3 Dems Support Murkowski Resolution To Block EPA GHG Regs

Jan 21: U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), introduced a bipartisan disapproval resolution to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski’s resolution -- co-sponsored by 35 Republicans and three Democrats -- comes in the wake of the EPA’s recent endangerment finding, which will result in damaging new regulations that endanger America’s economy. Murkowski announced her intention to file the disapproval resolution on December 14, 2009 [See WIMS 12/15/10], in the wake of the EPA's endangerment finding which was officially published in the Federal Register [74 FR 66495-66546, 12/15/09]. The endangerment finding was announced by EPA on December 7 [See WIMS 12/8/09]. On the actual introduction, she said, “As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions blamed for climate change.”

Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a strong proponent of moving the nation toward a cleaner energy future, said the disapproval resolution is necessary to avoid the “economic train wreck” that would result from the EPA regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. She said, “Our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important question: whether or not members of this body are comfortable with the actions EPA will take under its current interpretation of the Clean Air Act. I’m not comfortable with those actions, and neither are the senators who have already agreed to add their names to this effort. The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases, and its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives. We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to impose back-door climate regulations with no input from Congress.”

Murkowski said EPA regulation could force businesses being to cut jobs or close their doors for good; severely restrict domestic energy production, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security; make Housing less affordable; and consumer goods more expensive. Murkowski commented saying, “If you truly believe that EPA climate regulations are good for the country, then vote to oppose our resolution. But if you share our concerns, and believe that climate policy should be debated in Congress, then vote with us to support it.”

Murkowski filed her disapproval resolution pursuant to the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). If the committee does not favorably report the resolution, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster and only needs a majority to pass. However, the resolution would have to be approved in the House which is unlikely.

On January 11, 2010, all of the Members of the Democratic Caucus on the EPW Committee announced they had joined together to oppose the proposal by Senator Murkowski to overturn U.S. EPA's global warming endangerment finding. They issued a "Dear Colleague" letter urging Members to oppose the proposal [See WIMS 1/12/10]. However, Senator Murkowski has enough Senate votes to discharge the resolution from the EPW Committee. Complicating the issue for Democrats in the Senate, is the fact that three of their own ranks have cosponsored the resolutions -- i.e. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

On the House side, Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota announced the introduction of H.R. 4396, the Save Our Energy Jobs Act, which he said would prohibit U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases [See WIMS 1/11/10]. In a release he indicated, "This action, if not prevented, could dramatically increase energy rates as well as end up costing North Dakota jobs."

Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the 7-page, full text of the Sen. Murkowski's floor speech on the disapproval resolution (click here). Access legislative details for S. Joint Resolution 26 (click here).

House Hearing On ExxonMobil-XTO Merger

Jan 20: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) held a hearing regarding, "The ExxonMobil-XTO Merger: Impacts on U.S. Energy Market." Chairman Markey commented in his opening statement that, "Last month, ExxonMobil announced a $41 billion merger with XTO Energy, one of the country’s largest natural gas producers and a pioneer in the production of natural gas trapped in shale rock formations and other unconventional sources. The combined entity will be, by far, the country’s largest natural gas producer and largest holder of natural gas reserves.”


Markey said, ". . .when America’s biggest company [worth $328 billion with $45 billion in annual profits] makes a big move in the energy sector, policy makers need to listen and understand what it means. That is why I have called today’s hearing. This merger heralds a fundamental long-term shift in U.S. energy markets, and one that deserves our close attention.” Markey pointed out that, “Over the last decade, a small group of companies that most Americans have never heard of has been developing huge deposits of natural gas in deep shale formations across America. Long believed uneconomic to produce, these reserves are now being tapped thanks to a revolution in technology. Using a technique called hydraulic fracturing, companies are now able to extract the natural gas that is locked within shales and other rock formations deep under the Earth’s surface. This involves drilling into these formations and breaking them up by injecting a high-pressure stream of fluid, composed mostly of water and sand, making extraction of the gas easier. Horizontal drilling also plays a key role in making these reserves economical to produce. . .

"The brightening outlook for domestic natural gas supplies changes the backdrop against which we consider energy policy here in Congress. Natural gas will play a critical role as a “bridge fuel” – a lower-carbon alternative to coal and oil that helps America transition from a high-carbon past to a clean energy future. An abundant domestic supply of natural gas – together with robust investment in efficiency and renewables -- can help make crossing that bridge faster and less costly. Natural gas can only play this role if it is produced in a safe and sustainable way. Congress recently urged EPA to study the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water sources. The results of that study will help to guide policy to ensure adequate protection of public health and the environment.”

At the hearing, Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil Corporation commented on hydraulic fracturing in his testimony and referred to it as, "time-tested." He said, "With recent advances in extended reach horizontal drilling, combined with the time-tested technology of hydraulic fracturing -- a process in use for more than 60 years -- we can now find and produce unconventional natural gas supplies miles below the surface in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible manner."

The American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Jack Gerard issued a statement following the discussion during the hearing where there was discussion about the need for federal regulation of the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Gerard said, “As Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said just last week, hydraulic fracturing is safe and lawmakers should be cautious in their efforts to restrict it. Hydraulic fracturing is a proven technology that has been used safely in this country for 60 years. It is crucial in the development of clean-burning natural gas needed to heat and cool homes, generate electricity, and create basic materials for fertilizers and plastics. More than one million wells have been completed in the United States using this technology, helping to produce more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Unnecessary additional regulation of this practice would only kill jobs, threaten our economy and hamper our nation’s energy security. Studies estimate up to 80 percent of natural gas wells drilled in the next decade will require hydraulic fracturing.”

As previously reported [See WIMS 1/20/10], on January 20, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a highly critical report on hydraulic fracturing and the process, known as “fracking.” In their report entitled, Drilling Around the Law, EWG charges that companies drilling for natural gas and oil are "skirting federal law and injecting toxic petroleum distillates into thousands of wells, threatening drinking water supplies from New York to Wyoming." EWG said, "the petroleum distillates used in a single well could contain enough benzene to contaminate more than 100 billion gallons of drinking water to unsafe levels. . ."

Access the hearing website for links to the testimony and a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Chairman Markey (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access an executive summary and link to the complete 24-page EWG report (click here).

UNFCCC Press Briefing On Future Climate Negotiations

Jan 20: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer provided a press briefing discussing the outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen [See WIMS 1/5/10] and outlining the way forward for the UN climate change process in 2010. De Boer opened the briefing saying, "It is fair to say that Copenhagen did not produce the full agreement the world needs to address the collective climate challenge. That only makes the task more urgent. The window of opportunity to come grips with the issue is closing at the same rate as before."

He indicated that although COP15 wasn't a full success, it produced three key outcomes: First, it raised climate change to the highest level of government, which ultimately is the only level at which it can be resolved; Second, the Copenhagen Accord reflects a political consensus on the long-term, global response to climate change; and Third, negotiations away from the cameras brought an almost full set of decisions to implement rapid climate action near to completion. He said, "Governments need time to digest what happened but cool heads already see these outcomes as a way forward to grasp a bigger, collective goal. You can say that although Copenhagen didn't produce the final cake, it left countries with the right ingredients to bake a new one in Mexico."

He said the Copenhagen Accord was crafted by a group of countries, including "the biggest, smallest, richest and poorest." He said it represents a political letter of intent that offers to reduce national emissions and sets a global temperature rise limit of two degrees centigrade. It defines amounts of short and long-term finance to implement climate change action in developing nations. And it sets a 2015 review year to check if global action by then needs to be more urgent to meet the challenge. He said, "The Accord language is anchored in the Framework Climate Change Convention and many countries are telling me it should be used now to reinvigorate the formal climate change negotiations under the UN and make further progress."

De Boer said, "A great success before Copenhagen was that many countries pledged mid-term reductions in emissions and the world can expect them to honor those pledges. Now, they have the opportunity to record those pledges in the Accord. Also at Copenhagen, negotiators came close to decisions on a set of measures which would make a long-term global response to climate change operational. We're now in a cooling off period that gives useful and needed time for countries to resume their discussions with each other.

"Copenhagen set out to deliver an agreement on four essential areas: medium-term emission cuts by industrialized countries; action by developing countries to limit the growth of their emissions; finance to implement action; and an equitable governance of the climate regime. Those issues remain as relevant as they were before Copenhagen. If countries follow up Copenhagen's outcomes calmly, with eyes firmly fixed on the advantage of collective action, they have every chance of completing the job."

On January 18, UNFCCC issued a notice to the parties regarding the submission of specific technical information following as generally agreed to in the Copenhagen Accord. The notice indicates, "I would invite those Parties that wish to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord to transmit this information to the secretariat by 31 January 2010. . .Additionally the secretariat will maintain and update on its website a list of Parties that have communicated their intention to associate themselves with the Accord. . ." Included among the information is the information on "quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 in the format given in Appendix I of the Accord" and "mitigation actions in the format given in Appendix II."

Access the speaking notes from press briefing (click here). Access a webcast of the press briefing (click here). Access the notice to parties regarding submitting information (click here). Access all decisions adopted by the Conference, as well as the Copenhagen Accord (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for more information (click here).

75 Groups Call For Ban On Antimicrobial Pesticide Triclosan

Jan 15: Over 75 environmental and health groups, lead by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch, petitioned U.S. EPA to ban the use of the widely used antimicrobial pesticide triclosan. Triclosan is linked to endocrine disruption, cancer and antibiotic resistance and found in 75% of people tested in government biomonitoring studies. The groups requested that EPA must act to stop the use of a chemical now commonly found in soaps, toothpaste, deodorants, cosmetics, clothing, and plastic, with a nearly $1 billion market and growing. In their petition, the groups cite numerous statutes under which they believe the government must act to stop non-medical uses of triclosan, including laws regulating pesticide registration, use and residues, clean and safe drinking water, and endangered species.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides said, “Given its widespread environmental contamination and public health risk, EPA has a responsibility to ban household triclosan use in a marketplace where safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria." Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch said, “Scientific studies indicate that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems. EPA needs to ban its use in non-medical settings and stop allowing companies that market triclosan to exploit consumer fears regarding bacterial-borne illnesses.”

Regulated by both EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), triclosan is commonly found in hand soaps, toothpastes, deodorants, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, facial tissues, antiseptics, fabrics, toys, and medical devices. The petition to EPA seeks expedited action by the agency to ban household triclosan use, challenging serious deficiencies in EPA’s September 2008 reregistration of triclosan and its failure to comply with environmental statutes.

Access a lengthy release from Beyond Pesticides with links to additional information (click here). Access the petition to EPA (click here). Access the Environmental Working Group website on Triclosan (click here).

Major Shift In DHHS & FDA Advice On Bisphenol A (BPA)

Jan 15: In a letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) President Ken Cook questions why FDA has remained silent when other Federal public health and environmental agencies have targeted the plastics ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) as a chemical of concern to human health [See WIMS 6/10/08].

Cook wrote, “Other federal agencies have singled out BPA as a major focus of research and potential regulation. In December, the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences launched a $14 million research initiative in hopes of filling in the research gaps about the human health risk of BPA. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified BPA as a possible human health threat and priority for risk assessment. Yet the FDA has remained silent. How much more does the FDA need to know to be convinced it must protect the national food supply from further contamination? We urge you to act now to prohibit the use of BPA in food and food containers.”

In a release, EWG notes that Cook’s letter to Hamburg came only days after British scientists reported finding that Americans with high concentrations of BPA in their urine were more likely to report having heart disease or diabetes than people with lower BPA measurements. EWG indicates that authoritative studies by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that nearly all Americans test positive for traces of BPA. An EWG study released late last year detected BPA in the umbilical cord blood of 9 of 10 infants born in 2007 and 2008. Cook wrote to Hamburg, “We cannot quantify the cost to our society, in terms of medical bills, lost productivity and troubled lives. But we are sure of this: the price, whatever it is, is too high, and it is unnecessary.”

In major breaking news the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and FDA announced today (January 15) that it has "some concern" about BPA and will undertake new research. In a posting entitled, "Bisphenol A (BPA) Information for Parents" on the DHHS website it was indicated, ". . .recent studies have reported subtle effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals. While BPA is not proven to harm children or adults, these newer studies have led federal health officials to express some concern about the safety of BPA. It is clear that the government and scientists and doctors need more research to better understand the potential human health effects of exposure to BPA, especially when it comes to the impact of BPA exposure on young children.

"The Department of Health and Human Services -- through its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -- is investing in important new health studies in both animals and humans to better determine and evaluate the potential health effects of BPA exposure, including $30 million in studies at NIH. We expect to have the results of this scientific research in approximately 18 to 24 months. While we learn more, the Food and Drug Administration is supporting current efforts by industry to stop the manufacture of infant bottles and feeding cups made with BPA from the U.S. market. The FDA is also seeking to strengthen its oversight of BPA so the agency can respond quickly, if necessary, when more scientific evidence becomes available."

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, issued a brief statement saying, "The announcement today by the Obama Administration regarding BPA is a very positive step that sets us back on a path of science-based decision-making. I am pleased that the Administration is taking the steps necessary to ensure that the public health is protected. We need to do a more effective job of preventing harmful chemicals from entering the marketplace, and for this reason, I look forward to considering reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act in the coming months."

Environmental Health News (EHN) reported that, "FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said that her agency has embraced the conclusion of the National Toxicology Program, which announced two years ago after a review of the science that there is “some concern” about developmental and reproductive problems in children exposed to BPA." EHN said the announcement is "a major shift for the agency because two years ago it concluded that BPA was safe. The FDA at that time agreed with the plastics industry, which maintained that the animal studies were flawed and that there was no evidence that human babies were in danger."

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement in reaction to the Health and Human Services (HHS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announcement on BPA and said, “The HHS statement today confirms that exposure to BPA in food contact products has not been proven harmful to children or adults. However, the agency suggests that more research needs to be done and provided guidance on how parents can choose to limit infant exposures. . .

“ACC and our members are committed to the safety of our products, and we will continue to support laws and regulations that protect consumer safety. While ACC recognizes that HHS and FDA are attempting to address public confusion about BPA, we are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well-founded. Plastics made with BPA contribute safety and convenience to our daily lives because of their durability, clarity and shatter-resistance. Can liners and food-storage containers made with BPA are essential components to helping protect the safety of packaged foods and preserving products from spoilage and contamination. ACC remains committed to consumer safety, and will continue to review new scientific studies concerning the safety of BPA.”

Access a release from EWG including the complete letter and an attachment with further details (click here). Access the posting from DHHS with links to additional information (click here). Access the FDA website on BPA research and today's update (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the article from Environmental Health News (click here). Access the statement and links to more information from ACC (click here).

CBD Petitions To Regulate Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

Jan 11: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitioned the U.S. EPA to establish water-quality criteria for numerous endocrine-disrupting chemicals under the Clean Water Act. CBD said this is "the first step in regulating and eliminating persistent and widespread chemicals that damage reproductive functions in wildlife and humans." Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with CBD said, “Our drinking water and aquatic habitat for wildlife is being increasingly and unnecessarily contaminated by endocrine disruptors such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. We should be very concerned when we see chemically castrated frogs and frankenfish resulting from these chemicals -- it’s time to get these poisons out of our waterways and ecosystems.”

CBD indicated that endocrine disruptors are chemicals that alter the structure or function of the body’s endocrine system, which uses hormones to regulate growth, metabolism, and tissue function. Endocrine disruptors can mimic naturally occurring hormones like estrogens and androgens, causing overstimulation, and can interfere with natural hormone functions, thereby compromising normal reproduction, development, and growth. They have been shown to damage reproductive functions and offspring, and cause developmental, neurological, and immune problems in wildlife and humans.

Miller said, “As we start looking at this problem, we’re seeing disturbing hormonal responses in fish and wildlife from pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and personal-care products that are contaminating aquatic ecosystems,” said Miller. “The impacts of endocrine disruptors on aquatic wildlife are our canary in the coal mine, since these contaminated waters are often our drinking-water supply. The implications for human health are not good.”

A wide variety of substances, including pharmaceuticals, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT and other pesticides, solvents, and plasticizers can cause endocrine disruption. Pesticides have long been present in our environment, and now additional endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in cosmetics, detergents, deodorants, antibiotics, antihistamines, oral contraceptives, veterinary and illicit drugs, analgesics, sunscreen, insect repellant, synthetic musks, disinfectants, surfactants, plasticides, and caffeine are being introduced to ecosystems and waterways.

CBD notes that U.S. EPA currently regulates some, but not all, of the endocrine disruptors in the petition. They said for those it does regulate, standards are not stringent enough to protect against endocrine-disrupting harm. It is now known that infinitesimally small levels of exposure may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, and current regulatory levels are insufficient to protect against water quality impairment. Miller said, “There is currently a regulatory void for controlling endocrine disruptors, and our petition aims to start the process of protecting human health and wildlife from these dangerous chemicals. We call on the Environmental Protection Agency and states to adopt sensible criteria for endocrine disruptors that will completely eliminate or dramatically reduce the ‘acceptable’ levels of these pollutants in waterways.”

On December 3, 2009, legislation was introduced in the House and Senate by Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to explore linkages between endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment and everyday goods and the dramatic increase of autism, hyperactivity, diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, prostate cancer and other hormone related disorders. The Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009 [H.R. 4190, S. 2828] would facilitate the research necessary to determine whether these chemicals are affecting human health. Specifically, the act would authorize an ambitious new research program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to identify EDCs and establish an independent panel of scientists to oversee research and develop a prioritized list of chemicals for investigation. If the panel determined that a chemical presented even a minimal level of concern, it would compel the federal agencies with established regulatory authority to report to Congress and propose next steps within six months.

Access a release from CBD and links to the petition and background information (click here). Access a release from Representative Moran and Senator Kerry (click here). Access additional information from the organization Beyond Pesticides (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2828 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4190 (click here).

EPA Administrator Reviews 1st Year; Outlines Key Themes

Jan 12: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has released a memo to EPA employees assessing her first year as Administrator and the Agency's progress on key issues. She said the first year had been "a deeply fulfilling 12 months and a wonderful homecoming for me." She said the Agency has made "enormous strides" on all five major issues she outlined a year ago. She said, "we have strengthened our focus and expanded the list of priorities." The memo provides a listing of seven key themes to focus the work of the Agency. The following is verbatim listing.

Taking Action on Climate Change: 2009 saw historic progress in the fight against climate change, with a range of greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. We must continue this critical effort and ensure compliance with the law. We will continue to support the President and Congress in enacting clean energy and climate legislation. Using the Clean Air Act, we will finalize our mobile source rules and provide a framework for continued improvements in that sector. We will build on the success of Energy Star to expand cost-saving energy conservation and efficiency programs. And, we will continue to develop common-sense solutions for reducing GHG emissions from large stationary sources like power plants. In all of this, we must also recognize that climate change will affect other parts of our core mission, such as protecting air and water quality, and we must include those considerations in our future plans.

Improving Air Quality: American communities face serious health and environmental challenges from air pollution. We have already proposed stronger ambient air quality standards for ozone, which will help millions of American breathe easier and live healthier. Building on that, EPA will develop a comprehensive strategy for a cleaner and more efficient power sector, with strong but achievable emission reduction goals for SO2, NOx, mercury and other air toxics. We will strengthen our ambient air quality standards for pollutants such as PM, SO2 and NO2 and will achieve additional reductions in air toxics from a range of industrial facilities. Improved monitoring, permitting and enforcement will be critical building blocks for air quality improvement.

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals: One of my highest priorities is to make significant and long overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies. Last year I announced principles for modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act. Separately, we are shifting EPA’s focus to address high-concern chemicals and filling data gaps on widely produced chemicals in commerce. At the end of 2009, we released our first-ever chemical management plans for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipeline for 2010. Using our streamlined Integrated Risk Information System, we will continue strong progress toward rigorous, peer-reviewed health assessments on dioxins, arsenic, formaldehyde, TCE and other substances of concern.

Cleaning Up Our Communities: In 2009 EPA made strong cleanup progress by accelerating our Superfund program and confronting significant local environmental challenges like the asbestos Public Health Emergency in Libby, Montana and the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Using all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement and compliance efforts, we will continue to focus on making safer, healthier communities. I am committed to maximizing the potential of our brownfields program, particularly to spur environmental cleanup and job creation in disadvantaged communities. We are also developing enhanced strategies for risk reduction in our Superfund program, with stronger partnerships with stakeholders affected by our cleanups.

Protecting America’s Waters: America’s waterbodies are imperiled as never before. Water quality and enforcement programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff, to invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies. We will continue comprehensive watershed protection programs for the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. We will initiate measures to address post-construction runoff, water quality impairment from surface mining, and stronger drinking water protection. Recovery Act funding will expand construction of water infrastructure, and we will work with states to develop nutrient limits and launch an Urban Waters initiative. We will also revamp enforcement strategies to achieve greater compliance across the board.

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice: We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making. We are building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and towns, young people and others, but this is just a start. We must include environmental justice principles in all of our decisions. This is an area that calls for innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs. The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is a top priority, especially with regard to children. Our revitalized Children’s Health Office is bringing a new energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts. We will ensure that children’s health protection continues to guide the path forward.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships: States and tribal nations bear important responsibilities for the day-to-day mission of environmental protection, but declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring state agencies and tribal governments to do more with fewer resources. Strong partnerships and accountability are more important than ever. EPA must do its part to support state and tribal capacity and, through strengthened oversight, ensure that programs are consistently delivered nationwide. Where appropriate, we will use our own expertise and capacity to bolster state and tribal efforts.

Access the complete memo and links to several audio clips on various topics (click here).

EPW Dems United In Opposition To Murkowski Amendment

Jan 11: All of the Members of the Democratic Caucus on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee have joined together to oppose a proposal by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to overturn U.S. EPA's global warming endangerment finding. A January 11, 2009 "Dear Colleague" letter urging Members to oppose the proposal was signed by all twelve of the Majority Members of the Committee: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA).

The letter indicates, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and public welfare. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions were covered under the Clean Air Act and the EPA had a duty to determine whether the endangerment finding was warranted by the science. A "Resolution of Disapproval" using expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act or other similar amendment is expected to be introduced in the Senate to overturn EPA's global warming endangerment finding.

"Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, but repealing an endangerment finding based upon years of work by America's scientists and public health experts is not appropriate. The independent work of scientists and public health experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations should stand on its own. We strongly urge you to vote "no" when a Resolution of Disapproval or a similar amendment comes before the Senate."

On December 14, 2009 Senator Murkowski announced her intention to file a "disapproval resolution" to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 12/15/09]. Murkowski’s resolution comes in the wake of the agency’s recent endangerment finding, which she said will result in "damaging new regulations that endanger America’s economy." The Senator's announced disapproval came one day before EPA's endangerment finding was officially published in the Federal Register [74 FR 66495-66546, 12/15/09]. The endangerment finding was announced by EPA on December 7 [See WIMS 12/8/09].

A Washington Post (WP), January 11 article reported that Senator Murkowski "is likely to postpone offering an amendment next week that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. . ." The issue was scheduled to be considered in the Senate on January 20. The WP article discusses the activities of two industrial lobbyist who worked with Murkowski's staff in drafting an amendment. The legislative maneuvering is complicated by the disapproval resolution procedures of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) which allow the resolution to be placed on the Senate calendar, where it is given expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.

Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director issued a statement commenting on the WP article and said, "We now have proof that lobbyists for Big Oil, dirty coal and other special interests are directly involved in recent attempts to bail out big polluters and gut the Clean Air Act. What's more, these big polluter lobbyists are the same former Bush administration officials who completely disregarded the Clean Air Act and even disobeyed the Supreme Court for years. While Big Oil, dirty coal, and other polluters were busy trying to craft backroom deals with their allies in Congress, last month more than 400,000 Americans voiced their support for President Obama's plans to use the Clean Air Act to fight global warming. Instead of bailing out big polluters, it's time for Congress to get serious about passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. Clean energy and climate legislation can deliver less pollution, more jobs, and greater security."

On January 6, the nonprofit organization, 1Sky issued a statement announcing a national call-in day to Senators' home offices on January 12, to oppose the amendment being proposed by Senator Murkowski [See WIMS 1/6/10].

Access an announcement and the letter from EPW Democrats (click here). Access the WP article with further details and links to the Murkowski amendment (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access a 1Sky blog posting on the momentum for climate change legislation with links to related information (click here).

North Dakota Democrat Introduces Bill To Prevent EPA GHG Regs

Jan 8: Signaling additional controversy and complications for the Obama Administration in attempting to deal with climate change, regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and implement the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120), Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota announced the introduction of H.R. 4396, the Save Our Energy Jobs Act, which he said would prohibit U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. He said the legislation has been introduced in response to a recent EPA announcement that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. In a release he indicated, "This action, if not prevented, could dramatically increase energy rates as well as end up costing North Dakota jobs." The Administration already faces nearly unanimous opposition from House and Senate Republicans on the issue and the Senate will soon consider a "disapproval resolution" proposed by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 12/15/09 & 1/6/10].

Representative Pomeroy said, "Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act is irresponsible and just plain wrong. That is why I introduced the Save Our Energy Jobs Act which would stop the EPA from moving forward with its proposal. I am not about to let some Washington bureaucrat dictate new public policy that will raise our electricity rates and put at risk the thousands of coal-related jobs in our state." There were no cosponsors to the bill which was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA).

On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions should they find these emissions to be harmful to public health and welfare. Subsequent to this new authority, on December 7, 2009, the EPA released a final endangerment finding that greenhouse gas emissions do endanger both public health and welfare [See WIMS 12/8/09]. Making this determination was necessary to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which have been proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration. Once this EPA rule becomes final, greenhouse gases will officially be regulated pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Representative Pomeroy indicated, "This action would then subject stationary sources which emit greenhouse gas emissions, such as power plants and factories like those managed by North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives, Basin Electric and Minnkota Power, to regulation under the Clean Air Act."

In anticipation of this outcome, EPA has announced a proposed rule requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions [See WIMS 10/1/09]. Representative Pomeroy indicated, "These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and would cover all of North Dakota’s seven coal fired power plants, the Tesoro oil refinery in Mandan and other industries across the state. However, current control technologies and measures are either unproven or incredibly expensive and could in effect, make new coal facilities impossible to build."

Included in the Representative's release was a comment from the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives Executive Vice President and General Manager Dennis Hill who said, "Rep. Pomeroy’s bill supports our position that Congress should be in charge of setting the policy on climate change legislation. We’ve been working with our Congressional delegation to adopt provisions in a comprehensive climate change bill that achieve carbon reductions at a pace that’s fair, affordable and achievable. We believe any climate legislation should make clear that Congress, not the EPA, sets the policy on carbon." Representative Pomeroy indicated, "This action could result in significantly raising local energy prices and endanger the 28,000 direct and indirect jobs that are connected to North Dakota’s coal industry, not to mention thousands of jobs connected to our manufacturing and expanding oil and gas industries."

Access a release from Representative Pomeroy (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4396 (click here).

RFA Charges "Orchestrated Campaign" Against Biofuels

Jan 6: The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, issued a press release on a recent “policy paper” from Houston-based Rice University and sponsored by Chevron which they say seeks to continue the "orchestrated campaign to limit, and ultimately eliminate, the use of biofuels to displace foreign oil." RFA said that in its commentary, researchers from Rice "rely upon out-of-date information and questionable assumptions to denigrate Congress, farmers, and ethanol producers for their support of domestically-based renewable fuels."

The Paper issued by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy says, "The United States needs to fundamentally rethink its policy of promoting ethanol to diversify its energy sources and increase energy security." The paper, Fundamentals of a Sustainable U.S. Biofuels Policy, "questions the economic, environmental and logistical basis for the billions of dollars in federal subsidies and protectionist tariffs that go to domestic ethanol producers every year." Amy Myers Jaffe, one of the report's authors and associate director of the Rice Energy Program said, "We need to set realistic targets for ethanol in the United States instead of just throwing taxpayer money out the window."

As an example of the unintended economic consequences of U.S. biofuels policy, the Rice report notes that in 2008 "the U.S. government spent $4 billion in biofuels subsidies to replace roughly 2 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply. The average cost to the taxpayer of those 'substituted' barrels of gasoline was roughly $82 a barrel, or $1.95 per gallon on top of the retail gasoline price (i.e., what consumers pay at the pump)." The report questions whether mandated volumes for biofuels can be met and whether biofuels are improving the environment or energy security.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that mandated production targets for "renewable fuels," mainly biodiesel and ethanol. The bill mandated production targets of 9 billion gallons of biofuels a year in 2008 and rising to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Corn ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons a year in the law, but the study indicates "even that level will be difficult to reach given logistical and commercial barriers." The EISA also calls for 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, produced from sources like switchgrass, corn stover and algae, to be used in the nation’s fuel supply by 2022. But the report determines, "existing mandated targets for advanced biofuels are not currently achievable -- scientifically or commercially -- and should be revisited."

RFA Director of Public Affairs Matt Hartwig said, “Not surprisingly, this oil industry-sponsored analysis relies on myths, generalities, half-truths to dismiss ethanol while providing no comparison to our increasingly dangerous and costly addiction to oil. A debate about the appropriate role of biofuels is valid and should occur, but not without proper context and based upon last century’s assumptions.”

RFA indicates that the Rice paper makes a number of misleading statements and assumptions, including: (1) The paper assumes 44% of the 2007 corn crop will be needed to meet the 15 billion gallons of ethanol called for in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It does not account for the 1/3 of each bushel that is returned to the feed market in the form of distillers’ grains, nor does it give credence to increased yields. Despite difficult planting and harvesting conditions, American farmers achieved record yields in 2009.

(2) The paper states, “The preponderance of evidence shows that existing biofuels offer no improvement over gasoline…” when it comes to carbon emissions. Every credible lifecycle analysis directly comparing ethanol to gasoline shows a carbon benefit to ethanol use, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of a 61% benefit. Only when the unproven and controversial notion of international indirect land use change (ILUC) is applied to ethanol and not to gasoline do the carbon benefits of ethanol suffer.

(3) The paper assumes additional land, including marginal acres, will be needed to fulfill the RFS mandates. This is not necessarily true. Based upon yield trends, corn production on roughly the same amount of acres being cultivated will be sufficient to meet the corn-based ethanol demands of the RFS. New feedstocks, such as crop residues, wood waste, and grasses, will also be used and will require no additional acres.

(4) The paper criticizes the secondary tariff on imports of ethanol, but provides no context. The secondary tariff exists to offset the tax credit available to imports of ethanol. The tariff does not restrict trade, as evidenced by the import of ethanol when needed, but rather protects American taxpayers. Moreover, no discussion is given to the 25% tariff Brazil places on imported ethanol. Given the poor sugar crop in Brazil, it is likely U.S. ethanol could be exported and face the 25% tariff.

(5) The paper generalizes that irrigated corn used for ethanol production will be in the same proportion as all irrigated corn (~18% of the total crop). Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that 96% of all corn used in ethanol production is non-irrigated.

Access a release from Rice University’s Baker Institute (click here). Access links to the complete study and related information (click here). Access a release from the RFA (click here). Access the RFA website for additional information (click here).

EPA Proposes Strengthened Ozone Standards

Jan 7: U.S. EPA proposed the strictest health standards to date for ground-level ozone or smog. EPA said ground-level ozone, is linked to a number of serious health problems, ranging from aggravation of asthma to increased risk of premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Ozone can even harm healthy people who work and play outdoors. The Agency is proposing to replace the standards set by the previous administration, which many believe were not protective enough of human health [See WIMS 3/13/08]. EPA is proposing a rule to set the “primary” standard, which protects public health, at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours. The current primary 8-hour standard is 0.075 ppm. EPA said it will issue final standards by August 31, 2010.

EPA said that children are at the greatest risk from ozone, because their lungs are still developing, they are most likely to be active outdoors, and they are more likely than adults to have asthma. Adults with asthma or other lung diseases, and older adults are also sensitive to ozone. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face. Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities, and drives up our health care costs across the country. Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier.”

EPA is also proposing to set a separate “secondary” standard to protect the environment, especially plants and trees. This seasonal standard is designed to protect plants and trees from damage occurring from repeated ozone exposure, which can reduce tree growth, damage leaves, and increase susceptibility to disease. EPA is proposing to set the level of the secondary standard
within the range of 7-15 ppm-hours. The current secondary standard is the same as the primary standard -- 0.075 ppm. EPA said the new secondary standard should be a cumulative, seasonal standard expressed as an annual index of the sum of weighted hourly concentrations, cumulated over 12 hours per day (8:00 am to 8:00 pm) during the consecutive 3-month period within the O3 season with the maximum index value, set at a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours.

In September 2009 Administrator Jackson announced that EPA would reconsider the existing ozone standards, set at 0.075 ppm in March 2008 [See WIMS 9/16/09]. As part of its reconsideration, EPA conducted a review of the science that guided the 2008 decision, including more than 1,700 scientific studies and public comments from the 2008 rulemaking process. EPA also reviewed the findings of the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which recommended standards in the ranges that EPA has proposed.

EPA said that depending on the level of the final standard, the proposal would yield health benefits between $13 billion and $100 billion. This proposal would help reduce premature deaths, aggravated asthma, bronchitis cases, hospital and emergency room visits and days when people miss work or school because of ozone-related symptoms. Estimated costs of implementing this proposal range from $19 billion to $90 billion. Ground-level ozone forms when emissions from industrial facilities, power plants, landfills and motor vehicles react in the sun. EPA will take public comment for 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The Agency will hold three public hearings on the proposal: Feb. 2, 2010 in Arlington, VA and in Houston; and Feb. 4, 2010 in Sacramento.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement on EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the 2008 ozone standard saying, “The action lacks scientific justification. EPA acknowledges the newer studies on ozone ‘do not materially change any of the broad scientific conclusions regarding the health effects of exposure’. Given that conclusion, there is absolutely no basis for EPA to propose changing the ozone standards promulgated by the EPA Administrator in 2008. To do so is an obvious politicization of the air quality standard setting process that could mean unnecessary energy cost increases, job losses and less domestic oil and natural gas development and energy security."

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., a toxicologist with Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "EPA's proposed standards promise clean air protections that reach from the nation's urban neighborhoods and communities to our rural forests and croplands. Children are especially vulnerable to ozone air pollution. For millions of children, high pollution days make it difficult to attend school, to play outside and to simply breathe." EDF said the Agency's new action reverses a 2008 decision under the Bush EPA and follows the recommendations of expert scientists.

The new proposal from EPA is consistent with recommendations of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) which unanimously advised the previous EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson that the nation's health standard should be between 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million. Additionally, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) which represents the state and local air quality agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country supported the CASAC’s recommendation and had also advocated a distinct, cumulative seasonal secondary standard."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to extensive background information including a fact sheet and the prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access the API statement (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here).

EPA Decisions On Two Mountaintop Coal Mining Operations

Jan 5: U.S. EPA announced what they called "a path forward" on two mountaintop coal mining operations in West Virginia. EPA said it is informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it supports issuing a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County, operated by Hobet Mining, LLC. EPA said it made the decision after extensive discussions between EPA and the company resulted in additional significant protections against environmental impacts.

In a second action, the Federal District Court in Southern West Virginia will extend the court-established deadline to respond to the company's earlier request to end the litigation on the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County. EPA and the mining operator, Mingo Logan Mining Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, agreed to ask for the extension in order to continue discussions to determine if a revised mining plan can be developed that will comply with the Clean Water Act. After close study, EPA determined that the proposed mine raised significant environmental and water quality concerns.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “These are important examples of EPA’s work to bring clarity to this process. Our role, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, is to ensure that mining companies avoid environmental degradation and protect water quality so that Appalachian communities don’t have to choose between jobs and their health. Working closely with mining companies, our federal and state partners, and the public, our goal is to ensure Americans living in coal country are protected from environmental, health and economic damage.”

EPA noted that Appalachian coal mining has buried an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in states including West Virginia. Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife. EPA has committed to use its Clean Water Act regulatory authorities to reduce environmental and water quality impacts associated with surface coal mining [See WIMS 6/11/09].

A release from the Sierra Club, including reactions from a number of organizations, Bill Price, environmental justice organizer for the Sierra Club in West Virginia said, "While we understand that this short term deal means more mining and destruction but also the extension of employment to mine workers, we know that mountaintop removal coal mining is not a long-term economic strategy for Appalachia. As Senator Byrd of West Virginia said last month, it is mechanization and the demand for coal that have eliminated jobs in West Virginia, and it's time to adapt to change and to embrace clean energy solutions."

Patriot Coal Corporation Chief Executive Officer Richard Whiting issued a statement saying, "We are encouraged that, through a constructive process of engagement and discussion, we have reached agreement with EPA on a mine plan that minimizes impact to the environment. In light of the importance of the Hobet 45 permit to our operations and our employees, we are hopeful that we can begin work in the permit area in the very near future." The Hobet surface mine is part of the Company's Corridor G mining complex in southern West Virginia. The company said at full production capability, the complex produces nearly four million tons of thermal coal annually.

Access a lengthy release from EPA with links to further details (click here). Access EPA's Mountaintop Mining website for background (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from Patriot Coal Corporation (click here).

UNEP Ongoing Climate Strategy & COP 15 Day-By-Day Analysis

Dec 30: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) announced it is formulating a rapidly evolving strategy in response to the needs of Member States and the growing number of requests on how best to realize a low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy for the 21st century. The strategy identifies three priority areas that match calls for international guidance, the urgent need for action at a national level on climate change and the organization's skill set, experience and mandate.

UNEP said it is now widely recognized that healthy ecosystems from coral reefs and wetlands to mangroves and fertile soils are a key to successfully adapting to climate change. Their management and maintenance is a buffer and an insurance policy against extreme weather events and a rapidly changing climate. In light of such emerging evidence, UNEP is supporting Member States to implement demonstration projects and said it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to overcome policy and financial barriers and to incorporate ecosystem adaptation measures into national climate, development and sectoral strategies.

Secondly, UNEP indicates that emissions linked with deforestation and forest degradation may account for close to 20 per cent of current global greenhouse gas emissions. Against this backdrop, UNEP is part of the international effort to prepare developing economies for a REDD regime [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries]. Through the UN-REDD Programme, a partnership between UNEP, the Food and Agricultural Organization and UNEP, nine countries are being made ready for REDD. The Programme is supporting those countries through appropriate methodologies, monitoring and verification systems and safeguards in order to ensure REDD delivers value not only in climate and national economic terms but in terms of livelihoods for local communities. REDD should soon allow farmers and landowners to benefit from carbon sequestration of different farming and land management regimes including agroforestry.

Thirdly, UNEP notes that although many low-carbon technologies are already commercially viable, transferring them to new markets and mainstreaming their use globally remains a challenge. To bridge the gap, UNEP and its collaborative partners are already delivering clean tech via smart market mechanisms. In India, for example, UNEP in collaboration with the United Nations Foundation, the Shell Foundation and Indian banks have brought down the cost of solar technology loans. Within a matter of a few years, 100,000 people have accessed solar electricity in rural areas and the initiative is now self-financing. UNEP has launched an effort to help more than 35 countries determine the specific low greenhouse gas technologies best able to meet their development needs and prepare national plans to acquire and use those technologies.

UNEP also said that in terms of catalyzing a set of global norms and standards, it is currently working in four sectors: energy efficiency in building, vehicle fuel efficiency, efficient lighting, and biofuels. UNEP said that in partnership with others it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to incorporate clean tech and renewable energies into national climate, development and sectoral strategies on the road to a low-carbon future.

Finally, the Paris-based IDDRI research organization has issued an informative day-by-day, play-by-play summary of the Copenhagen UNFCCC COP 15 meeting [See WIMS 12/21/09 & 12/18/09] entitled, The Copenhagen Accord: What happened? Is it a good deal? Who wins and who loses? What is next? In and overview, IDDRI indicates, "The two weeks of negotiations in Copenhagen (7-18 December 2009) have been full of twists and turns. The outcome of the first phase, when heads of delegations and Ministers had the leadership, is a set of draft decisions, heavily bracketed, and not recognized by all Parties – especially the US – as a basis for negotiations. It proves the difficulty – if not the impossibility – of making progress towards an agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol (KP) process. The lack of clarity of the Bali Roadmap – setting a two-track process, one under the UNFCCC and one under the KP, but leaving open the form and legal nature of the final outcome – and the lack of skill of the Danish Presidency, did not help.

"The outcome of the second phase, when a small group – around 30 – heads of State took the lead, is a minimalist agreement, disappointing in substance, and hectic in process. It proves that the pileup of countries redlines did not leave room for an ambitious agreement: the agreement found is somehow the lowest common denominator. This is not the deal we hoped, but given the context, and especially given the perception that States had of their own national interests, this was probably the best possible deal."

On December 21, in a United Nations announcement from New York, UN General Assembly President Ali Treki said while most countries are not happy with the outcome of this month's summit on climate change in Copenhagen, "really good progress" was made towards a binding agreement "to save the world," with the United Nations leading the way to possible adoption at next year's meeting in Mexico. He said, "There are complaints that some countries have not been dealt with carefully, other countries believe it was not democratic, other groups believe that the matter has been out of the hand of the UN and they would like also that UN would take over this problem again. But I think we should be realistic that what happened there, it is really something positive. I think that the conclusion of a certain agreement was really good progress and we have to follow that up. We all agree that the United Nations should take the lead and we'll continue to take the lead and we will have certainly the summit of Mexico. We'll finish what we have started in Copenhagen."

Following the Copenhagen summit’s end, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made calls to leaders from countries such as China, the United States, Ethiopia, the Maldives, Grenada, France, Brazil and Australia. He told reporters in NYC on December 30, While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped.” He said, "I urge countries to ensure that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund becomes fully operational as soon as possible. I urge all governments to formally sign on to the Copenhagen Accord by registering their support through the UNFCCC. The faster we have all the signatures, the more momentum we can build. . . During the coming months I will continue my work with world leaders to increase their level of ambition."

Access a lengthy release from UNEP with links to extensive information (click here). Access the 10-page IDDRI document (click here). Access the IDDRI website for additional information (click here). Access a release on the December 21 press briefing in NYC (click here). Access the December 30 press briefing of the UN Secretary-General (click here).

EPA To Establish First-Time “Chemicals Of Concern” List

Dec 30: U.S. EPA announced a series of actions including developing Chemical Action Plans (CAPs) on four chemicals which they said raise serious health or environmental concerns, including phthalates. For the first time, EPA intends to establish a “Chemicals of Concern” list and is beginning a process that "may lead to regulations requiring significant risk reduction measures to protect human health and the environment." EPA said the actions represent its "determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible, recognizing EPA’s strong belief that the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform."

In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing are short-chain chlorinated paraffins; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA. EPA said the chemicals are used in the manufacture of a wide array of products and have raised a range of health and environmental concerns. EPA also recently announced that three U.S. companies agreed to phase out DecaBDE, a widely used fire retardant chemical that may potentially cause cancer and may impact brain function [See WIMS 12/18/09].

Administrator Jackson said, “The American people are understandably concerned about the chemicals making their way into our products, our environment and our bodies. We will continue to use our authority under existing law to protect Americans from exposure to harmful chemicals and to highlight chemicals we believe warrant concern. At the same time, I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation’s outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard. Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward.”

On September 29, 2009, Jackson outlined a set of agency principles to help inform legislative reform and announced that EPA would act on a number of widely studied chemicals that may pose threats to human health [See WIMS 9/30/09]. EPA noted that when TSCA was passed in 1976, there were 60,000 chemicals on the inventory of existing chemicals. Since that time, EPA has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals. An additional 20,000 chemicals have entered the marketplace for a total of more than 80,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory.

The actions announced include: (1) Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list; (2) Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals; and, (3) Reinforcing the DecaBDE phaseout -- which will take place over three years -- with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market. EPA also indicated that chemicals currently in the action plan development process also include: Benzidine dyes and pigments; and Bisphenol A.

This is the first time EPA has used TSCA’s authority to list chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.” EPA said the decision to list the chemicals further signals the Administration’s commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA. Inclusion on the list publicly signals EPA’s strong concern about the risks that those chemicals pose and the agency’s intention to manage those risks. Once listed, chemical companies can provide information to the Agency if they want to demonstrate that their chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a release indicating that although it supports EPA’s effort to outline possible Agency actions for prioritized chemicals under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), ACC and its member companies are disappointed that the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current “high-profile” nature.

Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO, said, “In exercising its authority under TSCA, EPA should prioritize chemicals for the CAP program based on scientific criteria that reflect available hazard, use and exposure information provided to the agency. Unfortunately, until today, there has been little transparency, and significant uncertainty, over the scientific basis for the selection of these chemicals. The action plans released today include references to scientific studies that the agency believes make the case for restrictive action, but the agency should maintain their responsibility to review the weight of evidence for all scientific studies, even those that lead to a different conclusion. The chemical industry supports modernizing the way chemicals are managed in commerce, but the CAP process to date provides no evidence of a systematic, science-based approach to chemicals management. It is vital that this be addressed.”

“ACC members are proud of our products. Chemicals are critical in life saving vaccines, solar panels and energy efficient products, clean water, and so many other uses that improve quality of life, safety, and the environment. ACC members will continue to work with consumer, government and scientific organizations to understand the impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment.”

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in a blog post said that EPA deserved an “A for effort.” EDF said, in response to ACC's claims that “the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current ‘high-profile’ nature; that "back when it [EPA] announced its enhanced program, EPA pretty clearly stated the basis for selecting the first group of chemicals:" EPA said, "The initial chemicals selected for action plan development were chosen on the basis of multiple factors, including chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic; high production volume chemicals; chemicals in consumer products; chemicals of particular potential concern for children’s health because of reproductive or developmental toxicity; chemicals subject to review and potential action in international forums; chemicals found in human blood in biomonitoring programs; and chemicals in categories generally identified as being of potential concern in the new chemicals program." EDF said further that, "each individual plan provides substantial documentation as to why EPA selected the chemical, including detailed hazard and exposure data."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on EPA’s legislative reform principles, a fact sheet on the complete set of actions on the four chemicals, the CAPs and additional information (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to additional information (click here). Access the blog post from EDF (click here).

Update On The Copenhagen Accord; UN Calls For 2010 Final Deal

• Subscribers & Readers Note: Although we are on our Christmas-New Year's holiday break, we are issuing this special report to provide an update on the Copenhagen Accord completed early Saturday morning in Copenhagen.

Dec 21: Acknowledging that the climate change deal reached over the weekend in Copenhagen was not ideal for all nations, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon exhorted world leaders to act in concert to ensure that a legally binding treaty is reached next year. The "political" agreement was struck in the Danish capital on Saturday morning after negotiations had come to a standstill, with Secretary-General Ban intervening at the last minute to assuage nations which felt they had been excluded from parts of the negotiations.

The agreement, now known as the Copenhagen Accord, includes an agreement to working towards curbing global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, efforts to reduce or limit emissions, and pledges to mobilize $100 billion a year for developing countries to combat climate change. According to a UN release, "The leaders were united in purpose, but they were not united in action." Ban told reporters today in New York today (December 21), “While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped.” The two-week-long United Nations conference in Copenhagen, attended by 128 heads of State and government, was marked by interruptions in negotiations due to divisions between States over transparency and other issues.

Ban outlined five key points of the Accord saying, "First, it commits countries to work to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. It also says that they will review this commitment in 2015 to take account of new scientific evidence. (He noted that the IPCC is going to try to release their fifth assessment report in 2014). Second, the Accord includes mid-term mitigation targets by developed countries and mid-term mitigation actions by developing countries.

"Third, countries have agreed on the importance of acting to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. This means we have finally brought the source of nearly one fifth of global emissions into the emerging climate regime. Fourth, the Accord agrees to provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable to cope with climate change. Fifth, the deal is backed by money and the means to deliver it. You know that already $30 billion have been committed until 2012, and after that $100 billion annually up to 2020."

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action. However, we need to be clear that it is a letter of intent and is not precise about what needs to be done in legal terms. So the challenge is now to turn what we have agreed politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable and verifiable."

The Accord specifies that industrialized countries will commit to implement, individually or jointly, quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, to be listed in the accord before January 31, 2010. Additionally, a number of developing countries, including major emerging economies, agreed to communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions every two years, also listing their voluntary pledges before the January 31, 2010.

Following his involvement in the agreement, President Obama issued a brief statement and answered a few questions at a press briefing. The President said, "Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented -- made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen. For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change. . .

"Because of the actions we're taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions. We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change. And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way. These three components -- transparency, mitigation and finance -- form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen. . .

"In addition to our close allies who did so much to advance this effort, I worked throughout the day with Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, who was representing Africa, as well as Premier Wen of China, Prime Minister Singh of India, President Lula of Brazil, and President Zuma of South Africa, to achieve what I believe will be an important milestone. . .

"The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and to shape the future that we seek. That's why I came to Copenhagen today, and that's why I'm committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe. That's also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action. . ."

The next annual UN Climate Change Conference will take place towards the end of 2010 in Mexico City, preceded by a major two week negotiating session in Bonn, Germany, scheduled May 31 to June 11.

Access a release from the UN Secretary-General (click here). Access the official Copenhagen Accord posted by the UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC final press release (click here). Access the President's statement and press briefing following the deal (click here). Access pictures and a blog post of the President in Copenhagen (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here).

Obama: "I Come Here Today -- Not To Talk, But To Act"

• Note: As we wrap up 2009, President Obama is still in Copenhagen attempting to reach an agreement and reports are just coming in that some sort of a deal with China and others has been reached. A news conference is expected soon (4:15 pm EST). We will be taking a few days off for our annual Christmas/New Year's break and return on Monday, January 4, 2010, to begin our 30th year of environmental news services. We wish all of our subscribers and readers a happy and safe holiday season and wish you well in the coming new year. Thank you all for your continuing support.

Dec 18: President Obama delivered brief remarks at the morning plenary session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) High-level session. The session included 119 heads of state and government representing countries that account for 89% of the world's GDP, 82% of the world's population and 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Included in the 119 countries are the 20 largest economies and the top 15 greenhouse gas emitters in the world.

President Obam summarized the current situation as follows, "After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear.

"First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

"Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we're living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

"I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.

"Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if -- and only if -- it is part of a broader accord that I have just described.

"Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula -- one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord -- one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community."

The President continued, "We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.

"Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

"Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

"We are ready to get this done today -- but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past -- and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet."

On December 17, House Speaker Pelosi, Leader Steny Hoyer, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey held a press briefing at the Bella Center in Copenhagen (see link below).

At approximately 8:00 PM, Copenhagen time, a draft agreement was emerging from the negotiators.

Update: In the early evening, U.S. time, a "deal" -- the Copenhagen Accord -- was announced which President Obama called a, "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen." See link to the President's statement and press briefing following the deal below.

Access the full text of the President's address (click here). Access a current report of the progress from the New York Times includes latest, still draft agreement (click here). Access the official Copenhagen Accord posted by the UNFCCC (click here). Access the President's statement and press briefing following the deal (click here). Access pictures and a blog post of the President in Copenhagen (click here). Access the transcript from the House press conference and a video (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here).