EU Commission Begins Public Dialogue On Nanotechnologies

Jun 17: The European Environmental Commission has begun a public dialogue on nanotechnologies -- "tapping economic and environmental potential through safe products." According to a release from the Commission, "Nanotechnologies have enormous potential benefits for manufacturers, consumers, employees, patients and the environment. They will bring more energy and resource efficient processes, improve computer memories and processors and could usher in a new age of customized pharmaceuticals and medical procedures."

While current EU legislation covers in principle the challenges for health, safety and environment with regards to nanomaterials, there is further need for research and international cooperation. As more and more products involving nanomaterials are reaching the market, the European Commission will start a consultation with stakeholders and Member States in order to increase knowledge and awareness about the potential of nanotechnologies and to continue to ensure an adequate protection of nature, environment and health.

Commission Vice-President Günter Verheugen, responsible for enterprise and industry policy said, “A reliable and stable regulatory framework is essential for enabling the EU’s industry to fully exploit the advances of nanotechnologies. With the right structures in place they will boost innovation and contribute to growth, employment creation and competitiveness.” Commissioner Stavros Dimas responsible for environment policy said, “The regulatory challenge is to ensure that society benefits from novel applications of nanotechnologies, while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety and the environment and thereby fully applying the precautionary principle.”

The Commission reports, that nanotechnologies process materials are at the atomic, molecular and macromolecular scale, where properties may differ from those seen at a larger scale. Products based on nanotechnologies are already in use and analysts are predicting explosive economic growth in the sector over the coming decade. Nanotechnologies will boost innovation in areas such as public health, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), the manufacturing industry, environmental protection, energy, transport, security and space.

Forecasts for the world market for nanotechnologies span between 750 to 2000 billion € up to 2015, and the potential for the creation of jobs is estimated to 10 million nano-related jobs by 2014, i.e. 10% of all manufacturing jobs world-wide. In the European Union, nanotechnologies are covered by existing legislation such as REACH [Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals], the current legislative framework for chemicals, and other specific-sector legislation for food, cosmetics, medicine and etc.

The Commission says that much work has already been done in this area related to the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), while under the OECD Committee on Scientific and Technological Policy (CSTP) a Working Party on Nanotechnology was established in March 2007. The objective of this Working Party is to promote international co-operation which facilitates research, development and responsible commercialization of nanotechnology in member countries and in non-member economies.

Access the Commission announcement with links to extensive related information (click here). Access the OECD Working Party website (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links (click here). [*Toxics]

Republicans & Democrats Continue Chiding On Energy Issues

Jun 18: Opening the latest round of back and forth between Republicans and Democrats on energy issues, President Bush delivered a White House Rose Garden speech on energy. The sharp differences on national energy policy direction provide a continuation of the snarling that has occurred in recent days and weeks over actions on energy legislation [See WIMS 6/11/08] and a clear choice for voter this fall.

The President said, "High oil prices are at the root of high gasoline prices. And behind those prices is the basic law of supply and demand. In recent years, the world's demand for oil has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American gasoline pumps. Now much of the oil consumed in America comes from abroad -- that's what's changed dramatically over the last couple of decades. Some of that energy comes from unstable regions and unfriendly regimes. This makes us more vulnerable to supply shocks and price spikes beyond our control -- and that puts both our economy and our security at risk.

"In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production."

President Bush outlined his four steps including: (1) Expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. (2) Expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. (3) Expand American oil production by permitting exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. (4) We need to expand and enhance our refining capacity.

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee issued a statement supporting the President's speech. Domenici said, "Today, President Bush identified America’s most pressing energy problem -- increased reliance on foreign oil due at least in part to a lack of supply at home. The President called on Congress to increase American production by lifting the ban on deep sea exploration, lifting the moratorium on oil shale development, permitting exploration in Alaska, and enhancing our refining capacity. The American Energy Production Act (S. 2958), which I introduced on May 1st, accomplishes each of these goals [See WIMS 5/2/08]. The bottom line is that Congress must bypass the political bickering, come together and stop the excuses. Even if we can’t agree on every proposal, I sincerely hope that the Majority will join us to find ways that we can increase American production.” On June 17, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain also called for expanded OCS drilling.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a point-counterpoint statement in response to the President Bush’s proposals and saying, "Bush And McCain Still Don't Get It - We Cannot Drill Our Way Out Of This Energy Crisis." He said, “This week’s flip-flop on offshore oil drilling by President Bush and Senator John McCain is nothing more than a cynical campaign ploy that will do nothing to lower energy prices and represents another big giveaway to oil companies already making billions in profits.

“The facts are clear: Oil companies have already had ample opportunity to increase supply, but they have sat on their hands. They aren’t even using more than half of the public lands they already have leased for drilling [See WIMS 6/13/08]. And despite the huge tax breaks President Bush and Republican Congresses have given oil and gas companies to invest in refineries, domestic production has actually dropped.

“Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem. The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world’s oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil. And the Energy Information Administration says that even if we do open the coasts to oil drilling, prices wouldn’t drop until 2030. President Bush and John McCain are not serious about addressing gas prices. If they were, they would stop offering the same old ideas meant to pad the pockets of Big Oil and work with Democrats to reduce our dependence on oil, invest in the renewable energy sources, crack down on excessive speculation and stand up to countries colluding to shake down American consumers. Bush-McCain Republicans just don’t get it. Their commitment to the failed policies of yesterday is why we have energy, economic and national security crises today. They want to feed our addiction to oil; Democrats want to end it.” Reid included a fact sheet with his statement providing citations and details countering each of the President's proposals.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement in advance of the President speech saying, "The President's proposal sounds like another page from the Administration's Energy Policy that was literally written by the oil industry: give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased. In just the last year, Congress has promoted energy independence by raising efficiency standards for vehicles for the first time in 32 years, investing in American-grown biofuels, and forcing President Bush to increase gas supplies by suspending government purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We have provided enforcement tools to go after those who are speculating on oil and manipulating the price and we will continue to push for solutions that end our dependence on foreign oil."

At 2:30 PM, June 17, the Senate voted again on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H. R. 6049; the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 which failed to obtain the 60 votes necessary again by a mostly partyline vote of 52-44 (4 note voting). The bill was introduced by Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) on May 14, and passed the House on May 21, by a vote of 263-160. Speaker Pelosi issued a statement on the Senate vote saying,

"Senate Republicans blocked legislation that invests in the clean renewable energy that will put our nation on a path toward energy independence. It would also create hundreds of thousands of good-paying green jobs, spur American innovation, and cut taxes for millions of Americans. The number of people this legislation would help is significant: for example, 30 million homeowners would receive property tax relief; 13 million children would benefit from an expanded child tax credit; 11 million families would receive the state and local sales tax deduction; and hundreds of thousands of highly-paid jobs in the energy sector would be created and retained.

“Because this legislation is about our nation’s future, it is fiscally responsible. In order to invest in the energy policies and jobs of the future, it closes loopholes allowing corporations and executives to avoid paying certain taxes by shipping jobs and investment overseas. The New Direction Congress thinks we should focus tax benefits on creating jobs and encouraging investment here at home, and these revenue offsets have typically enjoyed strong bipartisan support. As gas prices soar, and unemployment numbers climb, Americans are looking to Congress for urgent help with their economic challenges. Senate Republicans could have worked with us to invest in the future and the ingenuity of the American people. Instead, they voted to let taxes on American families and businesses increase.”

Access the President's speech and a fact sheet (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2958 (click here). Access the statement and fact sheet from Senator Reid (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access the Senate roll call vote (click here). Access Speaker Pelosi's statement on the H.R. 6049 vote (click here). [*Energy]

Hearing On Transmission For Renewable Electricity Resources

Jun 17: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), held a hearing to examine the challenges and regional solutions to developing transmission lines for renewable electricity resources. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Senator Harry Reid (D-NV); United States Department of Energy; T. Boone Pickens, BP Capital; Western Governors' Association; Wyoming Infrastructure Authority; South Dakota Public Utilities Commission; Bonneville Power Administration; Great River Energy; and the American Wind Energy Association. Senator Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) both delivered opening statements.

Senator Bingaman said, "The Federal government has been trying to encourage the development of renewable electricity since at least the late 1970s with the passage of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. We also have extended tax credits to renewables, and funded research and development. States have passed aggressive renewable portfolio requirements, or have, in some other manner, set goals and targets. In spite of all of this, renewable generation is still only about 3 percent of our national electricity supply.

"Recent studies and reports have indicated that we can do better than this. The Department of Energy recently released a report that indicating that 20 percent of our electricity could come from wind alone. The Western Governors Association has adopted a goal of 30,000 MW of clean energy resources by 2015. Project 25X’25 has accepted as a target that 25 percent of all energy should come from renewables by 2025. All of these studies and reports agree that we should extend the renewable tax credits. Several of them support a national renewable electricity standard. All of them also agree, however, that these actions are not enough -- and that one of the most important barriers to accomplishing these goals is the inadequacy of the existing transmission system.

". . . renewables do present unique problems. Most wind, solar and geothermal resources are located far from the areas where the electricity is needed. The upper Plains States are rich with potential for wind generation, but these states are sparsely populated and far from large metropolitan or industrial centers. The same is true of the solar potential in the Southwest and the geothermal resources in the mountain West. Development of transmission lines to carry such resources to load centers has to be done across many states and through many jurisdictions and siting the lines is a serious problem. . . Cost allocation is also a real difficulty. Customers in the states where the plants are built and where the transmission is essentially just passing through do not want to shoulder the primary burden of paying for the lines that are supplying somebody else."

In his statement, Senator Domenici said, "that many see [this issue] as the single largest impediment to the development of renewable energy -- the lack of available transmission capacity to bring alternative energy resources online. . . With passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress sought to tackle the difficult issue of siting needed transmission lines. We directed DOE to study the country’s transmission constraints and designate transmission corridors in areas of severe congestion. Importantly, we provided FERC with backstop siting authority to counter NIMBY opposition to interstate lines. These are significant federal authorities aimed at ensuring adequate transmission and yet, since its enactment and before they have even been fully implemented, these provisions has been attacked by numerous interest groups, some members of Congress, and even one of the federal Commissioners. All of our witnesses here today have wrestled with the thorny transmission issues -- from planning and siting, to cost-allocation, to the integration of intermittent resources.

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access Senator Bingaman's opening statement (click here). Access Senator Domenici's opening statement (click here). [*Energy]

EPA Proposes Vessel Discharge Permits

Jun 16: U.S. EPA is proposing two general permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that will cover "discharges incidental to normal operation" of commercial and recreational vessels. Based on agency estimates, as many as 91,000 commercial vessels and about 13 million recreational boats could be affected. Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles said, “EPA is proposing a practical approach as we work with Congress on a longer-term, comprehensive solution. We believe it is good environmental policy and common sense to promote clean boating without imposing new permits on millions of boaters.”

As a result of a court ruling currently under appeal, vessel owners or operators whose discharges have previously been exempt from Clean Water Act requirements for the last 35 years will require a permit as of September 30, 2008. EPA is proposing control technologies and management practices that enhance environmental protection and are practical to implement.

According to EPA, the commercial and large recreational vessel general permit (VGP) would cover all commercial vessels and recreational vessels 79 feet or longer. For vessels that carry ballast water, it would incorporate the Coast Guard mandatory ballast water management and exchange standards, and have supplemental ballast water requirements. The VGP would provide technology-based and water-quality-based effluent limits for other types of discharges including deck runoff, bilgewater, gray water and other types of pollutants. The permit also establishes specific corrective actions, inspections and monitoring requirements as well as recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Only a subset of the vessels potentially affected by this permit will have to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage; for all the other vessels their coverage would be automatic.

The permit for smaller recreational vessels measuring less than 79 feet in length contains simpler provisions. These smaller vessels, which are substantially different in both size and operation from larger vessels, would need to comply with new and established best management practices. In addition, these smaller vessels would not be required to submit an NOI for coverage under the permit; their coverage would be automatic.

EPA is inviting comments on both proposed permits for a period of 45 days. The Agency will be holding public meetings starting June 19, in Washington, DC, and a hearing on July 21, also in DC. Additional meetings are scheduled for June 24 - Portland, OR; June 26 - Chicago; and a July 2 - public Webcast meeting.

On June 12, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Chaired by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), held a hearing on discharges incidental to the normal operation of a commercial vessel, and the implications of such discharges under the CWA [See WIMS 6/13/08].

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Vessel Discharges website for links to complete background and prepublication copies of the Federal Register notices. Access the House hearing website for links to the testimony, opening statements, background information and a webcast (click here). [*Water]

Rahall Bill Compels Oil Companies To "Use It Or Lose It"

Jun 12: In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced legislation that gives "Big Oil" one option - either "use it or lose it." Rahall said, "Big Oil, as many Americans already suspect, are perfectly fine with high gasoline prices at the pump while they hold back domestic production on federal leases and enjoy world record profits. I am calling them on the carpet. I am calling their bluff. We are not going to continue to allow them to speculate and profiteer with public resources to the detriment of the American people."

The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251) is a direct response to the facts outlined in the recent House Natural Resources Committee Majority Staff report, The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits [See WIMS 6/10/08], that illustrate how energy companies are not using the Federal lands and waters that are already open to drilling. The legislation is co-sponsored by Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), and John Yarmuth (D-KY).

According to the report, the 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America's dependency on foreign oil. The Rahall bill would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.

Coal companies, which are issued leases for 20-year terms, are required, as a result of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term. The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's. Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. The Rahall legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases.

Companies could avoid this new lease prohibition by relinquishing their non-producing leases, thus creating an opportunity for another company to explore for and perhaps produce oil and gas. Rahall said, "As long as oil companies hold oil hostage, they will continue to get away with charging high prices and demanding a greater share of the public's land. This bill forces their hand by compelling them to produce or hand the over their idle leases for someone who will."

Access a release from Representative Rahall (click here). Access the complete Truth About America's Energy report (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6251 (click here). [*Energy]

Frustration Mounts With Integrated Risk Assessment System Delays

Jun 12: House Science & Technology Committee, Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee, Chaired by Representative Brad Miller (D-NC), held a second hearing on EPA’s Integrated Risk Assessment System -- IRIS. The hearing was entitled, Toxic Communities: How EPA’s IRIS Program Fails the Public. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from: Jerome Ensminger, retired from the Marine Corps; Center for Public Environmental Oversight; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Medical University of South Carolina.

In an opening statement Representative Miller expressed his ongoing frustration and said, "The glacial pace at which EPA is completing assessments of chemicals has real consequences for public health and tragic consequences for individuals and their families. Completion of an IRIS assessment is just the first step in the process protecting people from dangerous exposures to toxic chemicals. With an IRIS assessment in place, it is easier to deal with the cleanup of chemical contamination of the air or water, to adopt safer practices in the workplace and to consider steps to regulate toxic substances that can harm our children and our communities."

The Government Accountability Office’s recent report on IRIS [See WIMS 4/29/08] concluded that EPA’s process for initiating and completing IRIS assessments resulted in proposals that are in preparation for more than 5 years, with some assessments taking more than a decade. Miller said, "The new process that EPA and OMB instituted just this past April will add additional years to IRIS assessments. The years of added study and discussion regarding IRIS assessments come on top of a regulatory process that is burdened with very time consuming steps for a complete risk assessment, cost-benefit analyses, and internal and external reviews as laid down in Executive Orders and statute. Even after a regulation is finalized, it can be challenged in court and sent back to the Agency for revision. When finally established a new regulation usually includes some time, often many years, for the affected parties to “transition” away from the practices that are being regulated."

Miller cited the fact that EPA has been working on a revised TCE assessment since 1989. Two years ago, following interventions by NASA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and OMB, the National Academy reviewed EPA’s draft IRIS assessment and the science available on TCE and said that: “evidence on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 2001. … Priority should be given to finalizing the risk assessment so that risk management decisions can be made expeditiously.”

Miller said, "Expeditiously? Expeditious is not a word that describes this situation. GAO estimates that EPA will not complete their TCE assessment until 2010 – that’s twenty one years from their original start date. If they complete the assessment in 2010, we will still be years away from regulatory action. People will have been exposed to a known toxic substance for decades, for a generation, while the government engages in study after study. Have we become so obsessed with getting the science right that we have lost sight of our real goal -- protecting public health? Or, is getting the science right a pretext for obstruction? This system defies common sense. It is broken, and it is condemning people to future health problems."

On June 11, Miller sent a letter to the White House asking for all documents related to the long-delayed assessment of TCE. Miller said, "Politics should have no role in deciding what toxic effect a chemical may have. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has effectively blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from posting new health assessments of hazardous chemicals by prolonging the assessments because of inevitable uncertainties about the interaction of chemicals and human health. . ."

Access the hearing website for extensive background and links to all testimony (click here). Access a release and link to Representative Miller's letter to OMB (click here). [*Toxics]

Senators Continue Snarl Over Energy & Climate Legislation

Jun 10: Within minutes Senate Republicans voted to reject cloture motions (requiring 60 votes to proceed) on two major energy bills -- S. 3044 (Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008), rejected 41-53 (6 not voting); and H.R. 6049 (Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008), rejected 50-44 (6 not voting). H.R. 6049, introduced by Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) on May 14, passed the House on May 21, by a vote of 263-160. The S. 3044, introduced by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) with 22 cosponsors, included a windfall profits tax on oil companies, a roll back of tax breaks for oil companies, consumer protections from price gouging, and provisions to stop market price speculation and to stand up to OPEC. The latest Senate standoff follows last week's failed attempt to consider S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (See WIMS 6/6/08]

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a cosponsor of S. 3044, rebuked Republican members of the Senate who blocked the debate and said, "With prices well over four dollars a gallon, residents are wondering how they are going to afford groceries, support their businesses, and afford their mortgage payments. They are looking for help, and they are looking to Congress for action. My colleagues and I have introduced legislation to reverse seven years of the Bush Administration’s big oil-friendly economic policies, address the underlying causes of high energy prices and begin the process of getting the federal government to back consumers in this energy crisis.

"Unfortunately, today Republicans chose to stick by big oil and tell us that they’re content with the status quo by blocking this legislation. By doing so, Republicans have once again shown that they will choose obstruction over progress, even when it comes to the most important issues Americans face. I have no doubt that the Republicans who blocked this bill today are hearing the same things in their home states that I'm hearing in mine - angst and anger from people who are working hard and still struggling to get by. It's time for them to listen to their constituents, join with us to address the problem, and end the politics of obstruction."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement in response to Senate Republicans blocking consideration of the two bills saying, “Senate Republicans have once again shown themselves to be unwilling to break free of the costly, failed Bush energy policies of the past. They have again adopted President Bush’s ‘drill and veto’ policy that is driving up the price of oil, diesel, and gasoline and leaving us dangerously reliant on Middle East oil. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Senate Republicans have shown no leadership on energy issues for seven years, which is why we face a growing energy crisis. If Republicans will not lead us to a cleaner, more independent energy future for America then they should at least get out of the way. The House will soon put forward new, innovative legislation to help tackle high energy costs and make us more energy independent.”

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee issued a statement on the S. 3044 vote saying, “After spending last week debating a bill that all independent studies agree will increase the price of gasoline, Senate Democrats today tried to force debate on a different bill that the independent Congressional Research Service says will increase the amount of oil we need to import and have 'several adverse economic effects' -- with the same failed result. At some point, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will get the message. The American people don’t want higher prices. The bill we considered today would have imposed a 25 percent “windfall profits” tax on American oil companies. The windfall profits tax has been tried before in our country and failed miserably. It did nothing but decrease domestic production and increase gas prices. . . How high will the price of gasoline need to go before we tap into our own natural resources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil?”

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, criticized the Democrats Consumer First Energy Act as a “No” Energy bill. Senator Inhofe voted against cloture and said, “Here we go again. As the price of gas at the pump continues to go up, Democrats are proposing yet another energy tax,” Senator Inhofe said. “The Democrats don’t appear to have learned anything from their stunning defeat of their climate tax bill last week, which over 20% of Democratic Senators could not even support. This week their attempted ‘solution’ to our energy challenges is to raise taxes again and further harm American families."

Access the cloture roll call vote and link to legislative details for S. 3044 (click here). Access the cloture roll call vote and link to legislative details for H.R. 6049 (click here). Access the complete statement from Senator Murray (click here). Access the complete statement from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access the complete statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the complete statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

House Hearing On Safety of Phthalates and Bisphenol A

Jun 10: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Chaired by Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) held a hearing entitled, Safety of Phthalates and Bisphenol-A in Everyday Consumer Products. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National Toxicology Program, U.S. EPA, American Chemistry Council, Science and Environmental Health Network, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.

Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Full Committee issued a statement saying, "Phthalates are a family of chemicals with more than a dozen individual formulas that are used to make plastics soft. They are used in everything from bathtub mats to toys. Bisphenol-A, or BPA for short, is a component of polycarbonate plastic used to make it hard and shatter proof. It is used in baby bottles and teething rings but also in bicycle helmets and car safety seats. These components have been around for about 50 years, but recent studies have raised significant concerns about the risks posed by use of these substances in certain consumer products and the impact of these and similar substances on human health, especially where fetuses, infants, and young children are concerned. Consumer groups are asking policymakers to take steps to ban these substances in consumer products. . . It is extremely important that Congress, with the help of Government and other scientists, adequately assess the hazards posed by phthalates and BPA, and also to determine the safety of alternative chemicals for essential consumer products. Today’s hearing is a crucial first step in that process.”

WIMS reported on June 9, that on May 29, Health Canada responded to recent concerns about one of the chemicals, bisphenol A (BPA) in canned food, and said, "Based on the scientific evidence available to date, Health Canada does not recommend that consumers make any changes to their dietary habits as a result of the occurrence of trace levels of BPA in canned foods. Consumers should feel confident that canned foods are safe and can continue to be part of a balanced diet. . ." On June 6, in response to the Health Canada announcement, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement applauding the Canadian announcement and said, "BPA is one of the most extensively tested of all substances with a track record of safety that spans more than 50 years [See WIMS 6/9/08].

Dr. L. Earl Gray Jr., senior reproductive biologist and toxicologist in the Reproductive Toxicology Division of EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in the Office of Research and Development testified and said his testimony represent his personal views as a scientist and do not necessarily the position of EPA or the Administration. He said, "I have different levels of concern for these two classes of EDCs, with a higher level of concern for some phthalates than for BPA." Regarding phthalates he said he had "concern" for children and women of child-bearing age and "serious concern for children and pregnant exposed to phthalates by medical interventions." Regarding BPA he said he had "some concern" for neural and behavioral effects, and "minimal to negligible concern for other effects."

FDA testified that, "Although the Agency’s review of the newly available reports is continuing, a large body of available evidence indicates that currently-marketed food contact materials containing BPA are safe, and that exposure to BPA from food contact materials, including exposures for infants and children, are below the levels that may cause health effects. We are actively reviewing the data on BPA and will continue to consider the relevance of new data and studies as they appear."

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) submitted 180 pages of testimony and said in part, "There are a number of uncertainties in the scientific information on BPA. The literature from experimental animal studies is large, but with many conflicting findings. Moreover, there are insufficient data from studies in humans to determine directly whether BPA is affecting human reproductive health." On phthalates, NTP said, "The fact that specific phthalates can adversely affect reproduction has been known for more than 25 years, and it is now known is that fetal animals are more sensitive than newborn animals, which in turn are more sensitive than older animals. Since the late 1990s it has been known that certain phthalates specifically affect development of the male reproductive system. Not all phthalates produce adverse reproductive effects in animal studies. . ."

ACC in 31-pages of testimony said, "These materials have been in use for decades. They have been subjected to extensive study worldwide, including by independent researchers as well as government agencies, and scientific review is ongoing. U.S. regulatory agencies charged with regulating these compounds in various applications, after reviewing the large body of scientific data, have reached conclusions supporting their safe use in important applications. The scientific evidence supports the continued use of these important materials."

The Center for Health, Environment and Justice testified that, "Phthalates have been linked to reproductive problems including shorter pregnancy duration and premature breast development in girls and sperm damage and impaired reproductive development in males. . . Safer cost-effective alternatives exist such as PVC-free toys that are manufactured without phthalates as well as phthalate-free plasticizers. . . the European Union and many countries around the world have restricted the use of phthalates in children’s toys. Yet, these chemicals continue to be used in our children’s toys and baby products here in the United States. . .
In the absence of federal action, an increasing number of U.S. states are introducing legislation to ban phthalates and bisphenol A."

On March 6, 2008, the full U.S. Senate approved an amendment by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would impose a nationwide ban on phthalates in children’s toys and products. The amendment (SA 4104) was approved by voice vote in the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act (S. 2663/H.R. 4040) bill that passed the Senate on March 6, by a vote of 79-13 [See WIMS 3/7/08]. At that time, Senator Feinstein said, “This is a big victory for parents of small children. It will implement a nationwide ban on toys and products that contain these dangerous chemicals. Europe and California have already stepped forward and made sure that toys laden with phthalates are kept away from the hands and mouths of young children. America’s parents should be able to have the same peace of mind that the toys they buy for their children are safe.”

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the complete statement from Chairman Dingell (click here). Access the Health Canada release and link to additional information (click here). Access the U.S. Senate hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the House Committee's Bisphenol A inquiry website for additional information (click here). Access the FDA BPA information website with links to additional information (click here). Access a release from Senator Feinstein listing supporting organizations and other countries banning phthalates (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2663 (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). [*Toxics]

Update: October 29, 2008 - A special Subcommittee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Science Board that provides advice primarily to the Commissioner of the FDA and other appropriate officials on specific complex and technical issues has found considerable fault with the draft assessment prepared by the FDA of bisphenol A (BPA) for use in food contact applications [See WIMS 6/10/08, Update September 3]. The temporary Subcommittee was established by the Science Board and consists of two members of the Science Advisory Board and five scientists drawn from academia and government agencies. The focus of the Subcommittee was to provide scientific peer-review of the FDA draft assessment of BPA.

Update: September 3, 2008 - The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) released its final report on the potential human reproductive and developmental effects of BPA which provides the NTP's current opinion on BPA's potential to cause harm to human reproduction or development. The report says that current human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), is of "some concern" for effects on development of the prostate gland and brain and for behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children. Other recent research from the University of Cincinnati and Yale University suggest new concerns (see links below).

Access a release from NIEHS (click here). Access the complete BPA final report (click here). Access a summary of the NTP evaluation of BPA (click here). Access the FDA draft BPA assessment (click here). Access a release on the UC research (click here). Access a release on the Yale study (click here). Access the FDA statement on the Subcommittee report (click here). Access the Subcommittee's Report (click here). Access the Subcommittee's Briefing Information website for links to extensive BPA documentation (click here). Access the FDA website on BPA with links to additional information (click here).

GAO Report Of 18 Expert Opinions On Climate Change Actions

Jun 9: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter report entitled, Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to Address Climate Change (GAO-08-605, May 9, 2008). The report was requested by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Interior, Environment (including EPA) and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

GAO was asked by the Senators to elicit the opinions of experts on: (1) actions the Congress might consider to address climate change and what is known about the potential benefits, costs, and uncertainties of these actions; and (2) the key strengths and limitations of policies or actions to address climate change. GAO worked with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to identify a panel of noted economists with expertise in analyzing the economic impacts of climate change policies and gathered their opinions through iterative, web-based questionnaires. The findings reported here represent the views of the 18 economists who responded to both questionnaires.

According to GAO, all of the panelists agreed that the Congress should consider using a market-based mechanism to establish a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 of the 18 panelists recommended additional actions as part of a portfolio to address climate change, such as investment in research and development of low-emissions technologies. Experts differed on the initial stringency of the market-based mechanism, with 14 of the 18 panelists recommending an initial price between less than $1 and $20 per ton of emissions. In addition, 14 of 18 panelists were at least moderately certain that the benefits of their recommended portfolio of actions would outweigh the costs.

To establish a price on emissions, most of the panelists preferred either a tax on emissions or a hybrid policy that incorporates features of both a tax and a cap-and-trade program. A tax would set a fixed price on every ton of emissions, whereas a cap-and-trade program would limit or cap total emissions and establish a market for trading (buying and selling) permits to emit a specific amount of greenhouse gases.

Under the cap-and-trade system, the market would determine the price of emissions. A hybrid system differs from a traditional cap-and-trade system in that the government would cap emissions, but could sell additional emissions permits if the permit price rose above a predetermined level. Panelists also identified general categories of benefits, such as avoided climate change damages, and costs, such as increases in energy prices, associated with their recommended actions.

Overall the panel rated estimates of costs as more useful than estimates of benefits for informing congressional decision making, with some panelists citing uncertainties associated with the future impacts of climate change as limitations to estimating benefits. Further, the majority of panelists agreed that the United States should establish a price on greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible regardless of the extent to which other countries adopt similar policies. At the same time, the majority of panelists said it was at least somewhat important to participate in international negotiations on climate change.

Panelists identified key strengths and limitations of alternative policy approaches that should be of assistance to the Congress in weighing the potential benefits and costs of different policies for addressing climate change. Many panelists said that a cap-and-trade program would be more effective in achieving a desired level of greenhouse gas emissions because, unlike a tax, it would provide certainty that emissions wouldn’t exceed a certain level. However, some of the panelists also said that taxes would be more cost-effective than a cap-and-trade program because the price of emissions would be certain and not susceptible to market fluctuations. Eight panelists therefore preferred a hybrid approach that incorporates features of both a tax and a cap-and-trade program. On average, the panelists rated cost effectiveness as the most important criterion for evaluating various policy options. Finally, panelists said an important strength of using a market-based approach is the ability for the government to raise revenue through a tax or the sale of emissions permits and to use that revenue to offset the adverse effects of the policy.

The 18 panelists included: Joseph Aldy, Resources for the Future; James Edmonds, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Richard Howarth, Dartmouth College; Bruce McCarl, Texas A&M University; Robert Mendelsohn, Yale University; William Nordhaus, Yale University; Sergey Paltsev, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Pizer, Resources for the Future; David Popp, Syracuse University; John Reilly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Roger Sedjo, Resources for the Future; Kathleen Segerson, University of Connecticut; Brent Sohngen, Ohio State University; Robert Stavins, Harvard University; Richard Tol, Economic and Social Research Institute; Martin Weitzman, Harvard University; Peter Wilcoxen, Syracuse University; and Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University.

Access the complete 81-page report (click here). [*Climate]

Senate Ends Debate On Climate Change Bill 48-36

Jun 6: As expected, the U.S. Senate voted 48-36 (16 not voting) on a cloture motion (60 votes necessary) that effectively ended the debate on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/5/08]. Many are viewing the vote as progress considering that a majority of the Senate (48 voting & 6 committed) support moving forward on legislation. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "While the bill could not survive continuing delay tactics, it garnered important new momentum that sets the stage for quick action in the next Congress."

Four Democrats voted with Republicans on the measure: Senators Byron Dorgan (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA), Tim Johnson (SD) and Sherrod Brown (OH). Seven Republicans voted with Democrats including: John Warner (VA), Susan Collins (ME), Mel Martinez (FL), Elizabeth Dole (NC), John E. Sununu (NH), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Gordon Smith (OR). Presidential candidates John McCain (R-AZ) and Barak Obama (D-IL) were both absent but indicated that they would have voted for the motion.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a sponsor of the bill issued a statement on the Senate's vote to end a Republican filibuster and said, "Today's vote is a landmark moment in the fight against global warming. We had 54 Senators come down on the side of tackling this crucial issue now -- because it is one of the greatest challenges of our generation [Note: six Senators who couldn’t be at the vote entered statements that they would have voted “yes”]. This strong vote is up from 38 votes in 2005, and proves that our nation is ready to assume the mantle of leadership on global warming. What is extraordinary is that both Presidential candidates weighed in, in favor of addressing this issue now. Therefore, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will continue to work with my colleagues to address their concerns as we anxiously await the inauguration of a President who will work with us to protect our planet and our people from the ravages of global warming."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement saying, "We saw this morning yet another example of Bush-McCain Republicans refusing to address one of the most important issues of our time. Given the opportunity to solve the urgent energy and economic crises of today and environmental crises of tomorrow, they ran away from the debate. Time and again Democrats have given Republicans the opportunity to address the rising cost of energy. We have tried to curb global warming, lower gas prices and invest in renewable energy -- but Republicans have squandered each opportunity. When you look at who Republicans have chosen as the new standard-bearer, this is not entirely surprising: Senator McCain says global warming is one of his top issues, but when he has the chance to do something about it, he doesn’t even show up to work. Democrats will continue fighting to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, create good-paying green jobs here at home and break our dependence on oil.”

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement on what he called the "Climate Tax bill" saying, “The message is clear: the majority can’t abandon this bill fast enough. So now we’re in a most peculiar situation. On the one hand, the majority says climate change is the most important issue facing the planet. Yet they’ve rushed the debate on that topic and brought the bill to a premature end. They brought it down before we could vote on gas prices, on clean energy technology, or on protecting American jobs. This whole exercise will have had no effect on either climate change or gas prices. But it does send an unambiguous message: on the issue of high gas prices, our friends on the other side have no plan to lower the price at the pump.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a brief statement saying, “This bill was doomed from the start. The committee process was short-circuited, the floor debate was circumvented and the amendment process was derailed. I do not see how the Democrats use this failed bill as any kind of model for future success. As I suspected, reality hit the U.S. Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill.”

Access the roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record and floor debates (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Reid (click here). Access a release from Senator McConnell (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access links to various media reports and statements on the Senate action (click here). [*Climate]

Action On Climate Security Act Bill (S. 3036) Likely Dead

Jun 5: Following a series of arguments, political bickering, procedural maneuvering, and a complete break down in the political process, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled what will likely be an up or down vote on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/3/08] for noon on Friday, June 6. Insiders predict it will not be possible to obtain the 60 votes they need to break a Republican filibuster. Apparently, if the vote fails the Democrats will remove the bill from consideration.

On June 5, U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the Democrat Majority’s had decided to block a fair and open amendment process on what Republicans are now calling the "$6.7 trillion, Boxer Climate Tax bill." Senator McConnell said, "I’m mystified as to why the Democrats decided to block consideration of any and all amendments designed to improve this bill – no consideration of gas prices, no consideration of clean energy technology. A bill with such widespread ramifications merits serious, thoughtful consideration, and a thorough debate. When the Senate considered the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the process took 5 weeks on the floor; 180 amendments were offered, and 131 were ultimately acted upon by the full Senate. As things currently stand, we won’t even spend 5 days on this bill."

Republican sponsor, Senator John Warner (R-VA) essentially confirmed that action on the bill is dead, when he delivered a statement on the Floor saying that he hoped the extensive work that had been done on the S. 3036 would provide a foundation for further action in the next Administration and the next Congress. The other major sponsor, Joe Lieberman (I-CT), praised Senator Warner for his leadership on the issue and said it was disappointing and frustrating that political maneuvering was stopping further consideration of what he called a once in a lifetime opportunity to consider the very real threat of climate change to the economy, environment and national security.

Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record and floor debates (click here). Access a release from Senator McConnell (click here). [*Climate]

20,000 Americans Die From Radon-Related Exposure Each Year

Jun 3: U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued a report entitled, More Action Needed to Protect Public from Indoor Radon Risks (Report No. 08-P-0174, June 3, 2008). According to EPA and U.S. Surgeon General, indoor radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers and the second leading cause of lung cancer in America. OIG conducted the evaluation to determine how EPA measures indoor radon program results, and whether changes at the Federal level could improve program effectiveness. OIG also identified challenges to implementing changes.

Radon is an odorless, tasteless, and invisible gas produced by decay of naturally occurring uranium in soil and water. Radon is found throughout the United States. Indoor residential exposure occurs when radon gas enters through cracks in floors, walls, and construction joints, or gaps in foundations around pipes, wires, and pumps. According to EPA, more than 20,000 Americans die from radon-related lung cancer every year.

Nearly two decades after passage of the 1988 Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA), exposure to indoor radon continues to grow. Efforts to reduce exposure through mitigation or building with radon-resistant new construction have not kept pace. Of 6.7 million new single family detached homes built nationwide between 2001 and 2005, only about 469,000 incorporated radon-resistant features. Of 76.1 million existing single family homes in the United States in 2005, only about 2.1 million had radon-reducing features in place. The IRAA established the goal that indoor air should be as free of radon as outdoor air.

Since 1988, EPA has administered a voluntary program to reduce exposure to indoor radon by promoting awareness, testing, installation of radon mitigation systems in existing homes, and use of radon-resistant new construction techniques. Still, building codes in some areas do not require new homes to be built with radon-resistant new construction. Much of the progress made in reducing exposure has occurred as a result of real estate transactions. In those cases, a buyer, seller, mortgage lender, and/or real estate agent requested that a home be tested. Some States and localities do not require testing or the disclosure of test results during real estate transactions. The radon program is not achieving greater results for several reasons.

EPA’s ability to achieve results with a voluntary program is limited. Potential loss of a sale represents a disincentive for real estate agents and sellers to conduct radon tests during real estate transactions. Added expense represents a disincentive for builders to use radon-resistant new construction. Opportunities exist within the Federal community to substantially increase the number of homes tested and mitigated for radon. EPA has not decided how to use all the authorities or tools available to it to achieve the Act’s goals. Also, EPA has not been reporting program results in relation to homes at risk in its performance reporting.

OIG recommends that EPA develop a strategy for achieving the long-term goal of the IRAA that considers using the authorities authorized by Congress or explains its alternative strategy, which it agreed to do. OIG also recommended that EPA identify limitations to meeting the goal to Congress. EPA responded that it does not believe the IRAA goal is achievable. While EPA agrees that the problem of radon exposure gets worse each year, it did not agree to notify Congress that the goal set by the statute is unachievable. OIG considers the issue open and unresolved and recommended improvements as to how EPA measures and reports program results, which it agreed to do.

Access the complete 44-page report (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]

Senate Launches Lengthy Debate On Climate Change Bill (S. 3036)

Jun 2: The U.S. Senate voted 74-14 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to debate on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/2/08]. Senator Boxer the chief sponsor of the Substitute now being considered said, "This gets us off to a strong start. Members are no longer saying in great numbers that global warming is not an issue. The real work on the Senate floor now begins, as we seek to strengthen this bill, not weaken it."

The Senate vote launches what will likely be a highly contentious debate generally pitting Republicans against Democrats and major business groups against environmental organizations. Initially, the Senate began on June 3, with 30 hours of general debate on the bill, followed by what could be lengthy debates on each of many individual amendments to be offered. The process will surely take days, if not weeks. Many Republicans are saying the bill has no chance of passage and as WIMS reported yesterday, the Administration has issued a 4-page Statement of Administration Policy indicating its reasons why the President will veto the bill (See below).

An initial confrontation occurred following the cloture vote regarding the 30 hours of general debate which Republicans intend to exercise. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), in response to Republicans who insisted on 30 hours of debate under the rules prior to beginning on the amendment process said, ". . .the first amendment that comes up is subject to endless debate. There is no limit. The notion that we have to have 30 hours before we can get to a debate on an amendment--each amendment is subject to endless debate; the bill itself is subject to endless debate. So the concept of coming out here and saying: Oh, we have to have 30 hours--this bill will be debated, every amendment will be debated. But it would serve the Senate's purpose to actually get to an amendment now and then we could spend 30, 40, 48 hours, a week--we all know this is going to take a while--legislating an important bill does take a while here. But this notion that we have to spend 30 hours without any amendment just to talk about the bill when the bill will be exhaustively talked about in the context of any amendment is, frankly, specious."

As the Senate begins its debate on S. 3036, the White House listed its reasons why it is the "wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions." The Administration said the wrong way of S. 3036 is:

• to sharply raise the price of gas, raise taxes, or demand drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy;
• to impose burdensome new mandates on top of ones that were enacted just last year;
• to leave limitations on nuclear power generation and waste disposal unaddressed;
• to establish unrealistic timeframes for massively restructuring the economy that assume the use of technologies not yet developed or demonstrated to be economically feasible;
• to create a system that will squeeze household income, cost many jobs, reduce growth in the economy, impose a huge new tax, and create uncontrolled spending;
• to take unilateral action that will undercut efforts to get developing countries to limit their emissions while having negligible effect on GHG concentrations and global temperatures;
• to impose counterproductive provisions that could ignite a carbon-based trade war; and
• to allow the misapplication of a patchwork of 30-year-old laws that were not designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Administration said, "S. 3036’s approach to reducing greenhouse gases would force drastic and costly emission cuts. EPA estimates the costs necessary to achieve this GHG abatement are on the order of $10 trillion through 2050. This would make S. 3036 by far the single most expensive regulatory bill in our Nation's history. These costs would be passed on to consumers through higher electricity and heating bills and increased gasoline costs. In fact, the abatement costs for this bill are estimated to be approximately three times as much as previous Senate climate bills analyzed by EPA."

In response to the White House criticism, Senator Boxer said, "Just when we finally have a chance to get off of Big Oil and foreign oil, you can count on the Bush Administration to fight us every step of the way. Where were they when gas prices went to 250 percent of what they were at the start of this Administration? They did nothing. The new fuel economy standards passed by this Congress will offset their claims of a 50 cent increase in the price of gas over more than 20 years. And this bill also contains tax relief for consumer energy costs, though the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration's data show that it should not be needed to cover the price of gas."

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a statement saying, "The White House today put itself on a road to the wrong side of history by opposing a bipartisan bill that will fight climate change, reduce our oil dependence, and restore America’s competitiveness. They might as well have said, 'Let's do more of what we've been doing for the economy and the environment. We think its working really well.’ In opposing the Climate Security Act being debated in the Senate this week, the White House today complained that the cost of gasoline could go up 53 cents over the next 22 years if we finally deal with climate change. They apparently missed the fact that under our current oil-addicted energy policy, gas went up $1.10 in just five months last year – and continues to climb. The only answer to high gas prices is to break our over-dependence on oil, which is exactly what the Climate Security Act will do. Analysis based on data from MIT shows that the Climate Security Act would reduce oil imports by at least half a trillion dollars through 2030."

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also issued a statement saying, “After seven years of trying to mislead us on the science of global warming, the President is now trying to mislead us on the economics. The Climate Security Act will create good American jobs building our clean energy future and studies by the president’s own administration show that under this bill the economy will continue to grow. And, the cost of doing nothing will be far greater. Inaction is no longer an option.”

UPDATE June 4, 2008:

Tracking The Debate On The Climate Security Act (S. 3036) - Jun 4: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has begun to provide daily tracking and reporting on the progress of the debate on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/2/08].


For example, today's June 4, AM report indicates that: The following Senators spoke in favor of the bill: Senators Boxer (D-CA), Lieberman (ID-CT), Warner (R-VA), Casey (D-PA), Dole (R-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Sanders (I-VT), Snowe (R-ME). It is worth noting that Sens. Dole and Warner did not vote for the Lieberman-McCain cap-and-trade bill in 2003 and 2005. The following Senators spoke strongly against the bill: Senators Inhofe (R-OK), Barrasso (R-WY), Corker (R-TN), Craig (R-ID), Domenici (R-NM), Enzi (R-WY), Grassley (R-IA). Other Senators -- Alexander (R-TN), Gregg (R-NH), and Specter (R-PA)—acknowledged the need to take climate action but spoke against the bill in its current form. These senators described changes they would like make to the bill and indicated forthcoming amendments to do so. [More details provided].

The Pew Center works with 42 major corporations in its Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). The primarily Fortune 500 companies together employ more than 3.8 million people and represent $2.8 trillion in market capitalization -- and they're working with the Center to shape policy and chart practical solutions to climate change. The corporations meet quarterly, participate in workshops and conferences, and review and offer comment on all Pew Center work. To maintain independence, the Pew Center accepts no monetary contributions from BELC companies.

Access the daily S. 3036 tracking website (click here). Access additional resources from the Pew Center including: a Brief Summary of the Bill (click here); an Expanded Summary (click here); a Comparison Chart: Economy-Wide Cap-and-Trade Proposals in the 110th Congress (click here); and a Letter to Senators from Pew Center President Eileen Claussen on Climate Bill (click here).
------------------------------------------------------------------

Access the roll call vote on cloture (

click here). Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record and floor debates (click here). Access the Statement of Administration Policy (click here). Access releases from Senator Boxer (click here); and (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a new 18-page summary of S. 3036 from the Pew Center (click here). [*Climate]

Historic Debate Begins On Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act

Jun 2: At approximately 2:00 PM this afternoon, the Senate began the highly anticipated historic debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (now S. 3036 substitute for S. 2191) [See WIMS 5/21/08]. The cloture motion reads in part, "We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 742, S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008: Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bill Nelson, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel K. Akaka, Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Harkin, Daniel K. Inouye, Max Baucus, Ron Wyden, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Harry Reid."

As offered by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), "I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur on Monday, June 2, at 5:30 p.m., that the time between 4:30 and 5:30 be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, and the mandatory quorum be waived." Senator Inhofe (R-OK) indicated the debate may take several days or even weeks. The vote this evening is basically a procedural vote to proceed with the debate which is expected to pass.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) delivered last weeks Democratic Radio Address and also held a press briefing along with Senators Lieberman and Warner preceding the Senate debate. In her remarks she indicated, ". . .the Senate will begin debate on one of the most important issues of our time -- global warming. Senators have come together across party lines to write a law that will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs and put us on the path to energy independence. Other benefits of our legislation will be cleaner air, energy efficiency, relief for consumers and the alternative energy choices that American families deserve. And, by acting wisely, America will regain the leadership we have lost these past seven years.

"There are some in the Senate who insist that global warming is nothing more than science fiction. These are the same kind of voices who said that the world was flat, cigarettes were safe and cars didn’t need airbags – long after the rest of us knew the truth. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now. They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now. They’ve told us of more intense weather events if we don’t act now. Health experts have told us that infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters. And military leaders have told us that unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees. . ."

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Republican Leader, opened the debate with a floor statement saying, "that for American consumers, the Boxer bill is all cost and no benefit. There is a better way to move forward. Climate change is a serious issue, and we should continue taking action to address it, as we did in last year’s energy bill. But the way to proceed is to invest in clean energy technologies that allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming our economy, sending jobs overseas, and raising energy prices across the board for U.S. workers, families, farmers, and truckers. . .

"I will be voting in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed, and it’s my expectation that once we get on the bill, the Majority will allow for amendments, and for what I expect will be a rather robust debate on the merits of this climate tax legislation.”

Senator Barbara Boxer released an update of supporters of the bill listing various major businesses, entrepreneurs, government leaders, labor, environment, and sportsmen's organizations are expressing strong support for action in the "Boxer, Lieberman, Warner" Substitute to the Lieberman/Warner Climate Security Act. The release included links to letters and statements from the groups and organizations and will be updated as additional letters are submitted.

Major businesses included on the initial listing were: Alcoa; Avista Corporation; Calpine Corporation; Constellation Energy; E2; Entergy Corporation; Exelon Corporation; FPL Group; General Electric; National Grid; NRG Energy Inc.; PG&E Corporation; and Public Service Enterprise Group.

The Administration issued a lengthy Statement of Administration Policy on the bill and said S. 3036 and the Boxer Amendment is the "wrong way" to address climate change and the President would veto the bill.

Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record (click here). Access the floor vote details as they become available (click here). Access the opening statement of Senator Mitch McConnell (click here). Access the update of supporters and links from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release on the sponsors press briefing with links to related information (click here). Access a statement of Administration Policy on the bill (click here). Access Senator Inhofe's website on the bill (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

Administration's Scientific Assessment Of Global Change On U.S.

May 29: The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), together with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), announced the release of a scientific assessment (Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States) of the effects of global change on the United States, with special emphasis on climate change. Additionally, an updated strategy, the Revised Research Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program," was also released.

Dr. Sharon Hays, Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said, "This assessment represents a comprehensive look at the effects of climate change for the United States and will be yet another tool for the Nation’s decision-makers to use when planning for the future." Dr. William Brennan, Acting Director of CCSP said, "Recognizing that this report reflects a snapshot of current research in an area of rapidly increasing knowledge, it’s important to outline an up-to-date strategy for continued research on climate change. The updated research plan that is also being released today does that."

The assessment summarizes and integrates recent findings from several Synthesis and Assessment Products of the CCSP as well as from assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Analyzing current and future trends in climate for the United States, the report assesses the present understanding of the impacts of climate change on key sectors of the Nation, such as water resources, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health.

Accompanying the scientific assessment is an updated research plan for the CCSP that provides direction for addressing remaining uncertainties in climate science, including impacts at regional scales and adaptation options. The plan also emphasizes the need for strengthened communication of scientific studies to decision-makers across the United States. An extended opportunity for public review was provided during the development of the revised plan.

The assessment points out that it addresses not only climate change, but also other change in the global environment -- including water resources, oceans, atmospheric chemistry, land productivity, and ecological systems -- that may alter the capacity of Earth to sustain life. This broader set of changes is referred to as ‘global change,’ as defined in the Global Change Research Act. It is indicated that, "The conclusions in this assessment build on the vast body of observations, modeling, decision-support, and other types of activities conducted under the auspices of CCSP. It draws on findings from previous assessments of the science, including reports and products by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CCSP, and others. Together with CCSP’s 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products, this is arguably the most comprehensive assessment to date of the effects of global change, and especially climate, on the United States." Among the many conclusions:

• U.S. average temperatures increased during the 20th and into the 21st century, and the last decade is the warmest in more than a century of direct observations in the United States.
  
• Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates are expected to cause further warming and to induce many changes during the 21st century that will very likely be larger than those of the last century.
  
• It is very likely that temperature increases, increasing carbon dioxide levels, and altered patterns of precipitation are already affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, biodiversity, and human health, among other things. And it is very likely that climate change will continue to have significant effects on these resources over the next few decades and beyond.
  
• The report presents key findings of climate impacts on the United States in the areas of: The Natural Environment; Agriculture; Water; Population and Society; Health; Energy; and Transportation.

The report indicates that regarding climate extremes, "Human activities have also likely influenced extremes in temperature. Many indicators of climate extremes -- including the annual numbers of frost days, warm and cold days, and warm and cold nights -- show changes that are consistent with warming. Studies for North America suggest that, in the future, abnormally hot days and nights and heat waves are very likely to become more frequent and that cold days and cold nights are very likely to become much less frequent. In addition to temperature extremes, analyses indicate that, on average for North America, precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases in tropical sea surface temperatures. However, projections of changes in hurricane frequency remain very uncertain. "

Access an Executive Summary of the report (click here). Access a Summary of Findings (click here). Access the complete 271-page report (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the Revised Research Agenda (click here). Access the complete 98-page Revised Research Agenda (click here). Access the NSTC website (click here). Access the CCSP website (click here). [*Climate]