NAS Report Says Ocean Acidification Is A Growing Problem

Apr 22: The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) released a Congressionally requested study -- Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean -- that indicates the changing chemistry of the world's oceans is a growing global problem and unless man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the ocean will continue to become more acidic. The long-term consequences of ocean acidification on marine life are unknown, but many ecosystem changes are expected to result. The study Committee said the Federal government's National Ocean Acidification Program, currently in development, is a positive move toward coordinating efforts to understand and respond to the problem.

 

    According to a summary, the ocean absorbs approximately a third of man-made CO2 emissions, including those from fossil-fuel use, cement production, and deforestation. The CO2 taken up by the ocean decreases the pH of the water and leads to a combination of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit -- from about 8.2 to 8.1 -- making them more acidic.  Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century. This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years.  The ocean will become more acidic on average as surface waters continue to absorb atmospheric CO2. 

 

    The committee said it found that studies on a number of marine organisms have shown that lowering seawater pH with CO2 affects biological processes, such as photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction, and individual survival depending upon the amount of acidification and the species tested.  For example, some of the strongest evidence of the potential effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems comes from experiments on organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.  The results showed decreases in shell and skeletal growth in a range of marine organisms, including reef-building corals, commercially important mollusks such as oysters and mussels, and several types of plankton at the base of marine food webs. 

 

    The Committee said, "The ability of various marine organisms to acclimate or adapt to ocean acidification is unknown, but existing data suggest that there will be ecological winners and losers, leading to shifts in the composition and functioning of many marine ecosystems. Such ecosystem changes could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources."

 

    The Committee indicated that although changes in ocean chemistry caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 can be determined, not enough information exists to assess the social or economic effects of ocean acidification, much less develop plans to mitigate or adapt to them. The Federal government has taken initial steps to respond to the nation's long-term needs with the development of the National Ocean Acidification Program. The committee found that legislation has laid the foundation for a program that will advance our understanding and improve our response to ocean acidification. 

 

    The Committee recommended six key elements of a successful National Ocean Acidification Program: (1) an integrated ocean acidification observation network that includes the development of new tools, methods, and techniques to improve measurements; (2) research in eight broad areas to fulfill critical information gaps; (3) assessments to identify stakeholder concerns and a process to provide relevant information for decision support; (4) a data management office that would ensure data quality, access, and archiving, plus an information exchange that would provide research results, syntheses, and assessments to managers, policymakers, and the general public; (5)  facilities to support high-quality research and training of ocean acidification researchers; (6) an effective 10-year strategic plan for the program that will identify key goals, set priorities, and allow for community input, in addition to a detailed implementation plan.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to a report brief and summary (click here). Access summary information and link to the complete report (click here).

New Report Probes Health Effects Of Climate Change

New Report Probes Health Effects Of Climate Change - Apr 22: The vulnerability of people to the health effects of climate change is the focus of a report released by a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-led Federal interagency group that includes NOAA. The report, A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change, calls for coordinating Federal research to better understand climate's impact on human health and identifying how these impacts can be most effectively addressed. The report was published by Environmental Health Perspectives and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 

    The report indicates what is known and the significant knowledge gaps in understanding of the consequences of climate change on 11 major illness categories, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke, asthma and other respiratory disorders, food-borne diseases and nutrition, weather and heat-related fatalities, and water and vector-borne infectious diseases. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator said, "To mitigate and adapt to the health effects of climate change, we must first understand them. This report is a vital new roadmap for doing that. There is an urgent need to get started, and I am pleased that we can bring NOAA climate science and NOAA capabilities in linking ocean and human health and a range of other monitoring and prediction tools to the table."

    Health experts from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NIH Fogarty International Center, NOAA, U.S. EPA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy contributed to the report.

    Research recommendations include examining how diseases in marine mammals might be linked to human health; investigating how climate change might contaminate seafood, beaches and drinking water; and understanding the impact of atmospheric changes on heat waves and air-borne diseases. There are questions about the effects of increased rainfall and extreme weather events on sewage discharges and run-off and what this will mean to human health. Integrating human, terrestrial and aquatic animal health surveillance with environmental monitoring is recommended to better understand emerging health risks like Lyme disease, West Nile virus, malaria, and toxins from marine algae.  

    To address disaster planning and management, the report encourages research aimed at strengthening healthcare and emergency services, especially when events such as floods, drought and wildfires can affect human health both during and after an event. The report also identifies the need for more effective early warning systems providing, for example, an alert to those with cardiovascular disease on extreme heat days or when air pollution is high. Other issues include susceptible and displaced populations; public health and health care infrastructure; essential capacities and skills, particularly for modeling and prediction; the integration of climate observation networks with health impact and surveillance tools, and communication and education.

    Access a release from NOAA (click here). Access the complete 78-page report (click here).

Bipartisan America's Commitment To Clean Water Act

Apr 21: Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I), introduced legislation which he said would reaffirm the ability of the Clean Water Act to protect the nation's waters, including wetlands. H.R. 5088, "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act," will restore bedrock protections from water polluters who place families and communities nationwide at risk. Representatives John Dingell (D-MI.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI.), who joined Oberstar at a press conference, are original cosponsors of the bill.

    According to a release In 2001 and 2006, two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court "threw the nation's clean water programs into turmoil, creating confusion and uncertainty for communities, developers, and agricultural interests, and placed at risk the nation's ability to restore, protect, and maintain water quality and the water-related environment. The Supreme Court overruled 30 years of regulatory policy and limited the scope of the waters protected by the Clean Water Act." [Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers in 2001 and Rapanos v. United States in 2006]. Oberstar said his bill restores the Clean Water Act to its pre-2001 status.

    The release indicates that on February 28, the New York Times reported that as a result of the two Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters without being prosecuted. According to the article, EPA regulators working on those cases estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years. Further, data from 2008, the most recent year available, show there were over 20,000 beach closings and advisories that year due to pollution, and studies in the Great Lakes show that as many as 10 percent of beachgoers report getting sick after swimming in beach waters open for swimming.

    Representative Oberstar said, "Turmoil, confusion, and uncertainty are no way to run a program. That is why I developed legislation to restore the common understanding of the scope of the Clean Water Act based on decades-old interpretations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. By restoring the common understanding and practice as existed in 2001 of the extent to which the nation's waters and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act, we can provide much-needed certainty to the regulated community, and avoid costly litigation over responsibility for protecting clean water."

    Representative Oberstar continued saying, "Opponents of the Clean Water Act argue that the Federal government should not require a permit for everything you do that might affect a wet area. I agree. The Clean Water Act never required such permits, and I do not offer legislation that would do so. Simply put, if it was not regulated before 2001, it will not be regulated with the enactment of my legislation. However, some people have opposed the Clean Water Act for decades, and it should not come as a surprise that these same groups are using recent Supreme Court decisions as justification to roll back protections under the Clean Water Act. On this, I strongly disagree."

    "Clean, safe water is a basic right for all Americans. Yet, unless we act, the Clean Water Act cannot ensure that right," said Oberstar. "Since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, Americans have overwhelmingly expressed their support for protecting our nation's waters and keeping them safe from polluters. H.R. 5088 will restore the nation's commitment to clean water and protect the health and safety of all Americans."

    The release indicates that two years ago, the T&I Committee conducted a thorough, day-long hearing that heard from two dozen witnesses on five panels who both supported and opposed prior legislation introduced by Oberstar. He invited suggestions from any and all interested parties. Oberstar said, "The bill that I introduce today is a new bill that responds to comments I heard from witnesses at our hearing and other stakeholders. It more clearly and specifically targets its one objective -- addressing two Supreme Court decisions that I believe were wrongly decided. This bill includes multiple changes to emphasize that it will reaffirm and restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act, and not expand its geographic scope."

    Oberstar's original Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) was introduced on May 22, 2007, also with Representatives John Dingell and Vernon Ehlers supporting, and with 150 co-sponsors and endorsements from 300 organizations representing the conservation community, family farmers, fishers, boaters, labor unions and civic associations [See WIMS 5/22/07].

    The substance of the new bill strikes the term "navigable waters" and replaces it with "waters of the United States." And, the bill defines "waters of the United States" to include the current regulatory definition excluding waste treatment systems including treatment ponds or lagoons, and excluding prior converted croplands. Both "waste treatment system" and " prior converted cropland" are also defined.

    Access a release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access the 11-page H.R. 5088 (click here). Access a fact sheet "What the Bill Actually Does and Does Not"(click here). Access a table comparing the bill to prior legislation (click here). Access a section by section summary (click here). Access a video of the press briefing including statements from supporters (click here). Access the WIMS Special Report on Rapanos and related activities (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posting on the Supreme Court decisions and CWA (click here).

State Department Summary Of Major Economies Forum Meeting

Apr 19: State Department representatives U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman issued a brief summary of the April 18-19 meeting -- the sixth Meeting at the Leaders' representative level of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) that took place in Washington, DC [See WIMS 4/19/10]. It was attended by officials from the seventeen major economies, as well as the United Nations, with Colombia, Denmark, Grenada, and Yemen also participating in the session. The MEF includes Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The previous MEF meeting took place in London last October [See WIMS 10/19/09].

    According to the summary, participants agreed that smaller, informal discussions such as the Major Economies Forum contributed to success in Copenhagen and can facilitate and enrich the discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the multilateral forum for negotiating climate change. Parties also highlighted the importance of discussions being representative and transparent. Participants generally felt that Copenhagen Accord represented an important step forward, and that it provided important political consensus that should be reflected regarding the key issues in the negotiations leading up to the UNFCCC Cancun meeting scheduled for November 29 to December 10,  2010.

    Participants discussed goals for Cancun and beyond. There was a discussion of the role of the Kyoto Protocol and the form of a legal outcome. There was also a discussion of the key issues that need to be addressed to have a successful outcome in Cancun, noting the importance of setting realistic expectations for Cancun. Recognizing the urgency of moving forward, participants felt that "in Cancun countries should at a minimum agree on a balanced set of decisions informed by the Copenhagen Accord."

    Participants discussed what work needs to be done in the year ahead, including "the need to elaborate the measurement, reporting, and verification and other transparency provisions of the Accord." In this regard, participants welcomed India's presentation on practical approaches to Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and international consultations and analysis. Various participants also spoke to equity, the role of markets, engaging smaller countries in the mitigation effort, how to ensure that the approach going forward reflects the dictates of science, domestic actions already underway to implement mitigation commitments under the Accord, and actions to reduce deforestation. Participants supported the Mexican Presidency's efforts to prepare the 16 meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16).

    Many countries noted the importance of moving forward promptly with the Accord's "Fast Start financing provisions" in a transparent fashion. Several countries presented information on the actions they were already undertaking in response to their fast start financing commitment under the Copenhagen Accord. The participants were briefed on the Clean Energy Ministerial to be held July 19-20, 2010 in Washington DC that aims to advance key activities in the Technology Action Plans of the Global Partnership launched by Leaders in L'Aquila July 2009 [See WIMS 7/13/09].

    The U.S. also released a 2-page document on the "fast start" efforts. The document states in part that, "The United States is committed to the full implementation of the Copenhagen Accord. As part of this commitment, we are working together with our partners to provide 'fast start' climate finance approaching $30 billion during the period 2010-2012 to help meet adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries. Climate-related appropriations for 2010 total $1.3 billion, and the Administration has requested $1.9 billion in appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. These funds include support for the Administration's pledge to provide $1 billion for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). In addition to these appropriations, U.S. development finance and export credit agencies are on track to provide more than $700 million in 2010, and nearly $900 million in 2011, in financial instruments that help American firms and investors wit their foreign partners, deploy clean energy technologies in develop countries."

    A release from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) indicates that the next ministerial meetings will be convened by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Petersburg, Germany from May 2-4 and by Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg in Oslo, Norway on May 27. High-level talks among Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) concluded last week in Brasilia, Brazil. The UN Climate Treaty Parties are expected to conduct a ministerial meeting shortly after their next round of talks in Bonn, Germany, in June.

    EDF's International Counsel Annie Petsonk said, "Having the climate talks proceed in May in several international forums presents challenges, but it also creates opportunities for coalitions to emerge among nations that move swiftly to embrace carbon regulation and position themselves for clean economic growth. That competition presents an even greater imperative for the Obama Administration to make a serious push now for a balanced energy-climate bill in the U.S. Senate."

    Access the State Department meeting summary (click here). Access the U.S. fast track document (click here). Access a release from EDF with links to additional information (click here). Access the State Department MEF website (click here). Access the MEF website for information on past meetings (click here). Access various media reports on the meeting (click here). Access links to a number of documents posted by OECD on the issue of MRV (click here).

Virginia & Alabama Challenge Data Basis For EPA CO2 Regs

Apr 16: Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, II, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed a motion to attempt to compel the U.S. EPA to open hearings so that evidence can be presented that may show the data the Agency relied on to enact carbon dioxide regulations is faulty. A release from the Attorney General indicates that the motion is part of the existing lawsuit Virginia has against the EPA over its finding that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is a danger to public health and welfare (i.e. the "endangerment finding).  Cuccinelli filed the motion jointly with the State of Alabama in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

    In February, Cuccinelli filed a motion with EPA, asking the Agency to reopen its hearings to consider new climate change data in light of the "Climate-gate scandal," emphasizing that the scandal broke after the Agency closed its hearings on "greenhouse gas" regulation in August 2009. A release from Cuccinelli indicates that earlier this month, EPA seemed to indicate that it does not intend to reopen hearings when it announced its intention to issue new emissions standards on cars and light duty trucks based on the same discredited data. As a result, the attorney general is now asking the court to compel the EPA to reopen hearings to allow for the full development of an accurate record.

    The release indicates that, "In the wake of the Climate-gate scandal, where emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia in Great Britain, several of the world's prominent climatologists admitted that they manipulated data to overstate the effects of carbon dioxide emissions on the environment.  Based on the EPA's initial hearings and on the faulty global warming data on which it relied, the agency concluded that carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are dangerous pollutants.  The endangerment finding allows the EPA to strictly regulate carbon dioxide and these other gases."

    The release says that, "EPA's regulation of carbon dioxide could end up costing businesses and every Virginian household hundreds of millions of dollars in potentially unnecessary fees and increased energy costs, and could price industries such as manufacturing, agriculture, energy, and others out of business, destroying the jobs they provide to Virginians. Costs to Virginia households to heat homes, buy groceries, and power appliances are projected to increase by thousands of dollars a year under the likely regulations." Cuccinelli said, "Whatever the final decision is by the EPA, we want it to be based on sound scientific data, not data that has been sifted through a political filter."

    The motion was filed Thursday, April 15, because that was the deadline to do so. Cuccinelli indicated that, "Section 307 of the Clean Air Act permits the court to remand when it is clear that newly available evidence should be considered by the agency. To proceed only on the evidence currently in the record could be a waste of time and resources, given the likelihood that an appeal of the suit would prevail, and the new evidence would likely be included eventually."

    Access a release from the VA Attorney General and link to the Joint Motion to Remand and further information about the initial February challenge to the EPA (click here). Access various WIMS postings on climategate (click here).

Basel Action Network Launches Electronics Recycling Program

Apr 15: The Basel Action Network (BAN), the group that first documented the dumping of toxic electronic waste in China and Africa, announced the official launch of the world's first global e-waste recycler certification and the first such program backed by environmental organizations and major corporations alike. The accredited, third-party audited certification program has not only been endorsed by Greenpeace USA, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and 68 other environmental organizations but has also drawn the support of major corporate "e-Stewards Enterprises" including: Apollo Group, Inc.; Bank of America; Capitol One Financial Corp.; Ind. Distributors of Electronics Assoc.; Nemours Foundation; Premier, Inc.; Premier Farnell; Resource Media; Samsung; Sprout Creation; Stokes Lawrence; and Wells Fargo.

 

    The program should not be confused with a competing program from U.S. EPA and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). On March 25, ISRI announced that 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 said the Board's decision reinforces environmental, health and worker safety standards that closely track the EPA's Responsible Recycling (R2) program [See WIMS 3/25/10].

 

    On March 10, 2010, WIMS reported that a release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored R2 electronic recycling certification program did 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 EPA release indicated 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." EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin said, "This new e-cycling certification program will take the guesswork out of choosing a responsible recycler." However, the two competing programs, that are just now getting underway, are certain to cause confusion for the public, recyclers, and manufacturers.

 

    The "e-Stewards Standard," created by BAN with the advice of industry leaders and health and environmental specialists is the major feature of the program. It calls for recyclers to eliminate exports of hazardous e-wastes to developing countries; to halt the dumping of such wastes in municipal landfills or incinerators, and to cease the use of captive prison populations to manage toxic e-wastes. It also calls for strict protection of customer's private data and occupational health safeguards to ensure that workers in recycling plants are not exposed to toxic dusts and fumes.

 

    As an indication of the conflicts between the BAN program and the EPA R2 program, currently there are about 50 e-Stewards Recyclers, each of which has passed a rigorous internal review by BAN as a preliminary step to full certification. All are regarded as responsible recyclers, and each has committed to becoming fully certified by September 2011. BAN announced the names of its first fully certified companies which have passed additional, independent audits conducted by accredited certifying bodies. The first BAN Certified e-Stewards Recyclers are: Newport Computer Services, Inc. (one US location); Redemtech (all 4 US locations)

WeRecycle! (one US location). However, under the EPA R2 program only three companies nationwide have received its new "Responsible Recycling Practices Certification" designation  and include: E-structors, Inc. of Elkridge, MD; TechTurn of Austin, TX; and Waste Management of Minnesota.

    Additionally the BAN program recognizes three accredited certifying bodies including: AQA International LLC, Orion Registrar Inc., and SAI Global; while under the EPA program recyclers must apply for certification to either SGS or Perry Johnson Registrars.

 

    BAN reports that there are an additional twelve companies that are next in line, having contracted with certifying bodies to begin the process. The next-in-line companies are: A greenSpan Computer Recycling; California Electronic Asset Recovery (CEAR); CloudBlue; Creative Recycling Solutions; eGreen IT Solutions; Glezco (Mexico); Materials Processing Corporation; Metech; Nextend; Regency Technologies; Surplus Exchange; and Universal Recycling Technologies.

 

    Access a release from BAN (click here). Access the e-Stewards website for complete details on certification and related information (click here). Access a March 10 release from EPA with links to related program information (click here). Access ISRI's Electronics Recycling website for additional details (click here).

Senate & House Release TSCA Overhaul Legislation

Apr 15: U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced legislation designed to overhaul the "Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976" (TSCA), which he called "an antiquated law that in its current state, leaves Americans at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals." Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" to protect the health of families and the environment.

    Senator Lautenberg said, "America's system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken. Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children's bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My 'Safe Chemicals Act' will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals. Chemical safety reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is a common-sense issue and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this measure."

    According to a release from Senator Lautenberg, the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" requires safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market. Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

    Over the last several months, Senator Lautenberg has chaired a series of hearings to help craft the "Safe Chemicals Act" with dozens of witnesses including business leaders, public officials, scientists, doctors, academics, and non-profit organizations [See WIMS 3/9/10, WIMS 2/4/10]. . Through the hearings, public health groups, environmentalists, industry representatives and the EPA have expressed support for reforms to our nation's toxic substance laws. The "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" comports with the reform principles laid out by the Obama Administration, the American Chemistry Council and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition.

 

    According to a summary provided by Senator Lautenberg, some highlights of the Safe Chemicals Act are that it:

• Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical's safety. Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing. EPA will have full authority to request additional information needed to determine the safety of a chemical.
• Prioritizes chemicals based on risk. Calls on the EPA to categorize chemicals based on risk, and focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm.
• Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market. Places the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals. All uses must be identified and determined safe for the chemical to enter the market or continue to be used.
• Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals. Requires EPA to take fast action to reduce risk from chemicals that have already been proven dangerous. In addition, the EPA Administrator is given authority to act quickly if any chemical poses an imminent hazard.
• Creates open access to reliable chemical information. Establishes a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA's safety determinations. The EPA will impose requirements to ensure the information collected is reliable.
• Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry. Establishes grant programs and research centers to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives, and brings some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

    In addition to the Lautenberg bill, Representatives Bobby Rush, (D-IL) and Henry Waxman, (D-CA), introduced a parallel proposal, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, "discussion draft" of chemical protection reform legislation in the House. Rush and Waxman said their draft legislation reflects reasoned consideration of stakeholder and EPA priorities and recommendations. Representative Rush said, "Through the open stakeholder process that we are commencing today, I am optimistic that the discussion draft of my bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act will lead to a number of constructive improvements." Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman said, "For decades, Congress has been told that the Toxic Substances Control Act is failing its mission and is in desperate need of reform. In order to protect all Americans from toxic exposures and the adverse effects they cause, Congress must strengthen this failing law."

 

    Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney in the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC's) Health and Environment Program said, "Changing the existing law would make a significant difference in peoples' lives by reducing daily exposure to toxic chemicals. These bills provide an excellent starting place to strengthen EPA's authority to protect the public. If this legislation fulfills its promise, we can hope to see a decline in cancer, learning and developmental disabilities, infertility and other disease associated with exposure to these chemicals. Reducing such health problems will improve and lengthen lives as well as reduce the costs of healthcare. Many people assume the protections these bills create already exist, but they don't and they are long overdue. Both bills will need some strengthening to ensure that the promise of meaningful reform is fulfilled and we will work with lawmakers to make that happen."

 

    American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and CEO Cal Dooley issued a statement saying, "Safety must be the primary goal of chemical regulatory reform, as it is the top priority of our industry. This is a complex issue and we compliment Senator Lautenberg, and Congressmen Waxman and Rush, for bringing focus to the need for modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). While TSCA has been protective of public health and the environment in the past, we should harness the scientific and technological advances made since its passage to assess the safety of chemicals while fostering innovation and preserving hundreds of thousands of American jobs. 

    "We are encouraged that the Safe Chemicals Act (SCA) reflects some aspects of the principles that ACC released last year, which are mirrored by EPA's principles. These include the need to prioritize chemicals for evaluation, a risk-based approach to EPA safety reviews, and a reduction in animal testing. However, we are concerned that the bill's proposed decision-making standard may be legally and technically impossible to meet. The proposed changes to the new chemicals program could hamper innovation in new products, processes and technologies. In addition, the bill undermines business certainty by allowing states to adopt their own regulations and create a lack of regulatory uniformity for chemicals and the products that use them."

    The Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a release indicating, "Lautenberg, Waxman and other members of Congress sponsored a toxic chemicals policy reform proposal known as the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act in 2005 and again in 2008, but these measures did not have the broad support that has coalesced behind the current initiative. Today, the search for environmental causes of disease is a front-burner issue for scientists, medical professionals, policy-makers and health advocates. President Obama, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, key members of both houses of Congress, the environmental and health communities, countless citizens and the chemical industry itself agree that a new national policy must be crafted to fit the complex realities of the 21st century."

    Access a release from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access the full text of the "Safe Chemicals Act (click here). Access a full summary of the bill (click here). Access a release from Waxman-Rush with links to the discussion draft, a section-by-section summary, and a discussion draft summary (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here).

National Academies Report On Genetically Engineered Crops

Apr 13: A report from the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) indicates that many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops. However, GE crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate -- a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate. GE crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices.

 

    The report -- Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States -- provides the first comprehensive assessment of how GE crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, including those who grow conventional or organic crops. The new report follows several previous Research Council reports that examined the potential human health and environmental effects of GE crops.

 

    David Ervin, professor of environmental management and economics, Portland State University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm. However, these benefits are not universal for all farmers. And as more GE traits are developed and incorporated into a larger variety of crops, it's increasingly essential that we gain a better understanding of how genetic engineering technology will affect U.S. agriculture and the environment now and in the future. Such gaps in our knowledge are preventing a full assessment of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of GE crops on farm sustainability."

 

    First introduced in 1996, genetically engineered crops now constitute more than 80 percent of soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in the United States. GE soybeans, corn, and cotton are designed to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which has fewer adverse environmental effects compared with most other herbicides used to control weeds. In addition to glyphosate resistance, GE corn and cotton plants also are designed to produce Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that is deadly when ingested by susceptible insect pests.

 

    The report indicates that farmers need to adopt better management practices to ensure that beneficial environmental effects of GE crops continue. In particular, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to incorporate a range of weed management practices, including using other herbicide mixes. To date, at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to glyphosate since GE crops were introduced, largely because of repeated exposure. Federal and state government agencies, technology developers, universities, and other stakeholders should collaborate to document weed resistance problems and develop cost-effective ways to control weeds in current GE crops and new types of GE herbicide-resistant plants now under development.

 

    Under the heading of environmental benefits, the report indicates that improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of GE crops. Insecticide use has declined since GE crops were introduced, and farmers who grow GE crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways. In addition, farmers who grow herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.

 

    However, no infrastructure exists to track and analyze the effects that GE crops may have on water quality. The U.S. Geological Survey, along with other Federal and state environmental agencies, should be provided with financial resources to document effects of GE crops on U.S. watersheds. The report notes that although two types of insects have developed resistance to Bt, there have been few economic or agronomic consequences from resistance. Practices to prevent insects from developing resistance should continue, such as an EPA-mandated strategy that requires farmers to plant a certain amount of conventional plants alongside Bt plants in "refuge" areas.

 

    Under economic and social effects, the report indicates that in many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage. Although the farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops. 

 

    The report says that the higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides. The report also says that economic effects of GE crops on farmers who grow organic and conventional crops also need further study. For instance, the Committee indicated that organic farmers are profiting by marketing their crops as free of GE traits, but their crops' value could be jeopardized if genes from GE crops flow to non-GE varieties through cross-pollination or seed mingling.

 

    The report says, Farmers have not been adversely affected by the proprietary terms involved in patent-protected GE seeds.  However, some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed market will make it harder to purchase conventional seeds or those that have only specific GE traits. With the exception of the issue of seed industry consolidation, the effects of GE crops on other social factors of farming -- such as labor dynamics, farm structure, or community viability -- have largely been overlooked. More research is needed on the range of effects GE crops have on all farmers, including those who don't grow GE crops or farmers with less access to credit. Studies also should examine impacts on industries that rely on GE products, such as the livestock industry.

 

    The Committee indicates that research institutions should receive government support to develop GE traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop. Examples include plants that decrease the likelihood of off-farm water pollution or plants that are resilient to changing climate conditions. Intellectual property that has been patented in developing major crops should be made available for these purposes whenever possible.

 

    Access a release and links to the Full Report; Powerpoint Presentation; Report in Brief; and Listen to the Briefing (click here).

Senators Tout Cap-And-Dividend Technology & Jobs Benefits

Apr 12: U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) said in a release that an independent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University Law School concluded that their bipartisan cap-and-dividend legislation will drive technological innovations and create clean-energy jobs. The report finds that the, Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877) introduced by Cantwell and Collins (R-ME) late last year [See WIMS 12/15/09], would avoid large regional disparities and provide the greatest support to low-income families.

 

    Senator Cantwell said, "A well-designed climate bill will generate economic growth and job creation, not to mention finally cure our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels. This report makes clear what Senator Collins and I have been arguing all along: That a streamlined approach to reducing carbon pollution will accelerate our transition to a clean-energy economy and will put the United States in the lead in a growing, and potentially enormous, clean energy market. I'm pleased this breakthrough report validates the principles behind the CLEAR Act in determining that a simple, equitable climate policy is also the most effective way to protect consumers, combat global warming and create new family-wage jobs."

 

    Senator Collins said, "This report provides further support for clean energy legislation, which has tremendous potential to generate job growth, particularly in sectors like the construction industry that have suffered as a result of the recession. The CLEAR Act would spur critical investments in green technology and would increase consumer spending through rebates to consumers, both of which would increase domestic economic opportunity at a time when we need it most. That is why this legislation is so important, and I will continue to work with Senator Cantwell to advance our bill." 

 

    According to the release, the report -- CLEAR & the Economy: Innovation, Equity and Job Creation -- finds that the CLEAR Act's streamlined method of limiting carbon pollution will drive "innovation and investment in energy efficiency and clean energy (that) can help spur job growth in a number of important economic sectors, and help support promising nascent industries." By setting an economy-wide price on carbon, the CLEAR Act will create equal incentives for greenhouse gas reduction for all economic actors, maximizing incentives to innovate and invest across all sectors. The study found that the CLEAR Act can generate jobs through the dividend it will pay to Americans based on revenue it generates from carbon fuel producers and by spurring the shift to clean energy sources. Sectors that would see job growth include construction, wind and solar power industries, and mass transit.

 

    Michael Livermore, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) said, "These jobs will offer relatively high wages in industries that are experiencing overcapacity and unemployment. The economic incentives in the CLEAR Act will begin to mop up some of the slack in the market. Presently unemployed construction workers will find more opportunities as green investment kicks in."

 

    The Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act, would set up a mechanism for selling "carbon shares" to fossil fuel producers and would return most of the resulting revenue in dividends to every American. Under the legislation, 75 percent of the revenue would be refunded to every individual residing legally in the United States, with 25 percent going toward clean energy research and development. The legislation would achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

 

    The report indicates that by setting an economy-wide price on carbon, the CLEAR Act will create equal incentives for greenhouse gas reduction for all economic actors, maximizing incentives to innovate and invest across all sectors, while rewarding the lowest-cost opportunities for the abatement of emissions. Additional benefits include: reducing overall compliance costs because it does not mute price signals by giving away free allowances; avoiding large regional disparities; providing the greatest support to low-income families, and avoiding regressive wealth transfers; and sending a strong economy-wide price signal that drives innovation and investment in energy efficiency and clean energy can help spur job growth in a number of important economic sectors, and help support promising nascent industries.

 

    The report indicates that the overall costs imposed by the CLEAR Act are modest, and are overwhelmed by the social benefits achieved by greenhouse gas reductions. In addition to short-term job creation and technological innovations, the environmental benefits of the bill are likely to greatly exceed the costs.

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access the full text of the April 2010 IPI report (click here). Access a release from IPI on the report (click here). Access extensive information on the CLEAR Act from Senator Cantwell's website including the full text, section by section summary, a video, background documents and reports (click here).

Bonn Meeting Develops Future Agenda For Climate Talks

Apr 11: The first round of UN climate change talks since the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 concluded Sunday, April 11, in Bonn with agreement to intensify the negotiating schedule in order to achieve a strong outcome in Mexico at the end of the year. The first round of UN Climate Change Talks in Bonn in 2010 (April 9-11) was attended by more than 1700 delegates from 175 countries.

 

    In addition to the negotiating sessions already scheduled for 2010, governments decided at the Bonn April meeting to hold two additional sessions of at least one week each. The additional sessions will take place between the 32nd session of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies from May 31 to June 11, 2010 and the UN Climate Change Conference in Mexico from November 29 to December 10,  2010. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) invited its Chair to prepare, under her own responsibility, a text to facilitate negotiations among Parties, in time for the May/June sessions in Bonn.

 

    UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "At this meeting in Bonn, I have generally seen a strong desire to make progress. However, whilst more meeting time is important, it is itself not a recipe for success." De Boer has already announced his resignation which take effect in July. The UN's top climate change official called on governments to overcome differences, and work for greater clarity on what can be decided in the course of 2010 in the UN Climate Change negotiations. He said, "We need to decide what can be agreed at the end of this year in Cancún and what can be put off until later."

 

    De Boer indicated that negotiators must tackle three categories of issues in the course of this year: (1) issues which were close to completion in Copenhagen and can be finalized at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún at the end of the year; (2) issues where there are still considerable differences, but on which the Copenhagen Accord can provide important political guidance; and (3) issues where governments are still far from agreement.

 

    He said, "The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún must do what Copenhagen did not achieve: It must finalize a functioning architecture for implementation that launches global climate action, across the board, especially in developing nations. Specifically, negotiations this year need to conclude on mitigation targets and action, a package on adaptation, a new technology mechanism, financial arrangements, ways to deal with deforestation, and a capacity-building framework." He also said, there is a necessity for high level political guidance at the appropriate time -- "We must seek political guidance where and when needed."

 

    Additionally, the White House and U.S. Department of State have called for another meeting of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) for April 18-19 in Washington, DC. The 17 major economies in the MEF are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Additionally, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations generally participate in the MEF dialogue.

 

    In a related matter, on April 8, the U.S. Department of State has issued a Federal Register announcement [75 FR 17989] notifying the public of the opportunity to submit comments on the draft fifth National Communication on U.S. climate change actions. The document, known as the U.S. Climate Action Report 2010, is a requirement for all Annex I Parties to UNFCCC. The U.S. released previous Climate Action Reports in 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2006.

    The draft Fifth Report provides a detailed summary of U.S. actions to address climate change. The report contains descriptions of specific measures and actions, outlines of broad policy initiatives, and descriptions of activities conducted by the U.S. since the previous report in 2006, principally at the federal level. It also explains U.S. Government efforts to increase scientific understanding of climate change, and provide foreign assistance to help other nations mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. The comment period extends until May 6, 2010. The final report will be submitted to the U.N. Secretariat in the early summer after a review of public comments.

    Access a release from the UNEP on the climate change meeting schedule (click here). Access the UNFCCC Bonn meeting website for additional information (click here). Access an April 11, press briefing from the U.S. (click here). Access additional press briefing and webcasts from the Bonn meeting (click here). Access a Reuters article on the upcoming MEF meeting (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the draft U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 (click here).

UNFCCC Issues Reports On Copenhagen Conference

Subscribers & Readers Notice:

We are taking our Spring publication break next week
while Congress is in recess.

We'll we resume publication on Monday, April 12, 2010.

 

Mar 31: The UN Climate Change Secretariat published official reports on the results of last year's UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 7-19, 2009). The reports detail the outcomes of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties at its 15th session (COP 15) and of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its fifth session (CMP5). Each report is in two parts: one on formal proceedings and one on the decisions adopted by the relevant body.

    Since the closing of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has received submissions of national pledges to cut or limit emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 from 75 Parties, which together account for more than 80% percent of global emissions from energy use. Forty-one industrialized countries have formally communicated their economy-wide targets to the UNFCCC. 35 developing countries have communicated information on the nationally appropriate mitigation actions they are planning to take, provided they receive the appropriate support in terms of finance and technology.

    UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer who will be resigning in July said, "It is clear that while the pledges on the table are an important step towards the objective of limiting growth of emissions, they will not in themselves suffice to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. The Climate Conference at the end of this year in Mexico therefore needs to put in place effective cooperative mechanisms capable of bringing about significant acceleration of national, regional and international action both to limit the growth of emissions and to prepare for the inevitable impacts of climate change."

 

    The report of the Conference of the Parties contains, among other things, the text of the Copenhagen Accord and lists the 112 Parties (111 countries and the European Union) that have indicated their support for the Accord. The next round of UNFCCC negotiations is scheduled to be held in Bonn, Germany, on April 9-11. The meeting will be followed by a two-week negotiating round which will comprise the 32nd session of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies, between May 31 and June 11, 2010. Both gatherings will take place in the Maritim Hotel in Bonn. The April UNFCCC sessions are designed to agree on the organization and methods of work in 2010. This includes the number and duration of any additional UNFCCC negotiating sessions in the second half of 2010, in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Mexico (November 29 to December 10).

 

    The article indicates that as of March 25, a total of 73 countries -- 40 Annex I and 33 non-Annex I countries (including Kazakhstan) -- have submitted targets or actions to the Secretariat. Of these, 64 have explicitly associated themselves with the Accord. An additional 35 countries have explicitly associated themselves with the Accord but have not submitted targets or actions. 13 countries -- including Brazil, Croatia, China, India, Namibia, and Palau -- have expressed support for the Accord, without "associating" with it. 4 countries, the Cook Islands, Kuwait, Nauru and Ecuador -- an interesting mix of small island and oil exporting countries -- have submitted letters to the UNFCCC "not associating with or supporting" the Accord.

    WRI reports that the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China)met on January 24th, 2010, shortly after COP-15 and just prior to the Accord's deadline for submissions. They acknowledged their central role in finalizing the Accord, and underscored their support for the document. According to the joint statement of the BASIC group, the countries "underlined the importance of the Accord as representing a high level political understanding among the participants on some of the contentious issues of the climate change negotiations." 

    WRI says, " It must be recalled that a number of UNFCCC parties continue to object to both the Accord's content and the process by which it was agreed. At least one party, Cuba, has formally objected, in writing to the UNFCCC Secretariat's handling of the Accord, describing the document as 'frappe de nullite' or 'null and void.' Under the UNFCCC's consensus decision-making rules one can reasonably expect that this and some of the other 90 parties to the UNFCCC that have either remained silent or have rejected the Accord as illegitimate will continue to raise procedural objections to its use in the ongoing negotiations."

    Access a lengthy release from UNEP with links to additional information (click here). Access the two reports (click here). Access the various communications from the parties (click here). Access more information on the Copenhagen Accord from the UNFCCC website (click here). Access the WRI analysis with links to related information (click here).

Administration Touts Joint Final CAFE & GHG Emission Standards

Apr 1: One day following the President's major announcement on opening up offshore drilling areas as part of a comprehensive energy policy [See WIMS 3/31/10], the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. EPA jointly announced another part of the policy -- i.e. "historic" new Federal rules that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The agencies indicated the rules could potentially save the average buyer of a 2016 model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle and, nationally, will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered. 

    Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies. We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air." EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "This is a significant step towards cleaner air and energy efficiency, and an important example of how our economic and environmental priorities go hand-in-hand. By working together with industry and capitalizing on our capacity for innovation, we've developed a clean cars program that is a win for automakers and drivers, a win for innovators and entrepreneurs, and a win for our planet."

    DOT and EPA received more than 130,000 public comments on the September 2009 proposed rules [See WIMS 9/15/09], with overwhelming support for the strong national policy. Manufacturers will be able to build a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as the standards of California and other states. The collaboration of federal agencies also allows for clearer rules for all automakers, instead of three standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard). The rules stem from the core principles President Obama announced with automakers, the United Auto Workers, leaders in the environmental community, governors and state officials in May 2009 [See WIMS 5/19/09], and would provide coordinated national vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards.

    The final rules, issued by DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA, establish increasingly stringent fuel economy standards under NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program and GHG emission standards under the Clean Air Act for 2012 through 2016 model-year vehicles. Starting with 2012 model year vehicles, the rules together require automakers to improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions by approximately five percent every year. NHTSA has established fuel economy standards that strengthen each year reaching an estimated 34.1 mpg for the combined industry-wide fleet for model year 2016.

    Because credits for air-conditioning improvements can be used to meet the EPA standards, but not the NHTSA standards, the EPA standards require that by the 2016 model-year, manufacturers must achieve a combined average vehicle emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. The EPA standard would be equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if all reductions came from fuel economy improvements.

    NHTSA and EPA expect automobile manufacturers will meet these standards by more widespread adoption of conventional technologies that are already in commercial use, such as more efficient engines, transmissions, tires, aerodynamics, and materials, as well as improvements in air conditioning systems. Although the standards can be met with conventional technologies, EPA and NHTSA also expect that some manufacturers may choose to pursue more advanced fuel-saving technologies like hybrid vehicles, clean diesel engines, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles.

    In conjunction with the United States, Canada is also announcing Light Duty Vehicle GHG-Emissions regulations today. U.S. EPA and NHTSA have worked closely with Environment Canada to ensure a common North American approach. EPA noted that "climate change is the single greatest long-term global environmental challenge." Cars, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

 

    Automakers, represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), welcomed the final release of coordinated NHTSA and EPA regulations to reducing automobile fuel use and carbon emissions. On their website they point out that the simple relationship between GHG emissions and fuel economy is that burning 1 gallon of gasoline releases 19.4 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Dave McCurdy, President & CEO of the Alliance said, "America needs a roadmap to reduced dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gases, and only the federal government can play this role. Today, the federal government has laid out a course of action through 2016, and now we need to work on 2017 and beyond."

 

    The Alliance indicated that automakers are already achieving milestones. In 2010, nearly 200 models are on sale that achieve 30 miles per gallon or greater on the highway, almost a 50% increase over last year. They said as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a speech at the Washington DC Auto Show in January, "2009 marked the fifth straight year we've seen increases in the average fuel economy for cars and light trucks." This final rule will ensure that this trend continues. The Alliance represents  11 car and light truck manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.

    McCurdy said, "A year ago, the auto industry faced a regulatory maze resulting from multiple sets of inconsistent fuel economy/greenhouse gas standards. NHTSA was promulgating new fuel economy standards required by Congress under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, while EPA was preparing greenhouse gas standards under the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, California and 13 other states were planning their own state-specific greenhouse gas standards. When our engineers struggle with changing or conflicting laws, it derails efforts to introduce new technologies with long-term research and development timeframes. The national program announced today makes sense for consumers, for government policymakers and for automakers."

    The Alliance said, "The ongoing existence of a national program for motor vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for all future model years should be the shared goal of not only the current Administration and the industry, but also Congress and the States, for the benefit of the environment, the public, and the ability of the industry to create and maintain high quality jobs."

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a release and Roland Hwang, Transportation Program Director said, "These national emission standards represent a consensus among the state and federal governments, the automakers, the environmental community, and labor unions on effective action under the Clean Air Act to curb dangerous global warming pollution.

 

    "By completing these rules, the Obama Administration is putting our country on the road to creating thousands of clean energy jobs and cutting our dangerous dependency on oil. We look forward to working with the automakers, the unions, the administration, and the states on future standards that will ensure that the United States remains a leader in clean car technologies."

    Access a release from EPA and DOT (click here). Access a release from the Alliance (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access complete information on the joint final rule and link to a prepublication copy of the 837-page regulation, fact sheet, technical support documents, and extensive related information (click here).