Options For Selling Cap-and-Trade Emissions Allowances

Mar 26: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a report entitled, Climate Change: Observations on Options for Selling Emissions Allowances in a Cap-and-Trade Program (GAO-10-377, February 24, 2010). The report was prepared at the request of Senator Max Baucus Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance.

 

    GAO indicates that Congress is considering proposals for market-based programs to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Many proposals involve creating a cap-and-trade program, in which an overall emissions cap is set and entities covered by the program must hold tradable permits -- or "allowances" -- to cover their emissions. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the value of these allowances could total $300 billion annually by 2020. The government could either sell the allowances, give them away for free, or some combination of the two.

 

    Some existing cap-and-trade programs have experience selling allowances. For example, member states participating in the European Union's (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) have sold up to about 9 percent of their allowances, and the amount of auctioning is expected to increase significantly starting in 2013. In the United States, the 10 northeastern states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have auctioned about 87 percent of their allowances. The report is part of GAO's response to a request to review climate change policy options. The report describes the implications of different methods for selling allowances, given available information and the experiences of selected programs. GAO reviewed relevant literature and interviewed program officials from the EU and RGGI, economists, and other researchers.

 

    GAO indicates that the method of selling emissions allowances can have significant implications for a cap-and-trade program's outcomes, and therefore, it is important that the method be chosen based on well-defined goals. Goals often cited by program officials and economists include: maintaining simplicity and transparency, maximizing participation, promoting economic efficiency, generating a price that reflects the marginal cost of reducing emissions, avoiding market manipulation, raising revenues, and minimizing administrative costs. According to program officials, it is important to identify goals prior to choosing a sales method, as tradeoffs may exist. Some goals may also be interrelated -- for example, a simple and transparent design may boost participation and reduce the risk of market manipulation.

 

    Once goals are identified, policymakers face a number of choices regarding the design of a sales mechanism. Existing programs have used different mechanisms to sell allowances, including direct sales through exchanges and auctions. EU officials described exchange-based sales as effective and easy to implement, although they and other economists questioned whether this approach would be suitable for selling a high volume of allowances. Program officials also reported that auctions, the more commonly used sales mechanism in the EU and RGGI, effectively distributed allowances to program participants. However, some economists noted that auctions are not "one size fits all," and should be designed to take into account market characteristics, such as the number of potential buyers.

 

    Using auctions to sell allowances would entail a number of other design choices. For example, policymakers could decide to utilize existing auction infrastructure, such as that used in exchanges or government auctions, or develop a new platform. Choices must also be made regarding the auction format and other design elements. The auction format determines, among other things, the price that winning bidders pay for allowances and the number of bidding rounds. To date, ETS and RGGI auctions have used a single round format in which each participant that bids above a certain price receives allowances at that price. Apart from the auction format, other elements may affect outcomes, including: participation requirements, the frequency and timing of auctions, measures that establish lower or upper limits on allowance prices, and rules governing auction monitoring and the reporting of results.

 

    Access the complete 41-page report from GAO (click here).

Major Breakthrough From IMO To Control "Floating Smokestacks"

Mar 26: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) officially accepted the proposal to designate waters off the North American coasts as an Emission Control Area (ECA) -- a move that U.S. EPA said will result in cleaner air for millions of Americans. Large ships that operate in ECAs must use dramatically cleaner fuel and technology, leading to major air quality and public health benefits that extend hundreds of miles inland. The ECA was proposed in March 2009 and the IMO adopted it in the fastest possible timetable.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "This is a change that will benefit millions of people and set in motion new innovations for the shipping industry. We're gratified by the IMO's decision to help keep our air clean and our communities healthy. The sulfur, particulate emissions and other harmful pollutants from large ships reach from our ports to communities hundreds of miles inland -- bringing with them health, environmental and economic burdens. Cleaning up our shipping lanes will be a boon to communities across North America."

 

    Environmental Defense Fund Senior Scientist Ramon Alvarez said, "By making the case to clean up these big ships, the United States charted a course for cleaner air and healthier communities. The dangerous air pollution from these floating smokestacks is a serious health threat to tens of millions of Americans who live and work in port cities."

    The large commercial ships that visit the nation's ports, such as oil tankers, cruise ships and container ships, currently use fuel with very high sulfur content which, when burned, emits harmful levels of particulate matter and nitrogen oxide that can travel hundreds of miles inland, causing severe respiratory symptoms in children and adults. These ships, most flying the flags of other countries, make more than 57,000 calls at more than 100 U.S. ports annually. More than 30 of these ports are in metropolitan areas that fail to meet federal air quality standards. In total, nearly 127 million people currently live in areas that fail to meet U.S. air quality standards.

    Enforcing the stringent ECA standards will reduce sulfur content in fuel by 98 percent -- slashing particulate matter emissions by 85 percent, and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 80 percent. To achieve these reductions, tougher sulfur standards will phase in starting in 2012, ultimately reaching no more than 1,000 parts per million by 2015. Also, new ships must use advanced emission control technologies beginning in 2016 which will help reduce NOx emissions. As a result of the cleaner air, nearly five million people will experience relief from acute respiratory symptoms in 2020 and as many as 14,000 lives will be saved each year.

    Canada and France joined the U.S. in this North American ECA, implementing a coordinated geographic emissions control program. In developing the U.S. proposal, EPA joined with federal partners at the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, Transportation, and Commerce, among others. This is the first ECA adopted under amendments to an IMO treaty in 2008 that strengthened and expanded both the ECA emissions standards and the approval criteria. The North American ECA is a key part of a comprehensive EPA program to address harmful emissions from large ships. Other elements include voluntary partnerships under EPA's Clean Ports USA program [See WIMS 3/30/09] and implementation of a Clean Air Act rulemaking [See WIMS 7/2/09] that EPA finalized last December [See WIMS 1/6/10].

 

    Access a release from EPA with links to additional information (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access EPA's Oceangoing Vessels website for extensive information (click here). Access the IMO website for additional information (click here).

Scrap Recycling Industries Board Approves E-Waste R2 Program

Mar 25: According to a release from the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) its board laid out a roadmap addressing the growing problem of the improper export of end-of-life electronic scrap. The Board voted unanimously to approve what they called "a new, aggressive policy to protect health, the environment and worker safety" which they signaled that ISRI members are behind efforts to stem possible health and environmental hazards that occur when e-scrap is not exported responsibly. 

 

    ISRI President Robin Wiener said, "The ISRI Board voted today to adopt an aggressive, forward-looking policy that puts forth a safe, responsible and legal framework for electronics recycling both at home and abroad. Among other provisions, the policy bans the export of electronic equipment and components for land-filling or incineration for disposal and requires that facilities outside the U.S. that recycle or refurbish electronics have a documented, verifiable environmental, health and worker safety system in place."  ISRI said the Board's decision reinforces environmental, health and worker safety standards that closely track the EPA's Responsible Recycling (R2) program.

 

    EPA's innovative R2 program was finalized in 2008 to create and adopt safe and effective policies for electronics recycling in the US and abroad. Career professionals at the EPA, several state governments (including Minnesota and Washington), OEMs,   electronic recyclers and trade associations including ISRI and ITIC sat down in 2006 to begin work on these standards. Additionally, the standards were tested in the field to ensure that companies who were awarded the certification had to meet tough benchmarks. The guidelines are used by accrediting organizations like the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) to certify that companies are complying with health, worker safety and environmental laws.

 

    Wiener said, "ISRI has always been a staunch supporter of recycling electronics in compliance with domestic and international legal requirements. This is emphasized in the new policy, which requires that facilities outside the United States that recycle or refurbish electronics have a documented environmental, health and worker safety system that can be verified; requires a business record-keeping system to document compliance with all legal requirements; requires that any facility must be capable of handling hazardous waste; and ensures that US exporters can confirm a facility they export to is in compliance with the law."

 

    ISRI Director of Government and International Affairs Eric Harris noted that the newly adopted policy includes provisions that will address actual problems in recycling facilities throughout the world rather than requiring a total trade ban on the export of electronic scrap as the only viable way to deal with irresponsible recycling outside of the United States. Harris pointed to a newly released study in the March 22, 2010, issue of the journal, Environmental Science and Technology.

 

    In the report, author Eric Williams of Arizona State University writes, "Trade bans will become increasingly irrelevant in solving the problem" and argues that a complete ban on export of used and end-of-life electronics to developing counties fails to solve the problem because the developing world will generate more used and end-of-life electronics than developed countries as early as 2017. Additionally, by 2025, the developing world will generate twice the amount of electronic scrap as what will come from developed nations. Williams is an assistant professor at Arizona State University with a joint appointment in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, a part of the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering and the School of Sustainability.

 

    ISRI's Wiener added, "The policy adopted today by the ISRI Board of Directors embodies the most environmentally sustainable and realistic approach to electronic scrap recycling. This is a responsible, safe and legal approach to electronics recycling that protects worker health and safety, as well as ensuring environmentally sustainable practices that can actually deal with this global issue."

 

    On March 10, 2010, WIMS reported that a release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored R2 electronic recycling certification program does not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 3/10/10]. The two competing programs are just now getting underway and are certain to cause confusion for the public, recyclers, and manufacturers.

 

    The competing, new e-Stewards Certification and Standard from the Basel Action Network (BAN) is a certification program for electronics recycling created jointly by the environmental community and business leaders. In February, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced its endorsement of the e-Stewards program which it called "the first-ever certification program for electronics recycling." The e-Steward Certification is a fully accredited certification that relies on independent, third-party auditors to verify safe and ethical e-waste disposal. It is awarded to companies that recycle electronics without using practices that far too many in U.S. electronics recycling industry rely upon -- the use of municipal landfills and incinerators, the export to developing countries, or U.S. prison labor for disposing of toxic old electronics.

 

    Access a release from ISRI (click here). Access ISRI's Electronics Recycling website for additional details (click here). Access EPA's Responsible Recycling website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the e-Stewards website for complete information on certification and related information (click here).

Chu Says Price On Carbon Is Key To New Nuclear Options

Mar 23: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an op-ed by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on small modular nuclear reactors entitled, "America's New Nuclear Option; Small modular reactors will expand the ways we use atomic power."

    Secretary Chu said, "America is on the cusp of reviving its nuclear power industry. Last month President Obama pledged more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades. And with the new authority granted by the president's 2011 budget request, the Department of Energy will be able to support between six and nine new reactors. What does all of this mean for the country? This investment will provide enough clean energy to power more than six million American homes. It will also create tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead.

    "Perhaps most importantly, investing in nuclear energy will position America to lead in a growing industry. World-wide electricity generation is projected to rise 77% by 2030. If we are serious about cutting carbon pollution then nuclear power must be part of the solution. Countries such as China, South Korea and India have recognized this and are making investments in nuclear power that are driving demand for nuclear technologies. Our choice is clear: Develop these technologies today or import them tomorrow. . .

    "Small modular reactors [SMRs] would be less than one-third the size of current plants. They have compact designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. SMRs would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival. If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications. Their small size makes them suitable to small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale plants. The modular construction process would make them more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times.

    Their size would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes, or use them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel plants. Some of the designs for SMRs use little or no water for cooling, which would reduce their environmental impact. Finally, some advanced concepts could potentially burn used fuel or nuclear waste, eliminating the plutonium that critics say could be used for nuclear weapons. In his 2011 budget request, President Obama requested $39 million for a new program specifically for small modular reactors. Although the Department of Energy has supported advanced reactor technologies for years, this is the first time funding has been requested to help get SMR designs licensed for widespread commercial use. . . These SMRs are based on proven light-water reactor technologies and could be deployed in about 10 years.

    "We are also accelerating our R&D efforts into other innovative reactor technologies. This includes developing high-temperature gas reactors that can provide carbon-free heat for industrial applications, as well as advanced reactor designs that will harness much more of the energy from uranium.

    "These efforts are restarting the nuclear power industry in the U.S. But to truly promote nuclear power and other forms of carbon-free electricity, we need long-term incentives. The single most effective step we could take is to put a price on carbon by passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation. Requiring a gradual reduction in carbon emissions will make clean energy profitable-and will fuel investment in nuclear power."

    Access the complete op-ed in a release from DOE (click here).

EPA Proposes More Sources For Mandatory GHG Reporting

Mar 23: U.S. EPA is proposing to include additional emissions sources in its first-ever national mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting system. EPA said the data from the additional sectors will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will help EPA and businesses develop effective policies and programs to reduce emissions. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "Gathering this information is the first step toward reducing greenhouse emissions and fostering innovative technologies for the clean energy future. It's especially important to track potent gases like methane, which traps more than 20 times as much heat as carbon [i.e. CO2] and accelerates climate change. Once we know where we must act, American innovators and entrepreneurs can develop new technologies to protect our atmosphere and fight climate change."

    EPA finalized the first-ever mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirement in October of 2009 [See WIMS 9/22/09]. That rule required 31 industry sectors, covering 85 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, to track and report their emissions. The regulations called for subject facilities to begin monitoring their GHG emissions on January 1, 2010, and file their first annual reports by March 31, 2011.

    In addition to those 31 industries, the Agency is now proposing to collect emissions data from the oil and natural gas sector, industries that emit fluorinated gases, and from facilities that inject and store carbon dioxide (CO2) underground for the purposes of geologic sequestration or enhanced oil and gas recovery. EPA indicates that methane is the primary GHG emitted from oil and natural gas systems and is more than 20 times as potent as CO2 at warming the atmosphere, while fluorinated gases are even stronger and can stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Data collected from facilities that inject CO2 underground would enable EPA to track the amount of CO2 that is injected and in some cases require a monitoring strategy for detecting potential emissions to the atmosphere.

    EPA said the data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and identify cost effective ways to reduce their emissions in the future. EPA is also proposing to require all facilities in the reporting system, including the newly proposed sectors, to provide information on their corporate ownership. Under the proposals, newly covered sources would begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011 with the first annual reports submitted to EPA on March 31, 2012. The proposals will be open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register soon. The Agency will also hold public hearings on the proposals on April 19, 2010 in Arlington, VA and April 20, 2010 in Washington, DC.

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on these proposals and the hearings (click here).

NAS Report On Measuring & Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Mar 19: A report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) indicates that countries can inventory their carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel use accurately enough to support monitoring of an international climate change treaty, but currently there is no sufficiently accurate way to verify countries' self-reported estimates using independent data, such as atmospheric measurements. The NRC Committee that wrote the report -- Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements -- said strategic investments could be made that within five years would both improve self-reporting and yield a useful way to verify the estimates, reducing uncertainties about carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel use and deforestation to less than 10 percent. 
 
    A release from NAS explains that agreements to limit emissions of greenhouse gases are currently the focus of international negotiations, and with such accords will come the need to accurately estimate these emissions and monitor their changes over time. Stephen Pacala, chair of the committee that wrote the report from Princeton University said, "For any international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, it would be essential for each country to monitor its own emissions and to provide a transparent capability for any nation to check the values reported by another. This would give nations confidence that their neighbors are living up to their commitments."
 
    Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries are currently required to estimate their greenhouse gas emissions by identifying human activities that cause emissions, and then multiplying each activity by its rate of emissions. The level of uncertainty in these self-reported estimates depends on each country's institutional and technical capabilities. The committee focused on carbon dioxide because it is the largest single contributor to global climate change and is thus the focus of many mitigation efforts.  Estimates of emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide are likely to remain relatively uncertain, the report says.
 
    The report indicates that because UNFCCC procedures have broad international support and can estimate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels with reasonable accuracy, they will likely continue to be the primary way to monitor emissions under any new climate treaty. "But the reporting system has shortcomings. Developing countries do not provide regular, detailed emissions reports, for example, and independent data to check self-reported emissions is limited. In addition, there are large uncertainties in estimates of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into or removed from the atmosphere because of changes in land use, such as deforestation or reforestation." 
 
    The report recommends ways to overcome these weaknesses and indentifies methods that could improve both self-reported estimates and other nations' ability to verify them. The Committee said, "Regular, rigorous reporting and review should be extended to all countries. And the most stringent and accurate methods for calculating greenhouse gas emissions should be used for the largest emissions sources in each country, which in some cases may be deforestation and agriculture rather than fossil-fuel use." They said that financial and technical assistance will be required for developing countries to build an ongoing capacity to collect, analyze, and report emissions information regularly. The Committee indicates that significant improvements in the accuracy of the inventories from 10 of the highest-emitting developing countries, such as China and India, could be achieved for approximately $11 million over five years. 
 
    The report says that enabling independent verification of countries' self-reported estimates will require additional atmospheric measurements and improved models to predict the movement of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It recommends that new monitoring stations be established near cities and other large local emissions sources. In addition, NASA should build and launch a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, which failed at launch in February 2009. Such an observatory could monitor carbon dioxide emissions from cities and power plants and attribute them to individual countries; no other satellite has its critical combination of abilities, including high precision, a small footprint, and an ability to sense carbon dioxide near Earth's surface. 
 
    Using improved methods, fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions could be estimated by each country and checked using independent information with less than 10 percent uncertainty. The same is true for satellite-based estimates of deforestation, which is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions next to fossil-fuel use, and for growth of new forests, which is an important "sink" for reducing carbon dioxide. The report recommends that to aid efforts to understand how greenhouse gases are affected by land use, a working group should be established to produce publicly available global maps of land use and land cover change at least every two years, using Landsat and high-resolution satellite imagery. In addition, an interagency group with broad participation from the research community should design a program to improve ways to estimate how agriculture, forestry, and other land uses affect emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. 
 
    The report also recommends that the isotope carbon-14 should be measured in the carbon dioxide already collected at atmospheric sampling stations. Carbon-14 is present in living organisms but not in fossil fuels, so it provides a way to discern whether carbon dioxide is generated from fossil-fuel or non-fossil-fuel sources. These measurements could be made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a national laboratory, or a university at a cost of approximately $5 million to $10 million per year.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access the complete report and a summary (click here).

EPA Announces Hydraulic Fracturing Investigation Strategy

Mar 18: U.S.EPA issued a Federal Register notice [75 FR 13125] announcing that it will conduct a comprehensive research study to investigate the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on water quality and public health. The process has come under scrutiny by environmental groups and is also being investigated by the House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Environment and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) [See WIMS 2/19/10].

 

    Hydraulic fracturing is a process that drills vertical and horizontal cracks underground that help withdraw gas, or oil, from coalbeds, shale and other geological formations. While each site is unique, in general, the process involves vertical and horizontal drilling, taking water from the ground, injecting fracturing fluids and sands into the formation, and withdrawing gas and separating and managing the leftover waters. According to a report by Environmental Working Group (EWG) entitled, Drilling Around the Law, the fracturing fluids include distillates including kerosene, mineral spirits and a number of other petroleum products that often contain high levels of benzene. 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."

 

    In a release, EPA indicates that natural gas plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing [a.k.a. fracking] is one way of accessing that vital resource. There are concerns that hydraulic fracturing may impact ground water and surface water quality in ways that threaten human health and the environment. To address these concerns and strengthen our clean energy future and in response to language inserted into the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act, EPA is re-allocating $1.9 million for this comprehensive, peer-reviewed study for FY10 and requesting funding for FY11 in the president's budget proposal.

    Dr. Paul T. Anastas, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development said, "Our research will be designed to answer questions about the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on human health and the environment. The study will be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process, with significant stakeholder input." EPA is in the very early stages of designing a hydraulic fracturing research program. The Agency is proposing the process begin with: (1) defining research questions and identifying data gaps; (2) conducting a robust process for stakeholder input and research prioritization; (3) with this input, developing a detailed study design that will undergo external peer-review, leading to (4) implementing the planned research studies.

    To support this initial planning phase and guide the development of the study plan, the Agency is seeking suggestions and comments from the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) -- an independent, external Federal advisory committee. The Agency has requested that the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) of the SAB evaluate and provide advice on EPA's proposed approach. The Agency will use this advice and extensive stakeholder input to guide the design of the study. The Federal Register notice announces the first meeting of the SAB review committee which consists of the SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) augmented with other SAB members. The meeting, April 7-8, in Washington, DC will evaluate and comment on EPA's proposed approach to studying the potential public health and environmental protection issues that may be associated with hydraulic fracturing.

 

    Regina Hopper, President and CEO of America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) issued a brief statement saying, "The natural gas community looks forward to working with the EPA to reaffirm the safety of this longstanding practice. Hydraulic fracturing has been refined and improved over the past 60 years and has been used safely on more than 1 million U.S. wells. With the extraordinary opportunity presented by our nation's natural gas abundance comes the responsibility to be good stewards of the land. Our members take this responsibility seriously, and we look forward to sharing with the EPA the extensive work done at every step of the natural gas extraction process. We are confident that a scientific and data-driven examination will provide policymakers and the public with even greater reassurance of the safety of this practice."

 

    The organization, EnergyInDepth, representing independent oil and natural gas producers says it "separates fact from fiction about our nation's natural gas and oil industry -- especially on emerging policy issues such as the environment and taxes." EnergyInDepth issued a statement saying, "We are hopeful and it is our expectation that this study -- if based on objective, scientific analysis -- will serve as an opportunity to highlight the host of steps taken at every wellsite that make certain groundwater is properly protected. The energy industry, as well as state regulatory agencies, are eager to work with EPA throughout this fact-based examination. Further, efforts underway in Congress to give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing -- which could hamper domestic energy production and job growth -- should come to a standstill until this study is completed. . . Fracturing has a long and clear record of safely leveraging otherwise unreachable homegrown, clean-burning, job-creating energy reserves. . ."

 

    On March 17, the EnergyInDepth blog, commented on or "debunked" as they said, the premier showing in Washington, DC of what they call the "anti-American natural gas film GasLand." GasLand is a documentary on natural gas drilling and the fracking process. EnergyInDepth said, "Despite claims, this critical technology has never contaminated groundwater -- a fact confirmed by Steve Heare, director of EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division just weeks ago." They said, "The movie -- which is supported by a host of mainstream organizations (sarcasm people) such as the Damascus Citizens, Earth Justice, Environmental Working Group, National Resources Defense Council, Oil and Gas Accountability Project. . ."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement saying, "We expect the study to confirm what 60 years of experience and investigation have already demonstrated: that hydraulic fracturing is a safe and well understood technology for producing oil and natural gas. We hope the agency will provide ample opportunity for stakeholder comment and participation during the course of its study. . . While the technology has been used for more than a half century, its continued use is crucial. It is enabling access to massive new supplies of natural gas trapped in shale formations across the United States. These new finds have multiplied the nation's natural gas resources and will help generate electricity, heat homes and power vehicles for generations of Americans to come. . ."

 

    Earthjustice Legislative Associate Jessica Ennis said, "We commend EPA for investigating this controversial gas drilling technique. From Wyoming to Pennsylvania, people are worried about what this untested process is doing to their drinking water. . . As important as the study is, we know that what's really needed are federal protections. Hydraulic fracturing is currently exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, so oil and gas companies are only required to comply with a patchwork of state regulations. Also thanks to this exemption, known as the Halliburton Loophole, we have no idea what chemicals drillers are pumping underground. . . Bills pending before Congress would remove the Halliburton Loophole and require companies to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Congress needs to pass this legislation and quickly."

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access more information on hydraulic fracturing from EPA (click here). Access more information on the SAB hydraulic fracturing review committee and the supporting documents (click here). Access the statement from ANGA (click here). Access a release from EnergyInDepth (click here). Access the EnergyInDepth blog post on GasLand (click here). Access a release from AIP (click here). Access an executive summary and link to the complete 24-page report from EWG (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the GasLand website for more information on the film (click here).

Senate Hearing On Protecting Children From Environmental Threats

Mar 17: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Environmental Health: High-level Strategy and Leadership Needed to Continue Progress toward Protecting Children from Environmental Threats (GAO-10-205, January 28, 2010). The report was requested by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA),Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chairman of the EPW Subcommittee on Children's Health. GAO also delivered testimony at a hearing of the EPW Committee that was devoted to the GAO Investigation of EPA's Efforts to Protect Children's Health.

 

    Witnesses testifying at the hearing in addition to GAO included: U.S. EPA and the Center for Occupational & Environmental Health, University of California at Berkeley; the Children's Environmental Health Network and the Science and Environmental Health Network. Additionally, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) delivered opening remarks.

 

    Chairman Boxer opened the hearing saying, "Children are more vulnerable to toxic pollution than adults. Their bodies are developing rapidly -- including their brains, hearts and lungs, their nervous and immune systems – so exposures to toxic chemicals at critical times in their development can have life-long impacts. That's why I wrote the law that ensures that the EPA takes children and other vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and the elderly, into account when setting drinking water standards, not just healthy adult men. And that is why I asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the EPA's role in protecting children's health and to give me a report card on how the federal government is doing in keeping our children safe from environmental dangers."

 

    Senator Inhofe said the GAO report indicated that, "the Agency has not fully used the Office of Children's Health Protection and has not prioritized children's health considerations in light of advisory recommendations. However, what the report does not fully address is the fact that EPA must always balance recommendations on children's health with objective scientific standards, legal requirements, and practical realities. . . But, in contrast to what some of the witnesses will say today, I do not believe that EPA needs additional congressional authority to specifically protect children's health. . ."

 

    Senator Nelson testified to bring attention to the community in Palm Beach Florida called the Acreage where the town of about 50,000 has been shaken by what he called "fears of a cancer cluster." He said, "In February, a study by the state health department found higher than normal incidences of brain and central nervous system cancer in girls and young women. Some residents have lost a loved one; others aren't sure if their homes are safe to live in; and if they try to leave, they worry they won't even be able to sell their homes. Despite a year-long investigation, we still don't know what's causing these cancers and people cannot get their lives back to normal until they have answers. . ."

 

    GAO indicated in their report that exposure to toxic chemicals or environmental pollutants may harm the health of the nation's 74 million children and contribute to increases in asthma and developmental impairments. In 2007, 66 percent of children lived in counties exceeding allowable levels for at least one of the six principal air pollutants that cause or aggravate asthma, contributing to medical costs of $3.2 billion per year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

    In 1997, Executive Order 13045 mandated that agencies place a high priority on children's risks and required that policies, programs, activities, and standards address those risks. In response, U.S. EPA created the Office of Children's Health Protection and convened the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. GAO's report assesses the extent to which EPA has institutionalized consideration of children's health through: (1) strategies and priorities; (2) key offices and other child-focused resources; and (3) participation in interagency efforts.

 

    GAO indicated that they found EPA has developed policies and guidance to consider children, but "it has not maintained attention to children through agency strategies and priorities." In 1996, EPA created a national agenda on children's health, and its 1997 and 2000 strategic plans highlighted children's health as a key cross-agency program. As a result, the agency's research advanced the understanding of children's vulnerabilities. However, "EPA has not updated the agenda since 1996, and the focus on children is absent from the 2003, 2006, and September 2009 draft strategic plans."

 

    GAO also indicates in its report that EPA has not fully used the Office of Children's Health Protection and other child-focused resources. "The active involvement of managers from the office and experts from the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee has been lacking, as has the involvement of key staff throughout EPA. Although EPA now has a new Director of Children's Health, the office had not had consistent leadership since 2002, hampering its ability to support and facilitate agencywide efforts and elevate matters of importance with senior officials. For example, a previous director established workgroups to bring together officials from the program offices and the children's health office, but a subsequent acting director eliminated these groups, effectively halting work on a key set of children's health recommendations. In addition, the regional children's health coordinators -- who provide outreach and coordination for EPA -- have no national strategy or dedicated resources. Finally, the advisory committee has provided hundreds of recommendations, but EPA has requested advice on draft regulations only three times in the last decade."

 

    GAO said while EPA leadership is key to national efforts to protect children from environmental threats, EPA's efforts have been hampered by the expiration in 2005 of certain provisions in the executive order. For example, the Task Force on Children's Environmental Health provided EPA with a forum for interagency leadership on important federal efforts, such as the National Children's Study. It also provided biennial reports that helped establish federal research priorities.

   

    EPA testified that, "Children's health is a driving force behind Administrator Jackson's priorities. In a February 2010 memo to EPA senior managers, she reaffirmed EPA's commitment to considering the health of pregnant women, infants and children in all human health related activities and to the use of EPA's 1995 Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children and the best available research and data to guide our children's health protection efforts. In the memo, Administrator Jackson describes EPA's Children's Health Agenda and identifies the Office of Children's Health Protection as having the lead in ensuring that the Agency is successful in its efforts to protect children's health."

 

    Peter Grevatt Ph.D., Director, Office of Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education at EPA said it's important to focus on children because, "Children eat, drink and breathe more per pound than adults. When food, water, or air is polluted, children are exposed to more of the pollution than adults. For example, an average infant less than 6 months old consumes 2.5 times more water than an adult on a per pound basis. Children can have greater exposure to chemicals through behaviors that are unique to childhood, such as crawling, putting objects in their mouths, and eating nonfood items. Children also have unique exposures, for example, through the umbilical cord and through breast milk. Their bodies are rapidly developing. Exposure to toxic chemicals during critical windows of development can lead to disease or other serious effects on organ systems. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, the opening statements, the GAO report and a video (click here).

 

 

White House Task Force Interim Report On Climate Change Adaptation

Mar 16: The White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, which includes representatives from more than 20 Federal Agencies, released an Interim Progress Report which outlines the Task Force's progress to date and recommends key components to include in a national strategy on climate change adaptation. These six components include: Integration of Science into Adaptation Decisions and Policy; Communications and Capacity-building; Coordination and Collaboration; Prioritization; A Flexible Framework for Agencies; and Evaluation.

 

    The brief 7-page report explains that the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) "to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change" and the White House Task Force was formed to work in parallel and in coordination with USGCRP, to begin to develop Federal recommendations for adapting to climate change impacts both domestically and internationally. President Obama placed special emphasis on adaptation when he ordered, on October 5, 2009 [Executive Order 13514], the establishment of an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the Federal Government. Part of the order referenced the work of the Task Force and called on it to report to him within a year on Agency actions in support of developing the domestic and international dimensions of a U.S. strategy for adaptation to climate change. The Interim Progress Report is now available for 60 days of public comment and the Final Report will be presented to the President in October 2010.

 

    The final report will detail the development of domestic and international dimensions of a U.S. strategy for adaptation to climate change, agency actions in support of that strategy development process, and recommendations for any further measures to advance towards a national strategy. The Task Force indicates that it "will not, however, deliver a complete U.S. adaptation strategy to the President." Five workgroups (on science inputs to adaptation, agency process, water resource management, insurance, and international assistance) are currently reviewing existing policies, operations, procedures, and other tools that affect the Federal government's ability to respond to and prepare for climate impacts. The workgroups will suggest options for improving the government's adaptive capacity as climate change continues. To date, the workgroups have reviewed relevant literature, analyzed existing agency adaptation activities, and conducted listening sessions with external groups and experts on managing climate impacts and adaptation efforts. Case studies, legislative proposals, and comparisons of other governments' approaches are also being reviewed and considered.

 

    According to the interim report, the Task Force has found that, "climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment. Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires, and sea level rise. Climate change impacts are pervasive, wide-ranging and affect the core systems of our society: transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others. Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions."

 

    And, while there already is "substantial U.S. government and non-government activity towards adapting and building resilience to climate change risks. . . there still are significant gaps in the U.S. government's approach to climate change adaptation and building resilience." The Task For says the gaps include: Coherent research programs to identify and describe regional impacts associated with near-term, long-term, and abrupt global climate change Relevant climate change and impact information that is accessible and usable by decision-makers and practitioners; A unified strategic vision and approach; Understanding of the challenges at all levels of government; Comprehensive and localized risk and vulnerability assessments; Organized and coordinated efforts across local, State and Federal agencies; Strong links between, and support and participation of, Tribal, regional, State, and local partners; A strategy to link resources, both financial and intellectual, to critical needs; and A robust approach to evaluating and applying lessons learned.

 

    The report indicates that a national strategy for climate change adaptation and resilience would help address the gaps. It says, "The strategy should emphasize two major changes in the way the U.S. government operates. First, agency climate change adaptation and resilience requires a flexible, forward thinking approach. This represents a shift away from using past conditions as indicators of the future, and a requirement for on-going investigation, revision and adaptive management. Second, responses to climate change challenges and opportunities should be integrated into current plans, processes and approaches of the U.S. government. This integration will allow adaptation and building resilience to become part of existing activities, and to be considered within the context of the broader system of stresses, risks and opportunities."

   

    The report indicates that over the next seven months, the Task Force may refine recommendations around structural issues such as improving and integrating science results in developing policy and a framework for Federal agency adaptation, as well as cross-cutting topics, including water resources management and international adaptation. The Task Force also may establish additional workgroups, in cooperation with USGCRP, including those to inform the development of a national strategy in the areas of communications and capacity-building, coordination and collaboration across government and with partners, evaluation and learning, and other priority issues. Through a series of regional outreach meetings and pilot activities, the Task Force will continue moving towards recommendations on the development of a national strategy on climate change adaptation.

   

    Access the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force website for an overview and background information (click here). Access the interim report (click here).

International Execs Warn Climate Action Delay Cost $500 Billion/Yr

Mar 15: Executives of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) said they "remain optimistic that the world will meet the climate challenge" and say that the disappointments of Copenhagen should not be uses to "place blame or as an excuse to abandon the effort."

 

    In a release the groups said, "The future world will be resource and carbon constrained. Cleaner, more efficient technologies are required; the "green race" has begun among companies and countries to become the leading suppliers of these solutions. Our work in countries all around the world convinces us that government and business leaders understand that adopting new, more energy efficient technologies is essential for continued international competitiveness and long-term growth prospects." They said the 9 billion people in the future world, the majority urbanized,  will all be demanding food, water and housing which "requires a push for resource efficiency and a drive for reduced pollution."

 

    Looking forward, they outline some steps including: the first priority should be to launch a new, concerted effort to increase the efficiency of energy production and use. They said IEA's recommendations to improve energy efficiency could, if implemented globally, reduce global CO2 emissions by more than 8 billion tonnes per year by 2030. Second, clean energy growth will require large and continuing investment in renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS). By 2050 they said, "we need to achieve a 6-fold increase in renewable energy, a 3- to 4-fold increase in nuclear power and an expansion of CCS from the five successful large-scale projects that exist today to over three thousand projects."

    Third, the groups said the transport sector must also be far along the path to decarbonization by 2050. This will entail "rapid replacement of conventional vehicles by hybrid and electric vehicles, combined with sustainable biofuels, and essential programs to expand use of mass transit and other cleaner mobility options. Achieving these goals will require rapid changes in the way we produce, use and even think about energy in modern society. We believe we can -- and must -- begin the evolution toward a more efficient, low-carbon energy system today. The longer we wait, the more inefficient and high-carbon technologies will become 'locked in' and the higher the ultimate price tag of cutting emissions."

    IEA analysis estimates that every year of delay adds US$ 500 billion to the investment needed worldwide between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector. We cannot afford to postpone action any longer. They said that despite the urgency, "current efforts fall short. Although government investment in low-carbon technologies increased in 2008-2009 for the first time since the 1970s, it is still not enough. We need to sustain these increases and at least triple public investment in clean energy research, development and deployment. The private sector is ready to take on greater risk in new, innovative low-carbon technologies if they see a positive return on their investment. But the rules need to be clear and the operating framework more certain. . . The world is moving on from Copenhagen. Negotiations must continue, but action need not await their outcome.

    Access a lengthy release from the two organizations and link to additional information (click here).

EPA Agrees To Consider Ocean Acidification Under CWA

Mar 11: U.S. EPA has agreed to consider how states can address ocean acidification under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in a  settlement that responds to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) which challenged EPA's failure to recognize the impacts of acidification on coastal waters off the state of Washington. The suit, brought under CWA, was the first to address ocean acidification. Miyoko Sakashita, CBD oceans director said, "This settlement marks a crucial step toward combating ocean acidification with our nation's strongest water-quality law, the Clean Water Act. We already have the legal tools we need to limit ocean acidification, and the Clean Water Act has a history of success reducing pollution."

    Ocean acidification, the "other carbon dioxide problem," results from the ocean's absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, which increases the acidity of the ocean and changes the chemistry of seawater. The primary known consequence of ocean acidification is that it impairs the ability of marine animals to build and maintain the protective shells and skeletons they need to survive. Nearly every marine animal studied to date has experienced adverse effects due to acidification. Sakashita said, "Ocean acidification is global warming's evil twin, and CO2 pollution is one of the biggest threats to our marine environment. We need prompt action to curb CO2 emissions to avoid the worst consequences of acidification."

    Under the settlement, EPA has agreed to initiate a public process to develop guidance on how to approach acidification under the Federal Clean Water Act. Specifically, EPA will consider a provision of the Act that requires states to identify threatened or impaired waters and set limits on the input of pollutants into these waters. On March 15, EPA was to submit for publication in the Federal Register a notice soliciting public comments on how to evaluate waters threatened by acidification and address the problem. Scientists have confirmed widespread ocean acidification due to CO2 pollution. The Arctic, for example, faces imminent consequences, and areas of the Arctic are expected to become corrosive by 2016.

    Access a release from CBD and link to more information (click here). Access links to extensive documentation related to the agreement (click here).

Enhanced Oil Recovery Could Cut Imports By 40%+

Mar 10: A new analysis by Advanced Resources International (ARI), a research and consulting firm providing services related to unconventional gas and carbon sequestration, indicates that the U.S. has a significant opportunity to increase its energy independence, slash foreign oil imports by as much as half by 2030, and cut carbon emissions through a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) with carbon capture and storage (CCS). ARI says that EOR with CCS would help drive domestic economic growth and increase U.S. oil reserves. Clean energy and climate legislation that is being considered in the U.S. Congress is projected to lead to large volumes of captured CO2 from power plants and other industrial sites, sufficient to fully develop oil recovery potential in existing U.S. oil fields.

    In a release from ARI, Tracy Evans, President of Denbury Resources Inc., a leader in CO2-enhanced oil recovery in the Southeast and Northwest said, "Using CO2 to enhance oil recovery is neither a new nor an exotic technology. There is no doubt that a large market exists for CO2 emissions captured from industrial sources and power plants for expanding domestic oil production. The single largest deterrent to expanding production from CO2-EOR today is the lack of large volumes of reliable and affordable CO2."

    The report finds that carbon capture stimulated by Federal clean energy and climate legislation could boost U.S. oil production between 3 to 3.6 million barrels per day, cutting imports of crude oil up to 40 percent compared to today's levels and up to 52 percent by 2030 (based on 2009 figures), depending on how much of the captured CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery purposes. The release indicates that the CO2-enhanced domestic oil production "would help keep more than $700 billion in the U.S. economy, employing tens of thousands American workers, while increasing state and Federal revenues between $190 and $210 billion."

    In addition, the report shows that the U.S. can significantly cut and sequester carbon emissions by up to 530 million tons per year by 2030. This is the equivalent of taking 88 million cars off the road. Jon Powers, CEO of the Truman National Security Project and an Iraq War veteran said, "For too long our nation's energy policies have kept us tied to unfriendly countries in the Middle East and elsewhere that weakens our national security and puts our troops in harm's way. Using carbon emissions to boost domestic oil production can be an important step in dramatically increasing our energy independence, while simultaneously cutting the pollution that also threatens our climate."

    The clean energy and climate legislation that is pending in Congress would help to stimulate and support rapid deployment of carbon capture and storage in power generation and other industrial facilities that emit significant volumes of carbon dioxide. The report indicates that the states that would benefit the most from CO2-EOR include: Arkansas, California, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming.

    Mike Godec, ARI Vice President said, "This is an important piece of the puzzle for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and cutting carbon emissions. With the right policies and investment in demonstrating EOR technologies, captured CO2 could be productively used to produce more domestic oil from existing oil fields. These are benefits that should appeal to a broad range of politicians and business leaders - not to mention the general public that wants greater national security and more energy independence."

    Access a release from ARI with links to additional information (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the complete 56-page report (click here). Access the ARI website for additional information (click here).

2,000+ U.S. Scientists & Economists Urge Action On Climate Bill

Mar 11: Nobel Prize-winning economists and scientists delivered a letter to the U.S. Senate urging lawmakers to require immediate cuts in global warming emissions. The letter was signed by more than 2,000 prominent U.S. economists and climate scientists, including eight Nobel laureates, 32 National Academy of Sciences members, 11 MacArthur "genius award" winners, and three National Medal of Science recipients. 

    James McCarthy, one of the letter's organizers and a biological oceanography professor at Harvard University said, "The nation's leading scientists and economists have joined together to tell policymakers we agree about the urgency of addressing climate change now. The bad news is the science of climate change is indisputable. The good news is we can cost-effectively cut the emissions that are causing it." McCarthy is a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) board, and a leader of the Nobel Peace Prize winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The letter states, "We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e., prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate. . .

 

    "The longer we wait, the harder and more costly it will be to limit climate change and to adapt to those impacts that will not be avoided. Many emissions reduction strategies can be adopted today that would save consumers and industry money while providing benefits for air quality, energy security, public health, balance of trade, and employment. . .

 

    "A strong U.S. commitment to reduce emissions is essential to drive international climate progress. Voluntary initiatives to date have proven insufficient. We urge U.S. policy makers to put our nation onto a path today to reduce emissions on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The first step on this path should be reductions on the order of 15-20 percent below 2000

levels by 2020, which is achievable and consistent with sound economic policy. There is no time to waste. The most risky thing we can do is nothing."

 

    According to a release, the letter was issued "partly as a response to escalating attacks on climate science and disinformation about the costs of addressing global warming." Elinor Ostrom, an Indiana University professor and a Nobel Prize-winner in economics said, "In the economic emergency we are experiencing, some people think that we cannot afford to address the problem of climate change. It's the other way around. If we don't act now, we will run into even greater economic problems in the future."

 

    Access a release and link to the complete letter and signers (click here).

Competing, Confusing Electronics Recycling Certification Programs

Mar 9: A release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored electronic recycling certification program does not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 2/11/10]. Both programs are just now getting underway and are certain to cause confusion for the public, recyclers, and manufacturers.

 

    U.S. EPA's release indicates that through "a brand new electronics recycling certification program," the Agency "is taking steps to ensure that electronics recyclers adhere to highly protective standards for workers and the environment in processing pre-owned electronics. This new certification process also means that recycled materials will not be shipped overseas without the consent of the designated country."

    According to EPA only "three companies nationwide have received this new designation – called Responsible Recycling [R2] Practices Certification. The first, and only certified recycler in the mid-Atlantic region is E-structors, Inc. of Elkridge, Md." TechTurn of Austin, Texas, and Waste Management of Minnesota were also certified as electronic recycling firms.

    EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin said, "This new e-cycling certification program will take the guesswork out of choosing a responsible recycler. Recycling is an important tool in our arsenal and we need to make sure it's done correctly to prevent environmental harm and ensure the safe re-use of materials. We strongly encourage other electronic recyclers to obtain the certification to ensure that public health and the environment receive the highest protection available."

    In its release EPA indicates that, "The protocols required of certified recyclers help to reduce energy and natural resource consumption, greenhouse gases and hazardous waste. Recyclers are not permitted to burn or landfill certain materials. If electronics are going to be sold for reuse, the recycler must show that all personal data has been cleared or destroyed, that the equipment has been tested and is in working condition, and that the equipment is packaged properly. A recycler must exercise due diligence to ensure appropriate management of the materials throughout the recycling chain, whether domestic or international."

    EPA says that "To apply for certification, electronics recyclers should contact either SGS or Perry Johnson Registrars to receive certification, provided they meet the rigorous certification standards. Both SGS and Perry Johnson Registrars are leading inspection, verification, testing and certification companies. As accredited certifying bodies for certification, SGS and Perry Johnson Registrars are required to list companies they have certified on their respective websites."

 

    However, the EPA release fails to mention or acknowledge the competing new e-Stewards Certification and Standard from the Basel Action Network (BAN) -- a certification program for electronics recycling created jointly by the environmental community and business leaders. In February, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced its endorsement of the e-Stewards program which it called "the first-ever certification program for electronics recycling." NRDC Senior Scientist Dr. Allen Hershkowitz said, "This initiative is sorely needed. Many e-waste recyclers claim to be green, but in reality they rely on unsafe and ecologically damaging methods like dumping millions of tons of toxic waste each year in China, India and Africa. E-Stewards provide businesses and consumers with a first-of-a-kind seal to identify the truly responsible recyclers."

 

    When it announced its support for the e-Stewards program, NRDC pointed out that, "In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report roundly criticizing the US EPA for not doing more to promulgate and enforce rules to control the e-waste trade. Unfortunately, to date little has changed and a market-based solution is seen as more necessary than ever."

 

    The e-Steward Certification is a fully accredited certification that relies on independent, third-party auditors to verify safe and ethical e-waste disposal. It is awarded to companies that recycle electronics without using practices that far too many in U.S. electronics recycling industry rely upon -- the use of municipal landfills and incinerators, the export to developing countries, or U.S. prison labor for disposing of toxic old electronics. While the EPA sponsored program lists only three certified recyclers, the eSteward program indicates that there are about 50 North American recyclers that are considered "Pledged e-Stewards" which have been vetted by BAN and are licensed and committed to becoming certified in the next 18 months. These companies include some of the largest electronics recyclers in North America.

 

    A February 17, 2010, editorial in Green Computing, critical of the EPA sponsored R2 program says, "R2 lacks the support of the environmental community and some of the most prominent electronics recyclers in the United States. In fact, a number of recyclers now pursuing e-Stewards Certification were once participants in the R2 development process and walked away when it became clear that the manufacturers' special interests would prevail over truly responsible recycling practices." An article in Plastics News describing differences between the two competing programs quotes Barb Kyle, national coordinator of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, who said her organization left the R2 discussions along with BAN and decided to help develop the e-Stewards standard. She said, "It was only too clear they were headed for a low bar."

 

    Access the release from EPA (click here). Access the Perry Johnson Registrars (click here).  Access SGS (click here). Access more information on EPA's Responsible Recycling program (click here).  Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the complete list of Pledged e-Stewards (click here). Access the e-Stewards website for complete information on certification and related information (click here). Access the BAN website for more information (click here). Access the Green Computing editorial (click here). Access the Plastics News article (click here).