
The essence of the President's proposal was to set a new national goal to stop the growth of U.S. GHG emissions by 2025; pursue an economy-wide strategy that builds on existing programs (i.e. clean coal, carbon sequestration, nuclear power, energy efficiency, and alternative fuels) and adopts policies that spur investment in the new technologies. The goal and efforts would constitute the "America's national plan" and the U.S. would include its plan in a binding international agreement, so long as other major economies include their plans in such an agreement. Each nations' plan would recognize different strategies, goals and polices reflective of individual unique energy resources and economic circumstances.
In announcing the strategy, President Bush said, "I believe that Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and on American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share."
He said, "The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.
"The wrong way is to sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills for American families and the cost of energy for American businesses. The right way is to adopt policies that spur investment in the new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more cost-effectively in the longer term without placing unreasonable burdens on American consumers and workers in the short term.
"The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our nation's huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air.
"The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad -- which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there. The right way is to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement.
"The wrong way is to threaten punitive tariffs and protectionist barriers, start a carbon-based global trade war, and to stifle the diffusion of new technologies. The right way is to work to make advanced technology affordable and available in the developing world -- by lowering trade barriers, creating a global free market for clean energy technologies, and enhancing international cooperation and technology investment."
President Bush reminded that "When I took office seven years ago, we faced a problem. A number of nations around the world were preparing to implement the flawed approach of Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, the United States Senate took a look at the Kyoto approach and passed a resolution opposing this approach by a 95 to nothing vote. . . So the United States has launched -- and the G8 has embraced -- a new process that brings together the countries responsible for most of the world's emissions. We're working toward a climate agreement that includes the meaningful participation of every major economy -- and gives none a free ride."
Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), the authors of the major Senate initiative on climate change, the Climate Security Act (S. 2191), issued a joint release on the President's proposal. Senator Lieberman said, "I share the President's preference of a market-based approach over carbon taxes. I remain encouraged by EPA's finding last month that the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act will achieve strong results in curbing global warming without imposing economic hardship on Americans [See WIMS 3/17/08]. I don't think that the President's statement will have any negative impact on our efforts to attract votes to the Climate Security Act on the Senate floor this June. I remain confident about the prospects of this critical legislation." Senator Warner said, "The President's announcement today that he supports measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is welcome news as the Senate prepares to consider climate change legislation this summer. This personally delivered message is recognition that a growing problem faces America -- and the world -- caused by erratic fluctuations in climate, particularly temperature variations and rainfall patterns. I am pleased the President is prepared to engage on this vital issue, both on Capitol Hill and on the international stage."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee said, ""The President's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing - it is the height of irresponsibility. I strongly believe that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee bill will not only make our nation a leader in the global warming challenge, but it will trigger an American economic renaissance."
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, was highly critical of the President and said, "By the time President Bush’s plan finally starts to cut global warming emissions, the planet will already be cooked. The President’s short-term goal is to do nothing, his medium-term goal is to do nothing much, and his long-term goal is to do nothing close to what’s needed to save the planet from global warming.
"He claims we must cooperate with other countries on climate-friendly technology, but his administration didn’t even send a participant to a major 60-country renewable energy meeting in Berlin last week. How can the American people have faith in this President’s climate goals when he doesn’t even show faith in his own rhetoric? According to the head of the Nobel-winning IPCC, global emissions need to peak by 2015, and reduce after that. Waiting until 2025 just to stop the increases in U.S. emissions spells disaster for the planet. . ."
Major environmental organizations including Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and Earthjustice all issued statements denouncing the President's proposal (See links below). As a representative example, NRDC said, "In his eighth year, the president has just proposed a path on global warming weaker than the campaign pledge he made in September of 2000 and broke three months into office. Not content with blocking action over the last eight years, this president is trying to lock in pollution growth for the next 15.
“His approach would extend his dangerous legacy on global warming far beyond his time in office. His statement seems a thinly disguised attempt to derail global warming solutions currently moving in Congress. The Lieberman-Warner bill is set to be voted on in June and it should be strengthened and passed, not attacked by this do-nothing president. While the Lieberman-Warner bill would reduce emissions 25-32 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, in line with what scientists say is needed, the president’s new goal would allow continued emissions growth of as much as 10 percent or more. . ."
In response to a question at a press briefing from France on the Major Economies meeting James Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality and key Administration spokesperson on climate change said, "What the President did was try to squarely describe where we understand the peak point to be, and it's going to be in that 2025 period -- and for two very straightforward reasons: One is to get emissions to peak in the power generation sector, you need nuclear plants, you need carbon captured storage, and you need renewable power on the gigawatt scale. It will take us 10 to 15 years to get to the point where that's going to be possible, and it's -- that's just straight up math and permitting and getting plants built and financed.
"On the transportation side, to get us into a absolute decline mode, which will occur sometime around 2025, to get us there we have to shift to second-generation cellulosic fuels, because those have the lower carbon profile that displaces the CO emissions associated from gasoline use; and we have to use more electricity in our vehicle mix, and that's going to require the very same low-carbon power plants that I just described.
"We cannot as a country magically put all that out there in the next five to 10 years, but what the President's strategy has done is ensure that that's going to occur at the time that we've determined. If somebody has other views on making that come faster, we welcome that debate. . ."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee issued a statement saying the President's speech rejected the Lieberman -Warner S. 2191 bill. Senator Inhofe said, "I applaud the President for outlining a bold alternative climate initiative that rejects the concept that the United States must adopt economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill that would significantly drive up the already skyrocketing cost of energy on the American public. Today, as American families and American workers are faced with an economic downturn, the slumping housing market, and rising gas prices, they are unlikely to tolerate a ‘de-stimulus’ climate bill that will not have the sponsors’ purported impact on temperatures but will further exacerbate economic pain. Rather, the President outlined the only politically and economically sustainable path forward, one that embraces and develops new technologies."
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) agreed with the President's proposal and said, "“President Bush has laid out a constructive and balanced set of principles to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Manufacturers seek climate change solutions that offer significant environmental benefits without undue risk to jobs and the economy. Technology should play a leading role in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
"U.S.-based manufacturers are dedicated to greater environmental sustainability. But as President Bush noted, America can’t do it alone. Every major economy must establish a national goal for cutting the emissions believed responsible for climate change. China recently surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. But China is not engaged in emission reduction efforts, nor is India or other fast-growing developing economies. The net effect is that any sacrifice made by Americans will be overwhelmed by emissions increases in other countries.
"Manufacturers agree that all responsible climate change approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies. Enacting new greenhouse gas regulations and mandates in the absence of commercially available carbon-reduction technology would spell disaster for the U.S. economy. In lieu of regulations, lawmakers should focus on encouraging the development of new technologies. . ."
A report on the meeting from China View news service said, "The third Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change (MEM) closed here on Friday with no substantial progress and no agreement reached on specific greenhouse gas reduction goals. . . representatives agreed to hold two more rounds of meetings in May and June. . ." It reported the Bush, "reduction plan won little applause. Instead, it drew criticism from many representatives at the meeting, who voiced their disappointment at the U.S. proposal, saying there was little new in it. According to estimates by Chief Economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA) Fatih Birol, even if all of Bush's reduction measures were able to be implemented, carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States is likely to increase 23 percent by 2025 compared with the 1990 level."
A report from the London-based "BusinessGreen" indicated, "Paris climate talks end in deadlock… again." The news report said, "negotiators were again at loggerheads over proposals for a binding target to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. The EU, Japan and Canada have all been lobbying hard for such a target to be set, but representatives of developing economies at the talks said they would not sign up to such a goal until they see more action from the US to cut emissions. . ."
Access the President's speech and link to a fact sheet on the proposal and related information (click here). Access the transcript of the press briefing on the Major Economies meeting (click here). Access the State Department website on the Major Economies meetings (click here). Access a release from Senators Lieberman and Warner (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access the China View account (click here). Access the BusinessGreen account (click here). Access various other media reports on the meeting (click here). [*Climate]
The essence of the President's proposal was to set a new national goal to stop the growth of U.S. GHG emissions by 2025; pursue an economy-wide strategy that builds on existing programs (i.e. clean coal, carbon sequestration, nuclear power, energy efficiency, and alternative fuels) and adopts policies that spur investment in the new technologies. The goal and efforts would constitute the "America's national plan" and the U.S. would include its plan in a binding international agreement, so long as other major economies include their plans in such an agreement. Each nations' plan would recognize different strategies, goals and polices reflective of individual unique energy resources and economic circumstances.
In announcing the strategy, President Bush said, "I believe that Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and on American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share."
He said, "The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.
"The wrong way is to sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills for American families and the cost of energy for American businesses. The right way is to adopt policies that spur investment in the new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more cost-effectively in the longer term without placing unreasonable burdens on American consumers and workers in the short term.
"The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our nation's huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air.
"The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad -- which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there. The right way is to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement.
"The wrong way is to threaten punitive tariffs and protectionist barriers, start a carbon-based global trade war, and to stifle the diffusion of new technologies. The right way is to work to make advanced technology affordable and available in the developing world -- by lowering trade barriers, creating a global free market for clean energy technologies, and enhancing international cooperation and technology investment."
President Bush reminded that "When I took office seven years ago, we faced a problem. A number of nations around the world were preparing to implement the flawed approach of Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, the United States Senate took a look at the Kyoto approach and passed a resolution opposing this approach by a 95 to nothing vote. . . So the United States has launched -- and the G8 has embraced -- a new process that brings together the countries responsible for most of the world's emissions. We're working toward a climate agreement that includes the meaningful participation of every major economy -- and gives none a free ride."
Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), the authors of the major Senate initiative on climate change, the Climate Security Act (S. 2191), issued a joint release on the President's proposal. Senator Lieberman said, "I share the President's preference of a market-based approach over carbon taxes. I remain encouraged by EPA's finding last month that the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act will achieve strong results in curbing global warming without imposing economic hardship on Americans [See WIMS 3/17/08]. I don't think that the President's statement will have any negative impact on our efforts to attract votes to the Climate Security Act on the Senate floor this June. I remain confident about the prospects of this critical legislation." Senator Warner said, "The President's announcement today that he supports measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is welcome news as the Senate prepares to consider climate change legislation this summer. This personally delivered message is recognition that a growing problem faces America -- and the world -- caused by erratic fluctuations in climate, particularly temperature variations and rainfall patterns. I am pleased the President is prepared to engage on this vital issue, both on Capitol Hill and on the international stage."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee said, ""The President's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing - it is the height of irresponsibility. I strongly believe that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee bill will not only make our nation a leader in the global warming challenge, but it will trigger an American economic renaissance."
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, was highly critical of the President and said, "By the time President Bush’s plan finally starts to cut global warming emissions, the planet will already be cooked. The President’s short-term goal is to do nothing, his medium-term goal is to do nothing much, and his long-term goal is to do nothing close to what’s needed to save the planet from global warming.
"He claims we must cooperate with other countries on climate-friendly technology, but his administration didn’t even send a participant to a major 60-country renewable energy meeting in Berlin last week. How can the American people have faith in this President’s climate goals when he doesn’t even show faith in his own rhetoric? According to the head of the Nobel-winning IPCC, global emissions need to peak by 2015, and reduce after that. Waiting until 2025 just to stop the increases in U.S. emissions spells disaster for the planet. . ."
Major environmental organizations including Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and Earthjustice all issued statements denouncing the President's proposal (See links below). As a representative example, NRDC said, "In his eighth year, the president has just proposed a path on global warming weaker than the campaign pledge he made in September of 2000 and broke three months into office. Not content with blocking action over the last eight years, this president is trying to lock in pollution growth for the next 15.
“His approach would extend his dangerous legacy on global warming far beyond his time in office. His statement seems a thinly disguised attempt to derail global warming solutions currently moving in Congress. The Lieberman-Warner bill is set to be voted on in June and it should be strengthened and passed, not attacked by this do-nothing president. While the Lieberman-Warner bill would reduce emissions 25-32 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, in line with what scientists say is needed, the president’s new goal would allow continued emissions growth of as much as 10 percent or more. . ."
In response to a question at a press briefing from France on the Major Economies meeting James Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality and key Administration spokesperson on climate change said, "What the President did was try to squarely describe where we understand the peak point to be, and it's going to be in that 2025 period -- and for two very straightforward reasons: One is to get emissions to peak in the power generation sector, you need nuclear plants, you need carbon captured storage, and you need renewable power on the gigawatt scale. It will take us 10 to 15 years to get to the point where that's going to be possible, and it's -- that's just straight up math and permitting and getting plants built and financed.
"On the transportation side, to get us into a absolute decline mode, which will occur sometime around 2025, to get us there we have to shift to second-generation cellulosic fuels, because those have the lower carbon profile that displaces the CO emissions associated from gasoline use; and we have to use more electricity in our vehicle mix, and that's going to require the very same low-carbon power plants that I just described.
"We cannot as a country magically put all that out there in the next five to 10 years, but what the President's strategy has done is ensure that that's going to occur at the time that we've determined. If somebody has other views on making that come faster, we welcome that debate. . ."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee issued a statement saying the President's speech rejected the Lieberman -Warner S. 2191 bill. Senator Inhofe said, "I applaud the President for outlining a bold alternative climate initiative that rejects the concept that the United States must adopt economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill that would significantly drive up the already skyrocketing cost of energy on the American public. Today, as American families and American workers are faced with an economic downturn, the slumping housing market, and rising gas prices, they are unlikely to tolerate a ‘de-stimulus’ climate bill that will not have the sponsors’ purported impact on temperatures but will further exacerbate economic pain. Rather, the President outlined the only politically and economically sustainable path forward, one that embraces and develops new technologies."
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) agreed with the President's proposal and said, "“President Bush has laid out a constructive and balanced set of principles to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Manufacturers seek climate change solutions that offer significant environmental benefits without undue risk to jobs and the economy. Technology should play a leading role in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
"U.S.-based manufacturers are dedicated to greater environmental sustainability. But as President Bush noted, America can’t do it alone. Every major economy must establish a national goal for cutting the emissions believed responsible for climate change. China recently surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. But China is not engaged in emission reduction efforts, nor is India or other fast-growing developing economies. The net effect is that any sacrifice made by Americans will be overwhelmed by emissions increases in other countries.
"Manufacturers agree that all responsible climate change approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies. Enacting new greenhouse gas regulations and mandates in the absence of commercially available carbon-reduction technology would spell disaster for the U.S. economy. In lieu of regulations, lawmakers should focus on encouraging the development of new technologies. . ."
A report on the meeting from China View news service said, "The third Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change (MEM) closed here on Friday with no substantial progress and no agreement reached on specific greenhouse gas reduction goals. . . representatives agreed to hold two more rounds of meetings in May and June. . ." It reported the Bush, "reduction plan won little applause. Instead, it drew criticism from many representatives at the meeting, who voiced their disappointment at the U.S. proposal, saying there was little new in it. According to estimates by Chief Economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA) Fatih Birol, even if all of Bush's reduction measures were able to be implemented, carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States is likely to increase 23 percent by 2025 compared with the 1990 level."
A report from the London-based "BusinessGreen" indicated, "Paris climate talks end in deadlock… again." The news report said, "negotiators were again at loggerheads over proposals for a binding target to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. The EU, Japan and Canada have all been lobbying hard for such a target to be set, but representatives of developing economies at the talks said they would not sign up to such a goal until they see more action from the US to cut emissions. . ."
Access the President's speech and link to a fact sheet on the proposal and related information (click here). Access the transcript of the press briefing on the Major Economies meeting (click here). Access the State Department website on the Major Economies meetings (click here). Access a release from Senators Lieberman and Warner (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access the China View account (click here). Access the BusinessGreen account (click here). Access various other media reports on the meeting (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, April 11, 2008
Senate Approves Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Amendment
Subscribers & Readers Notice:
We are beginning our Spring publication break next week,
We will resume publication on Monday, April 28, 2008.
We are beginning our Spring publication break next week,
We will resume publication on Monday, April 28, 2008.
Apr 10: By an overwhelming vote of 88-8 the Senate passed the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment, which was added to H.R.3221, The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. The amendment, which contains the same text as stand-alone legislation (S.2821) introduced April 3, by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) [See WIMS 4/4/08], will extend the renewable energy production tax credit for one year and the solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credit for eight years. U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Republican leader on energy issues, joined the Senate to approve the bipartisan amendment.
Senator Cantwell said, “The renewable and efficiency industries have been soaring, creating thousands of jobs and diversifying our energy supply. . . By extending these tax incentives, we are not only providing certainty to these industries, infusing money into our economy, but creating high-paying, long-term jobs to help Americans get through these tough economic times.”
Senator Domenici said, “Today’s action by the Senate sends a strong signal that clean energy tax credits must be kept in place to help us meet our energy challenges. By extending these credits, we will ensure that vital work on clean energy technologies like wind, solar and biomass will continue. While I would prefer a longer term extension of the production tax credit, I am nevertheless pleased that the Senate was able to come together and craft this bipartisan measure."
In his release Domenici indicated that while some have advocating paying for the tax credit extensions with specific offsets [i.e. the House-passed Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax of 2008 (H.R. 5351)], he said it his belief that it was unnecessary due to the stimulative effect of the tax credits. On February 27, the U.S. House passed H.R. 5351 by a vote of 236 - 182 [See WIMS 2/28/08, 3/5/08]. That bill, sponsored by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), contained controversial revenue provisions were expected to raise approximately $18 billion over 10 years, by freezing tax benefits for certain major integrated oil companies.
Regarding the lack of offsetting revenues in the current legislation, Domenici said, “As former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I have been committed to fiscal discipline for my entire career. But when one takes a larger view of these energy tax credits, it becomes obvious that they stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help America become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, which in my judgment is currently the biggest strain on our economy. The evidence of this can be seen in the stimulative effect of the tax incentives passed in EPACT 2005 when I was chairman. It is therefore unnecessary to offset the tax credits, since the end result will be a benefit to our economy and energy security.”
In addition to extending production and solar tax credits, the amendment authorizes $400 million for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, and extends tax credits for those who modify or build energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings. The amendment also extends credits for energy efficient appliances such as dishwashers and refrigerators. Among the technologies that benefit from the renewable energy tax credit are wind, biomass, geothermal, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion and hydropower facilities.
Access a release from Senator Cantwell (click here). Access a release from Senator Domenici (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 3221 (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2821 (click here). Access details of the roll call vote (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Global CO2 Emissions Already Exceed Worst-Case Projections
Apr 9: An Eco-Economy Update from Lester Brown and the Earth Policy Institute reports on the rapid rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The brief update is an excellent and concise summary of the global baseline upon which CO2 control strategies will be measured.
"Global CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels stood at a record 8.38 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2006, 20 percent above the level in 2000. Emissions grew 3.1 percent a year between 2000 and 2006, more than twice the rate of growth during the 1990s. Carbon dioxide emissions have been growing steadily for 200 years, since fossil fuel burning began on a large scale at the start of the Industrial Revolution." But the growth in emissions is now accelerating despite what Brown calls "unambiguous evidence" that carbon dioxide is warming the planet and disrupting ecosystems around the globe.
"In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) laid out projections of how greenhouse gas emissions were likely to evolve during the twenty-first century due to economic, demographic, and technological changes. The high-end scenario combined rapid economic growth and globalization with intensive fossil fuel use and was used as the IPCC’s upper limit for estimates of future climate change in its recent 2007 report. Yet this upper-limit projection predicted annual emissions growth of only 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2010 -- far less than the 3.1 percent annual increase observed so far this century. With CO2 emissions currently exceeding the worst-case scenario, we can expect that temperature and sea level rise will likely do the same.
"Five countries are responsible for over half of fossil-fuel-related CO2 emissions, and the United States and China alone account for more than a third. The United States has been the world’s largest emitter for over a century, releasing 1.66 GtC in 2006, or 19.8 percent of global emissions. It is now closely followed by China, where growth in emissions has been driven by a rapid increase in coal consumption -- China is currently opening an average of two coal-fired power plants a week. Emissions in China have more than doubled since 1990, reaching 1.48 GtC in 2006, or 17.7 percent of the world total. Analysts expect that China will overtake the United States to become the world’s largest emitter before 2009.
"The other countries in the top five are Russia, India, and Japan, respectively accounting for 5.2, 4.7, and 4.1 percent of global CO2 emissions. . . Of these, India has had the fastest growth in emissions, which have tripled since 1981. The increase in emissions from India and China reflects the rapid industrialization and economic growth currently happening throughout Asia. Since 2000, carbon dioxide emissions in Asia have grown five times faster than emissions in the rest of the world. The region, which produced less then 10 percent of global emissions in 1970, now accounts for almost a third of the world total.
"These national and regional numbers mask huge differences in per capita CO2 emissions. After the tiny nations of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Singapore, the United States has the largest per capita emissions in the world. . . At 5.5 tons of carbon, per person U.S. emissions are almost five times greater than those in China, and almost 200 times greater than those in the poorest countries in the world. The United Nations calculates that an average air-conditioner in Florida is responsible for more CO2 every year than a person in Cambodia is in a lifetime, and that a dishwashing machine in Europe annually emits as much as three Ethiopians. .
. "Carbon dioxide from both fossil fuel burning and deforestation is accumulating in the atmosphere. Ice core records indicate that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any point in the last 650,000 years. In 2007, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 384 parts per million (ppm), up from 280 ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Between 2000 and 2007, atmospheric CO2 concentration grew by an average of 2 ppm per year, the fastest seven-year increase since continuous monitoring began in 1959. . . Only about half of the CO2 released into the atmosphere every year actually remains there, as at least 45 percent is rapidly removed by carbon sinks such as plants and the ocean. . .
"The IPCC projects that without policy measures to address global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning could more than double between 2000 and 2030, a trajectory that would make it almost impossible to avoid a temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Increasing evidence suggests that even a warming of less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures would constitute “dangerous” climate change, something nations have already committed to avoid under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. . ."
Access the complete update and links to data resources (click here). [*Climate]
"Global CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels stood at a record 8.38 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2006, 20 percent above the level in 2000. Emissions grew 3.1 percent a year between 2000 and 2006, more than twice the rate of growth during the 1990s. Carbon dioxide emissions have been growing steadily for 200 years, since fossil fuel burning began on a large scale at the start of the Industrial Revolution." But the growth in emissions is now accelerating despite what Brown calls "unambiguous evidence" that carbon dioxide is warming the planet and disrupting ecosystems around the globe.
"In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) laid out projections of how greenhouse gas emissions were likely to evolve during the twenty-first century due to economic, demographic, and technological changes. The high-end scenario combined rapid economic growth and globalization with intensive fossil fuel use and was used as the IPCC’s upper limit for estimates of future climate change in its recent 2007 report. Yet this upper-limit projection predicted annual emissions growth of only 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2010 -- far less than the 3.1 percent annual increase observed so far this century. With CO2 emissions currently exceeding the worst-case scenario, we can expect that temperature and sea level rise will likely do the same.
"Five countries are responsible for over half of fossil-fuel-related CO2 emissions, and the United States and China alone account for more than a third. The United States has been the world’s largest emitter for over a century, releasing 1.66 GtC in 2006, or 19.8 percent of global emissions. It is now closely followed by China, where growth in emissions has been driven by a rapid increase in coal consumption -- China is currently opening an average of two coal-fired power plants a week. Emissions in China have more than doubled since 1990, reaching 1.48 GtC in 2006, or 17.7 percent of the world total. Analysts expect that China will overtake the United States to become the world’s largest emitter before 2009.
"The other countries in the top five are Russia, India, and Japan, respectively accounting for 5.2, 4.7, and 4.1 percent of global CO2 emissions. . . Of these, India has had the fastest growth in emissions, which have tripled since 1981. The increase in emissions from India and China reflects the rapid industrialization and economic growth currently happening throughout Asia. Since 2000, carbon dioxide emissions in Asia have grown five times faster than emissions in the rest of the world. The region, which produced less then 10 percent of global emissions in 1970, now accounts for almost a third of the world total.
"These national and regional numbers mask huge differences in per capita CO2 emissions. After the tiny nations of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Singapore, the United States has the largest per capita emissions in the world. . . At 5.5 tons of carbon, per person U.S. emissions are almost five times greater than those in China, and almost 200 times greater than those in the poorest countries in the world. The United Nations calculates that an average air-conditioner in Florida is responsible for more CO2 every year than a person in Cambodia is in a lifetime, and that a dishwashing machine in Europe annually emits as much as three Ethiopians. .
. "Carbon dioxide from both fossil fuel burning and deforestation is accumulating in the atmosphere. Ice core records indicate that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any point in the last 650,000 years. In 2007, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 384 parts per million (ppm), up from 280 ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Between 2000 and 2007, atmospheric CO2 concentration grew by an average of 2 ppm per year, the fastest seven-year increase since continuous monitoring began in 1959. . . Only about half of the CO2 released into the atmosphere every year actually remains there, as at least 45 percent is rapidly removed by carbon sinks such as plants and the ocean. . .
"The IPCC projects that without policy measures to address global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning could more than double between 2000 and 2030, a trajectory that would make it almost impossible to avoid a temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Increasing evidence suggests that even a warming of less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures would constitute “dangerous” climate change, something nations have already committed to avoid under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. . ."
Access the complete update and links to data resources (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Senate Hearing On Clean Water Restoration Act
Apr 9: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held a hearing entitled, “Legislative Hearing on S. 1870, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 [See WIMS 5/22/07]." Witnesses testifying at the hearing included Carol Browner, former U.S. EPA Administrator and now a principal with The Albright Group, LLC; and representatives of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; Madison County, State of Ohio; and Smith 6-S Livestock.
The original House bill, introduced by Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee along with 175 cosponsors (companion bill Senate bill S.1870), is regarded by proponents as a "fix" designed to restore the authority of the Clean Water Act so it has the same effect it had prior to the Supreme Court’s rulings in 2001 and 2006 that question the ability of U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to enforce the Clean Water Act on wetlands, streams and ponds that are not part of a major “navigable” waterway [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities]. The first sentence of the act reads, “The Purpose of this act is as follows: To reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.” CWRA would also reaffirm exemptions for farming, mining, logging and other activities that are not regulated by the Clean Water Act.
Senator Boxer's opening statement was not readily available but she indicated that the CWA authorities should be increased -- not decreased. She said the current problems with the CWA are the result of "activist Justices" and their interpretation of the Act. In his opening statement, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said, "This bill, as currently written, will expand federal jurisdiction authority in a way that pushes the outer limits of Congress’s constitutional role. If Congress is to amend the Clean Water Act, any changes must provide clarity and reduce lawsuits. This bill does neither. It will not curtail litigation, but rather increase it, as stakeholders seek legal clarity on what exactly are the outer limits of Congressional authority. We should not propose and pass legislative language that increases uncertainty and increases an already litigious environment."
A number of major environmental and conservations organizations are supporting the act including: American Rivers; Clean Water Network; Earthjustice; Environment America; Izaak Walton League of America; League of Conservation Voters; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; and Trout Unlimited. The groups issued a joint release saying, “The Supreme Court and the Bush Administration have placed vital Clean Water Act protections in doubt for many important waters, making it easier to pollute and destroy these waters. Corporations and developers are spending millions to defeat this bill, because taking responsibility for safeguarding clean water cuts into company profits."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release from environmental/conservation groups (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1870 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2421 (click here). [*Water]
The original House bill, introduced by Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee along with 175 cosponsors (companion bill Senate bill S.1870), is regarded by proponents as a "fix" designed to restore the authority of the Clean Water Act so it has the same effect it had prior to the Supreme Court’s rulings in 2001 and 2006 that question the ability of U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to enforce the Clean Water Act on wetlands, streams and ponds that are not part of a major “navigable” waterway [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities]. The first sentence of the act reads, “The Purpose of this act is as follows: To reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.” CWRA would also reaffirm exemptions for farming, mining, logging and other activities that are not regulated by the Clean Water Act.
Senator Boxer's opening statement was not readily available but she indicated that the CWA authorities should be increased -- not decreased. She said the current problems with the CWA are the result of "activist Justices" and their interpretation of the Act. In his opening statement, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said, "This bill, as currently written, will expand federal jurisdiction authority in a way that pushes the outer limits of Congress’s constitutional role. If Congress is to amend the Clean Water Act, any changes must provide clarity and reduce lawsuits. This bill does neither. It will not curtail litigation, but rather increase it, as stakeholders seek legal clarity on what exactly are the outer limits of Congressional authority. We should not propose and pass legislative language that increases uncertainty and increases an already litigious environment."
A number of major environmental and conservations organizations are supporting the act including: American Rivers; Clean Water Network; Earthjustice; Environment America; Izaak Walton League of America; League of Conservation Voters; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; and Trout Unlimited. The groups issued a joint release saying, “The Supreme Court and the Bush Administration have placed vital Clean Water Act protections in doubt for many important waters, making it easier to pollute and destroy these waters. Corporations and developers are spending millions to defeat this bill, because taking responsibility for safeguarding clean water cuts into company profits."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release from environmental/conservation groups (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1870 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2421 (click here). [*Water]
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Representatives Dingell Speaks On Energy & Climate Legislation
Apr 8: U.S. Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who is and will continue to be a major actor on the issue of climate change legislation delivered a speech at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2008 Energy Conference on April 8, 2008. Dingell and his Committee have issued a series of White Papers [See WIMS 2/25/08] on issues involved in the House-side climate change legislation. The Senate legislation, Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) [See WIMS 3/17/08], is expected to be voted on in the Senate sometime in June.
The following are few excerpts from the speech with the full text available from the link below. With 52 years of experience in Congress, Dingell said, "this is one of the most critical periods in our nation’s history for energy policy." Chairman Dingell said:
-- "EIA has projected that the amount of energy saved from the energy bill Congress passed and the President signed in December will be only half of what others have projected."
-- "By now, it’s clear that Congress is moving forward in developing comprehensive climate change legislation. This process, like major portions of last year’s energy independence bill, is being driven by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As I see it, the Committee has begun the third phase of our work on climate change. . . The third phase of our climate change work is now underway: preparing legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent by the year 2050. We are moving closer to crafting this comprehensive legislation. Though we’re working to complete this process as quickly as possible, we’re most concerned with doing it well. I would note, that as we move forward, we are receiving little help from this Administration. Ultimately, whether the Administration chooses to engage in this process or not, the end result must be, and will be, a bill that protects our environment without putting the American economy at a disadvantage. . ."
-- "Despite its availability and importance, coal faces obvious challenges as we search for ways to reduce its carbon emissions. That’s why I am working to ensure that the climate legislation we draft recognizes the need to use this fuel more efficiently and cleanly. The development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies is fundamental to continued coal use in an increasingly carbon constrained world."
-- I recognize that nuclear power remains controversial in some quarters. However, this energy source continues to enjoy substantial Congressional support, as reflected in the loan guarantee provisions of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Perhaps the biggest near-term challenge for nuclear power’s prospects is the question of waste disposal. I have long been a strong supporter of securing funding for the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain repository project."
-- "New source review, which requires plant-specific, case-by-case permitting of new and modified sources seems to be a far less efficient way of limiting greenhouse gas emissions than would an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. Requiring each individual state to prepare a state implementation plan on greenhouse gases might not be the best use of governmental resources."
-- "In all my years in Congress, taking on the challenge of climate change is the most difficult undertaking of my career. But, I am up to the challenge. I am excited about the opportunity it presents. I believe that comprehensive climate change legislation presents us with an opportunity not only to produce a bill, but a major legislative accomplishment."
Access the complete speech (click here). Access the agenda and speakers for the EIA conference (click here). Access links to all Committee White Papers, letters, hearings, etc regarding the Committee activity on climate change (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
The following are few excerpts from the speech with the full text available from the link below. With 52 years of experience in Congress, Dingell said, "this is one of the most critical periods in our nation’s history for energy policy." Chairman Dingell said:
-- "EIA has projected that the amount of energy saved from the energy bill Congress passed and the President signed in December will be only half of what others have projected."
-- "By now, it’s clear that Congress is moving forward in developing comprehensive climate change legislation. This process, like major portions of last year’s energy independence bill, is being driven by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As I see it, the Committee has begun the third phase of our work on climate change. . . The third phase of our climate change work is now underway: preparing legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent by the year 2050. We are moving closer to crafting this comprehensive legislation. Though we’re working to complete this process as quickly as possible, we’re most concerned with doing it well. I would note, that as we move forward, we are receiving little help from this Administration. Ultimately, whether the Administration chooses to engage in this process or not, the end result must be, and will be, a bill that protects our environment without putting the American economy at a disadvantage. . ."
-- "Despite its availability and importance, coal faces obvious challenges as we search for ways to reduce its carbon emissions. That’s why I am working to ensure that the climate legislation we draft recognizes the need to use this fuel more efficiently and cleanly. The development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies is fundamental to continued coal use in an increasingly carbon constrained world."
-- I recognize that nuclear power remains controversial in some quarters. However, this energy source continues to enjoy substantial Congressional support, as reflected in the loan guarantee provisions of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Perhaps the biggest near-term challenge for nuclear power’s prospects is the question of waste disposal. I have long been a strong supporter of securing funding for the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain repository project."
-- "New source review, which requires plant-specific, case-by-case permitting of new and modified sources seems to be a far less efficient way of limiting greenhouse gas emissions than would an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. Requiring each individual state to prepare a state implementation plan on greenhouse gases might not be the best use of governmental resources."
-- "In all my years in Congress, taking on the challenge of climate change is the most difficult undertaking of my career. But, I am up to the challenge. I am excited about the opportunity it presents. I believe that comprehensive climate change legislation presents us with an opportunity not only to produce a bill, but a major legislative accomplishment."
Access the complete speech (click here). Access the agenda and speakers for the EIA conference (click here). Access links to all Committee White Papers, letters, hearings, etc regarding the Committee activity on climate change (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, April 07, 2008
Paper Or Plastic? Seattle Officials Say Neither!
Apr 4: On April 2, Seattle, Washington's Mayor Greg Nickels and City Council President Richard Conlin proposed a 20-cent “green fee” on all disposable shopping bags at the city’s grocery, drug and convenience stores. They said a recent city-sponsored report determined that both paper and plastic are harmful to the environment. The proposal also calls for a ban on foam containers in the food service industry. If adopted by the City Council, the waste prevention measures would take effect Jan. 1, 2009. Nickels and Conlin said the bag fee and foam ban will cut down on waste, reduce the use of environmentally harmful plastics and cut the production of greenhouse gases.
Mayor Nickels said, “The answer to the question ‘paper or plastic’ is neither -- both harm the environment. Every piece of plastic ever made is still with us. The best way to handle a ton of waste is not to create it. This proposal is all about forming new habits. Taking a reusable bag to grocery stores and pharmacies is a simple thing that has an enormous impact.”
On April 4, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the Seattle proposals would will have negative consequences on the local environment, the economy and the school system. ACC said plastic recycling is a superior alternative for the environment and for the community’s economic health. ACC encouraged the City of Seattle to join a growing number of cities and states by supporting plastic recycling programs for bags and food containers.
ACC indicated in a release that plastic bags are a good choice for the environment. It takes less than half of the energy to make them than typical alternatives, and likewise, they generate less than half the greenhouse gases of typical alternatives. Increased recycling is the answer. Sharon Kneiss, vice president of ACC’s Products Division said, “We are seeing a trend for municipalities nationwide to creatively employ existing resources to reduce waste, improve sustainability and achieve broader environmental goals. Across the nation, from California to New York City, progressive leaders are choosing plastic bag recycling because it makes sense for the environment and the economy.”
A release from Mayor Nickels indicated that Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) estimates 360 million disposable bags are used in the city every year, most made of plastic. Almost 75 percent of these come from the city’s 575 grocery, drug and convenience stores (out of a total 3,600 retail and restaurant businesses). While Seattleites have a good record of recycling paper bags, most plastic ends up in landfills. But paper bags will also be subject to the fee because, taking into account the environmental costs of logging and shipping, they are actually worse for the planet.
According to the proposal the city will set aside $1 million to distribute these bags and promote their advantages. Retailers will keep 5-cents of every bag to cover administrative costs. Retailers grossing less than $1 million annually will keep the entire 20-cent fee. Charging a fee for disposable bags will cut the number of throw-away bags coming out of grocery, drug and convenience stores by an estimated 70 percent or more according to the city’s analysis and will reduce the use of disposable shopping bags in Seattle overall by more than 50 percent. By preventing the manufacture of 184 million bags a year, Seattle will cut greenhouse gas production by nearly 112,000 tons over a 30-year period. A similar fee in Ireland achieved a 90 percent reduction in use from 325 to 23 bags per person per year.
ACC points out, however, that the tax on plastic bags in Ireland reduced plastic grocery bag use by 90% but increased overall plastic use by 400% as residents purchased new plastic bags instead of reusing grocery bags. They also said that retailers in Ireland report the loss of 450 wire baskets and carts per month by retailer on average -- a loss of about 24 million euros (about $39 million USD) annually. And, the tax has led to a significant increase in ‘push outs’ (shoppers filling their carts and walking straight out without paying) at a cost to retailers of 10 million euros ($17.2 million USD) annually.
To smooth the transition in Seattle, the proposal calls for establishing business advisory committees representing the retail and restaurant sectors. In addition, the city will help food service businesses work together for lower prices on new compostable products. Seattle expects to collect about $10 million annually from the green fee. About $2 million will be spent to promote the switch to reusable bags, including the distribution of free bags to low income families and those on fixed incomes. The rest of the money, about $8 million, will go toward waste prevention and recycling programs and environmental education programs.
A study recently conducted by Herrera Environmental for Seattle indicates that all disposable paper and plastic bags have significant energy, climate change, wastewater, litter and water quality impacts on the region’s environment -- although plastic is especially damaging to marine animals and shore birds. The Herrera study examined the life cycle environmental impact of disposable shopping bags and found the overall impact of paper bags was four times worse than that of an equal number of plastic bags (for all categories weighted equally), and worse in every category except litter and marine litter. The Mayor indicated that banning plastic bags but not paper would push stores and shoppers to use more paper bags, resulting in significantly greater greenhouse gas generation.
Access a release from the Seattle Mayor with links to additional information including a fact sheet, report executive summary and a FAQ document (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to more information on plastics and to the ACC plastic bag recycling website (click here). [*Solid, *Energy, *Climate]
Mayor Nickels said, “The answer to the question ‘paper or plastic’ is neither -- both harm the environment. Every piece of plastic ever made is still with us. The best way to handle a ton of waste is not to create it. This proposal is all about forming new habits. Taking a reusable bag to grocery stores and pharmacies is a simple thing that has an enormous impact.”
On April 4, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the Seattle proposals would will have negative consequences on the local environment, the economy and the school system. ACC said plastic recycling is a superior alternative for the environment and for the community’s economic health. ACC encouraged the City of Seattle to join a growing number of cities and states by supporting plastic recycling programs for bags and food containers.
ACC indicated in a release that plastic bags are a good choice for the environment. It takes less than half of the energy to make them than typical alternatives, and likewise, they generate less than half the greenhouse gases of typical alternatives. Increased recycling is the answer. Sharon Kneiss, vice president of ACC’s Products Division said, “We are seeing a trend for municipalities nationwide to creatively employ existing resources to reduce waste, improve sustainability and achieve broader environmental goals. Across the nation, from California to New York City, progressive leaders are choosing plastic bag recycling because it makes sense for the environment and the economy.”
A release from Mayor Nickels indicated that Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) estimates 360 million disposable bags are used in the city every year, most made of plastic. Almost 75 percent of these come from the city’s 575 grocery, drug and convenience stores (out of a total 3,600 retail and restaurant businesses). While Seattleites have a good record of recycling paper bags, most plastic ends up in landfills. But paper bags will also be subject to the fee because, taking into account the environmental costs of logging and shipping, they are actually worse for the planet.
According to the proposal the city will set aside $1 million to distribute these bags and promote their advantages. Retailers will keep 5-cents of every bag to cover administrative costs. Retailers grossing less than $1 million annually will keep the entire 20-cent fee. Charging a fee for disposable bags will cut the number of throw-away bags coming out of grocery, drug and convenience stores by an estimated 70 percent or more according to the city’s analysis and will reduce the use of disposable shopping bags in Seattle overall by more than 50 percent. By preventing the manufacture of 184 million bags a year, Seattle will cut greenhouse gas production by nearly 112,000 tons over a 30-year period. A similar fee in Ireland achieved a 90 percent reduction in use from 325 to 23 bags per person per year.
ACC points out, however, that the tax on plastic bags in Ireland reduced plastic grocery bag use by 90% but increased overall plastic use by 400% as residents purchased new plastic bags instead of reusing grocery bags. They also said that retailers in Ireland report the loss of 450 wire baskets and carts per month by retailer on average -- a loss of about 24 million euros (about $39 million USD) annually. And, the tax has led to a significant increase in ‘push outs’ (shoppers filling their carts and walking straight out without paying) at a cost to retailers of 10 million euros ($17.2 million USD) annually.
To smooth the transition in Seattle, the proposal calls for establishing business advisory committees representing the retail and restaurant sectors. In addition, the city will help food service businesses work together for lower prices on new compostable products. Seattle expects to collect about $10 million annually from the green fee. About $2 million will be spent to promote the switch to reusable bags, including the distribution of free bags to low income families and those on fixed incomes. The rest of the money, about $8 million, will go toward waste prevention and recycling programs and environmental education programs.
A study recently conducted by Herrera Environmental for Seattle indicates that all disposable paper and plastic bags have significant energy, climate change, wastewater, litter and water quality impacts on the region’s environment -- although plastic is especially damaging to marine animals and shore birds. The Herrera study examined the life cycle environmental impact of disposable shopping bags and found the overall impact of paper bags was four times worse than that of an equal number of plastic bags (for all categories weighted equally), and worse in every category except litter and marine litter. The Mayor indicated that banning plastic bags but not paper would push stores and shoppers to use more paper bags, resulting in significantly greater greenhouse gas generation.
Access a release from the Seattle Mayor with links to additional information including a fact sheet, report executive summary and a FAQ document (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to more information on plastics and to the ACC plastic bag recycling website (click here). [*Solid, *Energy, *Climate]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
