Dec 4: The Alliance for Climate Protection, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club launched the “Reality” Coalition, a national grassroots and advertising effort which they say is designed "to tell a simple truth: in reality, there is no such thing as 'clean coal.' They said, "Environmental experts agree that coal is the dirtiest fuel America uses to produce electricity. The Reality Coalition, then, is challenging the coal industry to come clean -- in its advertising and in its operations. Coal cannot be considered clean until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored.
On December 4, the Reality Coalition launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign, running in print, broadcast and online media and supported by the website, "This Is Reality." The ads are designed and produced by Boulder, Colorado-based Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the agency responsible for the “Truth” anti-tobacco campaign. The first “Reality” print ad shows a solitary door labeled “Clean Coal Facility Entrance.” Behind the door, though, lies a barren field. “In reality, there’s no such thing as clean coal,” the ad states.
The ad continues: “Coal is one of the leading causes of global warming. But that hasn’t stopped the coal industry from advertising clean coal. Yet, the truth is there isn’t a single commercial coal plant in America today that captures its global warming pollution. Learn more about what the coal industry is not telling you …” Reality’s first TV ad follows the same premise and can be viewed on the website indicated below.
Former Vice President Gore said, “The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions promoting ‘clean coal’ technology, but in reality, there is not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of coal’s CO2 emissions. The industry must make good its promise if they truly want to do their part to solve the climate crisis. Until that happens, coal cannot be called ‘clean’.” The “Reality” Coalition said it echoes the call made by Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection in a recent New York Times op-ed that "until coal is truly clean, there should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America."
Vice President for Communications Joe Lucas, of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a partnership of companies involved in producing electricity from coal, responded immediately with a lengthy statement saying, "I'm surprised that a coalition of environmental special interest groups has placed ads doubting the existence of clean coal technologies. For over 40 years, private industry, academia, and the federal government have been working in partnership to bring new technologies to the marketplace that reduces the environmental footprint of using coal to generate electricity. . .
"In our America's Power campaign (americaspower.org) we have consistently talked about the need to invest in advanced clean coal technologies to ensure that we can capture and safely store CO2 emissions at coal-based power plants both here at home and around the world. While this remains a complex and challenging task, anyone who is skeptical about the progress that is being made on this front would only need to visit the U.S. Department of Energy's website (Clean Power Initiative). . . to get a better appreciation and understanding of the industry's commitment to this cause.
"We join President-elect Barack Obama in calling for additional funding for advanced clean coal technologies to ensure that we meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time enjoying the benefits of relying upon coal, our most abundant domestic energy resource, to meet future energy needs. I would have hoped that the environmental special interest groups that are sponsoring this new ad would support such an effort, but they have obviously chosen a different path."
During his campaign for the Presidency, George W. Bush pledged to commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology - a pledge he has subsequently carried out in the National Energy Policy and in budget requests to Congress. The DOE website, identified by ACCCE in the statement describes the extensive effort of the Federal government in advancing and promoting "clean coal" technology.
In a related matter, on December 1, 2008, Greenpeace released an analysis showing that the global cost of coal was at least 360 billion (Euros, $US 456 billion) last year alone. The report, The True Cost of Coal, released with the independent Dutch Institute CE Delft, arrived at this figure by looking at very modest CO2 damage costs, health costs and mining accidents. Joris Thijssen, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace International said, "The relentless expansion of the coal industry is the single greatest threat to averting dangerous climate change. Coal is the most climate-polluting fossil fuel, responsible for one third of all CO2 emissions, and is projected to increase to 60% of emissions by 2030. Clearly, quitting coal will benefit not only the climate, but also reduce the other impacts which everybody else has to pay for."
President-elect Obama has said as part of his overall energy plan that he would "Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology." [See WIMS 10/21/08]. Specifically, the Plan says, "Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as we power our economy with domestically produced and secure energy. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has worked tirelessly to ensure that clean coal technology becomes commercialized. An Obama administration will provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero‐carbon coal facilities. In order to maximize the speed with which we advance this critical technology, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will instruct DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop 5 “first‐of‐a‐kind”commercial scale coal‐fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration."
Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the Reality Coalition website for links to the ads and additional information(click here). Access the statement from ACCCE (click here). Access the DOE website on Clean Power (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access the Greenpeace 92-page report (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Friday, December 05, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Changes For EPA's "Bogged Down" Risk Assessment Process
Dec 3: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) says the U.S. EPA's process of generating risk assessments -- which estimate the potential adverse effects posed by harmful chemicals found in the environment in order to protect public health -- is bogged down by unprecedented challenges, and as a decision-making tool it is often hindered by a disconnect between available scientific data and the information needs of officials. The report recommends EPA's risk assessment process should be streamlined to ensure the appropriate use of available science, technical accuracy, and tailoring to the specific needs of the problem.
According to a release from NAS, the risk assessment process entails four steps -- hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization -- which were described in a 1983 National Research Council report known as the Red Book. After a risk assessment is complete, officials and regulators use it to decide how to protect the public from exposure to toxic substances. However, the challenges of risk assessment have become increasingly complex.
As knowledge of environmental contaminants and potential health impacts advances, EPA must address issues of multiple exposure, multiple risks, and susceptibility of different populations. Recognizing this, the agency asked the NRC to identify improvements it could make to enhance risk assessment. In turn, the committee that wrote the report presented recommendations and a proposed framework for risk-based decision making to provide a template for risk assessment in EPA and strengthen the scientific basis, credibility, and effectiveness of future risk management decisions.
The committee found that EPA is struggling to keep up with demands for hazard and dose-response information and is challenged by a lack of resources. For example, the risk assessment for trichloroethylene, a chemical that is linked to cancer, has been under development since the 1980s and is not expected until 2010. However, state and federal officials often must continue to make risk management decisions in the absence of completed risk assessments. The Committee stressed, "If this practice continues, the value and credibility of risk assessment will erode. Perfection in scientific knowledge is unattainable; therefore, risk assessment should incorporate the best available scientific information and reasonably capture uncertainties in information so it is still useful for officials."
The Committee said, "EPA should focus more attention on the formative stages of risk assessment, specifically on planning, scoping, and problem formulation, which have been applied inconsistently, the committee said. This includes defining a clear set of options for consideration and involving decision makers, stakeholders, and risk assessors upfront to evaluate whether the design of the assessment will address the problems."
To this end, the Committee proposed that EPA adopt an expanded risk assessment framework that has the same core as the Red Book model but differs in its preliminary and final steps. The three-phase framework begins with enhanced problem formulation and scoping, in which risk management options and the types of technical analyses needed to evaluate and discriminate among the options are identified. The second phase involves planning, hazard identification, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and deciding whether the assessment is appropriate and allows discrimination among risk management options. The final phase examines the relative health or environmental benefits of the proposed risk management options for the purpose of reaching a decision.
Under this framework, the questions posed come from early and careful planning and stress the appropriate level of scientific depth that is needed to evaluate the relative options being considered. The goal of the new approach is to assure that risk assessments are focused on the right questions, use the best available science, and address the needs of decision makers.
The committee also recommended that EPA adopt a unified approach for the dose-response step of risk assessment, which estimates the amount of a chemical that would lead to an adverse health effect. Currently, dose-response assessments are conducted differently for chemicals that produce cancerous effects and those that produce other health effects. For carcinogens, EPA assumes that even a low exposure may result in cancer, and scientists estimate the probability of cancer developing in a certain population given different levels of exposure. For chemicals that could produce noncancerous effects, such as asthma or birth defects, scientists currently try to determine a threshold -- the amount below which effects of the chemical are not expected to occur or are extremely unlikely.
However, the current noncancer assessment process, while valuable in certain public-health situations, does not provide decision makers with information on varying estimates of risk at different exposure levels, nor does it allow for adjustment of background exposures and underlying disease that may lead to increased risk. Rather, it provides a distinct line between possible harm and safety for all populations. The Committee suggested unifying the cancer and noncancerous dose-response assessment approaches to include assessments of background disease processes and exposures, possible vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a chemical's dose-response relationship in humans. This unified approach would incorporate advances in scientific knowledge and provide clearer estimates of population risk -- information that is most useful for decision making, including informing risk trade-offs or cost-benefit analyses. Moving toward this approach would require new research and development, but the tools are available to do this.
The Committee cautions that EPA's current institutional structure and level of resources may pose a challenge to implementation of the report's recommendations, which are equivalent to major transformations in the Agency's culture. It would require a commitment to leadership, cross-program coordination and communication, and training to ensure the requisite expertise. EPA should initiate a senior-level strategic re-examination of its risk-related structures and processes to make sure that it has the institutional capacity and resources to implement the Committee's recommendations. In addition, EPA should develop a capacity building plan that includes budget estimates required for implementation.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the 478-page complete report --Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment -- and a 32-page executive summary (click here). Access a 4-page summary (click here). [*Toxics]
According to a release from NAS, the risk assessment process entails four steps -- hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization -- which were described in a 1983 National Research Council report known as the Red Book. After a risk assessment is complete, officials and regulators use it to decide how to protect the public from exposure to toxic substances. However, the challenges of risk assessment have become increasingly complex.
As knowledge of environmental contaminants and potential health impacts advances, EPA must address issues of multiple exposure, multiple risks, and susceptibility of different populations. Recognizing this, the agency asked the NRC to identify improvements it could make to enhance risk assessment. In turn, the committee that wrote the report presented recommendations and a proposed framework for risk-based decision making to provide a template for risk assessment in EPA and strengthen the scientific basis, credibility, and effectiveness of future risk management decisions.
The committee found that EPA is struggling to keep up with demands for hazard and dose-response information and is challenged by a lack of resources. For example, the risk assessment for trichloroethylene, a chemical that is linked to cancer, has been under development since the 1980s and is not expected until 2010. However, state and federal officials often must continue to make risk management decisions in the absence of completed risk assessments. The Committee stressed, "If this practice continues, the value and credibility of risk assessment will erode. Perfection in scientific knowledge is unattainable; therefore, risk assessment should incorporate the best available scientific information and reasonably capture uncertainties in information so it is still useful for officials."
The Committee said, "EPA should focus more attention on the formative stages of risk assessment, specifically on planning, scoping, and problem formulation, which have been applied inconsistently, the committee said. This includes defining a clear set of options for consideration and involving decision makers, stakeholders, and risk assessors upfront to evaluate whether the design of the assessment will address the problems."
To this end, the Committee proposed that EPA adopt an expanded risk assessment framework that has the same core as the Red Book model but differs in its preliminary and final steps. The three-phase framework begins with enhanced problem formulation and scoping, in which risk management options and the types of technical analyses needed to evaluate and discriminate among the options are identified. The second phase involves planning, hazard identification, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and deciding whether the assessment is appropriate and allows discrimination among risk management options. The final phase examines the relative health or environmental benefits of the proposed risk management options for the purpose of reaching a decision.
Under this framework, the questions posed come from early and careful planning and stress the appropriate level of scientific depth that is needed to evaluate the relative options being considered. The goal of the new approach is to assure that risk assessments are focused on the right questions, use the best available science, and address the needs of decision makers.
The committee also recommended that EPA adopt a unified approach for the dose-response step of risk assessment, which estimates the amount of a chemical that would lead to an adverse health effect. Currently, dose-response assessments are conducted differently for chemicals that produce cancerous effects and those that produce other health effects. For carcinogens, EPA assumes that even a low exposure may result in cancer, and scientists estimate the probability of cancer developing in a certain population given different levels of exposure. For chemicals that could produce noncancerous effects, such as asthma or birth defects, scientists currently try to determine a threshold -- the amount below which effects of the chemical are not expected to occur or are extremely unlikely.
However, the current noncancer assessment process, while valuable in certain public-health situations, does not provide decision makers with information on varying estimates of risk at different exposure levels, nor does it allow for adjustment of background exposures and underlying disease that may lead to increased risk. Rather, it provides a distinct line between possible harm and safety for all populations. The Committee suggested unifying the cancer and noncancerous dose-response assessment approaches to include assessments of background disease processes and exposures, possible vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a chemical's dose-response relationship in humans. This unified approach would incorporate advances in scientific knowledge and provide clearer estimates of population risk -- information that is most useful for decision making, including informing risk trade-offs or cost-benefit analyses. Moving toward this approach would require new research and development, but the tools are available to do this.
The Committee cautions that EPA's current institutional structure and level of resources may pose a challenge to implementation of the report's recommendations, which are equivalent to major transformations in the Agency's culture. It would require a commitment to leadership, cross-program coordination and communication, and training to ensure the requisite expertise. EPA should initiate a senior-level strategic re-examination of its risk-related structures and processes to make sure that it has the institutional capacity and resources to implement the Committee's recommendations. In addition, EPA should develop a capacity building plan that includes budget estimates required for implementation.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the 478-page complete report --Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment -- and a 32-page executive summary (click here). Access a 4-page summary (click here). [*Toxics]
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
GAO Report On Lessons From International Climate Change Programs
Dec 2: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report entitled, International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (GAO-09-151, November 18, 2008).
According to GAO, international policies to address climate change have largely relied on market-based programs; for example, under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) phase I (2005 to 2007) carbon dioxide emissions reductions were sought by setting a cap on each member state's allowable emissions and distributing tradable allowances to covered entities, such as power plants. Beginning operation in 2002, the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has relied on offsets, allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for emission reduction projects in developing countries -- where the cost of abatement may be less expensive -- in addition to reducing emissions within their borders.
Legislative proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under consideration in the United States. In this context, GAO was asked to examine the effects of and lessons learned from (1) the ETS phase I and (2) the CDM. GAO worked with the National Academy of Sciences to identify experts in market-based programs and gathered their opinions through a questionnaire, interviewed stakeholders, and reviewed available information.
GAO reports that according to available information and experts, the ETS phase I established a functioning market for carbon dioxide allowances, but its effects on emissions, the European economy, and technology investment are less certain. Nonetheless, experts suggest that it offers lessons that may prove useful in informing congressional decision making. By limiting the total number of emission allowances provided to covered entities under the program and enabling these entities to sell or buy allowances, the ETS set a price on carbon emissions. However, in 2006, a release of emissions data revealed that the supply of allowances -- the cap -- exceeded the demand, and the allowance price collapsed. Overall, the cumulative effect of phase I on emissions is uncertain because of a lack of baseline emissions data. The long-term effects on the economy also are uncertain.
One concern about design and implementation was that the economic activities associated with emissions from covered entities would shift from the European Union to countries that do not have binding emission limits -- a concept known as "leakage." However, leakage does not appear to have occurred, in part because covered entities did not purchase allowances but received them for free. The effect of the ETS on technology investment also is uncertain but was likely minimal, in part because phase I was not long enough to affect such investments.
Phase I of the ETS offers three key lessons: (1) accurate emissions data are essential to setting an effective emissions cap; (2) a trading program should provide enough certainty to influence technology investment; and (3) the method for allocating allowances may have important economic effects, namely, free allocation may distribute wealth to covered entities whereas auctioning could generate revenue for governments.
According to available information and experts, the CDM has provided flexibility to industrialized countries with emission targets and has involved developing countries in efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but the program's effects on emissions are uncertain, and its effects on sustainable development have been limited. Nonetheless, the CDM's effects reveal key lessons that can help inform congressional decision making. Specifically, the CDM has provided a way for industrialized countries to meet their targets that may cost less than reducing emissions at home; however, available evidence suggests that some offset credits were awarded for projects that would have occurred even in the absence of the CDM, despite a rigorous screening process.
Such projects do not represent net emission reductions and can compromise the integrity of programs -- including the ETS -- that allow the use of CDM credits for compliance. We also found that the cost-effectiveness and overall scale of emission reductions are limited by the current project approval process, although proposed changes may improve its effectiveness. Key lessons from the CDM include: (1) the resources necessary to obtain project approval may reduce the cost-effectiveness and quality of projects; (2) the need to ensure the credibility of emission reductions presents a significant regulatory challenge; and (3) due to the tradeoffs with offsets, the use of such programs may be, at best, a temporary solution.
Access the complete 64-page report (click here). Access more information on the EU ETS (click here). Access complete information on the CDM program (click here). [*Climate]
According to GAO, international policies to address climate change have largely relied on market-based programs; for example, under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) phase I (2005 to 2007) carbon dioxide emissions reductions were sought by setting a cap on each member state's allowable emissions and distributing tradable allowances to covered entities, such as power plants. Beginning operation in 2002, the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has relied on offsets, allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for emission reduction projects in developing countries -- where the cost of abatement may be less expensive -- in addition to reducing emissions within their borders.
Legislative proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under consideration in the United States. In this context, GAO was asked to examine the effects of and lessons learned from (1) the ETS phase I and (2) the CDM. GAO worked with the National Academy of Sciences to identify experts in market-based programs and gathered their opinions through a questionnaire, interviewed stakeholders, and reviewed available information.
GAO reports that according to available information and experts, the ETS phase I established a functioning market for carbon dioxide allowances, but its effects on emissions, the European economy, and technology investment are less certain. Nonetheless, experts suggest that it offers lessons that may prove useful in informing congressional decision making. By limiting the total number of emission allowances provided to covered entities under the program and enabling these entities to sell or buy allowances, the ETS set a price on carbon emissions. However, in 2006, a release of emissions data revealed that the supply of allowances -- the cap -- exceeded the demand, and the allowance price collapsed. Overall, the cumulative effect of phase I on emissions is uncertain because of a lack of baseline emissions data. The long-term effects on the economy also are uncertain.
One concern about design and implementation was that the economic activities associated with emissions from covered entities would shift from the European Union to countries that do not have binding emission limits -- a concept known as "leakage." However, leakage does not appear to have occurred, in part because covered entities did not purchase allowances but received them for free. The effect of the ETS on technology investment also is uncertain but was likely minimal, in part because phase I was not long enough to affect such investments.
Phase I of the ETS offers three key lessons: (1) accurate emissions data are essential to setting an effective emissions cap; (2) a trading program should provide enough certainty to influence technology investment; and (3) the method for allocating allowances may have important economic effects, namely, free allocation may distribute wealth to covered entities whereas auctioning could generate revenue for governments.
According to available information and experts, the CDM has provided flexibility to industrialized countries with emission targets and has involved developing countries in efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but the program's effects on emissions are uncertain, and its effects on sustainable development have been limited. Nonetheless, the CDM's effects reveal key lessons that can help inform congressional decision making. Specifically, the CDM has provided a way for industrialized countries to meet their targets that may cost less than reducing emissions at home; however, available evidence suggests that some offset credits were awarded for projects that would have occurred even in the absence of the CDM, despite a rigorous screening process.
Such projects do not represent net emission reductions and can compromise the integrity of programs -- including the ETS -- that allow the use of CDM credits for compliance. We also found that the cost-effectiveness and overall scale of emission reductions are limited by the current project approval process, although proposed changes may improve its effectiveness. Key lessons from the CDM include: (1) the resources necessary to obtain project approval may reduce the cost-effectiveness and quality of projects; (2) the need to ensure the credibility of emission reductions presents a significant regulatory challenge; and (3) due to the tradeoffs with offsets, the use of such programs may be, at best, a temporary solution.
Access the complete 64-page report (click here). Access more information on the EU ETS (click here). Access complete information on the CDM program (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Enviros Deliver Major Report To Obama Transition Team
Nov 25: Nearly 30 environmental, science and conservation groups presented their top policy recommendations to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team in a major, 391-page "Transition To Green" report. Representing millions of Americans, the groups provided the document laying out recommendations on key federal agencies and issues, including land, air, water, oceans and public health. They said the document "reflects President-elect Obama’s early indications that he will take bold measures to harness American ingenuity to solve the economic, climate and energy crises. The document demonstrates agreement with Obama’s call to increase investment in clean, renewable energy as his top priorities. Such investments would re-power America and help stabilize the economy over the long-term."
The groups said in a joint statement, “In November, Americans made their preference clear that the federal government has a critical role to play in unleashing homegrown, innovative energy solutions that would create new jobs, reduce global warming pollution and cut our nation's dependence on oil. We welcome this opportunity to collaborate with the transition team, and to work with President-elect Obama to move America forward and re-engage with the international community to reverse eight years of environmental neglect.”
The organizations support the establishment of a federal carbon cap-and-trade system, which would limit carbon emissions and provide incentives for companies to reduce global warming pollution. They said such a system is critical to address climate change and raise revenue needed to transition to a clean energy economy. The document urges the new administration to act quickly to restore scientific integrity at Federal agencies. The groups recommend that President-elect Obama should ensure that Federal science agencies’ decisions will be based on science, not politics.
The groups also called on the incoming administration to reinvest in America's commitment to protecting human health and the environment. They said "investing in clean water, clean air and conservation not only makes sound fiscal sense, it also offers the opportunity to create new jobs, boost local economies and protect America's natural heritage." The groups have also proposed a
detailed 149-page Green Budget of National Funding Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009.
The groups participating in the effort included: AMERICAN RIVERS - CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - CLEAN WATER ACTION- DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE - EARTHJUSTICE - ENVIRONMENT AMERICA - ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND - FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - GREENPEACE - IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE - LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS - NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY - NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL - NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION - NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - OCEANA - OCEAN CONSERVANCY - PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP - PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - POPULATION CONNECTION - POPULATION ACTION INTERNATIONAL- RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY - SIERRA CLUB - THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY - THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS – WORLD WILDLIFE FUND.
Access a release from the groups (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the Green Budget document (click here). Access the coalition's Save Our Environment Action Center website for more information (click here).
The groups said in a joint statement, “In November, Americans made their preference clear that the federal government has a critical role to play in unleashing homegrown, innovative energy solutions that would create new jobs, reduce global warming pollution and cut our nation's dependence on oil. We welcome this opportunity to collaborate with the transition team, and to work with President-elect Obama to move America forward and re-engage with the international community to reverse eight years of environmental neglect.”
The organizations support the establishment of a federal carbon cap-and-trade system, which would limit carbon emissions and provide incentives for companies to reduce global warming pollution. They said such a system is critical to address climate change and raise revenue needed to transition to a clean energy economy. The document urges the new administration to act quickly to restore scientific integrity at Federal agencies. The groups recommend that President-elect Obama should ensure that Federal science agencies’ decisions will be based on science, not politics.
The groups also called on the incoming administration to reinvest in America's commitment to protecting human health and the environment. They said "investing in clean water, clean air and conservation not only makes sound fiscal sense, it also offers the opportunity to create new jobs, boost local economies and protect America's natural heritage." The groups have also proposed a
detailed 149-page Green Budget of National Funding Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009.
The groups participating in the effort included: AMERICAN RIVERS - CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - CLEAN WATER ACTION- DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE - EARTHJUSTICE - ENVIRONMENT AMERICA - ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND - FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - GREENPEACE - IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE - LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS - NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY - NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL - NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION - NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - OCEANA - OCEAN CONSERVANCY - PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP - PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - POPULATION CONNECTION - POPULATION ACTION INTERNATIONAL- RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY - SIERRA CLUB - THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY - THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS – WORLD WILDLIFE FUND.
Access a release from the groups (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the Green Budget document (click here). Access the coalition's Save Our Environment Action Center website for more information (click here).
Monday, December 01, 2008
Poznań International Climate Change Conference Begins
Dec 1: The Poznań, Poland Climate Change Conference of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) begins today (December 1) and will conclude on December 12. The major international conference, the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC and the 4th meeting of Parties (CMP) to the Kyoto Protocol will draw an estimated 11,000 participants, including government delegates from the 187 Parties to the UNFCCC and representatives from business and industry. The conference provides the opportunity to draw together the advances made in 2008 and move from discussion to negotiation mode in 2009, building momentum towards an agreed outcome at Copenhagen in December 2009.
At COP14/CMP4 in Poznań, the Parties are expected to: Agree on a plan of action and programs of work for the final year of negotiations after a year of comprehensive and extensive discussions on crucial issues relating to future commitments, actions and cooperation; Make significant progress on a number of on-going issues required to enhance further the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, including capacity-building for developing countries, reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD), technology transfer and adaptation; Advance understanding and commonality of views on "shared vision" for a new climate change regime; and Strengthen commitment to the process and the agreed timeline.
The two-week meeting is the halfway mark in the negotiations on an ambitious and effective international climate change deal to be finalized in Copenhagen in 2009. Parties have little more than a year to agree on strengthened action on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. A compilation paper of proposals for solutions has been put together. The paper is expected to serve as a first version of a negotiating text in Poznań. UNFCCC indicates that because of the limited time still available, "it is critical that real progress is made and that Parties identify which proposals to take forward in 2009." The more than 700 pages of proposals have been distilled into a single document of 82 pages, which governments can now refine further in light of what they want to negotiate in 2009.
Briefing the media on the opening day of the conference, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, emphasized the crucial role of finance in reaching a long-term solution to climate change. He said, “Advancing the commitment of industrialized countries is intimately linked to enhancing the engagement of developing countries.” He indicated that Poznań would show progress on ongoing work under the Convention and allow Ministers to present their vision of long-term cooperative action. His expectations for the meeting included the launch of the Adaptation Fund, as well as significant advances on technology transfer, the CDM [Clean Development Mechanism] and the issue of deforestation. De Boer highlighted two important signals received in 2007 -- The IPCC report [See WIMS 5/4/07], confirming the reality and impacts of climate change; and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change [See WIMS 10/31/06], which said failure to act would equal economic failure on the scale of two World Wars and the Great Depression combined."
De Boer indicated that, “The conference needs to deliver on on-going issues, especially issues that are important to developing countries. And there is huge pressure on available time up to Copenhagen in 2009. So next to on-going work, the conference also needs to lay a solid foundation for an ambitious climate change deal at Copenhagen.” Discussing the global financial and economic crisis and the opportunities of green and sustainable economic growth, de Boer urged the delegates to, “increasingly focus on how the climate change regime could become self-financing and to link climate change policies to economic recovery.”
Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Dr. Paula Dobriansky will lead the U.S. delegation to Poznań. Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) James Connaughton will join in representing the United States at the high-level portion of the conference on December 11-12. Chairman Connaughton is a senior advisor to President Bush and his personal representative to the Major Economies Meetings on Energy Security and Climate Change. Ambassador and Special Envoy to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Dr. Harlan Watson will serve as the alternate head of the U.S. Delegation during the two week negotiation. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development Daniel Reifsnyder will serve as a senior member of the U.S. Delegation. U.S. Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe will also attend the high-level segment of the conference.
Access a release on the opening of COP14 (click here). Access the COP14 website for extensive information including links to all conference documents (click here). Access links to live webcasts of the meeting sessions (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
At COP14/CMP4 in Poznań, the Parties are expected to: Agree on a plan of action and programs of work for the final year of negotiations after a year of comprehensive and extensive discussions on crucial issues relating to future commitments, actions and cooperation; Make significant progress on a number of on-going issues required to enhance further the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, including capacity-building for developing countries, reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD), technology transfer and adaptation; Advance understanding and commonality of views on "shared vision" for a new climate change regime; and Strengthen commitment to the process and the agreed timeline.
The two-week meeting is the halfway mark in the negotiations on an ambitious and effective international climate change deal to be finalized in Copenhagen in 2009. Parties have little more than a year to agree on strengthened action on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. A compilation paper of proposals for solutions has been put together. The paper is expected to serve as a first version of a negotiating text in Poznań. UNFCCC indicates that because of the limited time still available, "it is critical that real progress is made and that Parties identify which proposals to take forward in 2009." The more than 700 pages of proposals have been distilled into a single document of 82 pages, which governments can now refine further in light of what they want to negotiate in 2009.
Briefing the media on the opening day of the conference, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, emphasized the crucial role of finance in reaching a long-term solution to climate change. He said, “Advancing the commitment of industrialized countries is intimately linked to enhancing the engagement of developing countries.” He indicated that Poznań would show progress on ongoing work under the Convention and allow Ministers to present their vision of long-term cooperative action. His expectations for the meeting included the launch of the Adaptation Fund, as well as significant advances on technology transfer, the CDM [Clean Development Mechanism] and the issue of deforestation. De Boer highlighted two important signals received in 2007 -- The IPCC report [See WIMS 5/4/07], confirming the reality and impacts of climate change; and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change [See WIMS 10/31/06], which said failure to act would equal economic failure on the scale of two World Wars and the Great Depression combined."
De Boer indicated that, “The conference needs to deliver on on-going issues, especially issues that are important to developing countries. And there is huge pressure on available time up to Copenhagen in 2009. So next to on-going work, the conference also needs to lay a solid foundation for an ambitious climate change deal at Copenhagen.” Discussing the global financial and economic crisis and the opportunities of green and sustainable economic growth, de Boer urged the delegates to, “increasingly focus on how the climate change regime could become self-financing and to link climate change policies to economic recovery.”
Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Dr. Paula Dobriansky will lead the U.S. delegation to Poznań. Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) James Connaughton will join in representing the United States at the high-level portion of the conference on December 11-12. Chairman Connaughton is a senior advisor to President Bush and his personal representative to the Major Economies Meetings on Energy Security and Climate Change. Ambassador and Special Envoy to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Dr. Harlan Watson will serve as the alternate head of the U.S. Delegation during the two week negotiation. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainable Development Daniel Reifsnyder will serve as a senior member of the U.S. Delegation. U.S. Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe will also attend the high-level segment of the conference.
Access a release on the opening of COP14 (click here). Access the COP14 website for extensive information including links to all conference documents (click here). Access links to live webcasts of the meeting sessions (click here). Access the U.S. State Department website on the COP14 meeting (click here). Access complete detailed day-by-day coverage from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Dingell Out; Waxman Will Lead Energy & Commerce Committee
Nov 20: Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI) has lost his Chairmanship of the powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), current Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform won approval from Democratic colleagues in a 137-122 vote to unseat Dingell. On November 5, Waxman (D-CA) announced that he would be seeking the Chairmanship of the Committee [See WIMS 11/13/8].
Dingell is the longest serving current Member of the House and second longest serving Member in the nation’s history. Dingell has been Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee for 28-years and has represented Monroe County and parts of Wayne and Washtenaw Counties since 1955. Dingell was born July 8, 1926 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Over the last five decades, Congressman Dingell has championed some of the best known laws protecting our health and our environment, as well as the rights of workers and consumers including the 1990 Clean Air Act the Endangered Species Act. Most recently, Dingell and Rick Boucher (D-VA) released their "discussion draft" of climate change legislation that has been two years in the making [See WIMS 10/7/08]. An effort which many environmental organizations said was short of what was needed to seriously address the global warming issue.
Representative Waxman represents California's 30th Congressional District, which includes the complete cities of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Westlake Village and West Hollywood, as well as such areas of Los Angeles as Beverly-Fairfax, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Beverlywood, Topanga, Agoura, Chatsworth, West Hills, Canoga Park, and Westwood. Waxman is regarded as a leader on health and environmental issues and during this past year has conducted extensive investigations of U.S. EPA's denial of California's petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and the President's use of executive privilege to withhold thousands of pages of documents. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act of 2006 [See WIMS 6/20/06] and was also one of the primary authors of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Waxman's Safe Climate Act would freeze the level of emissions in 2010; gradually reduced by 2% each year through 2020, and then reduced by 5% each year through 2050. The Act would achieve the targets through a flexible economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, along with measures to advance technology and reduce emissions through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, “Chairman Waxman has been a leader on global warming for many years, and we look forward to working closely with him in this new role. Our nation faces many challenges, including the climate crisis, and Congressman Waxman understands that we can’t delay in taking on these issues. After many years of working with Congressman Dingell on toxics, endangered species, and EPA-related issues, we recognize his important contributions. We will continue to work with him and others in Congress on our nation’s most pressing environmental, energy and global warming challenges.”
Access the Energy & Commerce Committee website (click here). Access Representative Waxman's website (click here). Access Representative Dingell's website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access various news reports on the Waxman victory (click here).
Dingell is the longest serving current Member of the House and second longest serving Member in the nation’s history. Dingell has been Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee for 28-years and has represented Monroe County and parts of Wayne and Washtenaw Counties since 1955. Dingell was born July 8, 1926 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Over the last five decades, Congressman Dingell has championed some of the best known laws protecting our health and our environment, as well as the rights of workers and consumers including the 1990 Clean Air Act the Endangered Species Act. Most recently, Dingell and Rick Boucher (D-VA) released their "discussion draft" of climate change legislation that has been two years in the making [See WIMS 10/7/08]. An effort which many environmental organizations said was short of what was needed to seriously address the global warming issue.
Representative Waxman represents California's 30th Congressional District, which includes the complete cities of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Westlake Village and West Hollywood, as well as such areas of Los Angeles as Beverly-Fairfax, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Beverlywood, Topanga, Agoura, Chatsworth, West Hills, Canoga Park, and Westwood. Waxman is regarded as a leader on health and environmental issues and during this past year has conducted extensive investigations of U.S. EPA's denial of California's petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and the President's use of executive privilege to withhold thousands of pages of documents. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act of 2006 [See WIMS 6/20/06] and was also one of the primary authors of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Waxman's Safe Climate Act would freeze the level of emissions in 2010; gradually reduced by 2% each year through 2020, and then reduced by 5% each year through 2050. The Act would achieve the targets through a flexible economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, along with measures to advance technology and reduce emissions through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, “Chairman Waxman has been a leader on global warming for many years, and we look forward to working closely with him in this new role. Our nation faces many challenges, including the climate crisis, and Congressman Waxman understands that we can’t delay in taking on these issues. After many years of working with Congressman Dingell on toxics, endangered species, and EPA-related issues, we recognize his important contributions. We will continue to work with him and others in Congress on our nation’s most pressing environmental, energy and global warming challenges.”
Access the Energy & Commerce Committee website (click here). Access Representative Waxman's website (click here). Access Representative Dingell's website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access various news reports on the Waxman victory (click here).
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Major Corporations & NGOs Call For Cap-And-Trade Legislation
Nov 18: The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of 26 major corporations and 6 non-profit environmental and conservation organizations [See WIMS 2/13/07], held a press conference in Washington, DC to make the economic case for cap-and-trade legislation. Ironically, in a pre-recorded video message aired the same day at the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, President-Elect Barack Obama promised that under his leadership, the U.S. will establish a Federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." [See WIMS 11/18/08].
The coalition called on Congress and the incoming Obama Administration to pass meaningful climate protection legislation next year despite the difficult economic conditions, pointing to the economic benefits and job creation that will result from taking such action. The call for action from USCAP echoed a similar call on November 11, when more than 130 leading investors, representing assets worth $6.4 trillion, issued a joint statement sent to Heads of State and climate negotiators, calling for a strong, binding framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, despite the financial crisis [See WIMS 11/13/08]
USCAP said that cap-and-trade legislation is urgently needed to prevent the serious impacts of climate change. They said, "While the magnitude of needed reductions are not free of costs, legislation is necessary to spur innovation in green technologies that will create jobs, increase economic activity and provide the foundation for a vibrant, low-carbon economy." James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy said, “Investment in new technologies and the infrastructure needed for a low-carbon economy are effective ways to generate the jobs and economic growth the U.S. needs to address the current economic crisis. We must position the U.S. to succeed in the new low-carbon, global economy and this is the best way to accomplish that.”
USCAP includes the following corporations and environmental NGOs: Alcoa, AIG, Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Chrysler, John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense Fund, Exelon, Ford, FPL Group, GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, NRG Energy, The Nature Conservancy, PepsiCo, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, World Resources Institute, and Xerox.
USCAP has taken a leadership role in support of climate protection legislation, calling for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 that are 60 percent to 80 percent below today’s levels. Its initial report on addressing climate change -- “A Call for Action” -- was issued in January 2007 and noted that each year of delay in controlling emissions increases the risk of consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption. The groups said, "The cost of inaction is also a significant concern. The longer the U.S. waits to implement a cap-and-trade program, the more ground it will cede to other economies that are already working on these new green technologies."
Jeff Sterba, CEO of PNM Resources said, "One of the main barriers to realizing economic benefits from reducing carbon emissions has been the uncertainty surrounding how this will be accomplished. Americans want clean energy, and we can produce it if there is a federal roadmap on carbon emissions. Only comprehensive greenhouse gas legislation -- one that recognizes the link between energy, the environment, the economy and security -- can bring us the clean, affordable and secure energy future we so desperately need."
Access a release from USCAP with further details (click here). Access a 3-page summary of USCAP member statements (click here). Access the USCAP website for more information (click here). [*Climate]
The coalition called on Congress and the incoming Obama Administration to pass meaningful climate protection legislation next year despite the difficult economic conditions, pointing to the economic benefits and job creation that will result from taking such action. The call for action from USCAP echoed a similar call on November 11, when more than 130 leading investors, representing assets worth $6.4 trillion, issued a joint statement sent to Heads of State and climate negotiators, calling for a strong, binding framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, despite the financial crisis [See WIMS 11/13/08]
USCAP said that cap-and-trade legislation is urgently needed to prevent the serious impacts of climate change. They said, "While the magnitude of needed reductions are not free of costs, legislation is necessary to spur innovation in green technologies that will create jobs, increase economic activity and provide the foundation for a vibrant, low-carbon economy." James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy said, “Investment in new technologies and the infrastructure needed for a low-carbon economy are effective ways to generate the jobs and economic growth the U.S. needs to address the current economic crisis. We must position the U.S. to succeed in the new low-carbon, global economy and this is the best way to accomplish that.”
USCAP includes the following corporations and environmental NGOs: Alcoa, AIG, Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Chrysler, John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense Fund, Exelon, Ford, FPL Group, GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, NRG Energy, The Nature Conservancy, PepsiCo, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, World Resources Institute, and Xerox.
USCAP has taken a leadership role in support of climate protection legislation, calling for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 that are 60 percent to 80 percent below today’s levels. Its initial report on addressing climate change -- “A Call for Action” -- was issued in January 2007 and noted that each year of delay in controlling emissions increases the risk of consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption. The groups said, "The cost of inaction is also a significant concern. The longer the U.S. waits to implement a cap-and-trade program, the more ground it will cede to other economies that are already working on these new green technologies."
Jeff Sterba, CEO of PNM Resources said, "One of the main barriers to realizing economic benefits from reducing carbon emissions has been the uncertainty surrounding how this will be accomplished. Americans want clean energy, and we can produce it if there is a federal roadmap on carbon emissions. Only comprehensive greenhouse gas legislation -- one that recognizes the link between energy, the environment, the economy and security -- can bring us the clean, affordable and secure energy future we so desperately need."
Access a release from USCAP with further details (click here). Access a 3-page summary of USCAP member statements (click here). Access the USCAP website for more information (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
President-Elect Obama Addresses Governors' Global Climate Summit
Nov 18: In Los Angeles , Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger welcomed more than 800 attendees from more than 50 states, provinces and countries to the Governors' Global Climate Summit. Following the Governor's opening remarks, a pre-recorded video message aired from President-Elect Barack Obama on global warming and supporting the states that have taken decisive action to address this urgent issue. The Governors' Summit brings together U.S. and international leaders to develop cooperative partnerships and promote collaborative actions needed to combat climate change. The forum also provides an opportunity for states and provinces to partner to reduce emissions, to grow their green economies and to influence the position their national governments take in the next global agreement on climate change.
The U.S. governors co-hosting the event and who were in attendance at the summit are Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich; Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius; and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. Governor Schwarzenegger said, "When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island, so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could. We teamed up with Great Britain, the Canadian provinces, the Western and Northeastern states and with states like those of my co hosts-Illinois, Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and more. And right here, for the first time, we have officials from China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and across the world in the same summit, working toward the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and growing green economies in our own backyards."
In a video address to the Summit's attendees, President-elect Obama emphasized his enthusiasm for the Poznan, Poland Conference and promised that his administration would mark a "new chapter in American leadership on climate change." He said, "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. Many of you are working to confront this challenge....but too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office.
"Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather in Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be President at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one President at a time, I’ve asked Members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there."
He also said, "Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security." He said the U.S. will establish a federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." He called for investments of "$15 billion each year" to assist private efforts to develop a clean energy future. He said, ". . . we'll tap nuclear power while making sure its safe, and we will develop clean coal technology." He said he looks forward to working with "all nations to meet this challenge in the coming year." He said when he takes office the United States will "engage vigorously" in the climate change negotiations and "help lead the world in a new era of global cooperation on climate change."
The Summit emphasizes a "sectoral" approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions with sector-specific breakout sessions focusing on specific actions in the following industries: forestry; cement, iron, steel and aluminum; energy; and transportation. Together, these sectors account for the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to a release, the approach is considered a "promising mechanism to support the actions of developing nations with technical and financial assistance from developed nations."
With representatives from the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the Governors' Summit provides "an important forum to discuss solutions to meeting our mutual environmental goals while creating an economic advantage for states, provinces and nations that take early and aggressive action." Showcasing the economic success of California's environmental leadership, the Governors' Summit will feature more than 30 clean-tech companies displaying innovative green technologies including electric cars, solar-powered flashlights and non-toxic cleaning products during the two-day Climate Solutions Showcase.
On September 17, in advance of the Conference, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 (EO) to streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. The Governor said, "I am proposing we set the most aggressive target in the nation for renewable energy -- 33 percent by the year 2020 -- that's a third of our energy from sources like solar, wind and geothermal. But we won't meet that goal doing business as usual, where environmental regulations are holding up environmental progress in some cases. This executive order will clear the red tape for renewable projects and streamline the permitting and siting of new plants and transmission lines. With this investment in renewable energy projects, California has a bright energy future ahead that will help us fight climate change while driving our state's green economy."
Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger (click here). Access a link to a high quality version of the Obama webcast released from the transition office (click here). Access the Conference website for complete details (click here). Access a live webcast and subsequent archival video and podcasts of all events in the International Ballroom (click here). Access a release on the Governor's executive order including the full text and related links (click here). [*Climate]
The U.S. governors co-hosting the event and who were in attendance at the summit are Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich; Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius; and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. Governor Schwarzenegger said, "When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island, so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could. We teamed up with Great Britain, the Canadian provinces, the Western and Northeastern states and with states like those of my co hosts-Illinois, Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and more. And right here, for the first time, we have officials from China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and across the world in the same summit, working toward the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and growing green economies in our own backyards."
In a video address to the Summit's attendees, President-elect Obama emphasized his enthusiasm for the Poznan, Poland Conference and promised that his administration would mark a "new chapter in American leadership on climate change." He said, "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. Many of you are working to confront this challenge....but too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office.
"Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather in Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be President at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one President at a time, I’ve asked Members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there."
He also said, "Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security." He said the U.S. will establish a federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." He called for investments of "$15 billion each year" to assist private efforts to develop a clean energy future. He said, ". . . we'll tap nuclear power while making sure its safe, and we will develop clean coal technology." He said he looks forward to working with "all nations to meet this challenge in the coming year." He said when he takes office the United States will "engage vigorously" in the climate change negotiations and "help lead the world in a new era of global cooperation on climate change."
The Summit emphasizes a "sectoral" approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions with sector-specific breakout sessions focusing on specific actions in the following industries: forestry; cement, iron, steel and aluminum; energy; and transportation. Together, these sectors account for the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to a release, the approach is considered a "promising mechanism to support the actions of developing nations with technical and financial assistance from developed nations."
With representatives from the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the Governors' Summit provides "an important forum to discuss solutions to meeting our mutual environmental goals while creating an economic advantage for states, provinces and nations that take early and aggressive action." Showcasing the economic success of California's environmental leadership, the Governors' Summit will feature more than 30 clean-tech companies displaying innovative green technologies including electric cars, solar-powered flashlights and non-toxic cleaning products during the two-day Climate Solutions Showcase.
On September 17, in advance of the Conference, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 (EO) to streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. The Governor said, "I am proposing we set the most aggressive target in the nation for renewable energy -- 33 percent by the year 2020 -- that's a third of our energy from sources like solar, wind and geothermal. But we won't meet that goal doing business as usual, where environmental regulations are holding up environmental progress in some cases. This executive order will clear the red tape for renewable projects and streamline the permitting and siting of new plants and transmission lines. With this investment in renewable energy projects, California has a bright energy future ahead that will help us fight climate change while driving our state's green economy."
Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger (click here). Access a link to a high quality version of the Obama webcast released from the transition office (click here). Access the Conference website for complete details (click here). Access a live webcast and subsequent archival video and podcasts of all events in the International Ballroom (click here). Access a release on the Governor's executive order including the full text and related links (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, November 17, 2008
FWS Notices New Wilderness Wildlife Refuge Stewardship Policy
Nov 17: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a notice in the Federal Register [73 FR 67876-67882] announcing an updated and revised Wilderness Stewardship Policy which they say will improve the National Wildlife Refuge System's stewardship of lands designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The policy is the Service's first revision since the original Wilderness Stewardship Policy was issued in 1986.
FWS said the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy clarifies that refuge visitors may use only non-motorized and non-mechanized equipment in designated wilderness areas while hunting, fishing or enjoying other appropriate wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. In addition, it provides Service managers with the first-ever guidance on wilderness review of Refuge System lands to help them determine whether those lands should be recommended for wilderness designation. Such reviews are primarily conducted during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, which establishes long-term management objectives for each refuge.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall said, "Our Wilderness Stewardship Policy reconfirms the Service's commitment to protecting and preserving the wilderness resource while accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System. This policy will preserve the wild and natural character of wilderness within the Refuge System while providing opportunities for the public to enjoy the solitude of these special areas." Among its many other provisions, the Wilderness Stewardship Policy also provides guidance on development of wilderness stewardship plans and clarifies when prohibited uses may be necessary for wilderness preservation.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and a process for Federal land management agencies -- including the Service -- to recommend wilderness areas to Congress. Only Congress has the authority to designate lands and water as wilderness. Congress has designated more than 20 million acres on 63 national wildlife refuges as wilderness. Nearly 20 percent of the 107-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System is on Refuge System lands.
FWS said the updated Wilderness Stewardship Policy will ensure consistency with several new management policies established in recent years -- including those governing the Mission, Goals and Refuge Purposes, Appropriate Refuge Uses, and Wildlife-Dependent Recreation -- as well as the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. It also reflects other developments in the policy and science of managing the Refuge System and wilderness.
According to a release from FWS, some provisions of the policy are: (1) The policy affirms that the Refuge System generally will not modify ecosystems, such as creating new impoundments, species population levels or natural processes in refuge wilderness unless doing so maintains or restores biological integrity, diversity or environmental health that has been degraded or is necessary to protect or recover threatened or endangered species. (2) The policy guides the determination of whether a proposed refuge management activity, such as protecting habitat for a threatened or endangered species, constitutes the minimum requirement for managing a refuge as wilderness.
(3) The policy permits appropriate recreational uses in wilderness areas in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act, if such wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) is non-motorized, non-mechanized and compatible with the refuge purpose and mission. (4) The policy describes the process that the Refuge System follows in conducting wilderness reviews in accordance with the refuge planning process as outlined in the planning policy. (5) The policy addresses special provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act for wilderness stewardship in Alaska.
Congress has designated 75 wilderness areas on 63 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 26 states. About 90 per cent -- or 18.6 million acres -- of Refuge System wilderness is in Alaska. The remaining 2.5 million wilderness acres are in the lower 48 states. This represents approximately 22% of the National Wilderness Preservation System (over 106 million acres), that the Refuge System administers in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. The largest wilderness area in the Refuge System is 8 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Access a release from FWS (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy (click here). Access the National Wildlife Refuge System website for links to additional information (click here). Access the Wilderness Information Network for more information (click here). [*Land]
FWS said the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy clarifies that refuge visitors may use only non-motorized and non-mechanized equipment in designated wilderness areas while hunting, fishing or enjoying other appropriate wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. In addition, it provides Service managers with the first-ever guidance on wilderness review of Refuge System lands to help them determine whether those lands should be recommended for wilderness designation. Such reviews are primarily conducted during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, which establishes long-term management objectives for each refuge.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall said, "Our Wilderness Stewardship Policy reconfirms the Service's commitment to protecting and preserving the wilderness resource while accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System. This policy will preserve the wild and natural character of wilderness within the Refuge System while providing opportunities for the public to enjoy the solitude of these special areas." Among its many other provisions, the Wilderness Stewardship Policy also provides guidance on development of wilderness stewardship plans and clarifies when prohibited uses may be necessary for wilderness preservation.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and a process for Federal land management agencies -- including the Service -- to recommend wilderness areas to Congress. Only Congress has the authority to designate lands and water as wilderness. Congress has designated more than 20 million acres on 63 national wildlife refuges as wilderness. Nearly 20 percent of the 107-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System is on Refuge System lands.
FWS said the updated Wilderness Stewardship Policy will ensure consistency with several new management policies established in recent years -- including those governing the Mission, Goals and Refuge Purposes, Appropriate Refuge Uses, and Wildlife-Dependent Recreation -- as well as the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. It also reflects other developments in the policy and science of managing the Refuge System and wilderness.
According to a release from FWS, some provisions of the policy are: (1) The policy affirms that the Refuge System generally will not modify ecosystems, such as creating new impoundments, species population levels or natural processes in refuge wilderness unless doing so maintains or restores biological integrity, diversity or environmental health that has been degraded or is necessary to protect or recover threatened or endangered species. (2) The policy guides the determination of whether a proposed refuge management activity, such as protecting habitat for a threatened or endangered species, constitutes the minimum requirement for managing a refuge as wilderness.
(3) The policy permits appropriate recreational uses in wilderness areas in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act, if such wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) is non-motorized, non-mechanized and compatible with the refuge purpose and mission. (4) The policy describes the process that the Refuge System follows in conducting wilderness reviews in accordance with the refuge planning process as outlined in the planning policy. (5) The policy addresses special provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act for wilderness stewardship in Alaska.
Congress has designated 75 wilderness areas on 63 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 26 states. About 90 per cent -- or 18.6 million acres -- of Refuge System wilderness is in Alaska. The remaining 2.5 million wilderness acres are in the lower 48 states. This represents approximately 22% of the National Wilderness Preservation System (over 106 million acres), that the Refuge System administers in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. The largest wilderness area in the Refuge System is 8 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Access a release from FWS (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy (click here). Access the National Wildlife Refuge System website for links to additional information (click here). Access the Wilderness Information Network for more information (click here). [*Land]
Friday, November 14, 2008
EPA Appeals Board Sets Stage For CO2 Pollutant Regulation
Nov 13: In a move that Sierra Club says "signals the start of the our clean energy future," the U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled that EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions. In the case, Sierra Club sought review of a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit that EPA Region 8 issued to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative on August 30, 2007. The permit would authorize Deseret to construct a new waste-coal-fired electric generating unit at Deseret’s existing Bonanza Power Plant, located near Bonanza, Utah.
The highly controversial case involved interventions by National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce who joined in filing the brief in the appeals supporting construction of the new power plant and arguing the U.S. EPA's permitting process should not be turned into a regulatory tool to control carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [See WIMS 3/26/08].
Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case said, “Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.”
The Deseret Power facility has also been the subject of an investigation of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Concern, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) which held a hearing on November 8, 2007, regarding EPA Approval of New Power Plants: Failure to Address Global Warming Pollutants. The hearing examined the implications of U.S. EPA's refusal to consider the global warming effects of a coal-fired power plant’s greenhouse gas emissions in a recent permitting decision in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07]. On March 11, 2008, Waxman introduced H.R. 5575, to require new coal-fired electric generating units to use state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester carbon dioxide emissions.
The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign said, “Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country. Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric. Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover.”
The Environmental Appeals Board said the Sierra Club petition raised two issues. First, Sierra Club argues that the Region’s permitting decision violates the public participation provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 165(a)(2), which require the Agency to consider “alternatives” to the proposed facility. Sierra Club argued that the Region erred by failing to consider alternatives to the proposed facility. Second, Sierra Club argues that the Region violated CAA sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3) by failing to apply best available control technology (BACT), to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the facility. Sierra Club pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, contending that because CO2 is an air pollutant, the permit violates the requirement to include a BACT emissions limit for “each pollutant subject to regulation under CAA.
The Appeals Board indicated that it, ". . . denies review of the Region’s alleged failure to consider alternatives to the proposed facility, but remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision."
Clarifying further, the Appeals Board said, "Having determined that the Region has discretion under the statute to interpret the term 'subject to regulation under this Act' and that the Region wrongly believed that its discretion was limited by an historical Agency interpretation, the Board remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision. In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding. The Board suggests that the Region consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase 'subject to regulation under this Act' in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding."
Access a release from Sierra Club with links to additional information (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board 69-page Deseret Power decision (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board Deseret Power website with links to all of the extensive briefs and filings in the case (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
The highly controversial case involved interventions by National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce who joined in filing the brief in the appeals supporting construction of the new power plant and arguing the U.S. EPA's permitting process should not be turned into a regulatory tool to control carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [See WIMS 3/26/08].
Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case said, “Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.”
The Deseret Power facility has also been the subject of an investigation of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Concern, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) which held a hearing on November 8, 2007, regarding EPA Approval of New Power Plants: Failure to Address Global Warming Pollutants. The hearing examined the implications of U.S. EPA's refusal to consider the global warming effects of a coal-fired power plant’s greenhouse gas emissions in a recent permitting decision in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07]. On March 11, 2008, Waxman introduced H.R. 5575, to require new coal-fired electric generating units to use state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester carbon dioxide emissions.
The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign said, “Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country. Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric. Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover.”
The Environmental Appeals Board said the Sierra Club petition raised two issues. First, Sierra Club argues that the Region’s permitting decision violates the public participation provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 165(a)(2), which require the Agency to consider “alternatives” to the proposed facility. Sierra Club argued that the Region erred by failing to consider alternatives to the proposed facility. Second, Sierra Club argues that the Region violated CAA sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3) by failing to apply best available control technology (BACT), to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the facility. Sierra Club pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, contending that because CO2 is an air pollutant, the permit violates the requirement to include a BACT emissions limit for “each pollutant subject to regulation under CAA.
The Appeals Board indicated that it, ". . . denies review of the Region’s alleged failure to consider alternatives to the proposed facility, but remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision."
Clarifying further, the Appeals Board said, "Having determined that the Region has discretion under the statute to interpret the term 'subject to regulation under this Act' and that the Region wrongly believed that its discretion was limited by an historical Agency interpretation, the Board remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision. In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding. The Board suggests that the Region consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase 'subject to regulation under this Act' in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding."
Access a release from Sierra Club with links to additional information (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board 69-page Deseret Power decision (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board Deseret Power website with links to all of the extensive briefs and filings in the case (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Investors Call For Climate Agreement Despite Financial Crisis
Nov 11: More than 130 leading investors, representing assets worth $6.4 trillion, warned world leaders that any global agreement on climate change must be strong and binding to guarantee necessary financing for global emissions reduction and adaptation efforts, and that the financial crisis should not delay efforts to address rising global temperatures. In a joint Statement sent to Heads of State and climate negotiators, investors called for a strong, binding framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, warning that clear and long-term policy signals are essential if investors are to allocate the huge amounts of private capital required to fund the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The Statement was sent by some of the world’s largest asset managers and pension funds, collectively representing $6.4 trillion in assets. It was coordinated by three leading investor groups on climate change -- (the US-based Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), and the Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC) in Australia and New Zealand). Peter Dunscombe, Chairman, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change said, "We are urging world leaders to provide the policy framework that will help investors drive the financial flows necessary to address this urgent crisis. A strong global agreement will provide companies, governments and investors with the incentives to act quickly and efficiently in tackling climate change”.
According to a release, the investors believe that the downturn in the global economy should not delay an international agreement on climate change, and that the agreement must be concluded by the end of 2009. As investors with diversified portfolios, they are concerned about the impacts of climate change on investments in individual companies and other asset classes such as property and the global economy as a whole. Mindy Lubber, Ceres President and Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, “The climate crisis is a multi-generational challenge that requires strong national and international policies immediately. World leaders must shun the excuse that it is too expensive to act to curb global warming. It is too expensive not to act.”
The Statement outlines in detail what investors are looking for from policymakers in order to allocate capital in a way that supports both the transformation to a low carbon economy and the development of adaptation measures. The investors are calling for: A binding global target for reducing greenhouse gas emission reductions informed by the latest available scientific evidence for avoiding dangerous climate change (which suggests that global greenhouse gas emissions must decline by 50-85% by 2050 against a base year of 2000); Long and medium-term emission reduction targets for developed countries which will be backed up by effective national action plans; Contributions from developing countries, initially in the form of national action plans focused on energy efficiency commitments, but with the ultimate aim of absolute emission reductions;
"Continuity in the legally binding framework underpinning the carbon markets and provisions for an expanded and more liquid global carbon market; A review, reform, and expansion of the Clean Development Mechanism; Clear measures to reverse deforestation and value forests as carbon sinks; A commitment to adaptation in order to prepare for, and respond to the physical impacts of climate change."
Access a joint release from the three groups (click here). Access the letter to Heads of State (click here). Access the complete Investor Statement (click here). [*Climate]
The Statement was sent by some of the world’s largest asset managers and pension funds, collectively representing $6.4 trillion in assets. It was coordinated by three leading investor groups on climate change -- (the US-based Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), and the Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC) in Australia and New Zealand). Peter Dunscombe, Chairman, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change said, "We are urging world leaders to provide the policy framework that will help investors drive the financial flows necessary to address this urgent crisis. A strong global agreement will provide companies, governments and investors with the incentives to act quickly and efficiently in tackling climate change”.
According to a release, the investors believe that the downturn in the global economy should not delay an international agreement on climate change, and that the agreement must be concluded by the end of 2009. As investors with diversified portfolios, they are concerned about the impacts of climate change on investments in individual companies and other asset classes such as property and the global economy as a whole. Mindy Lubber, Ceres President and Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, “The climate crisis is a multi-generational challenge that requires strong national and international policies immediately. World leaders must shun the excuse that it is too expensive to act to curb global warming. It is too expensive not to act.”
The Statement outlines in detail what investors are looking for from policymakers in order to allocate capital in a way that supports both the transformation to a low carbon economy and the development of adaptation measures. The investors are calling for: A binding global target for reducing greenhouse gas emission reductions informed by the latest available scientific evidence for avoiding dangerous climate change (which suggests that global greenhouse gas emissions must decline by 50-85% by 2050 against a base year of 2000); Long and medium-term emission reduction targets for developed countries which will be backed up by effective national action plans; Contributions from developing countries, initially in the form of national action plans focused on energy efficiency commitments, but with the ultimate aim of absolute emission reductions;
"Continuity in the legally binding framework underpinning the carbon markets and provisions for an expanded and more liquid global carbon market; A review, reform, and expansion of the Clean Development Mechanism; Clear measures to reverse deforestation and value forests as carbon sinks; A commitment to adaptation in order to prepare for, and respond to the physical impacts of climate change."
Access a joint release from the three groups (click here). Access the letter to Heads of State (click here). Access the complete Investor Statement (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
High Court Rules In Winter (Navy) v. NRDC On Sonar Issues
Nov 12: In the U.S. Supreme Court, the case of Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., [NRDC] Case No. 07–1239 [See WIMS 10/9/08]. The case was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit [See WIMS 3/3/08]. In this complicated split decision, Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Stevens joined as to Part I. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Souter joined.
The questions presented that were stated by the High Court are: The district court found a likelihood that the Navy failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and preliminarily enjoined the Navy’s use of midfrequency active (MFA) sonar during training exercises that prepare Navy strike groups for worldwide deployment. The Chief of Naval Operations concluded that the injunction unacceptably risks the training of naval forces for deployment to high threat areas overseas, and the President of the United States determined that the use of MFA sonar during these exercises is “essential to national security.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), applying a longstanding regulation, accordingly found “emergency circumstances” for complying with NEPA without completing an environmental impact statement. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless sustained the district court’s conclusion that no “emergency circumstances” were present and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
The questions presented are: 1. Whether CEQ permissibly construed its own regulation in finding “emergency circumstances?”2. Whether, in any event, the preliminary injunction, based on a preliminary finding that the Navy had not satisfied NEPA’s procedural requirements, is inconsistent with established equitable principles limiting discretionary injunctive relief.
The majority opinion of the High Court held that the Court of Appeals was wrong in upholding a preliminary injunction imposing restrictions on the Navy’s sonar training and reversed and vacated its decision. The majority noted that even the Appeals Court acknowledged that “the record contains no evidence that marine mammals have been harmed” by the Navy’s exercises. In its opinion, the majority said, "The use of MFA [“mid-frequency active”] sonar during these exercises is 'mission-critical,' given that MFA sonar is the only proven method of identifying submerged diesel-electric submarines operating on battery power."
The Supreme Court said, "The Navy emphasizes that it has used MFA sonar during training exercises in SOCAL [southern California] for 40 years, without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal.The Navy asserts that, at most, MFA sonar may cause temporary hearing loss or brief disruptions of marine mammals’ behavioral patterns."
The Supreme Court ruled, "We agree with the Navy that the Ninth Circuit’s 'possibility' standard is too lenient. Our frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. . . We also find it pertinent that this is not a case in which the defendant is conducting a new type of activity with completely unknown effects on the environment. . . the plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin -- or substantially restrict -- training exercises that have been taking place in SOCAL for the last 40 years."
The majority ruled further, "even if plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury from the Navy’s training exercises, any such injury is outweighed by the public interest and the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sailors. A proper consideration of these factors alone requires denial of the requested injunctive relief. . ." Finally, the Supreme Court majority says, "We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals. Those interests, however, are plainly outweighed by the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines. . ."
The High Court also commented on the dissenting opinions in a footnote saying, "As to the injunction, the dissent barely mentions the Navy’s interests. . . We find that those interests, and the documented risks to national security, clearly outweigh the harm on the other side of the balance. We agree with much of Justice Breyer's analysis. . . (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), but disagree with his conclusion that the modified conditions imposed by the stay order should remain in force until the Navy completes its EIS . . ."
NRDC issued a release and further information on the decision. Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC’s marine mammal program said, “The essential ruling today is that the lower courts did not properly balance the competing interests in issuing and upholding the injunction. However, this is a narrow ruling that leaves in place four of the injunction’s six mitigation measures that protect marine mammals from harm caused by high-intensity sonar during training. The Supreme Court eliminated two of the injunction’s mitigation measures out of deference to the Navy’s claims that they would impinge on training. The court did not upset the underlying determination that the Navy likely violated the law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement.” Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel said, “It is gratifying that the court did not accept the Navy’s expansive claims of executive power, and that two thirds of the injunction remain in place." NRDC said, "The Navy acknowledges that sonar can be deadly to marine mammals, and that the exercises at issue would 'take' an estimated 170,000 marine mammals, including causing permanent injury to more than 500 whales and temporary deafness to at least 8,000 whales."
Access the complete opinion and dissents (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to briefs filed in the case (click here). Access the opinion of the Ninth Circuit (click here). Access a release from NRDC with links to background information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Water]
The questions presented that were stated by the High Court are: The district court found a likelihood that the Navy failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and preliminarily enjoined the Navy’s use of midfrequency active (MFA) sonar during training exercises that prepare Navy strike groups for worldwide deployment. The Chief of Naval Operations concluded that the injunction unacceptably risks the training of naval forces for deployment to high threat areas overseas, and the President of the United States determined that the use of MFA sonar during these exercises is “essential to national security.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), applying a longstanding regulation, accordingly found “emergency circumstances” for complying with NEPA without completing an environmental impact statement. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless sustained the district court’s conclusion that no “emergency circumstances” were present and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
The questions presented are: 1. Whether CEQ permissibly construed its own regulation in finding “emergency circumstances?”2. Whether, in any event, the preliminary injunction, based on a preliminary finding that the Navy had not satisfied NEPA’s procedural requirements, is inconsistent with established equitable principles limiting discretionary injunctive relief.
The majority opinion of the High Court held that the Court of Appeals was wrong in upholding a preliminary injunction imposing restrictions on the Navy’s sonar training and reversed and vacated its decision. The majority noted that even the Appeals Court acknowledged that “the record contains no evidence that marine mammals have been harmed” by the Navy’s exercises. In its opinion, the majority said, "The use of MFA [“mid-frequency active”] sonar during these exercises is 'mission-critical,' given that MFA sonar is the only proven method of identifying submerged diesel-electric submarines operating on battery power."
The Supreme Court said, "The Navy emphasizes that it has used MFA sonar during training exercises in SOCAL [southern California] for 40 years, without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal.The Navy asserts that, at most, MFA sonar may cause temporary hearing loss or brief disruptions of marine mammals’ behavioral patterns."
The Supreme Court ruled, "We agree with the Navy that the Ninth Circuit’s 'possibility' standard is too lenient. Our frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. . . We also find it pertinent that this is not a case in which the defendant is conducting a new type of activity with completely unknown effects on the environment. . . the plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin -- or substantially restrict -- training exercises that have been taking place in SOCAL for the last 40 years."
The majority ruled further, "even if plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury from the Navy’s training exercises, any such injury is outweighed by the public interest and the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sailors. A proper consideration of these factors alone requires denial of the requested injunctive relief. . ." Finally, the Supreme Court majority says, "We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals. Those interests, however, are plainly outweighed by the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines. . ."
The High Court also commented on the dissenting opinions in a footnote saying, "As to the injunction, the dissent barely mentions the Navy’s interests. . . We find that those interests, and the documented risks to national security, clearly outweigh the harm on the other side of the balance. We agree with much of Justice Breyer's analysis. . . (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), but disagree with his conclusion that the modified conditions imposed by the stay order should remain in force until the Navy completes its EIS . . ."
NRDC issued a release and further information on the decision. Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC’s marine mammal program said, “The essential ruling today is that the lower courts did not properly balance the competing interests in issuing and upholding the injunction. However, this is a narrow ruling that leaves in place four of the injunction’s six mitigation measures that protect marine mammals from harm caused by high-intensity sonar during training. The Supreme Court eliminated two of the injunction’s mitigation measures out of deference to the Navy’s claims that they would impinge on training. The court did not upset the underlying determination that the Navy likely violated the law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement.” Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel said, “It is gratifying that the court did not accept the Navy’s expansive claims of executive power, and that two thirds of the injunction remain in place." NRDC said, "The Navy acknowledges that sonar can be deadly to marine mammals, and that the exercises at issue would 'take' an estimated 170,000 marine mammals, including causing permanent injury to more than 500 whales and temporary deafness to at least 8,000 whales."
Access the complete opinion and dissents (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to briefs filed in the case (click here). Access the opinion of the Ninth Circuit (click here). Access a release from NRDC with links to background information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Water]
Monday, November 10, 2008
GAO Report On Speed Limit & Energy Conservation
Readers Note: WIMS will not be publishing tomorrow,
November 11, 2008, in observance of Veterans Day.
Nov 10: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a letter report entitled, Energy Efficiency: Potential Fuel Savings Generated by a National Speed Limit Would Be Influenced by Many Other Factors (GAO-09-153R, November 07, 2008). The report was requested by Senator John Warner (R-VA), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
GAO recounts that Congress previously used a national speed limit as an approach to conserve fuel when, in 1974, it provided for a national 55 mile per hour (mph) speed limit to reduce gasoline consumption in response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. The law prohibited federal funding of certain highway projects in any state with a maximum speed limit in excess of 55 mph. In 1987, Congress allowed states to raise the maximum speed limit to 65 mph on rural interstate routes. In 1995, the 55 mph speed limit was repealed. Since then, states have been free to set speed limits without the loss of federal highway funds. Congress expressed interest in obtaining information on using a national speed limit to reduce fuel consumption. In response to the request, we reviewed existing literature and consulted knowledgeable stakeholders on the following: (1) What is the relationship between speed and the fuel economy of vehicles? (2) How might reducing the speed limit affect fuel use?
For a vehicle traveling at high speed, reducing its speed increases fuel economy. In general, at speeds over approximately 35 to 45 mph, if a vehicle reduces its speed by 5 mph, its fuel economy can increase by about 5 to 10 percent, because air resistance, or drag, increases exponentially as a vehicle goes faster. Conversely, air resistance diminishes more rapidly as a vehicle slows down, thus increasing its fuel economy. According to existing literature and knowledgeable stakeholders, there is no single speed that optimizes fuel economy for all vehicles.
Optimal speed for fuel economy for individual vehicles ranges widely, but is generally between 30 and 60 mph, depending on a vehicle's characteristics. However, a vehicle's fuel economy also depends on other factors besides air resistance. Factors that enhance fuel economy include engine efficiency enhancements (e.g., fuel injection), electronic and computer controls, more efficient transmissions, and hybrid technology. However, other factors decrease fuel economy. In general, over the last 2 decades, fuel economy gains resulting from advances in automotive technologies have largely been offset by increases in vehicle weight, performance, and accessory loads.
Specifically, vehicles are heavier than in the past, because they are larger and include more technologies. Further, increased accessory loads, such as air conditioning and electronics, have also reduced fuel economy. For example, average vehicle weight has increased from 3,220 pounds in 1987 to 4,117 in 2008, according to U.S. EPA. According to EPA, from 1987 through 2004, on a fleetwide basis, technology innovation was utilized exclusively to support market-driven attributes other than fuel economy, such as performance. Beginning in 2005, however, according to EPA's analysis of fuel economy trends, technology has been used to increase both performance and fuel economy, while keeping vehicle weight relatively constant.
Lowering speed limits can potentially reduce total fuel consumption. According to literature we reviewed examining the impact of the national speed limit enacted in 1974, the estimated fuel savings resulting from the 55 mph national speed limit ranged from 0.2 to 3 percent of annual gasoline consumption. According to DOE's 2008 estimate, a national speed limit of 55 mph could yield possible savings of 175,000 to 275,000 barrels of oil per day. This range is consistent with estimates of the impact of the past national speed limit.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), total U.S. consumption of petroleum for 2007 was about 21 million barrels of oil per day. However, other factors, including drivers' compliance with a reduced speed limit, would affect the actual impact of a lower speed limit on the amount of fuel savings. Reducing the speed limit does not necessarily mean that drivers will comply. Moreover, a national speed limit would not affect many of the miles driven in the United States, such as those in urban areas, where most vehicles are already traveling at lower speeds due to lower speed limits or congestion.
Other external conditions also affect fuel economy, such as road conditions, including whether a road is steep or flat, and weather conditions, including wind speed and direction. Finally, other aspects of driver behavior may also affect fuel consumption. The speed limit is only one tool among many for potentially conserving fuel. Certain realities, such as congestion on our nation's roads, how people drive and maintain their vehicles, and emerging technologies, are other potential considerations as the nation looks for options to conserve fuel.
Access the brief 8-page report (click here). [*Energy/Efficiency]
Friday, November 07, 2008
"Green Recovery" Report Author Responds To Critic
Nov 7: On September 9, The Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) released a 42-page report entitled, Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy [See WIMS 9/10/08]. According to the organizations, "The report outlines a green economic recovery program to strengthen the U.S. economy over the next two years and leave it in a better position for sustainable prosperity." CAP is headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and professor at the Georgetown University Center of Law, who is now co-chairman of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team.
On November 5, in a "WebMemo" entitled, Impact of CO2 Restrictions on Employment and Income: Green Jobs or Gone Jobs?, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., with the Heritage Foundation criticized the report and two others claiming that policy initiatives to advance a green investment agenda necessarily hurt economic growth and employment. Kreutzer said, "The clear political failure of the Lieberman–Warner bill last spring shows that support for global–warming legislation wanes considerably when the extraordinary costs are compared to the almost insignificant benefits. In response, those pushing restrictions on carbon dioxide (CO2) have tried to repackage global warming legislation as jobs bills. As appealing as the repackaging seems on the surface (lots of high–paid, high–tech workers in lab coats), the support for these claims collapses once it is examined."
Kreutzer concludes, "When all is said and done, restricting CO2 cuts energy, income, and jobs. Pretending that breaking windows creates employment may make choosing among alternatives easier, but it leads to bad policy."
Robert Pollin of CAP and a co-author of the Green Recovery report has responded to the critique with a detailed response. According to Pollin, "Kreutzer claims that 'Green Recovery' is able to show that green investments produce positive job effects only by making an elementary error in logic. He claims we count the jobs that are created by spending a given amount of money, for example, $100, on green investments, but we ignore the jobs that are lost when $100 in new taxes have to be raised to pay for the green investments.
"Kreutzer reaches this conclusion by ignoring all the basic arguments in 'Green Recovery.' Spending $1 million on green investments, for example, will create about 17 jobs within the U.S. economy, while spending that same amount within the oil industry will create about 4.5 jobs. As a short-term stimulus program -- in which an increase in spending is not offset by any corresponding rise in taxes -- a $1 million increase in spending on green investments will therefore produce 17 new jobs, with no job losses elsewhere in the economy.
"Over the longer term, a $1 million increase in green investment spending that is offset by a $1 million reduction in spending within the oil industry will still produce a net increase of 12.5 jobs. Investments in energy efficiency will also reduce energy costs now. Investments in renewable energy are bringing these energy sources into cost competitiveness with fossil fuels. Continued investments in conventional fossil fuels also neglect the economic costs of global warming." Pollin then summarizes the six basic arguments in Green Recovery that underpin the report findings.
The Green Recovery report includes individual state supplements for: AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WA, WV, and WI.
Access the Heritage Foundation critique (click here). Access the critique response from CAP (click here). Access an overview from CAP and link to the complete report and state reports (click here). Access more information from PERI (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
On November 5, in a "WebMemo" entitled, Impact of CO2 Restrictions on Employment and Income: Green Jobs or Gone Jobs?, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., with the Heritage Foundation criticized the report and two others claiming that policy initiatives to advance a green investment agenda necessarily hurt economic growth and employment. Kreutzer said, "The clear political failure of the Lieberman–Warner bill last spring shows that support for global–warming legislation wanes considerably when the extraordinary costs are compared to the almost insignificant benefits. In response, those pushing restrictions on carbon dioxide (CO2) have tried to repackage global warming legislation as jobs bills. As appealing as the repackaging seems on the surface (lots of high–paid, high–tech workers in lab coats), the support for these claims collapses once it is examined."
Kreutzer concludes, "When all is said and done, restricting CO2 cuts energy, income, and jobs. Pretending that breaking windows creates employment may make choosing among alternatives easier, but it leads to bad policy."
Robert Pollin of CAP and a co-author of the Green Recovery report has responded to the critique with a detailed response. According to Pollin, "Kreutzer claims that 'Green Recovery' is able to show that green investments produce positive job effects only by making an elementary error in logic. He claims we count the jobs that are created by spending a given amount of money, for example, $100, on green investments, but we ignore the jobs that are lost when $100 in new taxes have to be raised to pay for the green investments.
"Kreutzer reaches this conclusion by ignoring all the basic arguments in 'Green Recovery.' Spending $1 million on green investments, for example, will create about 17 jobs within the U.S. economy, while spending that same amount within the oil industry will create about 4.5 jobs. As a short-term stimulus program -- in which an increase in spending is not offset by any corresponding rise in taxes -- a $1 million increase in spending on green investments will therefore produce 17 new jobs, with no job losses elsewhere in the economy.
"Over the longer term, a $1 million increase in green investment spending that is offset by a $1 million reduction in spending within the oil industry will still produce a net increase of 12.5 jobs. Investments in energy efficiency will also reduce energy costs now. Investments in renewable energy are bringing these energy sources into cost competitiveness with fossil fuels. Continued investments in conventional fossil fuels also neglect the economic costs of global warming." Pollin then summarizes the six basic arguments in Green Recovery that underpin the report findings.
The Green Recovery report includes individual state supplements for: AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WA, WV, and WI.
Access the Heritage Foundation critique (click here). Access the critique response from CAP (click here). Access an overview from CAP and link to the complete report and state reports (click here). Access more information from PERI (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Thursday, November 06, 2008
DOE Issues Advanced Tech Vehicle Incentive Rule
Nov 5: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued an Interim Final Rule that implements the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program authorized by section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The FY09 Continuing Resolution provided DOE with funding to make up to $25 billion in direct loans to eligible applicants for the costs of reequipping, expanding, and establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles, and components for such vehicles. The vehicles must provide "meaningful improvements" in fuel economy performance. In the FY09 Continuing Resolution, Congress required DOE to issue to issue interim final regulations for the section 136 program within 60 days -- that is, by November 29.
DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman said, "Issuance of this interim final rule opens the process for automakers and component manufacturers to immediately apply for government funding under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. Since Congress provided funding for this loan program approximately 30 days ago, the Department has worked quickly and responsibly to draft this rule, set up a loan office, and establish a credit review board to review loan applications."
Congress has appropriated $7.5 billion to cover the subsidy costs of direct loans issued to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under EISA section 136. The actual amount of loans that DOE will be able to issue with this funding, up to the statutory ceiling of $25 billion in loans, will depend on the particular circumstances of specific borrowers and proposed projects. Additionally, the Department must comply with statutory requirements including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the issuance of any loans to be made under the EISA section 136 program. The Department said it intends to act quickly to review and evaluate any applications it receives from eligible applicants under the section 136 program.
Under the Interim Final Rule procedure, the rule becomes effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register; however, comments will be received for 30 days. A final rule will be issued at a later date. Under the proposal the first set of applications for loans must be submitted by December 31, 2008.
Access a release from DOE (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the rule (click here). Access the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (click here). Access a fact sheet on the loan program (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman said, "Issuance of this interim final rule opens the process for automakers and component manufacturers to immediately apply for government funding under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. Since Congress provided funding for this loan program approximately 30 days ago, the Department has worked quickly and responsibly to draft this rule, set up a loan office, and establish a credit review board to review loan applications."
Congress has appropriated $7.5 billion to cover the subsidy costs of direct loans issued to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under EISA section 136. The actual amount of loans that DOE will be able to issue with this funding, up to the statutory ceiling of $25 billion in loans, will depend on the particular circumstances of specific borrowers and proposed projects. Additionally, the Department must comply with statutory requirements including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the issuance of any loans to be made under the EISA section 136 program. The Department said it intends to act quickly to review and evaluate any applications it receives from eligible applicants under the section 136 program.
Under the Interim Final Rule procedure, the rule becomes effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register; however, comments will be received for 30 days. A final rule will be issued at a later date. Under the proposal the first set of applications for loans must be submitted by December 31, 2008.
Access a release from DOE (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the rule (click here). Access the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (click here). Access a fact sheet on the loan program (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Obama Wins - Environment & Energy Reactions And Further Details
Nov 4: Following the victory in the historic and remarkable Presidential race, President-Elect Obama will now face the stark reality of addressing enormous environmental and energy issues facing the U.S. and the world; all within the backdrop of a global financial crisis. Obama said it well in his victory speech, "For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. . . This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. . . Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."
Major environmental organizations reacted positively to an Obama Presidency. Audubon Society said, the change offered "a new era of hope for our environment, and the people, birds, and other wildlife that depend on it." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said they are "looking forward to quick and decisive action to combat climate change." The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the Obama election "represents a new day for environmentalists." National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said, "This election was powered by a voting public that wants dramatic and meaningful change, especially for a new energy future. . ." Sierra Club said, "voters solidly rejected policies of the past in favor of energy policies of the future."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a brief statement saying, “America’s oil and natural gas industry looks forward to working with President-elect Barack Obama and Congress to deliver a comprehensive and realistic energy policy that encourages development of all domestic energy sources, including oil and natural gas, for the benefit of consumers." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed to work with President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress "to help quickly restore economic growth, ensure a smooth transition of power, and tackle the many serious issues facing the country." The Chamber also urged "the outgoing Congress and administration to quickly enact additional economic stimulus measures during a lame duck session that will save and expand jobs in critical industries such as autos, housing, infrastructure, and trade."
Reportedly a transition team is working aggressively and key staffers for the new administration could be announced soon. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and former aide to President Bill Clinton has reportedly accepted the role of chief of staff. The organization Beyond Pesticides, posted an article outlining some possible names being mentioned for EPA Administrator include: Mary Nichols, a former Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer and senior official in the Clinton EPA who currently chairs the California Air Resources Board; Kathleen McGinty, former Al Gore aide and first chair of the Clinton Administration’s Center for Environmental Quality who currently serves as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); and, Dan Esty, a current top energy advisor to the Obama campaign and former George H.W. Bush EPA official; as candidates for the top EPA position.
Beyond Pesticides says others in the blogosphere have pointed to Robert Kennedy Jr., professor of environmental law and co-director of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic and founder and chairman of the Waterkeeper Alliance; Robert Sussman, Deputy EPA Administrator under the Clinton Administration and currently a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; and, Bradley Campbell, environmental lawyer and former Commissioner of the New Jersey (DEP).
WIMS previously outlined some of the highlights of the Obama plans for energy, environment and climate [See WIMS 10/21/08]. Complete details on the energy, environment and climate change proposal are contained in the documents referenced below.
Access the Obama victory speech (click here). Access a release from Audubon (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the Beyond Pesticides article (click here). Access a UK Telegraph article outlining a number of possible Obama Cabinet appointees (click here). Access the overview of the Obama New Energy for America Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Environmental Plan (click here). Access the Energy Speculation Plan (click here). Access the Wildfire Prevention Plan (click here).
Major environmental organizations reacted positively to an Obama Presidency. Audubon Society said, the change offered "a new era of hope for our environment, and the people, birds, and other wildlife that depend on it." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said they are "looking forward to quick and decisive action to combat climate change." The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the Obama election "represents a new day for environmentalists." National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said, "This election was powered by a voting public that wants dramatic and meaningful change, especially for a new energy future. . ." Sierra Club said, "voters solidly rejected policies of the past in favor of energy policies of the future."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a brief statement saying, “America’s oil and natural gas industry looks forward to working with President-elect Barack Obama and Congress to deliver a comprehensive and realistic energy policy that encourages development of all domestic energy sources, including oil and natural gas, for the benefit of consumers." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed to work with President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress "to help quickly restore economic growth, ensure a smooth transition of power, and tackle the many serious issues facing the country." The Chamber also urged "the outgoing Congress and administration to quickly enact additional economic stimulus measures during a lame duck session that will save and expand jobs in critical industries such as autos, housing, infrastructure, and trade."
Reportedly a transition team is working aggressively and key staffers for the new administration could be announced soon. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and former aide to President Bill Clinton has reportedly accepted the role of chief of staff. The organization Beyond Pesticides, posted an article outlining some possible names being mentioned for EPA Administrator include: Mary Nichols, a former Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer and senior official in the Clinton EPA who currently chairs the California Air Resources Board; Kathleen McGinty, former Al Gore aide and first chair of the Clinton Administration’s Center for Environmental Quality who currently serves as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); and, Dan Esty, a current top energy advisor to the Obama campaign and former George H.W. Bush EPA official; as candidates for the top EPA position.
Beyond Pesticides says others in the blogosphere have pointed to Robert Kennedy Jr., professor of environmental law and co-director of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic and founder and chairman of the Waterkeeper Alliance; Robert Sussman, Deputy EPA Administrator under the Clinton Administration and currently a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; and, Bradley Campbell, environmental lawyer and former Commissioner of the New Jersey (DEP).
WIMS previously outlined some of the highlights of the Obama plans for energy, environment and climate [See WIMS 10/21/08]. Complete details on the energy, environment and climate change proposal are contained in the documents referenced below.
Access the Obama victory speech (click here). Access a release from Audubon (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the Beyond Pesticides article (click here). Access a UK Telegraph article outlining a number of possible Obama Cabinet appointees (click here). Access the overview of the Obama New Energy for America Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Environmental Plan (click here). Access the Energy Speculation Plan (click here). Access the Wildfire Prevention Plan (click here).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
