Jun 19: While a formal announcement from U.S. EPA is apparently pending, several sources are reporting that the Agency's Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) has been suspended. ChAMP was created initially to implement commitments that the United States made at the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) Leaders Summit, in Montebello, Canada, in August 2007. The United States agreed to complete screening-level chemical prioritizations and initiate action as appropriate on an estimated 6,750 chemicals. The chemicals include High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals, which are reported under the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) 2006 Inventory Update Rule (IUR) as being produced or imported in quantities greater than or equal to 1 million pounds a year, and Medium Volume Production (MPV) chemicals, which are reported under the 2006 IUR as being produced or imported in quantities greater than or equal to 25,000 and less than 1 million pounds per year.
While the ChAMP has been widely supported by the chemical industry, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has criticized the program saying that the mostly voluntary initiatives to identify and manage the risks of thousands of chemicals "will provide far less protection than the more comprehensive approach taken under the European Union’s REACH regulation" [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) program [See WIMS 5/2/08].
On EPA's latest decision, EDF said, "It probably goes without saying that EDF welcomes EPA's decision to suspend the development and posting of risk-based prioritizations under its Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP). EDF has been arguing that ChAMP's 'rush to risk' has taken EPA badly off-track. But we have also identified many useful things that EPA's existing chemicals program can and should be doing with the data it obtained through the HPV Challenge (whether called ChAMP or not). We look forward to working with EPA to craft a new approach, grounded in a return to developing scientifically defensible hazard, not risk, characterizations and transparently identifying and addressing data gaps and data quality problems. EDF recently made a number of recommendations on how ChAMP could be used to leverage "green chemistry" and facilitate safer substitution [See WIMS 5/28/09].
In a related matter, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) announced on June 17 that it was launching an interactive online website featuring news and commentary, as well as a forum for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas on reforming the nation’s federal toxic chemicals policies. EWG said the site will feature analysis and opinion by scientists, lawmakers, industry officials, community activists, policy specialists, journalists and others interested in environmental health issues. A major focus will be the emerging debate over reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EWG indicated that Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) are expected to introduce comprehensive reform legislation known as the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act (Kid-Safe) in Congress later this year and EWG said it hopes to stimulate insightful conversation about that bill and other legislative proposals dealing with chemicals policy reform. In an article posted to the new website, Richard Wiles co-founded EWG with Ken Cook said, "Burying ChAMP is a great first step in reforming the nation’s toxic chemical safety system."
An article in Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) indicated that the industry reaction to EPA's action ranged broadly from strong criticism expressed by the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, to little concern as expressed by American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) said the abandonment of ChAMP means that EPA will refocus its efforts toward implementing a command-and-control approach toward chemicals management policy. They said EPA has "remained silent about its full intentions, contradicting President Obama’s commitment to transparency and support for scientific integrity." In a statement, NPRA President Charles Drevna said, “It is extremely disheartening that the Administration would abandon its priority-setting chemicals management process before it is even given the opportunity to work. We now question how the United States will keep its commitment to our neighbors under [i.e. Canada & Mexico] the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America.”
Drevna continued, “One cannot help but gain the impression that this is less about science and more about politics. Using complete science to set priorities is fundamental to sound chemicals management. We urge the Administration to reconsider its abandonment of both the scientifically sound ChAMP initiative and the United States’ commitments to Canada and Mexico under the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America.”
Access EDF's various recent blog postings on ChAMP (click here). Access EPA's ChAMP website with complete information on the program and links to recent activity under the new Administration (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access the EWG new website (click here). Access the article in C&EN (click here). Access the statement from NPRA (click here).
Monday, June 22, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Researchers Update Climate Science: "The Clock Is Ticking”
Jun 18: Following the June 16, release by the Obama Administration of an update report on climate change in the United States [See WIMS 6/16/09] , a new international update report has also been released. A report synthesizing the newest research results relating to climate change and what action can be taken in response to climate change was presented at the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels. The report is being released six months (170 days) before the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) begins in Copenhagen. The host of the COP15, the Prime Minister of Denmark, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, received the report.
The 36-page report is written for the non-specialists and is based on discussions and presentations made at the scientific congress “Climate change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” held in Copenhagen in March. The synthesis report was written by a team of researchers from around the world and it has been vetted by a long list of researchers and organizations. The effort was coordinated by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU).
Professor Katherine Richardson, Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee of the congress and Chair of the writing team said, "The newest evidence indicates that society faces serious risks even with a global temperature rise of only about 2 degrees. If society wants to minimize these risks, then action must be taken now. Society has all the tools necessary to respond to climate change. The major ingredient missing is political will. Already many societies are struggling with the effects of climate change. If society wants to avoid even more serious, and in most cases irreversible impacts of climate change, then there is very little time left. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are already at a level that is predicted to cause warming of around 2 degrees so major emission cuts should be made immediately to retain climate change. The clock is ticking.”
Professor John Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and member of the writing team said, "Even if we keep global warming below two degrees, we will still see extreme effects of climate change on our societies, and data collected since the production of the 2007 IPCC Report indicate that several climate indicators (for example, sea-level rise, ocean temperature, glacier-melt, Arctic sea ice melt, ocean acidification) all are changing at the maximum rate projected at the time of the last IPCC report or even faster."
The report indicates that, "The scientific evidence has now become overwhelming that human activities, especially the combustion of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate in ways that threaten the well-being and continued development of human society. If humanity is to learn from history and to limit these threats, the time has come for stronger control of the human activities that are changing the fundamental conditions for life on Earth."
One of the six key messages of the report is that, "Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of serious impacts, including the crossing of tipping points, and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult and costly. Setting a credible long-term price for carbon and the adoption of policies that promote energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies are central to effective mitigation."
The report predicts a sea-level rise of about a meter or more by 2100. However, it is indicated, "Sea-level rise will not stop in 2100. Changes in ocean heat content will continue to affect sea-level rise for several centuries at least. Melting and dynamic ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland will also continue for centuries into the future. Thus, the changes current generations initiate in the climate will directly influence our descendents long into the future. In fact, global average surface temperature will hardly drop in the first thousand years after greenhouse gas emissions are cut to zero."
The report indicates that the IPCC analysis concluded that atmospheric CO2 concentration should not exceed 400 ppm CO2 if the global temperature rise is to be kept within 2.0 – 2.4°C. In a sobering explanation of the challenge ahead, the report indicates, ". . .atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already at levels predicted to lead to global warming of between 2.0 and 2.4°C. If society wants to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at this level, then global emissions should, theoretically, be reduced by 60-80% immediately, the actual amount being dependent upon the amount that will be taken up by oceans and land. Given that such a drastic immediate reduction is impossible, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise over the next few decades. An overshoot of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations needed to constrain global warming to 2°C is thus inevitable. To limit the extent of the overshoot, emissions should peak in the near future. Recent studies suggest that if peak greenhouse gas emissions are not reached until after 2020, the emission reduction rates required thereafter to retain a reasonable chance of remaining within the 2°C guardrail will have to exceed 5% per annum. This is a daunting challenge when compared to a long-term average annual increase of 2% in emissions. The conclusion from both the IPCC and later analyses is simple -- immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse gases are needed if the 2°C guardrail is to be respected. . ."
The synthesis report has been put together by a writing team of 12 internationally respected scientists from all continents and has gone through an extensive scientific review by the Scientific Steering Committee, scientists from the International Alliance of Research Universities, the session chairs at the congress, and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP).
Access a release on the report from IARU (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the IARU website for additional information (click here).
The 36-page report is written for the non-specialists and is based on discussions and presentations made at the scientific congress “Climate change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” held in Copenhagen in March. The synthesis report was written by a team of researchers from around the world and it has been vetted by a long list of researchers and organizations. The effort was coordinated by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU).
Professor Katherine Richardson, Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee of the congress and Chair of the writing team said, "The newest evidence indicates that society faces serious risks even with a global temperature rise of only about 2 degrees. If society wants to minimize these risks, then action must be taken now. Society has all the tools necessary to respond to climate change. The major ingredient missing is political will. Already many societies are struggling with the effects of climate change. If society wants to avoid even more serious, and in most cases irreversible impacts of climate change, then there is very little time left. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are already at a level that is predicted to cause warming of around 2 degrees so major emission cuts should be made immediately to retain climate change. The clock is ticking.”
Professor John Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and member of the writing team said, "Even if we keep global warming below two degrees, we will still see extreme effects of climate change on our societies, and data collected since the production of the 2007 IPCC Report indicate that several climate indicators (for example, sea-level rise, ocean temperature, glacier-melt, Arctic sea ice melt, ocean acidification) all are changing at the maximum rate projected at the time of the last IPCC report or even faster."
The report indicates that, "The scientific evidence has now become overwhelming that human activities, especially the combustion of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate in ways that threaten the well-being and continued development of human society. If humanity is to learn from history and to limit these threats, the time has come for stronger control of the human activities that are changing the fundamental conditions for life on Earth."
One of the six key messages of the report is that, "Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of serious impacts, including the crossing of tipping points, and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult and costly. Setting a credible long-term price for carbon and the adoption of policies that promote energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies are central to effective mitigation."
The report predicts a sea-level rise of about a meter or more by 2100. However, it is indicated, "Sea-level rise will not stop in 2100. Changes in ocean heat content will continue to affect sea-level rise for several centuries at least. Melting and dynamic ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland will also continue for centuries into the future. Thus, the changes current generations initiate in the climate will directly influence our descendents long into the future. In fact, global average surface temperature will hardly drop in the first thousand years after greenhouse gas emissions are cut to zero."
The report indicates that the IPCC analysis concluded that atmospheric CO2 concentration should not exceed 400 ppm CO2 if the global temperature rise is to be kept within 2.0 – 2.4°C. In a sobering explanation of the challenge ahead, the report indicates, ". . .atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already at levels predicted to lead to global warming of between 2.0 and 2.4°C. If society wants to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at this level, then global emissions should, theoretically, be reduced by 60-80% immediately, the actual amount being dependent upon the amount that will be taken up by oceans and land. Given that such a drastic immediate reduction is impossible, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise over the next few decades. An overshoot of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations needed to constrain global warming to 2°C is thus inevitable. To limit the extent of the overshoot, emissions should peak in the near future. Recent studies suggest that if peak greenhouse gas emissions are not reached until after 2020, the emission reduction rates required thereafter to retain a reasonable chance of remaining within the 2°C guardrail will have to exceed 5% per annum. This is a daunting challenge when compared to a long-term average annual increase of 2% in emissions. The conclusion from both the IPCC and later analyses is simple -- immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse gases are needed if the 2°C guardrail is to be respected. . ."
The synthesis report has been put together by a writing team of 12 internationally respected scientists from all continents and has gone through an extensive scientific review by the Scientific Steering Committee, scientists from the International Alliance of Research Universities, the session chairs at the congress, and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP).
Access a release on the report from IARU (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the IARU website for additional information (click here).
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Sen. Inhofe Predicts "Demise" Of Clean Water Restoration Act
Jun 18: U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a release following an EPW business meeting which approved an amended version of the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787). Senator Inhofe said the bill "faces certain demise in the Senate." Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) also placed a "hold" on the bill immediately following the meeting.
Senator Inhofe said, “The superficial changes made to this bill don’t change its underlying intention and ultimate effect: to radically expand federal power over farms, ranches, and private property.We heard plenty of talk about a grand compromise to address concerns from rural America. Yet in the end, the revised bill, which passed on a party-line vote, still lacks support from a large swath of rural stakeholders. I am pleased to support Senator Crapo’s hold on the bill. On the very outside chance this bill ever actually reaches the Senate floor, I will work closely with Senator Crapo and others to defeat it and ensure that we protect private property owners, farmers, ranchers, and all those affected by the bill’s regulatory overreach.
“This bill is further proof that Washington doesn’t ’get’ rural America. The Democrats are moving a bill that amounts to the biggest bureaucratic power grab in a generation--and it’s directed right at America's heartland. In fact, this bill is a significant part of a hostile agenda—whether it’s new energy taxes from cap-and-trade or more unfunded mandates from Washington—aimed squarely at rural America.”
The bill is designed to clarify the Clean Water Act (CWA) in light of the Supreme Court decisions in the controversial decisions of, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers in 2001 and Rapanos v. United States in 2006. The bill would eliminate the "navigable" water definition and replace it with "waters of the United States."
The hearing included a response from the legal councils for the Democrats and Republicans regarding what water bodies would be covered and not covered by the bill. The original bill was introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) [See WIMS 4/13/09] and the Committee added and approved the so-called Baucus, Klobuchar , Boxer amendment. Republicans argue that the bill represents a "major expansion" of the CWA scope. Democrats argue that the bill only represents a return to the way the law was interpreted before the two Supreme Court decisions.
Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access an opening statement at the meeting from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a webcast of the meeting (click here). Access legislative details for S. 787 (click here). Access the hearing website where additional information on the Committee action may be available (click here).
Senator Inhofe said, “The superficial changes made to this bill don’t change its underlying intention and ultimate effect: to radically expand federal power over farms, ranches, and private property.We heard plenty of talk about a grand compromise to address concerns from rural America. Yet in the end, the revised bill, which passed on a party-line vote, still lacks support from a large swath of rural stakeholders. I am pleased to support Senator Crapo’s hold on the bill. On the very outside chance this bill ever actually reaches the Senate floor, I will work closely with Senator Crapo and others to defeat it and ensure that we protect private property owners, farmers, ranchers, and all those affected by the bill’s regulatory overreach.
“This bill is further proof that Washington doesn’t ’get’ rural America. The Democrats are moving a bill that amounts to the biggest bureaucratic power grab in a generation--and it’s directed right at America's heartland. In fact, this bill is a significant part of a hostile agenda—whether it’s new energy taxes from cap-and-trade or more unfunded mandates from Washington—aimed squarely at rural America.”
The bill is designed to clarify the Clean Water Act (CWA) in light of the Supreme Court decisions in the controversial decisions of, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers in 2001 and Rapanos v. United States in 2006. The bill would eliminate the "navigable" water definition and replace it with "waters of the United States."
The hearing included a response from the legal councils for the Democrats and Republicans regarding what water bodies would be covered and not covered by the bill. The original bill was introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) [See WIMS 4/13/09] and the Committee added and approved the so-called Baucus, Klobuchar , Boxer amendment. Republicans argue that the bill represents a "major expansion" of the CWA scope. Democrats argue that the bill only represents a return to the way the law was interpreted before the two Supreme Court decisions.
Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access an opening statement at the meeting from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a webcast of the meeting (click here). Access legislative details for S. 787 (click here). Access the hearing website where additional information on the Committee action may be available (click here).
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Senate Committee Approves Bipartisan Energy Bill
Jun 17: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) voted 15 to 8 to approve an energy bill that has been in the making for several months. The American Clean Energy Leadership Act is based on six major bills -- all with bipartisan sponsorship -- and five other bills with either Republican or Democratic sponsorship that were introduced in this session of Congress. Key provisions were developed through 39 bipartisan staff briefings, 20 formal hearings and 12 open business meetings. During the process of writing the bill, 100 amendments were considered and adopted, most on a bipartisan basis and many unanimously. The energy bill now goes to the Senate floor for consideration and final passage.
Chairman Bingaman said, “Getting America running on clean energy has been a key goal of this mark-up. This bill will help shift our country to cleaner sources of energy, and more secure sources as well. The bipartisan, substantive and forward-looking approaches to energy found in this bill will move America toward the clean jobs and economic growth we need.”
Ranking Republican Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said, “Today, this committee reaches the end of a long and sometimes bumpy road toward reporting out energy legislation. Despite an uphill fight against Democrats’ three-vote majority, we were able to include a number of provisions that will lead to more domestic production of the conventional energy we need to drive this country. While I support this bill in its present form, we simply must do more to increase our domestic production and use of nuclear energy. I will continue to press for those provisions on the Senate floor.”
According to a Committee release, the "balanced, comprehensive, bipartisan" bill, in general would: - Accelerate the introduction of new clean energy technologies in the United States, creating new jobs and helping businesses grow through clean energy project financing, a renewable electricity standard and a robust and secure national electricity transmission highway; - Increase energy efficiency in buildings, major equipment and appliances, saving consumers and businesses billions of dollars on their energy bills; - Enhance America’s energy independence by increasing clean energy supplies and energy security, including new access to over 20 trillion cubic feet of clean natural gas resources; - Strengthen America as the world leader in energy innovation, by doubling our national investment in energy research and technology; - Build a new energy workforce for the future; - Protect consumers by making energy markets more transparent and fair, and by providing new tools to fight market manipulation; and -Tackle future energy and climate challenges with smarter, more integrated planning.
More specifically the bill includes a series of reforms to the existing Department of Energy loan guarantee program, including creating a new “Clean Energy Investment Fund.” It includes a renewable electricity standard (RES) requiring electric utilities to provide renewable sources in the following percentages for the following years: 2011-2013 (3%); 2014-2016 (6%); 2017-2018 (9%); 2019-2020 (12%); 2021-2039 (15%). Utilities selling less than 4 million megawatt hours per year would be exempt. Qualifying "Renewables" would include: wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, incremental hydropower, hydrokinetic, new hydropower at existing dams with no generation.
Additionally, the bill establishes policy goals for transmission infrastructure; integrates decision-making regarding the interdependence of energy and water; increases the development of renewable energy on our public lands; improves manufacturing , consumer and building energy efficiency; aids in thwarting cybersecurity threats and improves energy security; increases "responsible production" of traditional energy sources (i.e. Eastern Gulf of Mexico oil and gas production, Alaska natural gas pipeline, inventory and analysis of marine resources in the Atlantic, Gulf and Alaska regions); provides clear statement of the Federal government’s support for nuclear energy and encourages resolution of the spent nuclear fuel issue; doubles the authorization level of DOE's R&D programs; provides for up to 10 commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration projects; and increases the transparency of our energy markets.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said the bill would open part of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for additional oil and natural gas leasing and clarify ambiguous language in Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which, as originally written, could have precluded Federal agencies from using transportation fuels derived from Canadian oil sands.
In a statement, API President Jack Gerard said, “The committee took a positive step forward by passing this bill which recognizes the importance of additional offshore oil and natural gas development and Canadian oil to our nation’s energy and economic security. The majority of Americans favor greater offshore development, and they recognize this development means more jobs, more government revenues and more domestic energy supplies. As the bill moves forward to the full Senate, we hope a resolution can be found to ensure that coastal states are compensated for hosting development off their shores because that production will benefit all Americans in terms of revenues, additional jobs and greater domestic energy supply.”
Access a release and bill summary from the Committee (click here). Access an additional Committee summary of highlights (click here). Access a release and summary from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access more information on the various sections of the bill (click here). Access a release from API (click here).
Chairman Bingaman said, “Getting America running on clean energy has been a key goal of this mark-up. This bill will help shift our country to cleaner sources of energy, and more secure sources as well. The bipartisan, substantive and forward-looking approaches to energy found in this bill will move America toward the clean jobs and economic growth we need.”
Ranking Republican Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said, “Today, this committee reaches the end of a long and sometimes bumpy road toward reporting out energy legislation. Despite an uphill fight against Democrats’ three-vote majority, we were able to include a number of provisions that will lead to more domestic production of the conventional energy we need to drive this country. While I support this bill in its present form, we simply must do more to increase our domestic production and use of nuclear energy. I will continue to press for those provisions on the Senate floor.”
According to a Committee release, the "balanced, comprehensive, bipartisan" bill, in general would: - Accelerate the introduction of new clean energy technologies in the United States, creating new jobs and helping businesses grow through clean energy project financing, a renewable electricity standard and a robust and secure national electricity transmission highway; - Increase energy efficiency in buildings, major equipment and appliances, saving consumers and businesses billions of dollars on their energy bills; - Enhance America’s energy independence by increasing clean energy supplies and energy security, including new access to over 20 trillion cubic feet of clean natural gas resources; - Strengthen America as the world leader in energy innovation, by doubling our national investment in energy research and technology; - Build a new energy workforce for the future; - Protect consumers by making energy markets more transparent and fair, and by providing new tools to fight market manipulation; and -Tackle future energy and climate challenges with smarter, more integrated planning.
More specifically the bill includes a series of reforms to the existing Department of Energy loan guarantee program, including creating a new “Clean Energy Investment Fund.” It includes a renewable electricity standard (RES) requiring electric utilities to provide renewable sources in the following percentages for the following years: 2011-2013 (3%); 2014-2016 (6%); 2017-2018 (9%); 2019-2020 (12%); 2021-2039 (15%). Utilities selling less than 4 million megawatt hours per year would be exempt. Qualifying "Renewables" would include: wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, incremental hydropower, hydrokinetic, new hydropower at existing dams with no generation.
Additionally, the bill establishes policy goals for transmission infrastructure; integrates decision-making regarding the interdependence of energy and water; increases the development of renewable energy on our public lands; improves manufacturing , consumer and building energy efficiency; aids in thwarting cybersecurity threats and improves energy security; increases "responsible production" of traditional energy sources (i.e. Eastern Gulf of Mexico oil and gas production, Alaska natural gas pipeline, inventory and analysis of marine resources in the Atlantic, Gulf and Alaska regions); provides clear statement of the Federal government’s support for nuclear energy and encourages resolution of the spent nuclear fuel issue; doubles the authorization level of DOE's R&D programs; provides for up to 10 commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration projects; and increases the transparency of our energy markets.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said the bill would open part of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for additional oil and natural gas leasing and clarify ambiguous language in Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which, as originally written, could have precluded Federal agencies from using transportation fuels derived from Canadian oil sands.
In a statement, API President Jack Gerard said, “The committee took a positive step forward by passing this bill which recognizes the importance of additional offshore oil and natural gas development and Canadian oil to our nation’s energy and economic security. The majority of Americans favor greater offshore development, and they recognize this development means more jobs, more government revenues and more domestic energy supplies. As the bill moves forward to the full Senate, we hope a resolution can be found to ensure that coastal states are compensated for hosting development off their shores because that production will benefit all Americans in terms of revenues, additional jobs and greater domestic energy supply.”
Access a release and bill summary from the Committee (click here). Access an additional Committee summary of highlights (click here). Access a release and summary from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access more information on the various sections of the bill (click here). Access a release from API (click here).
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Administration Releases Final U.S. Climate Change Impacts Report
Jun 16: The Obama Administration released a report entitled, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, and a new U.S. Global Change Research Program website. The report compiles years of scientific research and takes into account new data not available during the preparation of previous large national and global assessments. It was produced by a consortium of experts from 13 U.S. government science agencies and from several major universities and research institutes. According to a release, the reports production and review span both Republican and Democratic administrations and it offers "a valuable, objective scientific consensus on how climate change is affecting -- and may further affect -- the United States."
John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said, "This new report integrates the most up-to-date scientific findings into a comprehensive picture of the ongoing as well as expected future impacts of heat-trapping pollution on the climate experienced by Americans, region by region and sector by sector. It tells us why remedial action is needed sooner rather than later, as well as showing why that action must include both global emissions reductions to reduce the extent of climate change and local adaptation measures to reduce the damage from the changes that are no longer avoidable."
According to the release, the report, confirms previous evidence that global temperature increases in recent decades have been primarily human-induced; incorporates the latest information on rising temperatures and sea levels; increases in extreme weather events; and other climate-related phenomena. Adding greatly to its practical value in the realm of policy and planning, it is the first such report in almost a decade to break out those impacts by U.S. region and economic sector, and the first to do so in such great detail.
Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, "This report stresses that climate change has immediate and local impacts – it literally affects people in their backyards. In keeping with our goals, the information in it is accessible and useful to everyone from city planners and national legislators to citizens who want to better understand what climate change means to them. This is an issue that clearly affects everyone."
A product of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, the definitive 190-page report, produced under NOAA’s leadership, is written in plain language to better inform members of the public and policymakers. Commissioned in 2007 and completed this past spring, the science-based report is a consensus product spanning two Presidential administrations and transcends political leanings or biases. It underwent intensive review by scientists inside and outside of government and includes information more recent than that incorporated into the last major report on global climate change released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The report indicates that it is not intended to direct policy makers to take any one approach over another to mitigate climate change or adapt to it. But it emphasizes that the choices we make now will determine the severity of climate change impacts in the future. The report states, "Implementing sizable and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change and would be more effective than reductions of the same size initiated later."
The study finds that Americans are already being affected by climate change through extreme weather, drought and wildfire trends and details how the nation’s transportation, agriculture, health, water and energy sectors will be affected in the future. The study also finds that the current trend in the emission of greenhouse gas pollution is significantly above the worst-case scenario that this and other reports have considered. Main findings of the report include:
John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said, "This new report integrates the most up-to-date scientific findings into a comprehensive picture of the ongoing as well as expected future impacts of heat-trapping pollution on the climate experienced by Americans, region by region and sector by sector. It tells us why remedial action is needed sooner rather than later, as well as showing why that action must include both global emissions reductions to reduce the extent of climate change and local adaptation measures to reduce the damage from the changes that are no longer avoidable."
According to the release, the report, confirms previous evidence that global temperature increases in recent decades have been primarily human-induced; incorporates the latest information on rising temperatures and sea levels; increases in extreme weather events; and other climate-related phenomena. Adding greatly to its practical value in the realm of policy and planning, it is the first such report in almost a decade to break out those impacts by U.S. region and economic sector, and the first to do so in such great detail.
Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, "This report stresses that climate change has immediate and local impacts – it literally affects people in their backyards. In keeping with our goals, the information in it is accessible and useful to everyone from city planners and national legislators to citizens who want to better understand what climate change means to them. This is an issue that clearly affects everyone."
A product of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, the definitive 190-page report, produced under NOAA’s leadership, is written in plain language to better inform members of the public and policymakers. Commissioned in 2007 and completed this past spring, the science-based report is a consensus product spanning two Presidential administrations and transcends political leanings or biases. It underwent intensive review by scientists inside and outside of government and includes information more recent than that incorporated into the last major report on global climate change released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The report indicates that it is not intended to direct policy makers to take any one approach over another to mitigate climate change or adapt to it. But it emphasizes that the choices we make now will determine the severity of climate change impacts in the future. The report states, "Implementing sizable and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change and would be more effective than reductions of the same size initiated later."
The study finds that Americans are already being affected by climate change through extreme weather, drought and wildfire trends and details how the nation’s transportation, agriculture, health, water and energy sectors will be affected in the future. The study also finds that the current trend in the emission of greenhouse gas pollution is significantly above the worst-case scenario that this and other reports have considered. Main findings of the report include:
- Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life. Extreme heat will also affect transportation and energy systems, and crop and livestock production.
- Increased heavy downpours will lead to more flooding, waterborne diseases, negative effects on agriculture, and disruptions to energy, water, and transportation systems.
Reduced summer runoff and increasing water demands will create greater competition for water supplies in some regions, especially in the West. - Rising water temperatures and ocean acidification threaten coral reefs and the rich ecosystems they support. These and other climate-related impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems will have major implications for tourism and fisheries.
- Insect infestations and wildfires are already increasing and are projected to increase further in a warming climate.
- Local sea-level rise of over three feet on top of storm surges will increasingly threaten homes and other coastal infrastructure. Coastal flooding will become more frequent and severe, and coastal land will increasingly be lost to the rising seas.
Among the concluding comments in the report, "Human-induced climate change is happening now, and impacts are already apparent. Greater impacts are projected, particularly if heat-trapping gas emissions continue unabated. . . Choices about emissions now and in the coming years will have far-reaching consequences for climate change impacts. A consistent finding of this assessment is that the rate and magnitude of future climate change and resulting impacts depend critically on the level of global atmospheric heat-trapping gas concentrations as well as the types and concentrations of atmospheric particles (aerosols). Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases will delay the appearance of climate change impacts and lessen their magnitude. Unless the rate of emissions is substantially reduced, impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places."
The report provides separate section detailing anticipated impacts for the regions of: Alaska; Coasts; Great Plains; Islands; Midwest; Northeast; Northwest; Southeast; and Southwest. Additionally, climate change impacts are detailed for the following sectors: Water Resources; Energy Supply and Use; Transportation; Agriculture; Ecosystems; and Human Health.
Access a press release on the report (click here). Access links to various sections of the report (click here). Access a PowerPoint presentation on the report (click here). Access the U.S. Global Change Research Program website for extensive information (click here).
Monday, June 15, 2009
Pressure Builds For U.S. Climate Change Commitment
Jan 12: Today's posting includes two related articles focusing on the growing pressure for a firm U.S. commitment on climate change policy. While the Administration and President Obama have expressed the commitment many times there are still doubts being expressed on the international stage regarding the U.S. short-term reduction targets and the ability of the Administration to get the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to pass climate change legislation.
EDF Says Pressure Is On Obama To Lead On Climate Treaty
Jun 12: Calling the progress at the latest round of climate change talks in Bonn, Germany [See WIMS 6/12/09], "painstakingly slow," Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said world leaders are waiting to hear a solid commitment from President Obama. Annie Petsonk, EDF International Counsel issued a statement at the close of the June 1-12 meeting attended by more than 4,600 participants including government delegates from 183 countries.
Petsonk said, "Slow progress at the U.N. climate talks in Bonn is proof positive that the world needs to hear U.S. President Barack Obama say he is pursuing a climate pact with a very good chance of keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius. When President Obama goes to the July G8 meeting in Italy, he'll be on stage with world leaders asking him, 'Are you willing to commit and say we have to limit warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels?'
"He has to be able to stand up and say yes. Because if he wavers, these talks will crumble into 180 government pledges that don't add up to stopping dangerous climate change. The painstakingly slow progress we've seen in Bonn tells us that countries are waiting for Obama to come forward and say what science-based goal he is aiming for. Right now we're just treading water. Because without that basic measure -- without knowing how much warming the world's richest nation is willing to accept -- nobody has any way of knowing how much negotiation and compromise is needed."
Petsonk said many nations were signaling, on the sidelines of the Bonn session, a willingness to move forward if the U.S. President shows he is committed to leadership. She pointed to Wednesday's announcement by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva saying Brazil is open to adopting a greenhouse gas emissions target if rich countries do more to curb climate change.
Briefing On U.S.-China Climate & Energy Issues
Jun 12: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change with the Department of State held a press briefing to discuss the recent U.S. delegation's June 7-10 trip to China to discuss climate and energy Issues. Stern was joined by John Holdren, the President’s Science Adviser; David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the Department of Energy, as well as colleagues from Treasury and EPA, and a team from State. Stern said he had a particularly in-depth conversations with Xie Zhenhua the vice chairman of the NDRC in China, and their chief climate negotiator.
Stern said, "I wouldn’t characterize my discussions on climate change as producing any breakthroughs, but we talked very openly and candidly and in a lot of detail about what needs to be done on both sides to advance toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen. And by the way, I never had any notion in my mind that we were going to get breakthroughs on this trip. It’s not what the trip was about. . . I was very favorably impressed by actions that China’s already taken, and by – taking, and by China’s commitment to develop a low-carbon path forward and to take potentially far-reaching steps to contain their greenhouse gas emissions. . .
"The stark reality, though, is that the world cannot contain climate change and cannot avoid dangerous levels of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere without very significant action by China. And we discussed this point, as well as the science behind it, in great detail. Again, as I said, Dr. Holdren was there with us and was very helpful in conversations on the science."
In response to a question regarding the possibility of the Waxman-Markey ACES bill (H.R. 2454) passing the House this summer and perhaps being stalled in the Senate for a lack of 60 votes, Stern responded: "I think that this is a one-step-at-a-time kind of deal. I think that it was a huge, big step under the leadership of Chairman Waxman and Markey to get the bill reported out of Energy and Commerce. My general sense is that there’s a -- there is a kind of commitment and objective to get it through the House this summer. I think that there’s a good chance that that’ll happen, and we’re strongly supportive of that, obviously.
"And I don’t have any -- I am absolutely not prepared at all to say that I don’t think it’s going to get 60 votes in the Senate. I think that this bill is going to become law. I can’t give you a time frame because I don’t know the timeframe yet, but I think that the President is committed to it, the Administration’s committed to having strong, comprehensive energy legislation passed. And I think that there are -- that there will be a lot of support in the Senate, and there’ll be, undoubtedly, a lot more negotiation and debate that’s going to have to happen first. But I am in no way pessimistic about that."
Access a release from EDF (click here). Access the complete transcript of the press conference (click here). Access a video of the press conference (click here).
EDF Says Pressure Is On Obama To Lead On Climate Treaty
Jun 12: Calling the progress at the latest round of climate change talks in Bonn, Germany [See WIMS 6/12/09], "painstakingly slow," Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said world leaders are waiting to hear a solid commitment from President Obama. Annie Petsonk, EDF International Counsel issued a statement at the close of the June 1-12 meeting attended by more than 4,600 participants including government delegates from 183 countries.
Petsonk said, "Slow progress at the U.N. climate talks in Bonn is proof positive that the world needs to hear U.S. President Barack Obama say he is pursuing a climate pact with a very good chance of keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius. When President Obama goes to the July G8 meeting in Italy, he'll be on stage with world leaders asking him, 'Are you willing to commit and say we have to limit warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels?'
"He has to be able to stand up and say yes. Because if he wavers, these talks will crumble into 180 government pledges that don't add up to stopping dangerous climate change. The painstakingly slow progress we've seen in Bonn tells us that countries are waiting for Obama to come forward and say what science-based goal he is aiming for. Right now we're just treading water. Because without that basic measure -- without knowing how much warming the world's richest nation is willing to accept -- nobody has any way of knowing how much negotiation and compromise is needed."
Petsonk said many nations were signaling, on the sidelines of the Bonn session, a willingness to move forward if the U.S. President shows he is committed to leadership. She pointed to Wednesday's announcement by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva saying Brazil is open to adopting a greenhouse gas emissions target if rich countries do more to curb climate change.
Briefing On U.S.-China Climate & Energy Issues
Jun 12: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change with the Department of State held a press briefing to discuss the recent U.S. delegation's June 7-10 trip to China to discuss climate and energy Issues. Stern was joined by John Holdren, the President’s Science Adviser; David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the Department of Energy, as well as colleagues from Treasury and EPA, and a team from State. Stern said he had a particularly in-depth conversations with Xie Zhenhua the vice chairman of the NDRC in China, and their chief climate negotiator.
Stern said, "I wouldn’t characterize my discussions on climate change as producing any breakthroughs, but we talked very openly and candidly and in a lot of detail about what needs to be done on both sides to advance toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen. And by the way, I never had any notion in my mind that we were going to get breakthroughs on this trip. It’s not what the trip was about. . . I was very favorably impressed by actions that China’s already taken, and by – taking, and by China’s commitment to develop a low-carbon path forward and to take potentially far-reaching steps to contain their greenhouse gas emissions. . .
"The stark reality, though, is that the world cannot contain climate change and cannot avoid dangerous levels of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere without very significant action by China. And we discussed this point, as well as the science behind it, in great detail. Again, as I said, Dr. Holdren was there with us and was very helpful in conversations on the science."
In response to a question regarding the possibility of the Waxman-Markey ACES bill (H.R. 2454) passing the House this summer and perhaps being stalled in the Senate for a lack of 60 votes, Stern responded: "I think that this is a one-step-at-a-time kind of deal. I think that it was a huge, big step under the leadership of Chairman Waxman and Markey to get the bill reported out of Energy and Commerce. My general sense is that there’s a -- there is a kind of commitment and objective to get it through the House this summer. I think that there’s a good chance that that’ll happen, and we’re strongly supportive of that, obviously.
"And I don’t have any -- I am absolutely not prepared at all to say that I don’t think it’s going to get 60 votes in the Senate. I think that this bill is going to become law. I can’t give you a time frame because I don’t know the timeframe yet, but I think that the President is committed to it, the Administration’s committed to having strong, comprehensive energy legislation passed. And I think that there are -- that there will be a lot of support in the Senate, and there’ll be, undoubtedly, a lot more negotiation and debate that’s going to have to happen first. But I am in no way pessimistic about that."
Access a release from EDF (click here). Access the complete transcript of the press conference (click here). Access a video of the press conference (click here).
Friday, June 12, 2009
More Work On GHG Targets Needed Following Bonn Climate Meeting
Jun 12: The June UN Climate Change Talks in Bonn concluded today (June 12) with progress on draft negotiating texts, reflecting governments’ proposals on how to step up international climate change action [See WIMS 6/1/09]. Delegates from 183 countries meeting in Bonn, discussed key negotiating texts which will serve as the basis for an international climate change deal, to be decided in Copenhagen in December. The Copenhagen agreed outcome is to follow on the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. The gathering from June 1 to 12 was attended by more than 4,600 participants, including government delegates, representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions.
Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said, “A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome. In my view, an ambitious and effective agreed outcome in Copenhagen is in sight -- an outcome that provides a strong and definitive answer to the alarm raised by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC].”
Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), also pointed to the accelerated pace of negotiations at the Bonn meeting, during which he said many important elements were added to the Convention text. He said, “The next step will be for Parties to refine and streamline the Convention text and to begin drafting at the next session in August, whilst engaging on the specifics of the text." The negotiating text for consideration by the AWG-LCA, which comprises all 192 Parties to the UNFCCC, covers issues of a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation and finance, technology and capacity-building.
Another group, focusing on further commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) considered a proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, including the future emission reduction commitments of 37 industrialized countries for the second phase of the protocol (post-2012). UNFCCC said that good progress was made on options for the treatment of land-use, land-use change and forestry to reduce emissions. But John Ashe, the Chair of the AWG-KP pointed out that this group still needs to decide on the controversial issue of an aggregate emission reduction target for industrialized countries, along with individual targets. He said, “We need to get the list of commitments of developed countries finalized
so that we can fully gauge where we are in terms of emission reductions."
The UN’s top climate change official Yvo de Boer warned that AWG-KP negotiating group was still far away from "the emission reduction range that has been set out by science as a beacon by science to avoid the worst ravages of climate change: a minus 25% to minus 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020." Be Boer said, “Between now and Copenhagen, the level of ambition
needs to be increased. This is still possible if the opportunities for international cooperative action are fully seized."
In addition to the two working groups specifically designed to negotiate the Copenhagen agreed outcome, the “Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the “Subsidiary Body for Implementation”(SBI) also met in Bonn. A release indicated that work was "taken forward" on SBSTA on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Solid progress was made on methodologies that make it possible to monitor and report emissions from deforestation, which accounts for around 20% of all greenhouse gas pollution.
A key focus of SBI's work in Bonn was the development and transfer of technologies. The Expert Group on Technology Transfer produced three reports (on future financing options, on a long-term strategy and on performance indicators). The reports provide important input for what can be written into the Copenhagen deal on technology cooperation.
The UNFCCC gathering in Germany constituted the second in a series of five major UN negotiating sessions this year leading up to the UNFCCC (COP 15) meeting in Copenhagen in December (December 7 to 18). The next meeting, informal consultations comprising the LCA and KP work groups, will take place August 10 to 14 in Bonn, followed by a gathering in Bangkok from September 28 to October 9, and a further gathering from November in Barcelona 2 to 6. Additionally, outside of the UNFCCC process, but intricately linked, the Major Economies have a work meeting scheduled for June 22-23 in Mexico City and a "leaders' meeting" and the G8 Summit in Italy, in July 2009.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to complete details on the meetings and the negotiating text (click here). Access daily reporting from the Bonn meeting from International Institute for Sustainable Development (click here).
Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said, “A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome. In my view, an ambitious and effective agreed outcome in Copenhagen is in sight -- an outcome that provides a strong and definitive answer to the alarm raised by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC].”
Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), also pointed to the accelerated pace of negotiations at the Bonn meeting, during which he said many important elements were added to the Convention text. He said, “The next step will be for Parties to refine and streamline the Convention text and to begin drafting at the next session in August, whilst engaging on the specifics of the text." The negotiating text for consideration by the AWG-LCA, which comprises all 192 Parties to the UNFCCC, covers issues of a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation and finance, technology and capacity-building.
Another group, focusing on further commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) considered a proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, including the future emission reduction commitments of 37 industrialized countries for the second phase of the protocol (post-2012). UNFCCC said that good progress was made on options for the treatment of land-use, land-use change and forestry to reduce emissions. But John Ashe, the Chair of the AWG-KP pointed out that this group still needs to decide on the controversial issue of an aggregate emission reduction target for industrialized countries, along with individual targets. He said, “We need to get the list of commitments of developed countries finalized
so that we can fully gauge where we are in terms of emission reductions."
The UN’s top climate change official Yvo de Boer warned that AWG-KP negotiating group was still far away from "the emission reduction range that has been set out by science as a beacon by science to avoid the worst ravages of climate change: a minus 25% to minus 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020." Be Boer said, “Between now and Copenhagen, the level of ambition
needs to be increased. This is still possible if the opportunities for international cooperative action are fully seized."
In addition to the two working groups specifically designed to negotiate the Copenhagen agreed outcome, the “Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the “Subsidiary Body for Implementation”(SBI) also met in Bonn. A release indicated that work was "taken forward" on SBSTA on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Solid progress was made on methodologies that make it possible to monitor and report emissions from deforestation, which accounts for around 20% of all greenhouse gas pollution.
A key focus of SBI's work in Bonn was the development and transfer of technologies. The Expert Group on Technology Transfer produced three reports (on future financing options, on a long-term strategy and on performance indicators). The reports provide important input for what can be written into the Copenhagen deal on technology cooperation.
The UNFCCC gathering in Germany constituted the second in a series of five major UN negotiating sessions this year leading up to the UNFCCC (COP 15) meeting in Copenhagen in December (December 7 to 18). The next meeting, informal consultations comprising the LCA and KP work groups, will take place August 10 to 14 in Bonn, followed by a gathering in Bangkok from September 28 to October 9, and a further gathering from November in Barcelona 2 to 6. Additionally, outside of the UNFCCC process, but intricately linked, the Major Economies have a work meeting scheduled for June 22-23 in Mexico City and a "leaders' meeting" and the G8 Summit in Italy, in July 2009.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to complete details on the meetings and the negotiating text (click here). Access daily reporting from the Bonn meeting from International Institute for Sustainable Development (click here).
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Administration Officials Discuss Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
Jun 11: Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; Bob Sussman, U.S. EPA Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator; Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes; and Terrence “Rock” Salt, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; held a conference call with reporters on mountaintop removal coal mining. The officials announced that they are taking "unprecedented steps" to reduce the environmental impacts of mountaintop coal mining in the six Appalachian states of Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia through a coordinated approach between U.S. EPA, Department of the Interior (DOI) and Army Corps of Engineers.
Through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the agency officials, the Administration will implement an Interagency Action Plan on mountaintop coal mining that will: - Minimize the adverse environmental consequences of mountaintop coal mining through short-term actions to be completed in 2009; - Undertake longer-term actions to tighten the regulation of mountaintop coal mining; - Ensure coordinated and stringent environmental reviews of permit applications under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1997(SMCRA); - Engage the public through outreach events in the Appalachian region to help inform the development of Federal policy; and - Federal Agencies will work in coordination with appropriate regional, state, and local entities to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare of Appalachian communities.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “Mountaintop coal mining cannot be predicated on the assumption of minimal oversight of its environmental impacts, and its permanent degradation of water quality. Stronger reviews and protections will safeguard the health of local waters, and thousands of acres of watersheds in Appalachia. Our announcement today reaffirms EPA's fundamental responsibility for protecting the water quality and environmental integrity of streams, rivers, and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Getting this right is important to coalfield communities that count on a livable environment, both during mining and after coal companies move to other sites.”
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, “The steps we are taking today are a firm departure from the previous Administration's approach to mountaintop coal mining, which failed to protect our communities, water, and wildlife in Appalachia. By toughening enforcement standards, by looking for common-sense improvements to our rules and regulations, and by coordinating our efforts with other agencies, we will immediately make progress toward reducing the environmental impacts ofmountaintop coal mining.”
Some of the immediate steps to be taken include: Requiring more stringent environmental reviews for future permit applications for mountaintop coal mining; proposing to modify Nationwide Permit (NWP) 21 to preclude its use to authorize the discharge of fill material into streams for surface coal mining activities in the Appalachian region; Strengthening permit reviews under CWA; Strengthening EPA coordination with states; and Improving stream mitigation projects.
According to a release, if the U.S. District Court vacates the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule, as requested by the Secretary of the Interior on April 27, 2009 [See WIMS 4/29/09], Interior will issue guidance clarifying the application of stream buffer zone provisions in a preexisting 1983 SMCRA regulation to ensure mining activities will occur in a more environmentally protective way in or near Appalachian streams.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said they are taking steps to enhance coordination in the environmental review of pending Clean Water Act permits for surface coal mining activities in Appalachian States. The Federal agencies said they will also work in coordination with appropriate regional, state, and local entities to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare of Appalachian communities.
Access a release with additional details (click here). Access more information on the Memorandum of Agreement (click here).
Through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the agency officials, the Administration will implement an Interagency Action Plan on mountaintop coal mining that will: - Minimize the adverse environmental consequences of mountaintop coal mining through short-term actions to be completed in 2009; - Undertake longer-term actions to tighten the regulation of mountaintop coal mining; - Ensure coordinated and stringent environmental reviews of permit applications under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1997(SMCRA); - Engage the public through outreach events in the Appalachian region to help inform the development of Federal policy; and - Federal Agencies will work in coordination with appropriate regional, state, and local entities to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare of Appalachian communities.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “Mountaintop coal mining cannot be predicated on the assumption of minimal oversight of its environmental impacts, and its permanent degradation of water quality. Stronger reviews and protections will safeguard the health of local waters, and thousands of acres of watersheds in Appalachia. Our announcement today reaffirms EPA's fundamental responsibility for protecting the water quality and environmental integrity of streams, rivers, and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Getting this right is important to coalfield communities that count on a livable environment, both during mining and after coal companies move to other sites.”
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, “The steps we are taking today are a firm departure from the previous Administration's approach to mountaintop coal mining, which failed to protect our communities, water, and wildlife in Appalachia. By toughening enforcement standards, by looking for common-sense improvements to our rules and regulations, and by coordinating our efforts with other agencies, we will immediately make progress toward reducing the environmental impacts ofmountaintop coal mining.”
Some of the immediate steps to be taken include: Requiring more stringent environmental reviews for future permit applications for mountaintop coal mining; proposing to modify Nationwide Permit (NWP) 21 to preclude its use to authorize the discharge of fill material into streams for surface coal mining activities in the Appalachian region; Strengthening permit reviews under CWA; Strengthening EPA coordination with states; and Improving stream mitigation projects.
According to a release, if the U.S. District Court vacates the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule, as requested by the Secretary of the Interior on April 27, 2009 [See WIMS 4/29/09], Interior will issue guidance clarifying the application of stream buffer zone provisions in a preexisting 1983 SMCRA regulation to ensure mining activities will occur in a more environmentally protective way in or near Appalachian streams.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said they are taking steps to enhance coordination in the environmental review of pending Clean Water Act permits for surface coal mining activities in Appalachian States. The Federal agencies said they will also work in coordination with appropriate regional, state, and local entities to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare of Appalachian communities.
Access a release with additional details (click here). Access more information on the Memorandum of Agreement (click here).
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Report Outlines A New Vision For U.S. Transportation Policy
Jun 9: Calling its recommendations a "framework for comprehensive reform," the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) released its plan for transforming Federal surface transportation policy. If adopted by the Administration and Congress in this year’s authorization bill, the plan would constitute the first major overhaul of transportation policy in more than 50 years. It proposes restructuring Federal programs, updating the criteria for formulas, and creating a performance-based system that directly ties transportation spending to broader national goals, including economic growth, connectivity, accessibility, safety, energy security and environmental protection. Currently, transportation funding is distributed on a politically-driven basis with little analysis of benefits and no accountability for results.
According to a release, the plan has a strong bipartisan foundation. Under the leadership of former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, former Senator Slade Gorton, and former Congressman Martin Sabo, the NTPP -- a bipartisan group of 26 diverse members -- produced its plan -- Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy -- as a blueprint for a new national transportation system that is efficient, effective, and accountable for performance.
As Congress is scheduled to take up reauthorization of the nation’s surface transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, this year, NTPP is calling for a complete restructuring of the Federal transportation funding system. To date, there is no Federal requirement to optimize returns on public investments, and programs are not structured to reward outcomes, or even to document them. Moreover, existing programs do little to target Federal support for transportation programs to further economic growth or link to jobs and productivity.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), an original co-founding chair of NTPP, attended the release announcement and commended NTPP’s bipartisan report. He especially praised the NTPP for advocating "a bottom-up approach to reform whereby states and metropolitan areas can develop their own solutions to transportation problems." He said, “This idea, called mode-neutrality, enables states like Virginia to make their own decisions about how to spend federal money as long as their investments meet accountability standards and promote national goals.”
NTPP also proposes holding all funding recipients accountable for their contributions to national goals. A new system of metrics would measure project performance in several areas: improved access, a more efficient national network, reduced corridor congestion and petroleum consumption, reduced CO2 emissions, and reduced fatalities and injuries. States and regions whose investments performed well against those goals would be entitled to bonus funding; areas that did not would be subject to greater Federal scrutiny in receiving transportation funding.
World Resources Institute (WRI), a member of the NTPP, issued a release on the report saying the recommendations are intended to create a thorough framework within the reauthorization of the transportation bill, which expires September 30. The NTPP calls for U.S. transportation funding to directly serve five clear goals: economic growth, connectivity, metropolitan access, energy and environment, and safety.
Nancy Kete, director of EMBARQ -- The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport, and one of the NTPP’s key members focused on the energy and environment goals said, "A transportation system that emits a full third of our greenhouse gases and is almost entirely dependent on oil is not sustainable from an economic, national security, or environmental perspective. I am pleased with how much the members have focused on ensuring that transportation policy is responsive to the 21st century challenges of energy security and climate change. We’re calling for a dramatic change in the way transportation investment decisions are made. A new bill must play a fundamental role in reducing greenhouse gases over the coming decades. Low-carbon fuels and the Obama administration’s decision to improve fuel economy standards will not be enough for us to reach our targets."
She continued saying, "States and localities will need to consider transportation-demand management measures. Congestion pricing, increasing the quality and supply of transit, and improving integrated transportation and land-use planning will help avoid GHG emissions in the future. The proposed new programs under the NTPP recommendations would allow states and localities full flexibility to meet national goals according to their needs and priorities. The accountability measures and incentive provisions will keep everyone on track towards cutting U.S. GHG emissions potentially required under the Waxman-Markey bill.”
Access a lengthy release (click here). Access the NTPP website for links to an executive summary, the complete report, a video of the launch press conference, project members and more (click here). Access a release and links to further information from WRI (click here).
According to a release, the plan has a strong bipartisan foundation. Under the leadership of former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, former Senator Slade Gorton, and former Congressman Martin Sabo, the NTPP -- a bipartisan group of 26 diverse members -- produced its plan -- Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy -- as a blueprint for a new national transportation system that is efficient, effective, and accountable for performance.
As Congress is scheduled to take up reauthorization of the nation’s surface transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, this year, NTPP is calling for a complete restructuring of the Federal transportation funding system. To date, there is no Federal requirement to optimize returns on public investments, and programs are not structured to reward outcomes, or even to document them. Moreover, existing programs do little to target Federal support for transportation programs to further economic growth or link to jobs and productivity.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), an original co-founding chair of NTPP, attended the release announcement and commended NTPP’s bipartisan report. He especially praised the NTPP for advocating "a bottom-up approach to reform whereby states and metropolitan areas can develop their own solutions to transportation problems." He said, “This idea, called mode-neutrality, enables states like Virginia to make their own decisions about how to spend federal money as long as their investments meet accountability standards and promote national goals.”
NTPP also proposes holding all funding recipients accountable for their contributions to national goals. A new system of metrics would measure project performance in several areas: improved access, a more efficient national network, reduced corridor congestion and petroleum consumption, reduced CO2 emissions, and reduced fatalities and injuries. States and regions whose investments performed well against those goals would be entitled to bonus funding; areas that did not would be subject to greater Federal scrutiny in receiving transportation funding.
World Resources Institute (WRI), a member of the NTPP, issued a release on the report saying the recommendations are intended to create a thorough framework within the reauthorization of the transportation bill, which expires September 30. The NTPP calls for U.S. transportation funding to directly serve five clear goals: economic growth, connectivity, metropolitan access, energy and environment, and safety.
Nancy Kete, director of EMBARQ -- The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport, and one of the NTPP’s key members focused on the energy and environment goals said, "A transportation system that emits a full third of our greenhouse gases and is almost entirely dependent on oil is not sustainable from an economic, national security, or environmental perspective. I am pleased with how much the members have focused on ensuring that transportation policy is responsive to the 21st century challenges of energy security and climate change. We’re calling for a dramatic change in the way transportation investment decisions are made. A new bill must play a fundamental role in reducing greenhouse gases over the coming decades. Low-carbon fuels and the Obama administration’s decision to improve fuel economy standards will not be enough for us to reach our targets."
She continued saying, "States and localities will need to consider transportation-demand management measures. Congestion pricing, increasing the quality and supply of transit, and improving integrated transportation and land-use planning will help avoid GHG emissions in the future. The proposed new programs under the NTPP recommendations would allow states and localities full flexibility to meet national goals according to their needs and priorities. The accountability measures and incentive provisions will keep everyone on track towards cutting U.S. GHG emissions potentially required under the Waxman-Markey bill.”
Access a lengthy release (click here). Access the NTPP website for links to an executive summary, the complete report, a video of the launch press conference, project members and more (click here). Access a release and links to further information from WRI (click here).
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
CBO Cost Estimate For Waxman-Markey H.R. 2454 Climate Bill
Jun 5: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a cost estimate for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454), which was recently approved by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce [See WIMS 5/22/09]. CBO indicates that this legislation would make a number of changes in energy and environmental policies largely aimed at reducing emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. The bill would limit (or cap) the quantity of certain greenhouse gases emitted from facilities that generate electricity and from other industrial activities over the 2012-2050 period.
Under the provisions of the bill, U.S. EPA would establish two separate regulatory initiatives known as cap-and-trade programs -- one covering emissions of most types of greenhouse gases and one covering hydrofluorocarbons. Both cap-and-trade programs would set a limit on total emissions for each year and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to the emissions permitted under that cap. Some of those allowances would be auctioned by the Federal government, and the remainder would be distributed at no charge.
CBO lists other major provisions of the legislation as: Provide energy tax credits or energy rebates to certain low-income families to offset the impact of higher energy-related prices from the cap-and-trade programs; Require certain retail electricity suppliers to provide a minimum percentage of their electricity sales with electricity generated by facilities that use qualifying renewable fuels or energy sources; Establish a Carbon Storage Research Corporation to support research and development of technologies related to carbon capture and sequestration; Increase, by $25 billion, the aggregate amount of loans Department of Energy is authorized to make to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under the existing Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program; Establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration within the Department of Energy, which would be authorized to provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and letters of credit for clean energy projects; Authorize the Department of Transportation to provide individuals with vouchers to acquire new vehicles that achieve greater fuel efficiency than the existing qualifying vehicles owned by the individuals; and Authorize appropriations for various programs.
CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would: Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and Increase direct spending by about $821 billion. In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period. In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Most of that funding would stem from spending auction proceeds from various funds established under this legislation.
Access the complete 40-page CBO report (click here). Access a CBO blog posting on the report (click here). Access additional CBO reports relating to climate change (click here).
Under the provisions of the bill, U.S. EPA would establish two separate regulatory initiatives known as cap-and-trade programs -- one covering emissions of most types of greenhouse gases and one covering hydrofluorocarbons. Both cap-and-trade programs would set a limit on total emissions for each year and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to the emissions permitted under that cap. Some of those allowances would be auctioned by the Federal government, and the remainder would be distributed at no charge.
CBO lists other major provisions of the legislation as: Provide energy tax credits or energy rebates to certain low-income families to offset the impact of higher energy-related prices from the cap-and-trade programs; Require certain retail electricity suppliers to provide a minimum percentage of their electricity sales with electricity generated by facilities that use qualifying renewable fuels or energy sources; Establish a Carbon Storage Research Corporation to support research and development of technologies related to carbon capture and sequestration; Increase, by $25 billion, the aggregate amount of loans Department of Energy is authorized to make to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under the existing Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program; Establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration within the Department of Energy, which would be authorized to provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and letters of credit for clean energy projects; Authorize the Department of Transportation to provide individuals with vouchers to acquire new vehicles that achieve greater fuel efficiency than the existing qualifying vehicles owned by the individuals; and Authorize appropriations for various programs.
CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would: Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and Increase direct spending by about $821 billion. In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period. In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Most of that funding would stem from spending auction proceeds from various funds established under this legislation.
Access the complete 40-page CBO report (click here). Access a CBO blog posting on the report (click here). Access additional CBO reports relating to climate change (click here).
Monday, June 08, 2009
DOI Report On Carbon Sequestration On Public Land
Jun 3: Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar sent Congress his recommendations for a national program to help reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by selecting appropriate underground geological formations on public lands to inject and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and other carbon-dioxide producing facilities. The DOI report, prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. EPA and Department of Energy’s (DOE's) Office of Fossil Energy, recommends criteria for identifying potential sites for geological carbon sequestration and a proposed regulatory framework for leasing these public lands. It also discusses an array of issues that are being addressed, including environmental protection, public participation, rights-of-way and federal liability.
Salazar said, “President Obama’s national energy plan calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Capturing carbon dioxide emissions in secure geologic formations prevents their release into the atmosphere, reducing the carbon intensity of our economy. These recommendations provide a structure for a national initiative to identify appropriate public land geological sequestration sites that will help us reach our clean energy goals.”
DOI said the report entitled, Framework for Geological Carbon Sequestration on Public Land, is an important step in developing a national program that makes effective use of the vast underground storage capacity of Federal lands, the expertise of BLM and the science capabilities of the USGS to reduce the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Geological storage of carbon dioxide in subsurface rocks involves injection of carbon dioxide underground into the pore space of permeable rock units, such as oil and gas fields, deep saline water-bearing formations or coal beds. Operating and depleted oil and gas fields are considered potentially suitable sequestration sites, but most of the probable storage capacity for carbon dioxide in the United States is in deep saline formations.
A critical issue for evaluating storage capacity is the integrity and effectiveness of geologic formations for sealing carbon dioxide underground, preventing its release into underground sources of drinking water, mineral resources or the atmosphere. The report recommends that candidate sites must have sufficient capacity to accept the volume of carbon dioxide expected for the life of the sequestration project and the geologic structure to ensure long-term containment of the carbon dioxide.
The recommendations call for research to address several unknowns related to carbon sequestration, so that proper mitigating measures to protect the environment can be included in land use authorizations. DOI supports efforts to ensure science-based monitoring and verification of the injected carbon dioxide plume throughout the life of a project to beyond the closure phase. The Department also supports the need for large-scale demonstration projects to address key questions of long-term carbon storage. As the nation’s largest land manager, Interior’s Bureau of Land Management administers 256 million acres of land, known as the National System of Public Lands, and 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate. The Interior report to Congress, which fulfills the requirements of Section 714 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, also examines existing authorities under the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that could be used to permit carbon sequestration activities.
Access a release from DOI (click here). Access the complete 22-page Framework report (click here).
Salazar said, “President Obama’s national energy plan calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Capturing carbon dioxide emissions in secure geologic formations prevents their release into the atmosphere, reducing the carbon intensity of our economy. These recommendations provide a structure for a national initiative to identify appropriate public land geological sequestration sites that will help us reach our clean energy goals.”
DOI said the report entitled, Framework for Geological Carbon Sequestration on Public Land, is an important step in developing a national program that makes effective use of the vast underground storage capacity of Federal lands, the expertise of BLM and the science capabilities of the USGS to reduce the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Geological storage of carbon dioxide in subsurface rocks involves injection of carbon dioxide underground into the pore space of permeable rock units, such as oil and gas fields, deep saline water-bearing formations or coal beds. Operating and depleted oil and gas fields are considered potentially suitable sequestration sites, but most of the probable storage capacity for carbon dioxide in the United States is in deep saline formations.
A critical issue for evaluating storage capacity is the integrity and effectiveness of geologic formations for sealing carbon dioxide underground, preventing its release into underground sources of drinking water, mineral resources or the atmosphere. The report recommends that candidate sites must have sufficient capacity to accept the volume of carbon dioxide expected for the life of the sequestration project and the geologic structure to ensure long-term containment of the carbon dioxide.
The recommendations call for research to address several unknowns related to carbon sequestration, so that proper mitigating measures to protect the environment can be included in land use authorizations. DOI supports efforts to ensure science-based monitoring and verification of the injected carbon dioxide plume throughout the life of a project to beyond the closure phase. The Department also supports the need for large-scale demonstration projects to address key questions of long-term carbon storage. As the nation’s largest land manager, Interior’s Bureau of Land Management administers 256 million acres of land, known as the National System of Public Lands, and 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate. The Interior report to Congress, which fulfills the requirements of Section 714 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, also examines existing authorities under the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that could be used to permit carbon sequestration activities.
Access a release from DOI (click here). Access the complete 22-page Framework report (click here).
Monday, June 01, 2009
2nd Round Pre-Copenhagen Climate Talks Begin In Bonn
Jun 1: Immediately following last week's Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate meeting in Paris from May 25-26 [See WIMS 5/28/09], delegates from 182 nations are gathering in Bonn, Germany, to initiate discussions on negotiating texts [See WIMS 5/21/09] which could form the basis of an ambitious United Nations-backed climate change deal, to slash greenhouse gas emissions, expected to be clinched in December. The two-week Bonn talks, the second round of UN climate change talks this year, are expected to draw over 4,000 participants, including representatives from Governments, the private sector, environmental organizations and research institutions.
The new pact, to be concluded in Copenhagen, Denmark, is intended to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, whose first commitment period ends in 2012. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said, “The political moment is right to reach an agreement. There is no doubt in my mind that the Copenhagen climate conference in December is going to lead to a result.” He said the current financial crisis has reinforced the need for a global response to global issues.
The Bonn meetings include the thirtieth sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) under UNFCCC; the sixth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA); and the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).
Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of AWG-LCA noted that the negotiating text that is on the table did not prejudge or preclude any particular outcome. He said, "The text is a starting point and now is the time for parties to take position and enrich it." The negotiating text for consideration by the AWG-LCA, which comprises all 192 Parties to the UNFCCC, covers issues of a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation and finance, technology and capacity-building.
AWG-KP will focus on a proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, including the annex relating to emission reduction commitments of 37 industrialized countries for the second phase of the protocol (post-2012). On this subject there is considerable disagreement between the parties, as well as major outside participants in the negotiations. For example the World Wildlife Fund and other groups are pressuring delegates to commit to an aggregate reduction goal for developed countries of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. On the other hand, the European Union has called for an ambitious interim target of 20-30% less than 1990 levels; while President Obama has called for a 14 percent cut from 2005 levels by 2020; or a 0% reduction from 1990 levels. The recent, Committee-approved Waxman-Markey ACES bills calls for a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020.
The argument came to a head at last week's Major Economies meeting where French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo complained it was "unimaginable" that the biggest power, the United States, with carbon emissions twice that of the EU, was doing less. He said that developed countries as bigger polluters, should deepen their cuts by 25 percent to 40 percent, especially the United States."
Other issues intended for discussion under the protocol, in Bonn, are how to improve emissions trading, coverage of emissions credits, the Kyoto Protocol's so-called "project-based mechanisms" and options for the treatment of land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). John Ashe, the newly-elected Chair of AWG-KP said, "It is important that we complete some of the more solvable issues here in Bonn so that we can then focus on the more difficult ones later on in the negotiations."
The UNFCCC gathering in Bonn, Germany constitutes the second in a series of five major UN negotiating sessions this year leading up to the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen (COP 15) in December 7 to 18. The next meeting, informal consultations comprising the LCA and KP groups, will take place August 10 to 14, also in Bonn; followed by a gathering in Bangkok from September 28 to October 9; and a further gathering from November 2 to 6 in Barcelona.
Access a release from UN (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to complete details on the meetings and the negotiating text (click here). Access a release from WWF (click here). Access a background and summary report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD, click here). Access daily reporting from the Bonn meeting from IISD (click here).
The new pact, to be concluded in Copenhagen, Denmark, is intended to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, whose first commitment period ends in 2012. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said, “The political moment is right to reach an agreement. There is no doubt in my mind that the Copenhagen climate conference in December is going to lead to a result.” He said the current financial crisis has reinforced the need for a global response to global issues.
The Bonn meetings include the thirtieth sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) under UNFCCC; the sixth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA); and the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).
Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of AWG-LCA noted that the negotiating text that is on the table did not prejudge or preclude any particular outcome. He said, "The text is a starting point and now is the time for parties to take position and enrich it." The negotiating text for consideration by the AWG-LCA, which comprises all 192 Parties to the UNFCCC, covers issues of a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation and finance, technology and capacity-building.
AWG-KP will focus on a proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, including the annex relating to emission reduction commitments of 37 industrialized countries for the second phase of the protocol (post-2012). On this subject there is considerable disagreement between the parties, as well as major outside participants in the negotiations. For example the World Wildlife Fund and other groups are pressuring delegates to commit to an aggregate reduction goal for developed countries of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. On the other hand, the European Union has called for an ambitious interim target of 20-30% less than 1990 levels; while President Obama has called for a 14 percent cut from 2005 levels by 2020; or a 0% reduction from 1990 levels. The recent, Committee-approved Waxman-Markey ACES bills calls for a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020.
The argument came to a head at last week's Major Economies meeting where French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo complained it was "unimaginable" that the biggest power, the United States, with carbon emissions twice that of the EU, was doing less. He said that developed countries as bigger polluters, should deepen their cuts by 25 percent to 40 percent, especially the United States."
Other issues intended for discussion under the protocol, in Bonn, are how to improve emissions trading, coverage of emissions credits, the Kyoto Protocol's so-called "project-based mechanisms" and options for the treatment of land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). John Ashe, the newly-elected Chair of AWG-KP said, "It is important that we complete some of the more solvable issues here in Bonn so that we can then focus on the more difficult ones later on in the negotiations."
The UNFCCC gathering in Bonn, Germany constitutes the second in a series of five major UN negotiating sessions this year leading up to the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen (COP 15) in December 7 to 18. The next meeting, informal consultations comprising the LCA and KP groups, will take place August 10 to 14, also in Bonn; followed by a gathering in Bangkok from September 28 to October 9; and a further gathering from November 2 to 6 in Barcelona.
Access a release from UN (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to complete details on the meetings and the negotiating text (click here). Access a release from WWF (click here). Access a background and summary report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD, click here). Access daily reporting from the Bonn meeting from IISD (click here).
Friday, May 29, 2009
Extensive R&D Necessary For Liquid Fuels From Biomass & Coal
May 20: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) indicates that liquid fuels from biomass and coal have the potential to reduce petroleum fuel use and CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the next 25 years. However, even with abundant resources in biomass and coal, substantial investments in research, development, and commercial demonstration projects will be needed to produce these alternative liquid fuels in an environmentally conscious way, and at a level that could impact U.S. dependence on imported oil.
Michael Ramage, retired executive vice president of ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co. and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "A lot of work remains to be done before these alternative fuels can make up a significant share of the U.S. transportation fuel market. Making the transition will require financial investments and technological developments. Newer, more efficient technologies and strong policy measures will be needed to drive market penetration. These fuels will not be cost competitive at current oil prices. They could be competitive with the higher oil prices we've seen in recent years, although it will take focused research, development, and policy efforts to get there."
According to the report, coal, which can be converted into gasoline or diesel, exists in sufficient reserves in the U.S. to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of coal consumption, mainly for electric power. It should not be assumed, however, that there will be enough coal mined to support the demands for both electrical power and transportation fuels. Providing coal-based liquid fuel for transportation would require significant increases in coal mining activities. The U.S. transportation sector consumes 14 million barrels of oil per day. If coal mining activities in the U.S. increase by 50 percent -- an additional 580 million tons of coal mined each year -- up to 3 million barrels of fuel per day could be produced. To achieve this, two or three new coal-to-fuel plants would need to be built each year over the next 20 years.
The report also indicates that without geologic storage of the CO2 produced in the conversion process, life-time greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based fuel would be about twice that of oil. With geologic storage, CO2 emissions would be nearly equivalent to those from oil. Coal-based fuel with CO2 emissions equivalent to petroleum-based fuels will be possible by 2020 only if geologic storage of carbon dioxide is demonstrated as safe and viable in the next five to six years. As a relatively abundant resource, coal-based fuels could be cost-competitive with gasoline at oil prices around $60 to $70 per barrel. However, if a carbon price were set, the costs of coal-based fuels could rise significantly.
According to the report, biofuels -- primarily ethanol in the short term -- should be produced from dedicated grass crops, agricultural and forestry residues, and municipal solid wastes rather than food crops such as corn grain or soybean, which can induce competition between food and fuel. The report estimates that the U.S. could produce 550 million dry tons of biomass annually by 2020. Assuming significant market penetration and construction of ethanol plants, this amount of biomass could be used to produce up to 1.6 million barrels per day of gasoline-equivalent ethanol by 2030, leading to a potential 15 percent reduction in oil use for light-duty transportation.
The net carbon impact of biomass-derived fuels can be close to zero, because biomass crops consume CO2 from the air while growing and sequester carbon in the soil, thereby offsetting the CO2 released during fuel production and combustion. If the CO2 released from the conversion process is geologically stored, then biomass-derived fuels can have negative CO2 effects, with the biomass removing more carbon from the environment than is released during the fuel’s life cycle. The costs of producing biomass-derived fuels can be higher than petroleum fuels, comparable to oil prices of approximately $100 per barrel; however, if a carbon price is set high enough, the cost of biomass-based fuels could decrease due to the potential for net negative CO2 effects.
Although a relatively new technology, several combined coal-and-biomass demonstration plants are operating in Europe. This technology could be an important part of U.S. energy strategy, as it combines the environmental benefits of biomass with the relative abundance and lower costs of coal. According to the report, if the 550 million tons of biomass estimated to be available by 2020 were combined with coal (at a 60:40 ratio of coal energy to biomass energy), 60 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent could be produced each year, which equates to approximately 45 percent of annual light-duty vehicle U.S. gasoline usage. If CO2 produced in the conversion process is geologically stored, the greenhouse gas emissions of this combined fuel over its life cycle could be close to zero.
The report says, these combined coal-and-biomass plants are not yet available in the U.S., but if geologic carbon storage is developed by 2015, the first combination plants could be built by 2020. Assuming a 20 percent growth rate in construction, by 2035 the U.S. could produce 2.5 million barrels of gasoline equivalent per day from combined coal-and-biomass sources.
The report is the first of a series of reports to be released from the National Academies' America's Energy Future project, which was undertaken to stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about the nation’s energy future. Upcoming reports are Electricity From Renewable Resources; Realistic Prospects For Energy Efficiency In The United States; and an overarching final report entitled, America's Energy Future: Technology And Transformation. The America's Energy Future project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, BP America, Dow Chemical Company Foundation, Fred Kavli and the Kavli Foundation, GE Energy, General Motors Corp., Intel Corp and endowed funds, mostly from major foundations, created to perpetually support the work of the National Research Council.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here).
Michael Ramage, retired executive vice president of ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co. and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "A lot of work remains to be done before these alternative fuels can make up a significant share of the U.S. transportation fuel market. Making the transition will require financial investments and technological developments. Newer, more efficient technologies and strong policy measures will be needed to drive market penetration. These fuels will not be cost competitive at current oil prices. They could be competitive with the higher oil prices we've seen in recent years, although it will take focused research, development, and policy efforts to get there."
According to the report, coal, which can be converted into gasoline or diesel, exists in sufficient reserves in the U.S. to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of coal consumption, mainly for electric power. It should not be assumed, however, that there will be enough coal mined to support the demands for both electrical power and transportation fuels. Providing coal-based liquid fuel for transportation would require significant increases in coal mining activities. The U.S. transportation sector consumes 14 million barrels of oil per day. If coal mining activities in the U.S. increase by 50 percent -- an additional 580 million tons of coal mined each year -- up to 3 million barrels of fuel per day could be produced. To achieve this, two or three new coal-to-fuel plants would need to be built each year over the next 20 years.
The report also indicates that without geologic storage of the CO2 produced in the conversion process, life-time greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based fuel would be about twice that of oil. With geologic storage, CO2 emissions would be nearly equivalent to those from oil. Coal-based fuel with CO2 emissions equivalent to petroleum-based fuels will be possible by 2020 only if geologic storage of carbon dioxide is demonstrated as safe and viable in the next five to six years. As a relatively abundant resource, coal-based fuels could be cost-competitive with gasoline at oil prices around $60 to $70 per barrel. However, if a carbon price were set, the costs of coal-based fuels could rise significantly.
According to the report, biofuels -- primarily ethanol in the short term -- should be produced from dedicated grass crops, agricultural and forestry residues, and municipal solid wastes rather than food crops such as corn grain or soybean, which can induce competition between food and fuel. The report estimates that the U.S. could produce 550 million dry tons of biomass annually by 2020. Assuming significant market penetration and construction of ethanol plants, this amount of biomass could be used to produce up to 1.6 million barrels per day of gasoline-equivalent ethanol by 2030, leading to a potential 15 percent reduction in oil use for light-duty transportation.
The net carbon impact of biomass-derived fuels can be close to zero, because biomass crops consume CO2 from the air while growing and sequester carbon in the soil, thereby offsetting the CO2 released during fuel production and combustion. If the CO2 released from the conversion process is geologically stored, then biomass-derived fuels can have negative CO2 effects, with the biomass removing more carbon from the environment than is released during the fuel’s life cycle. The costs of producing biomass-derived fuels can be higher than petroleum fuels, comparable to oil prices of approximately $100 per barrel; however, if a carbon price is set high enough, the cost of biomass-based fuels could decrease due to the potential for net negative CO2 effects.
Although a relatively new technology, several combined coal-and-biomass demonstration plants are operating in Europe. This technology could be an important part of U.S. energy strategy, as it combines the environmental benefits of biomass with the relative abundance and lower costs of coal. According to the report, if the 550 million tons of biomass estimated to be available by 2020 were combined with coal (at a 60:40 ratio of coal energy to biomass energy), 60 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent could be produced each year, which equates to approximately 45 percent of annual light-duty vehicle U.S. gasoline usage. If CO2 produced in the conversion process is geologically stored, the greenhouse gas emissions of this combined fuel over its life cycle could be close to zero.
The report says, these combined coal-and-biomass plants are not yet available in the U.S., but if geologic carbon storage is developed by 2015, the first combination plants could be built by 2020. Assuming a 20 percent growth rate in construction, by 2035 the U.S. could produce 2.5 million barrels of gasoline equivalent per day from combined coal-and-biomass sources.
The report is the first of a series of reports to be released from the National Academies' America's Energy Future project, which was undertaken to stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about the nation’s energy future. Upcoming reports are Electricity From Renewable Resources; Realistic Prospects For Energy Efficiency In The United States; and an overarching final report entitled, America's Energy Future: Technology And Transformation. The America's Energy Future project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, BP America, Dow Chemical Company Foundation, Fred Kavli and the Kavli Foundation, GE Energy, General Motors Corp., Intel Corp and endowed funds, mostly from major foundations, created to perpetually support the work of the National Research Council.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here).
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Parties Still At Odds Over Midterm GHG Reduction Targets
May 27: With little reporting in the U.S., the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate meeting in Paris from May 25-26, produced little progress on agreement among the 17 parties on the subject of targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction related to 1990 levels. The 17 major economies including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States; met to continue negotiations from their meeting in the U.S. April 27-28 [See WIMS 4/29/09]. The preparatory meeting was held in advance of a "leaders' meeting" of the Major Economies scheduled for La Maddalena, Italy, in July 2009. Another preparatory meeting is scheduled for June 22-23 in Mexico City.
The issue of the so-called "midterm targets" was also a point of contention at the recent meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany [See WIMS 4/9/09], which concluded with wide disparities and no agreement on interim targets for industrialized countries for the year 2020. Experts say the interim targets are critical to reversing the growth in emissions. The European Union has called for ambitious interim targets of 20-30% less than 1990 levels; Australia (minus 4-14%); Canada (+2%); Japan (+4% to – 25%); Russia (not available); and the Obama Administration has said it would reduce GHG levels to 1990 levels by 2020 or a 0% reduction from 1990 levels.
In part, the contentions come from the differences in the "base year" for measuring reductions. President Obama has called for a 14 percent cut from 2005 levels by 2020. The recent, Committee-approved Waxman-Markey ACES bills calls for a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. European countries are pushing for the U.S. to increase its target levels with greater reductions from the 1990 base year. The 1990 base year was part of the so-called Bali Agreement and is used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
According to a CRIEnglish report, "French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, host of the two-day meeting, complained it was 'unimaginable' that the biggest power, the United States, with carbon emissions twice that of the EU, was doing less than the latter. . . He said that developed countries as bigger polluters, should deepen their cuts by 25 percent to 40 percent, especially the United States."
According to the CRIEnglish report, Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change told the media the U.S. was making progress, though it could not match the efforts of the EU. He said the Obama administration had included the development of clean energy and green technology its economic revival plan.
The negotiations will continue in Bonn, Germany at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Bonn Climate Change Talks from June 1-12, 2009. UNFCCC is hosting the thirtieth sessions of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies - SBSTA [Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice] and SBI [Subsidiary Body for Implementation], sixth session of the AWG-LCA [Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action] and the eighth session of the AWG-KP [Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol].
The second round of UN Climate Change Talks in 2009 in Bonn is expected to be attended by around 3,000 participants, including government delegates, representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions. The Bonn meeting will be politically highly significant because for the first time, the full draft of the negotiating text of an effective and ambitious international climate change deal [See WIMS 5/21/09], to be clinched in December in Copenhagen, will be on the table.
The May 26, 2009, edition of the Times of London included an opinion piece from U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu highlighting President Obama's commitment to improving America's energy policy and addressing the global climate crisis. Chu said, "This week, the St James's Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium is bringing together scientists and leaders to concentrate on solving the climate challenge. This effort is an example of the growing worldwide awareness of the severity of the threat to our very way of life from a changing climate. . .
"Under Mr. Obama, America is embracing a leadership role in addressing the world's energy and climate change problems. At home, we are committed to reducing our carbon emissions by more than 80 per cent by 2050, and a key committee in the US Congress passed a Bill last week to do just that. Abroad, the United States has pledged to do its part to ensure a successful outcome when the world meets in Copenhagen later this year. . .
"Only science can give us these breakthroughs, which is why this week's Nobel Laureate Symposium is so important. Scientists must step up and do our part in this great effort. With a serious commitment to energy efficiency, widespread deployment of the technologies we have, and an aggressive investment in science, we can dramatically reduce our carbon emissions and reinvigorate our economy at the same time. That is not only our opportunity - it is our responsibility to future generations. We can and must rise to meet this challenge, and I am convinced that we will."
Access the CRIEnglish report (click here). Access a report from EurActiv (click here). Access an article from France24 (click here).Access complete information on the upcoming UNFCCC Bonn meetings (click here). Access the complete opinion piece from Secretary Chu (click here).
The issue of the so-called "midterm targets" was also a point of contention at the recent meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany [See WIMS 4/9/09], which concluded with wide disparities and no agreement on interim targets for industrialized countries for the year 2020. Experts say the interim targets are critical to reversing the growth in emissions. The European Union has called for ambitious interim targets of 20-30% less than 1990 levels; Australia (minus 4-14%); Canada (+2%); Japan (+4% to – 25%); Russia (not available); and the Obama Administration has said it would reduce GHG levels to 1990 levels by 2020 or a 0% reduction from 1990 levels.
In part, the contentions come from the differences in the "base year" for measuring reductions. President Obama has called for a 14 percent cut from 2005 levels by 2020. The recent, Committee-approved Waxman-Markey ACES bills calls for a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. European countries are pushing for the U.S. to increase its target levels with greater reductions from the 1990 base year. The 1990 base year was part of the so-called Bali Agreement and is used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
According to a CRIEnglish report, "French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, host of the two-day meeting, complained it was 'unimaginable' that the biggest power, the United States, with carbon emissions twice that of the EU, was doing less than the latter. . . He said that developed countries as bigger polluters, should deepen their cuts by 25 percent to 40 percent, especially the United States."
According to the CRIEnglish report, Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change told the media the U.S. was making progress, though it could not match the efforts of the EU. He said the Obama administration had included the development of clean energy and green technology its economic revival plan.
The negotiations will continue in Bonn, Germany at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Bonn Climate Change Talks from June 1-12, 2009. UNFCCC is hosting the thirtieth sessions of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies - SBSTA [Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice] and SBI [Subsidiary Body for Implementation], sixth session of the AWG-LCA [Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action] and the eighth session of the AWG-KP [Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol].
The second round of UN Climate Change Talks in 2009 in Bonn is expected to be attended by around 3,000 participants, including government delegates, representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions. The Bonn meeting will be politically highly significant because for the first time, the full draft of the negotiating text of an effective and ambitious international climate change deal [See WIMS 5/21/09], to be clinched in December in Copenhagen, will be on the table.
The May 26, 2009, edition of the Times of London included an opinion piece from U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu highlighting President Obama's commitment to improving America's energy policy and addressing the global climate crisis. Chu said, "This week, the St James's Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium is bringing together scientists and leaders to concentrate on solving the climate challenge. This effort is an example of the growing worldwide awareness of the severity of the threat to our very way of life from a changing climate. . .
"Under Mr. Obama, America is embracing a leadership role in addressing the world's energy and climate change problems. At home, we are committed to reducing our carbon emissions by more than 80 per cent by 2050, and a key committee in the US Congress passed a Bill last week to do just that. Abroad, the United States has pledged to do its part to ensure a successful outcome when the world meets in Copenhagen later this year. . .
"Only science can give us these breakthroughs, which is why this week's Nobel Laureate Symposium is so important. Scientists must step up and do our part in this great effort. With a serious commitment to energy efficiency, widespread deployment of the technologies we have, and an aggressive investment in science, we can dramatically reduce our carbon emissions and reinvigorate our economy at the same time. That is not only our opportunity - it is our responsibility to future generations. We can and must rise to meet this challenge, and I am convinced that we will."
Access the CRIEnglish report (click here). Access a report from EurActiv (click here). Access an article from France24 (click here).Access complete information on the upcoming UNFCCC Bonn meetings (click here). Access the complete opinion piece from Secretary Chu (click here).
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
President Announces 100th Day Recovery Act Report
May 26: President Barack Obama marked the 100th day of the Recovery Act by releasing "100 Days, 100 Projects," a report from the Vice President that highlights the progress the country has made in the first 100 days of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the work that is already being done to build a new foundation for America’s economic recovery. President Obama said, "One hundred days ago, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in half a century, we passed the most sweeping economic recovery act in history -- a plan designed to save jobs, create new ones, and put money in people’s pockets. Now, one hundred days later, we are meeting our economic challenges head-on and beginning to see early signs of progress across the country."
Among the projects in the report are two new Recovery Act investments totaling over $467 million to expand and accelerate the development and use of geothermal and solar energy throughout the country that the President announced during a visit to Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Nellis Air Force Base is home to the largest solar photovoltaic array in the United States, and 25 percent of the energy used by the 12,000 people that live and work on the base is generated by the 72,000 solar panel installation. The Recovery Act funds announced represent a substantial down payment on bringing renewable energy technology like that used at Nellis to the mass market and is expected to create thousands of jobs, particularly in the western United States.
According to the White House, the announcement is just one of the many ways the Recovery Act is jump-starting the economy today and building a new foundation for sustained economic growth in the future. "Across the country, the Recovery Act is already at work, providing essential financial relief for American families and businesses, creating and saving jobs, and spurring technology and infrastructure investments that will lay the groundwork for the new economy – and work is just getting started."
President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law on February 17, 2009. Just 100 days into the two-year economic recovery program, over $112 billion in Recovery Act funds has been obligated to stimulative programs and projects and the White House says over 150,000 jobs have been created or saved by the Recovery Act.
Access a release from the White House and link to the 100 days report and additional information on geothermal and solar energy technology (click here).
Among the projects in the report are two new Recovery Act investments totaling over $467 million to expand and accelerate the development and use of geothermal and solar energy throughout the country that the President announced during a visit to Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Nellis Air Force Base is home to the largest solar photovoltaic array in the United States, and 25 percent of the energy used by the 12,000 people that live and work on the base is generated by the 72,000 solar panel installation. The Recovery Act funds announced represent a substantial down payment on bringing renewable energy technology like that used at Nellis to the mass market and is expected to create thousands of jobs, particularly in the western United States.
According to the White House, the announcement is just one of the many ways the Recovery Act is jump-starting the economy today and building a new foundation for sustained economic growth in the future. "Across the country, the Recovery Act is already at work, providing essential financial relief for American families and businesses, creating and saving jobs, and spurring technology and infrastructure investments that will lay the groundwork for the new economy – and work is just getting started."
President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law on February 17, 2009. Just 100 days into the two-year economic recovery program, over $112 billion in Recovery Act funds has been obligated to stimulative programs and projects and the White House says over 150,000 jobs have been created or saved by the Recovery Act.
Access a release from the White House and link to the 100 days report and additional information on geothermal and solar energy technology (click here).
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
World Business Summit On Climate Change Concludes
May 26: Global business leaders assembled in Copenhagen at the at the World Business Summit on Climate Change May 24-26 2009, concluded their meeting calling for what they say is "ambitious, global action on climate change." The businesses announced that a new global climate treaty must set bold targets for emissions reductions by 2020 and 2050, limiting the global average rise in temperature to a maximum of 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. They said this requires immediate and substantial action leading to an abatement of around 17Gt versus business-as-usual by 2020 and a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases over 1990 levels by 2050.
The business leaders indicated in their recommendations, referred to as "The Copenhagen Call," that emissions reduction at this scale will profoundly affect business but the "Call" states that they stand ready to make those changes and support ambitious political decisions that support economic recovery and safeguard the planet. The "Call" forms the basis of a concise statement, which sets out the elements business believes are required for an effective new global climate treaty to be forged.
The Copenhagen Call was developed by discussion with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development; 3C; the World Economic Forum; the UN Global Compact and The Climate Group, and deliberations among participants at the Summit.The recommendations were presented to the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in advance of the COP 15 Conference in December.
Tim Flannery, an internationally acclaimed scientist, explorer, conservationist and Chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council said, "The ambition of the Copenhagen Call shows that business need not be a conservative voice on climate change. Many of the businesses represented at this significant event in the lead up to COP15 want brave decisions that will tackle this most wicked of problems." According to the Call, "Economic recovery and urgent action to tackle climate change are complementary -- boosting the economy and jobs through investment in the new infrastructure needed to reduce emissions."
Erik Rasmussen, Founder of the Copenhagen Climate Council said, "Reducing the emissions that until now have been so linked to our economic growth and betterment will be an enormous, unprecedented global challenge but will also provide significant opportunities for sustainable growth, green jobs, development and innovation."
The business leaders indicated in their recommendations, referred to as "The Copenhagen Call," that emissions reduction at this scale will profoundly affect business but the "Call" states that they stand ready to make those changes and support ambitious political decisions that support economic recovery and safeguard the planet. The "Call" forms the basis of a concise statement, which sets out the elements business believes are required for an effective new global climate treaty to be forged.
The Copenhagen Call was developed by discussion with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development; 3C; the World Economic Forum; the UN Global Compact and The Climate Group, and deliberations among participants at the Summit.The recommendations were presented to the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in advance of the COP 15 Conference in December.
Tim Flannery, an internationally acclaimed scientist, explorer, conservationist and Chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council said, "The ambition of the Copenhagen Call shows that business need not be a conservative voice on climate change. Many of the businesses represented at this significant event in the lead up to COP15 want brave decisions that will tackle this most wicked of problems." According to the Call, "Economic recovery and urgent action to tackle climate change are complementary -- boosting the economy and jobs through investment in the new infrastructure needed to reduce emissions."
Erik Rasmussen, Founder of the Copenhagen Climate Council said, "Reducing the emissions that until now have been so linked to our economic growth and betterment will be an enormous, unprecedented global challenge but will also provide significant opportunities for sustainable growth, green jobs, development and innovation."
In order to set a firm foundation for a sustainable economic future, the leaders said it is imperative that the following six steps are implemented: (1) Agreement on a science-based greenhouse gas stabilization path with 2020 and 2050 emissions reduction targets that will achieve it; (2) Effective measurement, reporting and verification of emissions performance by business; (3) Incentives for a dramatic increase in financing low emissions technologies; (4) Deployment of existing low-emissions technologies and the development of new ones; (5) Funds to make communities more resilient and able to adapt to the effects of climate change, and (6) Means to finance forest protection.
The Copenhagen Climate Council is a global collaboration between business and science founded by the leading independent think tank in Scandinavia, Monday Morning, based in Copenhagen. Major business partners include: Combat Climate Change (3C) a business leaders' initiative endorsed and actively promoted by the top executives of 65 of the world's largest corporations; and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a CEO-led, global association of some 200 companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable development.
Access a release from the Summit (click here). Access the Copenhagen Call document (click here). Access the Copenhagen Climate Council website for additional information (click here).
Friday, May 22, 2009
House Committee Approves Waxman-Markey ACES (H.R. 2454) 33 To 25
May 21: Following the marathon, 4-day markup session, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), by a vote of 33 to 25, at about 8:30 PM. In the end, 32 Democrats and 1 Republican voted for the Committee amended bill. Three Democrats voted against the bill: Mike Ross, AR; Jim Matheson, UT; and G.K. Butterfield, NC. The one Republican voting for the bill was Representative Mary Bono Mack, CA. Despite the mostly party-line vote, the Republican leadership on the bill, Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) and Fred Upton (R-MI), congratulated Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on his leadership, control and fairness in allowing the Republican minority to present and debate their amendments. The Republicans encouraged the Democrats to exercise the same leadership when the bill reaches the House Floor.
Chairman Waxman called the legislation "a comprehensive approach to America's energy policy that charts a new course towards a clean energy economy." He said, "Today the Committee took decisive and historic action to promote America's energy security and to create millions of clean energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long-term growth. This bill, when enacted into law this year, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution. I am grateful to my colleagues who supported this legislation and to President Obama for his outstanding leadership on these critical issues."
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) said, "With this plan, we will shape a new energy destiny for our country, where we innovate more and pollute less. Today we have chosen bold action to preserve good paying jobs here in America and preserve our planet. In just eight weeks, Chairman Waxman and I, working with our entire committee, have moved us farther down the path toward energy independence than our country had moved in the past eight years."
According to a release from the Committee, the 900+ page ACES, will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America's energy independence, and cut global warming pollution. The Committee indicated that the legislation has received wide support from electric utilities; energy companies; manufacturing, industry, and corporate companies; labor unions; and community and environmental organizations.
To meet these goals, the legislation has four titles: (1) A clean energy title that promotes renewable sources of energy, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission. (2) An energy efficiency title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry. (3) A global warming title that places limits on emissions of heat-trapping pollutants. The legislation would cut global warming pollution by 17% compared to 2005 levels in 2020, by 42% in 2030, and by 83% in 2050. These are science-based targets and within the range agreed to by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) -- a diverse coalition of leading businesses and environmental NGOs. (4) A title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.
A release from Ranking Member Barton indicated that, "House Democrats used political muscle and party loyalty on Thursday to ram through an anti-global warming bill that opponents caution could cost a family of four $2,937.38 a year. The action came after a marathon committee session that spent 37 hours over four days methodically rejecting 56 separate Republican efforts to learn the full cost of the bill, to prevent scams in its trading system and even get the feds out of hot tubs."
Barton said, “We have legitimate and serious concerns about the redirection of our energy policy in America, which is the foundation and bedrock of our free market economy, the most productive and the largest in the world. A third of the world’s GDP is based on the United States economy and that economy for over 150 years has been based on a free market allocation of resources in the energy sector. This bill makes fundamental changes in that basic philosophy. One estimate puts its price per family of four at $29,373.85 over 10 years. Another estimate is that it will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, and boost gasoline prices 74 percent and natural gas prices 55 percent.”
On a macro level, Barton predicted that “a cap-and-trade program will never be made to work in an economy as diverse and complex as the United States. It’s just not possible, and trying to make it work is going to cost money and jobs. How many U.S. industries do we want to bankrupt in one markup, just to achieve a temperature impact of less than one degree Fahrenheit in the next 100 years?”
Republicans offered a major alternative substitute (See link below) to the ACES bill which was defeated by a vote of 35 no, 19 for, and 2 present. Barton said, “This substitute in any other Congress would be considered very progressive and very moderate. But because it still attempts to use the market system and the price mechanism to let people make free choices on which forms of energy to use and how to use them, it is not as directive and invasive by government as the pending legislation. It does not have a cap and trade program. We do accept that it would be better for the economy if we were less carbon-intensive, so instead of a cap-and-trade mechanism that’s very complicated, we take a page out of the current the law, the Clean Air Act, and set performance standards. We set a limit on the amount of CO2. This substitute is comprehensive. It would work. It would be good law.”
In a release from USCAP, the industry-environmental coalition said, "While the current bill does not reflect every USCAP recommendation - and in some instances addresses issues not considered in the Blueprint or in more detail than the Blueprint - it is a good foundation for moving forward in the Congress. As this process unfolds, we are committed to pursuing further opportunities to make the bill even more effective and economically sustainable. In the weeks ahead, USCAP and its members will be working actively with all members of Congress in both chambers and all parties to seek common ground - and to find common sense solutions. We are committed to a path forward that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect consumers and advance new technologies that will lead the transition to a low carbon economy."
USCAP members include: Alcoa - Boston Scientific - BP America - Caterpillar - Chrysler - ConocoPhillips - Dow - Duke Energy - DuPont - Environmental Defense Fund - Exelon - Ford - FPL Group - GE - GM - John Deere - Johnson & Johnson - Natural Resources Defense Council - The Nature Conservancy - NRG Energy - PepsiCo - Pew Center on Global Climate Change - PG&E - PNM Resources - Rio Tinto - Shell - Siemens - World Resources Institute - Xerox.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement from President Jack Gerard saying, “While the bill has laudable environmental and economic goals, its inequitable system of allocations remains intact and if enacted would have a disproportionate adverse impact on consumers, businesses and producers of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, crude oil and natural gas. . . As a recent independent analysis shows, this inequitable approach, by itself, will produce additional unemployment, driving annual job destruction totals related to the legislation to more than one million. Another independent study projects job losses more than double this – up to 2.7 million net jobs lost annually, even with new green jobs created. According to one of these reports, an average family will pay an additional $1,500 a year for energy and 74 percent more for gasoline. Today, that would mean gasoline prices above $4.00 a gallon, an increase nearly equivalent to a ten-fold rise in the federal gasoline tax.”
A broad coalition of environmental and other advocacy groups indicated, "While a week of debate failed to adequately strengthen protections for consumers, communities, and the climate in this bill, it erased all doubt of who will benefit most from it: Big Business. Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, the decision-making process was co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists determined to sustain our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, even as the country stands ready to rebuild our economy and clean up the environment with real clean energy. The resulting bill reflects the triumph of politics over science, and the triumph of industry influence over the public interest. . ."
The coalition (Greenpeace, et al) includes: Greenpeace USA * Friends of the Earth * Public Citizen * Citizen Power * Center for Biological Diversity * Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana * TURN—The Utility Reform Network * Sustainable Energy & Economy Network * Green Delaware * Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance * Massachusetts Forest Watch * Coal Moratorium Now! * Rainforest Action Network * International Rivers * Energy Justice Network.
Access a release from the Committee and link to the bill, supporting documents and the 4 individual days of markup including amendments and videos (click here). Access a lengthy release from Rep. Barton (click here). Access a release on the Republican alternative and link to a summary of the substitute (click here). Access a release from USCAP with links to additional information (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace, et al (click here).
Chairman Waxman called the legislation "a comprehensive approach to America's energy policy that charts a new course towards a clean energy economy." He said, "Today the Committee took decisive and historic action to promote America's energy security and to create millions of clean energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long-term growth. This bill, when enacted into law this year, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution. I am grateful to my colleagues who supported this legislation and to President Obama for his outstanding leadership on these critical issues."
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) said, "With this plan, we will shape a new energy destiny for our country, where we innovate more and pollute less. Today we have chosen bold action to preserve good paying jobs here in America and preserve our planet. In just eight weeks, Chairman Waxman and I, working with our entire committee, have moved us farther down the path toward energy independence than our country had moved in the past eight years."
According to a release from the Committee, the 900+ page ACES, will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America's energy independence, and cut global warming pollution. The Committee indicated that the legislation has received wide support from electric utilities; energy companies; manufacturing, industry, and corporate companies; labor unions; and community and environmental organizations.
To meet these goals, the legislation has four titles: (1) A clean energy title that promotes renewable sources of energy, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission. (2) An energy efficiency title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry. (3) A global warming title that places limits on emissions of heat-trapping pollutants. The legislation would cut global warming pollution by 17% compared to 2005 levels in 2020, by 42% in 2030, and by 83% in 2050. These are science-based targets and within the range agreed to by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) -- a diverse coalition of leading businesses and environmental NGOs. (4) A title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.
A release from Ranking Member Barton indicated that, "House Democrats used political muscle and party loyalty on Thursday to ram through an anti-global warming bill that opponents caution could cost a family of four $2,937.38 a year. The action came after a marathon committee session that spent 37 hours over four days methodically rejecting 56 separate Republican efforts to learn the full cost of the bill, to prevent scams in its trading system and even get the feds out of hot tubs."
Barton said, “We have legitimate and serious concerns about the redirection of our energy policy in America, which is the foundation and bedrock of our free market economy, the most productive and the largest in the world. A third of the world’s GDP is based on the United States economy and that economy for over 150 years has been based on a free market allocation of resources in the energy sector. This bill makes fundamental changes in that basic philosophy. One estimate puts its price per family of four at $29,373.85 over 10 years. Another estimate is that it will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, and boost gasoline prices 74 percent and natural gas prices 55 percent.”
On a macro level, Barton predicted that “a cap-and-trade program will never be made to work in an economy as diverse and complex as the United States. It’s just not possible, and trying to make it work is going to cost money and jobs. How many U.S. industries do we want to bankrupt in one markup, just to achieve a temperature impact of less than one degree Fahrenheit in the next 100 years?”
Republicans offered a major alternative substitute (See link below) to the ACES bill which was defeated by a vote of 35 no, 19 for, and 2 present. Barton said, “This substitute in any other Congress would be considered very progressive and very moderate. But because it still attempts to use the market system and the price mechanism to let people make free choices on which forms of energy to use and how to use them, it is not as directive and invasive by government as the pending legislation. It does not have a cap and trade program. We do accept that it would be better for the economy if we were less carbon-intensive, so instead of a cap-and-trade mechanism that’s very complicated, we take a page out of the current the law, the Clean Air Act, and set performance standards. We set a limit on the amount of CO2. This substitute is comprehensive. It would work. It would be good law.”
In a release from USCAP, the industry-environmental coalition said, "While the current bill does not reflect every USCAP recommendation - and in some instances addresses issues not considered in the Blueprint or in more detail than the Blueprint - it is a good foundation for moving forward in the Congress. As this process unfolds, we are committed to pursuing further opportunities to make the bill even more effective and economically sustainable. In the weeks ahead, USCAP and its members will be working actively with all members of Congress in both chambers and all parties to seek common ground - and to find common sense solutions. We are committed to a path forward that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect consumers and advance new technologies that will lead the transition to a low carbon economy."
USCAP members include: Alcoa - Boston Scientific - BP America - Caterpillar - Chrysler - ConocoPhillips - Dow - Duke Energy - DuPont - Environmental Defense Fund - Exelon - Ford - FPL Group - GE - GM - John Deere - Johnson & Johnson - Natural Resources Defense Council - The Nature Conservancy - NRG Energy - PepsiCo - Pew Center on Global Climate Change - PG&E - PNM Resources - Rio Tinto - Shell - Siemens - World Resources Institute - Xerox.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement from President Jack Gerard saying, “While the bill has laudable environmental and economic goals, its inequitable system of allocations remains intact and if enacted would have a disproportionate adverse impact on consumers, businesses and producers of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, crude oil and natural gas. . . As a recent independent analysis shows, this inequitable approach, by itself, will produce additional unemployment, driving annual job destruction totals related to the legislation to more than one million. Another independent study projects job losses more than double this – up to 2.7 million net jobs lost annually, even with new green jobs created. According to one of these reports, an average family will pay an additional $1,500 a year for energy and 74 percent more for gasoline. Today, that would mean gasoline prices above $4.00 a gallon, an increase nearly equivalent to a ten-fold rise in the federal gasoline tax.”
A broad coalition of environmental and other advocacy groups indicated, "While a week of debate failed to adequately strengthen protections for consumers, communities, and the climate in this bill, it erased all doubt of who will benefit most from it: Big Business. Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, the decision-making process was co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists determined to sustain our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, even as the country stands ready to rebuild our economy and clean up the environment with real clean energy. The resulting bill reflects the triumph of politics over science, and the triumph of industry influence over the public interest. . ."
The coalition (Greenpeace, et al) includes: Greenpeace USA * Friends of the Earth * Public Citizen * Citizen Power * Center for Biological Diversity * Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana * TURN—The Utility Reform Network * Sustainable Energy & Economy Network * Green Delaware * Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance * Massachusetts Forest Watch * Coal Moratorium Now! * Rainforest Action Network * International Rivers * Energy Justice Network.
Access a release from the Committee and link to the bill, supporting documents and the 4 individual days of markup including amendments and videos (click here). Access a lengthy release from Rep. Barton (click here). Access a release on the Republican alternative and link to a summary of the substitute (click here). Access a release from USCAP with links to additional information (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace, et al (click here).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
