Montreal Protocol Could Deliver Biggest GHG Reductions In History

Nov 5: While most of the world is focused on the UNFCCC climate negotiations leading up to the December meeting in Cancun, the international Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) says the November 8-12, Montreal Protocol meeting in Bangkok will consider three distinct decisions, each of which would produce greater emission reductions than those resulting from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol or any near-term options being considered in the climate talks. These three options are the main subject of a report released by EIA entitled, Maximizing Climate Benefits from Ozone Protection. The 22nd Bangkok Meeting of the Parties (MOP22) will decide whether to begin a phase-out on production and use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, that are used primarily in refrigeration and air-conditioning in favor of climate-friendly alternatives.  

    The Montreal Protocol, of which every nation is a member, will also be considering action to maximize direct transitions from HCFCs, powerful ozone-depleting substances (ODS), to climate-friendly refrigerants rather than HFCs, as well as a program for recovery and destruction of ODS "Banks," the stockpiles of ODS in appliances and storage leaking into the atmosphere that collectively represent over 16 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions. It will also consider a decision on destroying emissions of HFC-23 waste gas not covered by the UN's Clean Development Mechanism. HFC-23 is almost 12,000 times more potent than CO2, and is emitted during the production of HCFC-22.

    Samuel LaBudde, Senior Atmospheric Campaigner with EIA said, "These are the most cost-effective, high-yield opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the world. It's senseless to delay and rely solely on the UNFCCC process when such a significant part of the solution can be implemented immediately and at far less cost through the Montreal Protocol."

    It is estimated that eliminating HFCs, one of the six greenhouse gases (GHG) focused on by the UNFCCC, would prevent 88-140 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions by 2050, or about 3-5 years worth of annual global emissions from fossil fuels. Total cost for an HFC phase-out, which would follow on the Montreal Protocol's historic success in phasing out ozone-depleting substances, is estimated to be between $7-15 billion US (5-11 billion euros) over 30 years, or about 100 times cheaper than the cost of achieving equivalent reductions under the UNFCCC process or through carbon markets.

    EIA Campaigner Fionnuala Walravens said, "Right now the Montreal Protocol is at a crossroads; beyond ensuring its phase-out of HCFCs does not result in the phase-in of climate-damaging HFCs, it is poised to deliver the biggest emissions reductions in history. If the world is serious about global warming, the Montreal Protocol is the place to begin.  Next week's decisions are critical to answering the threat of climate change."

    Access a release from EIA and link to the complete 16-page report (click here). Access the Ozone Secretariat website (click here). Access the MOP22 website for meeting documents and further information (click here). 

Groups Say Obama Has Chance To Protect Polar Bears

Nov 4: A Federal judge ordered the Department of the Interior (DOI) to reconsider its 2008 decision not to provide polar bears the most complete protection possible under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ruling came in response to a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Greenpeace seeking additional protection for the polar bear, which they indicate is under severe threat from global warming.

 

    In response to a petition from the three conservation groups, the Bush administration in 2008 classified the polar bear as "threatened" -- rather than the more protective "endangered" -- under the ESA. The administration also issued a special rule exempting greenhouse gases -- the primary threat to the species -- from regulation under the Act. The groups indicated that such a rule can only be issued for a species listed as threatened, not endangered. The groups sued, arguing that the polar bear should be listed as "endangered," not merely "threatened."  DOI had argued that even though the polar bear will likely be extinct in most of its range by mid-century, it was not endangered because its extinction was not "imminent."

 

    In his ruling issued November 4, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan for the District of Columbia, rejected the Department's argument that the text of the ESA clearly states that extinction must be "imminent" before a species can be listed as "endangered" and ordered the Interior Department to reconsider its definition of "endangered" as it applies to the polar bear. Judge Sullivan ordered the Interior Department to reconsider its decision in light of the ruling and file a response by December 23, 2010, and he set a hearing date of February 23, 2011 to consider that response and the rest of the claims in the listing case.

    Kassie Siegel, director of the CBD's Climate Law Institute and lead author of the 2005 petition to Federally protect the polar bear said, "The judge has put the ball squarely in Obama's court. Whether or not the polar bear receives the protections it is legally entitled to and so desperately needs, is now wholly Obama's decision. We hope that rather than continue to defend the flawed policies of the Bush administration, Obama will do right by the polar bear." Andrew Wetzler, Director of NRDC's Land &Wildlife Program said, "We are convinced that any reasonable definition of 'endangered species' includes the polar bear. Climate change is an oncoming train and the bears are tied to the tracks. If nobody is around to undo the knots, it doesn't matter how fast the train is moving -- they are in trouble."

    Dan Howells, Deputy Campaign Director of Greenpeace, "Protecting the polar bear's home is the same as protecting us all from the dangers of climate change. And the best way to do that is to acknowledge the danger of climate change and act on it. The Obama administration can take a step in this direction by giving the bears the protection they deserve."

    Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the 26-page Memorandum Opinion (click here).

Sen. McConnell Outlines His Definition Of Cooperation & Compromise

Nov 4: In a confrontational and very partisan speech before the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) laid down the gauntlet for cooperation and compromise as far as the U.S. Senate Republicans are concerned. In sharp contrast to President Obama's somewhat conciliatory statement and press briefing yesterday, Senator McConnell set a far different tone. Among other things he said the Democrats' strategy from the start, was to "govern hard-left and use their big majorities to push through the most left-wing agenda possible." He said they forced through their trillion dollar Stimulus; proposed a federal budget that would double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10; and "bailed out automakers that should have been allowed to reorganize or fail."

 

    Senator McConnell said that while some have been critical of his statement that his top priority over the next two years is to deny the  President a second term in office; "the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. . . it would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen. There's just no getting around it."

 

    He said Republicans would have to work in the House to deny funds for implementation of Democratic proposals like health care; use their oversight abilities in Committees to continue educating the public and "keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation." He specifically cited "backdoor efforts" like "a new national energy tax through the EPA now that cap-and-trade is dead. . ." He said oversight "can also make more accountable all the policy czars the administration has installed without any accountability to Congress or the American people."

 

    He said, "We will stop the liberal onslaught"; "freeze and cut discretionary spending"; "ensure Democrats don't raise taxes on anybody"; "oppose future stimulus bills that only stimulate the deficit"; "fight any further job-killing regulations"; "oversee the Executive Branch through smart, aggressive oversight"; "make the case that the Democrats' big-government vision hinders freedom, prosperity, and opportunity."

 

    Senator McConnell defined his vision of cooperation and compromise as follows, ". . .as I see it, the White House has a choice: they can change course, or they can double down on a vision of government that the American people have roundly rejected. If they choose the former, they'll find a partner in Republicans. If they don't, we will have more disagreements ahead. "The formula is simple, really: when the administration agrees with the American people, we will agree with the administration. When it disagrees with the American people, we won't. This has been our posture from the beginning of this administration. And we intend to stick with it. If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction."

 

    Following a meeting with his Cabinet today, President Obama delivered some comments at a short press briefing. He said he wanted to make a few quick remarks to expand on some things he said yesterday [See WIMS 11/3/10, and the link below].  He said in part, "Obviously Tuesday was a big election. I congratulated the Republicans and consoled some of our Democratic friends about the results, and I think it's clear that the voters sent a message, which is they want us to focus on the economy and jobs and moving this country forward.

 

  "I just had a meeting with my Cabinet and key staff to let them know that we have to take that message to heart and make a sincere and consistent effort to try to change how Washington operates. And the folks around this table have done extraordinary work in their agencies. They have cooperated consistently with Congress. I think they are interested in bipartisan ideas.  And so they are going to be integral in helping me to root out waste in government, make our agencies more efficient, and generate more ideas so that we can put the American people back to work.

    "Now, at the same time, obviously what's going to be critically important over the coming months is creating a better working relationship between this White House and the congressional leadership that's coming in, as well as the congressional leadership that carries over from the previous Congress. And so I want everybody to know that I have already called Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to invite them to a meeting here at the White House in the first week of the lame duck on November 18th.  This is going to be a meeting in which I'll want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people's agenda forward.  It's not just going to be a photo op. Hopefully -- it may spill over into dinner.  And the immediate focus is going to be what we need to get done during the lame-duck session. . .

    "And so we can't afford two years of just squabbling. What we need to do is make sure that everybody is pulling together, Democrats and Republicans and independents, folks at the federal level and the state levels, private sector with the public sector, to make sure that America retains it competitiveness, retains its leadership in the world. And that's something that I'm very much looking forward to helping to be a part of." [See link to complete comments from the President below].

 

    The following are major excerpts from Senator McConnell's speech:

 

    "Over the past two years, the American people looked at what was going on in Washington and they became increasingly worried. Not only were Democratic leaders ignoring our nation's ongoing job crisis; their big-government policies and out-of-control spending was causing some to wonder about the future of the American dream itself. Americans worried about the consequences of a $14 trillion debt; about a health care bill that creates 159 new bureaucratic entities, including two massive new entitlement programs; they worried about all the bailouts, and they worried about every other piece of legislation that seemed like it was designed to kill jobs rather than create them.

    "Most of all, they worried that what some have called the Europeanization of America would continue unchecked, and that, as a result, our children and grandchildren could no longer expect to have the same opportunities that we've had. Two days ago, those worries gave way to a new optimism. For the past two years, Democrat lawmakers chose to ignore the American people, so on Tuesday the American people chose new lawmakers. They held their elected representatives to account. And they demonstrated to all of us that Constitutional conservatism is alive and well.

    "This isn't a reason for Republicans to gloat; rather, it's a time for both parties to realize who's really in charge -- the people -- and to be grateful for the opportunity we now have to begin to turn this ship around. Tuesday was a referendum, not a choice. It was a report card on the administration and anyone who supported its agenda, plain and simple. It doesn't take a roomful of political scientists to figure it out. Americans voted for change in the last two elections because of two long and difficult wars and because they hoped a changing of the guard would stabilize the economy and get America moving again. And then the people they elected set about dismantling the free market, handing out political favors at taxpayer expense, expanding government, and creating a more precarious future for our children. In other words, Democrat leaders used the crisis of the moment to advance an agenda Americans didn't ask for and couldn't afford. And then they ignored and dismissed anyone who dared to speak out against it. . .

    "Which raises a practical question: what can Americans expect from Republicans now? Let's start with the big picture. Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office. But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday's election. But we can't plan on it. And it would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen. There's just no getting around it.

    "By their own admission, leaders of the Republican Revolution of 1994 think their greatest mistake was overlooking the power of the veto. They gave the impression they were somehow in charge when they weren't. And after President Clinton vetoed their bills, making it impossible for them to accomplish all their goals, they ended up being viewed as failures, sellouts, or both. Today, Democrats not only have the White House. They have the Senate too. So we have to be realistic about what we can and cannot achieve, while at the same recognizing that realism should never be confused with capitulation. . .

    "Through oversight we'll also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation. Potential backdoor efforts in this area could include imposing a new national energy tax through the EPA now that cap-and-trade is dead, additional health care provisions through HHS, Card Check through the National Labor Relations Board, and some form of immigration change through the use of administrative amnesty and the selective enforcement of our laws. Good oversight can also make more accountable all the policy czars the administration has installed without any accountability to Congress or the American people. . .

    "We will stop the liberal onslaught. We will make the case for repeal of the health spending bill even as we vote to eliminate its worst parts. We will vote to freeze and cut discretionary spending. We will fight to make sure that any spending bill that reaches the Senate floor is amendable, so members can vote for the spending cuts Americans are asking for. We will push to bring up and vote for House passed spending rescission bills. On the economy, we will work hard to ensure Democrats don't raise taxes on anybody, especially in the middle of a recession. We will loudly oppose future stimulus bills that only stimulate the deficit and fight any further job-killing regulations. We will fight tooth and nail on behalf of Americans struggling to find and create jobs.

    "And when it comes to educating the public about the effects of Democrat legislation, we will fulfill our constitutional duty to oversee the Executive Branch through smart, aggressive oversight. We will scrutinize Democrat legislation and force them to defend it. And we will continue to make the case that the Democrats' big-government vision hinders freedom, prosperity, and opportunity — and that while it may benefit some in the short-term, it exposes everyone to calamity down the road.. .

    ". . .whether or not the administration has a mid-course correction, Republicans have a plan for following through on the wishes of the American people. It starts with gratitude and a certain humility for the task we've been handed. It means sticking ever more closely to the conservative principles that got us here. It means learning the lessons of history. And, above all, it means listening to the people who sent us here. If we do all this, we will finish the job."

    Access the full text of Senator McConnell speech (click here). Access a video of Sen. McConnell's speech (click here). Access the full text of the President's comments and press conference Q&A yesterday (click here). Access the full text of the President's comments following today's press briefing (click here).

GOP Takes Control Of House; Senate Dems Retain Control

Nov 3: Big changes will be taking place in the U.S. House of Representatives next year as a result of the Republican sweep to power in yesterday's election. Unofficially, Republican's will have something on the order of a 242-193 majority in the House. One of the first big changes will be in the House Committee makeup and Chairmanships. 

 

    Next year, Representative John Boehner (R-OH) will assume the office of Speaker of the House, replacing the current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Speaker-elect Boehner will be pursuing the House Republicans "A Pledge to America," release on September 23 [See WIMS 9/23/10]. Among other items, the Pledge indicates, "In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent. An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people. An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many. Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose. . ."

 

    Among other items the 48-page Pledge details, Republicans say: "We will fight to increase access to domestic energy sources and oppose attempts to impose a national 'cap and trade' energy tax. . . The constant threat of new taxes and new regulations prevents investors and entrepreneurs from putting capital at risk. These private sector employers must be given the certainty that if they take a risk to expand their company or hire a new employee, Washington won't yank the rug from under their feet. . . Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy. . ."

 

    Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) will likely assume the leadership of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, replacing Chair Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). Representative Barton who previously Chaired the Committee and is currently the Ranking Member, was nearly stripped of his Committee assignments for his widely publicized public apology to BP and his comments about being "ashamed" of the $20 billion oil spill claims fund agreement which the White House negotiated with BP. In comments before the Committee, Barton apologized to BP and called the agreement a "shakedown." [See WIMS 6/18/10].

 

    Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) will likely assume the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment and Energy Subcommittee, currently Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA). On October 20, Representative Upton authored a lengthy op-ed in the Washington Times entitled, "Declaring War on the Regulatory State." [See WIMS 10/20/10]. Rep. Upton said Republicans would terminate what he called the "wasteful" Select Committee on Climate Change, established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and also Chaired by Rep. Markey. He said the Committee "has needlessly spent nearly $8 million in taxpayer money. . . "

 

    Rep. Upton also said the "EPA is working on a regulatory train wreck that includes the following job-killing regulations." He specifically listed: Cooling water intake systems for power plants; Coal ash regulations; Industrial and commercial boilers; and Revised ozone standards. He said, "No significant regulation should take effect until Congress has voted to approve it and the president has had an opportunity to approve or veto congressional action."

 

    Unofficially, other major House Committee changes will likely include: House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, now Chaired by Edolphus "Ed" Towns (D-NY) will go to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA); the House Science & Technology Committee, now Chaired by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) (did not run for reelection) will likely go to Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX); House Transportation &  Infrastructure Committee, now Chaired by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), who was defeated in the election, will likely go to Rep. John Mica (R-FL); and the House Committee on Natural Resources, now Chaired by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) will likely go to Rep. Doc  Hastings (R-WA).

 

    In the U.S. Senate, changes will be less dramatic as Democrats narrowly retain control with 49 Democrats, 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats, and 46 Republicans. Senate races in Arkansas, Alaska and Colorado still undecided in close races. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) retained his Nevada Senate seat in a highly publicized race against his Republican opponent Sharon Angle. In the close race, Senator Reid managed to win 50% of the vote as opposed to Angle's 45%. It is generally assumed that Committee chairmanships will remain the same. Senate floor votes will remain contentious with the ability to achieve cloture votes of 60 even more difficult than before.

 

    In a lengthy statement and news conference on the election results President Obama specifically mentioned energy alternatives and an alternatives to cap-and-trade as probable areas where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground. Specifically he said that cap and trade was a "means to an end" not the only means. He said it was only one way to "skin a cat."

 

    Access the CNN election website for results by the U.S., states, and local districts (click here). Access a link to the President's comments which should be posted soon (click here).

Agencies Say Gulf Seafood Coming To Market Is Safe

Oct 29: Building upon the extensive testing and protocols already in use by federal, state and local officials for the fishing waters of the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have developed and are using a chemical test to detect dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon-BP oil spill in fish, oysters, crab and shrimp. Trace amounts of the chemicals used in dispersants are common, and levels for safety have been previously set. The agencies said using this new test in the Gulf scientists have tested 1,735 tissue samples including more than half of those collected to reopen Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Only a few showed trace amounts of dispersants residue (13 of the 1,735) and they were well below the safety threshold of 100 parts per million for finfish and 500 parts per million for shrimp, crabs and oysters. As such, they do not pose a threat to human health.

    According to a release, experts trained in a rigorous sensory analysis process have been testing Gulf seafood for the presence of contaminants, and every seafood sample from reopened waters has passed sensory testing for contamination with oil and dispersant. Nonetheless, to ensure consumers have total confidence in the safety of seafood being harvested from the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have added this second test for dispersant when considering reopening Gulf waters to fishing. The new test detects dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, known as DOSS, a major component of the dispersants used in the Gulf. DOSS is also approved by FDA for use in various household products and over-the-counter medication at very low levels. The best scientific data to date indicates that DOSS does not build up in fish tissues.

    Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary for commerce and NOAA administrator said,  "The rigorous testing we have done from the very beginning gives us confidence in the safety of seafood being brought to market from the Gulf. This test adds another layer of information, reinforcing our findings to date that seafood from the Gulf remains safe." Margaret Hamburg, Ph.D., FDA commissioner said, "This new test should help strengthen consumer confidence in Gulf seafood. The overwhelming majority of the seafood tested shows no detectable residue, and not one of the samples shows a residue level that would be harmful for humans. There is no question Gulf seafood coming to market is safe from oil or dispersant residue."

    The 1,735 samples tested so far were collected from June to September and cover a wide area of the Gulf. The samples come from open areas in state and Federal waters, and from fishermen who brought fish to the docks at the request of federal seafood analysts. The samples come from a range of species, including grouper, tuna, wahoo, swordfish, gray snapper, butterfish, red drum, croaker, and shrimp, crabs and oysters. Nearly 9,444 square miles, or about 4 percent of the federal waters in the Gulf are still closed to commercial and recreational fishing.

    Previous research provided information about how finfish metabolize DOSS, and at FDA's Dauphin Island, Alabama lab, scientists undertook further exposure experiments on fish, oysters and crab; similar experiments on shrimp were held at NOAA's Galveston, Texas lab. These exposure studies further support that fish, crustaceans and shellfish quickly clear dispersant from their tissues, and provided samples with known concentrations for use as standards for validating the methodology. Samples undergoing chemical analysis are always accompanied by standards with known concentrations of DOSS, to verify the equipment continues to measure the compound accurately.

    Access a release from the agencies (click here).

Another Report & International Moratorium On Climate Geoengineering

Oct 29: The U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) released an additional report on the highly controversial subject of geoengineerig entitled, Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Collaboration. The Chairman's report identifies Federal expertise and capabilities relevant to climate engineering research, and calls for transparency, public engagement, international collaboration and a robust risk assessment framework should research be pursued. The report follows the October 26 release of a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts (GAO-10-903, September 23, 2010) [See WIMS 10/26/10]. Ironically, the Committee's report was also released on the same day that 110 ministers at the COP10 meeting at the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Nagoya, Japan  [See WIMS 10/18/10] were approving a consensus decision to adopt a moratorium on geoengineering.

    Representative Gordon was quick to clarify that, "This report is in no way meant as an endorsement of climate engineering. It is my intent that this report, and all of the Committee's activities on this subject provide a forum for an open and honest public dialogue regarding the science of climate engineering. It gives insight into where existing federal research capacities lie that could be leveraged for these activities -- to  help preclude undesirable activities and to establish key next steps for the management and governance of research, in addition to encouraging continued conversation within the federal government on this important topic." 

    Chairman Gordon indicated the Committee's latest report reviews the results of an 18 month inquiry conducted in cooperation with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. During this inquiry the U.S. Committee held three public hearings on climate engineering (November 5th, 2009, February 4th, 2010, and March 18th, 2010), and staff reviewed expert testimony and conducted informal interviews with leading political and scientific experts within federal agencies.

   Chairman Gordon said, "Climate engineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties and possibilities, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic side effects. I want to be absolutely clear that I am not in favor of deploying climate engineering; making firm commitments and taking real actions to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions should always be the priority. However, if we find ourselves passing an environmental tipping point, we will need to have done research to understand our options. Developing the science will take time, as will developing appropriate governance structures. We've started the conversation in Congress and with the UK House of Parliament; I hope that consideration of appropriate research investments will follow. We need healthy debate, a transparent process, clear action on emission reductions, and sound scientific research to provide a solid foundation for the tough decision-making that climate change will demand in the future."

    According to a release from Chairman Gordon the report:

• Contains background information on the topic of climate engineering and exploratory research activities currently being conducted.
• Summarizes the Science and Technology Committee's public hearings on climate engineering.
• Identifies key research needs.
• Identifies activities, tools and skills present in federal agencies that could be leveraged for climate engineering research and provides recommendations for research priorities within these agencies.  Featured agencies include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
• Explores potential capacities for, and provides recommendations on, how research might be organized at the federal level and what lessons can be learned from past experiences.
• Provides general recommendations about next steps, research priorities and management strategies.

    Recommendations in the report include:

• Policymakers should begin consideration of climate engineering research now to better understand which technologies or methods, if any, represent viable strategies for managing a changing climate and which pose unacceptable environmental or economic  risks.
• There must be an international consensus on climate engineering terminology that will best communicate the strategies, potential risks, and desired effects to the scientific community, policy makers, and the public.
• Any federal climate engineering research program should leverage existing facilities, instruments, skills and partnerships within federal agencies.
• Governments should make public engagement a priority of any climate engineering effort.
• Further collaborative work between national legislatures on topics with international reach, such as climate engineering, should be pursued, and this inquiry between the United States and the United Kingdom should serve as a model for future inter-Committee collaboration.

    On October 19, at the Biological Diversity COP10 meeting, the Canadian-based ETC Group released a 52-page report entitled, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering, which called for an international moratorium on geoengineering saying it was, "a political strategy aimed at letting industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt." [See WIMS 10/27/10]. On October 29, at the conclusion of the 2-week COP10 meeting, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) closed its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group said, "Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus."

    According to information released by ETC Group, the agreed to moratorium language reads in part, "in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until  there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting  in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment . ."

 

    The initial definition of "geo-engineering activities" referenced above includes: "Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insulation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insulation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere."

    Access a release from Rep. Gordon (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 56-page Committee report (click here). Access the Science Committee website on Climate Engineering for extensive background information and hearings (click here). Access a lengthy release from ETC including the full texts of the relevant COP10 decisions on geoengineering (click here). Access a release from ETC Group and link to the press conference webcast (click here). Access the CBD COP 10 website for additional background information, documents and webcasts (click here). Access the complete 70-page GAO report (click here).

Unstable Cement From Halliburton May Be Cause Of BP Blowout

Oct 28: In a letter to the National Commission on the BP Oil Spill, Fred Bartlit, Chief Counsel to the Commission and responsible for investigating the root causes of the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig wrote to report the results of cement testing recently conducted and several conclusions that have been reached based on that testing and documents provided by Halliburton. The bipartisan Commission was established by President Obama by an executive order on May 21, and is led by co-chairs including former two-term Florida Governor and former Senator Bob Graham and former Administrator of U.S. EPA William Reilly [See WIMS 10/7/10].

    Bartlit said, "We have known for some time that the cement used to secure the production casing and isolate the hydrocarbon zone at the bottom of the Macondo well must have failed in some manner. That cement should have prevented hydrocarbons from entering the well. For a variety of technical reasons that we will explain at the upcoming hearing, BP cemented the well with a nitrogen foam cement recommended and supplied by Halliburton."

    Chevron agreed as a public service to test the cement slurry on behalf of the Commission. Chevron employs some of the industry's most respected cement experts, and it maintains a state-of-the art cement testing facility in Houston, Texas. Halliburton agreed that the Chevron lab was highly qualified for this work. Bartlit writes, "Chevron's report states, among other things, that its lab personnel were unable to generate stable foam cement in the laboratory using the materials provided by Halliburton and available design information regarding the slurry used at the Macondo well. Although laboratory foam stability tests cannot replicate field conditions perfectly, these data strongly suggest that the foam cement used at Macondo was unstable. This may have contributed to the blowout."

    Further, Bartlit indicates, ". . .documents provided to us by Halliburton show, among other things, that its personnel conducted at least four foam stability tests relevant to the Macondo cement slurry. The first two tests were conducted in February 2010 using different well design parameters and a slightly different slurry recipe than was finally used. Both tests indicated that this foam slurry design was unstable [emphasis added]. . . on or about April 13, seven days before the blowout. Lab personnel used slightly different lab protocols than they had used in February. Although there are some indications that lab personnel may have conducted this test improperly, it once again indicated that the foam slurry design was unstable [emphasis added]. . .

    "Halliburton personnel began a second April foam stability test shortly after receiving the unfavorable results from the first April test. Halliburton personnel again modified the testing procedure, and this time – for the first time – the data indicated the foam slurry design would be stable [emphasis added].

    Based on the testing and documents, Bartlit's legal team concludes:

• (1) Only one of the four tests discussed above that Halliburton ran on the various slurry designs for the final cement job at the Macondo well indicated that the slurry design would be stable;
• (2) Halliburton may not have had—and BP did not have—the results of that test before the evening of April 19, meaning that the cement job may have been pumped without any lab results indicating that the foam cement slurry would be stable;
• (3) Halliburton and BP both had results in March showing that a very similar foam slurry design to the one actually pumped at the Macondo well would be unstable, but neither acted upon that data; and

• (4) Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should have considered redesigning the foam slurry before pumping it at the Macondo well.

    The team says, "Finally, we want to emphasize that even if our concerns regarding the foam slurry design at Macondo are well founded, the story of the blowout does not turn solely on the quality of the Macondo cement job. Cementing wells is a complex endeavor and industry experts inform us that cementing failures are not uncommon even in the best of circumstances. Because it may be anticipated that a particular cement job may be faulty, the oil industry has developed tests, such as the negative pressure test and cement evaluation logs, to identify cementing failures. It has also developed methods to remedy deficient cement jobs. BP and/or Transocean personnel misinterpreted or chose not to conduct such tests at the Macondo well."

    The Oil Spill Commission and Bartlit have announced they will hold a two-day hearing on November 8-9, on preliminary findings regarding BP's Macondo well blowout. The primary focus of the hearing will be on the causes of the rig explosion. The Commissioners will hear from Chief Counsel Bartlit, representatives from companies involved in the incident, industry executives, technical experts, regulators and others regarding the rig explosion. The hearing will be held at the Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H St. NW, Washington, DC.

    Access the complete letter from Bartlit (click here). Access the complete report from Chevron (click here). Access the Commission website for complete background and documents (click here).

Prison Industries E-waste Recycling Program Gets Failing Grade

Oct 27: The Council of Prison Locals (CPL) of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) responded to a massive October 21 report from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) entitled, A Review of Federal Prison Industries' Electronic-Waste Recycling Program. The main report is 433-pages and includes a 1008-page Appendix. The OIG report found that staff and inmates at several Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, have been exposed to toxic metals including cadmium and lead. The exposure occurred in the electronic waste recycling program run by the Federal Prison Industries -- also known as UNICOR, a government corporation within (BOP). The report concluded that the UNICOR recycling program did not value worker safety and environmental protection.

 

    As of June 2010, UNICOR had 103 factories at 73 prison locations, employing approximately 17,000 inmates or 11 percent of the inmate population. The factories produce a variety of consumer products and services, office furniture and clothing, and industrial products, such as security fencing and vehicle tags. Starting in 1997, UNICOR began to accept computers, monitors, printers, and other types of e-waste for recycling at Federal prisons. UNICOR sold these e-waste items to its customers, sometimes following refurbishment, or disassembled the items into their component parts and sold the parts to recyclers for further processing.

 

    Specifically, the OIG said, "Our investigation found that prior to 2009 UNICOR's management of the e-waste recycling program resulted in numerous violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, regulations, and BOP policies. We concluded that UNICOR's Headquarters staff poorly managed UNICOR's e-waste program prior to 2009.6 UNICOR staff members often failed to perform hazard assessments on new e-waste operations or did so incorrectly, and important health and safety information was not shared with BOP executives and safety staff that could have prevented the violations from occurring. We also found that managers in UNICOR's Recycling Business Group, primarily General Manager Lawrence Novicky and his assistant, Bruce Ginther, concealed warnings about hazards related to toxic metals from UNICOR and BOP staff and from inmates. . . Overall, we found a culture at UNICOR that did not sufficiently value worker safety and environmental protection. We determined that the flawed organization and poor communication between UNICOR and the BOP made compliance difficult to achieve even with the best-intentioned employees. . ."

 

    CPL President Bryan Lowry said, "The inspector general's findings are in line with what we've been saying for years. Our staff members were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic metals, which BOP knew about and allowed to continue. The inspector general must hold BOP and UNICOR managers accountable for their actions and put appropriate safety measures in place to protect our staff." CPL indicated that it has been an advocate of the UNICOR work program, which provides inmates an opportunity to earn money, learn marketable skills, and become productive members of society once their incarceration ends. The program also keeps inmates occupied and out of trouble, which leads to a more safe and secure prison environment.

 

    Several BOP facilities had UNICOR e-waste operations, including the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Elkton, Ohio, where air quality was not monitored and staff and inmates were not provided protective equipment while breaking down computer monitors. AFGE Local 607 Vice President Bill Meek, who represents workers at FCI – Elkton, "The truth about these toxic exposures is finally coming out. Our primary concern has always been the safety of our staff, and we'll continue to fight for that."

 

    OIG summarized its major conclusions and said, "In conclusion, our investigation identified serious deficiencies with UNICOR's e-waste recycling program, especially prior to 2003. In recent years, UNICOR has made substantial progress to improve the safety of its e-waste operations. However, we believe that the success of these efforts in the future could be hindered by lingering, systemic problems such as the lack of technical resources, inadequate oversight, and a Health Services Division at BOP Headquarters that lacks authority to manage the delivery of quality safety services throughout the BOP and UNICOR. We believe our 12 recommendations can help ensure that BOP and UNICOR conduct its operations, including its e-waste recycling program, in compliance with federal regulations and BOP policies, and with the necessary concern for the health and safety of BOP staff and inmates."　　

　Access the OIG report (click here); and Appendix (click here). Access a release from CPL (click here).

Impacts On Bulk-Power System From EPA Air Regulations

Oct 26: The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) released a special assessment -- – Potential Resource Adequacy Impacts of U.S. Environmental Regulations -- examining the possible impacts of four potential U.S. EPA regulations. NERC is the electric reliability organization (ERO) certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish and enforce reliability standards for the bulk-power system.

 

    According to NERC's assessment, several regulations currently being proposed by the EPA directly affect the electric utility industry. The assessment scenario was designed to evaluate the potential impacts of the four potential EPA regulations on Planning Reserve Margins to identify the need for additional resources to maintain bulk power system reliability. To accommodate the studied scenarios, industry may need more resources, beyond those identified in existing plans, in order to maintain bulk power system reliability. Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of NERC said, "The results of this assessment show a significant potential impact to reliability should the four EPA rules be implemented as proposed. To ensure bulk power system reliability, the proposed rules should provide sufficient time to acquire replacement resources, offsetting the reductions in capacity from unit retirements and deratings from environmental control retrofits."

 

    NERC's assessment reviews four EPA proposed rulemaking proceedings that could result in unit retirements or forced retrofits between 2015 and 2018. Specifically, the rules included in NERC's assessment under development were: • Clean Water Act – Section 316(b), Cooling Water Intake Structures; • Title I of the Clean Air Act – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the electric power industry (referred to as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard); • Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR); and • Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Regulations.

 

    The assessment evaluates the potential impacts on Planning Reserve Margins, assuming that there would be no industry actions in the near term to address compliance issues or market response, and identifies the need for additional resources that may arise in light of industry responses to each of these environmental regulations individually and in the aggregate. Mark Lauby, director of Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis at NERC said, "The combination of the proposed rules shows Planning Reserve Margins may be significantly impacted with deteriorating resource adequacy in a majority of the NERC regions/subregions. Additionally, considerable operational challenges to manage, coordinate and schedule the resulting industry-wide environmental control retrofit effort will occur if all these rules are enacted as currently proposed."

 

    Some findings from the NERC assessment are: • EPA's proposed regulations may have significant impacts on Planning Reserve Margins; • Capacity impacts will vary by region; • Section 316 (b) cooling water intake structures rule has the greatest potential for impact on Planning Reserve Margins; • The MACT, CATR and CCR rules also contribute to reductions in generating capacity; and • If implemented as proposed, the EPA regulations create a need for prompt industry response and action; 

 

    The Clean Air Task Force (CATF)a nonprofit organization with staff including senior engineers, MBAs, scientists, attorneys, and communications specialists issued a release commenting on the NERC assessment. CAFT said the "industry-funded group charged with keeping the lights on" released "a long-awaited and much anticipated report on the impact of a number of potential EPA regulations for the power sector. 'And guess what?' 'It's good news -- the lights will stay on. Moreover, the proposed regulations ensure that the lights will remain on with minimal disruption to the grid and to consumer electric bills, and will also improve the nation's air quality and protect public health.'"

 

    CATF said the NERC report analyzes four sets of potential regulations -- only two of which have even been proposed, and none finalized -- which will control emissions of toxic air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), coal ash disposal and cooling water intake. CATF said, "Since the content of most of these rules is still unknown, NERC had to estimate what they would cover and how stringent they would be. The coal industry and segments of the utility industry have been claiming for some time that the expected Clean Air Act regulations will cause a regulatory 'train wreck' that will strain electric system reliability. However, NERC found that even the strictest possible formulation of these air regulations will not materially erode reserve margins.

 

    Conrad Schneider, CATF Advocacy Director said, "Congress should take note that even the analysis of the power industry's own reliability organization undercuts claims that clean air regulations will turn off the lights." Schneider indicated that of the four potential regulations, NERC finds that only the cooling water intake rule has the potential to impact generation reserve margins. CATF said ironically, EPA has the most discretion in both timing and implementation of the cooling water intake rule. NERC however assumed that EPA would not use any of its discretion or authorities to reduce cost and decrease the regulatory burden.

 

    Schneider said, "It's disappointing that NERC's analysis assumes a static regulatory system incapable of system response, something the power sector has proved wrong time and time again simply by complying with regulations. So if EPA is again poised to issue intelligent regulations that will provide cleaner air and water and that leave the lights on, that sounds like a win-win to me."

 

    Access a release from NERC and link to the complete assessment (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the NERC assessment (click here). Access the release from CATF (click here).

GAO On Climate Change Geoengineering Strategy & Governance

Oct 26: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a report entitled, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts (GAO-10-903, September 23, 2010). The report was prepared for the Chairman, of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN).

 

    GAO indicates that policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering -- large-scale deliberate interventions in the earth's climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts -- and its role in a broader strategy of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space.

    GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2) Federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts and Federal officials about the extent to which Federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies, relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and interviewed Federal officials and selected recognized experts in the field.

    GAO found that few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO's review of relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results -- a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM.

 

    Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO's analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating Federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, Federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering. Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010. Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts.

 

    According to legal experts and Federal officials, the extent to which Federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and Department of State officials said that, except for three instances, parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements' applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts' and officials' views differed on the best approach for international governance, but generally agreed that the Federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to address liability.

 

    GAO recommended that within the Executive Office of the President, the appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research in the context of the Federal response to climate change to ensure a coordinated Federal approach. GAO said that OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation, but provided technical comments.

 

     In a related matter on March 2010, a week-long International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was held in Pacific Grove, CA (March 22-26). The conference included conversations and discussions on climate intervention and guidelines for research and experimentation. The conference was developed by Dr. Margaret Leinen of the Climate Response Fund, a non-profit based in Alexandria, VA in partnership with Guttman Initiatives. The scientific program was organized by an international scientific committee chaired by Dr. Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, based in Washington, DC [See WIMS 3/30/10].

 

    Access the complete 70-page report (click here). Access a November 5, 2009 House Science Committee hearing on Geoengineering including links to testimony, Chairman's statement, background document and a webcast (click here). Access numerous House Science Committee links to Geoengineering (click here).

Administration Proposes First-Ever GHG & Efficiency Rules For Trucks

Oct 25: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood jointly announced the first-ever fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution-reduction standards for medium and heavy trucks which includes long-haul tractor trailers, city buses, delivery vehicles and work trucks. Medium and heavy trucks consume 20 percent of the oil used in the transportation sector and emit about 20 percent of transportation sector's pollution yet represent only 4 percent of the vehicles on the roads. Trucking in the United States has increased by more than 50 percent since the early 1990s and today the nation depends on trucking for 70 percent of its shipping needs. The proposal is projected to reduce GHG emissions by about 250 million metric tons and save 500 million barrels of oil over the lives of the vehicles produced within the program's first five years.

    Administrator Jackson said, "These new standards are another step in our work to develop a new generation of clean, fuel-efficient American vehicles that will improve our environment and strengthen our economy. In addition to cutting greenhouse gas pollution, greater fuel economy will shrink fuel costs for small businesses that depend on pickups and heavy duty vehicles, shipping companies and cities and towns with fleets of these vehicles. Those savings can be invested in new jobs at home, rather than heading overseas and increasing our dependence on foreign oil." Secretary LaHood said, "Through new fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and buses, we will not only reduce transportation's environmental impact, we'll reduce the cost of transporting freight. This is a win-win-win for the environment, businesses and the American consumer."

    EPA and DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing new standards for three categories of heavy trucks: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles. The categories were established to address specific challenges for manufacturers in each area. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year.

    For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the 2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 2018 model year.

    Overall, NHTSA and EPA estimate that the heavy-duty national program would provide $41 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of model year 2014 to 2018 vehicles. With the potential for significant fuel efficiency gains, ranging from seven to 20 percent, drivers and operators could expect to net significant savings over the long-term. For example, it is estimated an operator of a semi truck could pay for the technology upgrades in under a year, and save as much as $74,000 over the truck's useful life. Vehicles with lower annual miles would typically experience longer payback periods, up to four or five years, but would still reap cost-savings.

    The agencies said the innovative technologies fostered by the program would also yield economic benefits, enhance energy security, and improve air quality. New technologies include widespread use of aerodynamic improvements and tire rolling resistance, as well as engine and transmission upgrades.

    As part of the process of developing the proposed rulemaking, NHTSA prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its proposed fuel efficiency standards. The draft EIS compares the environmental impacts of the Agency's proposal with those of a number of regulatory alternatives. Comments may be submitted on the Draft EIS through January 3, 2011. EPA and NHTSA are providing a 60-day comment period that begins when the proposal is published in the Federal Register.

 

    Luke Tonachel, clean vehicles expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "Heavy trucks and buses are the energy hogs of America's roadways -- but they don't have to be. With more efficient engines, aerodynamic bodies and cleaner fuels, our nation's truck fleets can run cleaner and cheaper. These new standards will save truck owners and consumers money, while creating jobs and reducing pollution in the process. Every time the price of oil increases it sends shockwaves through the economy, with truck owners having to pay more for fuel, leading them to pass on higher shipping costs to the consumer. Using less fuel will make those shockwaves less damaging to everyone's wallet."

    NRDC supported the standards, but said the "proposal should be strengthened further to maximize the environmental, security and economic benefits. The National Academies have shown that cost-effective, clean-vehicle technologies exist that can go beyond the EPA and DOT proposal and more than double the pollution and fuel savings."

    On October 22, The American Trucking Associations (ATA) issued a release indicating that the organization adopted a carbon emissions control policy supporting a national fuel economy standard for trucks, rather than government actions to increase fuel prices or alternative fuel mandates. The policy states that "carbon emission reductions achieved through national truck fuel economy standards are preferable to government actions that increase fuel prices in an effort to discourage petroleum-based diesel fuel consumption or mandate the use of alternative fuels." ATA said, "While any federally mandated carbon control program applied to transportation fuels likely will increase the cost of fossil fuels, discussions of carbon control programs should be premised on fundamental principles designed to minimize disruptions to the transportation of goods and to protect the viability of the trucking industry."

    ATA's new energy policy outlines a framework for evaluating carbon control initiatives and specifies that an effective carbon control program for the trucking industry must address the following provisions: Produce cost-effective, verifiable carbon reductions; Ensure that revenue generated from motor carriers and other highway transportation consumers benefits highway users; Ensure that any increased costs are reasonable, predictable and do not increase the volatility of fuel prices; Avoid diesel fuel supply disruptions and ensure that only on-road diesel fuel that meets the ASTM standard for which trucks were designed to run on is sold in the marketplace; Maintain a level playing field among freight transportation modes; and Provides incentives for improved fuel efficiency and availability of alternative technologies.

    The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released its virtual tractor-trailer design, called the Convoy, which illustrates how various technologies could improve tractor-trailer fuel efficiency. In a release, UCS indicated that current average fuel economy for long-haul tractor-trailers, which often travel more than 100,000 miles annually, is only about 6.5 miles per gallon. Clean technology could boost it to 10 miles per gallon by 2017. A suite of technologies -- including more efficient engines, more aerodynamic designs for the tractor and trailer, and idle-off capability -- could reduce the average long-haul tractor-trailer's fuel consumption by 7,000 gallons annually, saving truck operators $24,500 in reduced fuel costs assuming diesel prices of $3.50 a gallon.

    Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the non-profit Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) issued a statement and said, "More than 95 percent of all heavy duty trucks are diesel-powered as are a majority of medium duty trucks. Diesel power is the driving force today of goods movement by truck in our economy. This proposal clearly envisions clean diesel power as the centerpiece of freight transportation in the clean energy economy of tomorrow. Diesel engines offer an unmatched combination of energy-efficiency, work capability, reliability and now near-zero emissions environmental performance making them the technology of choice for commercial trucks today and into the foreseeable future. For all parties, the challenge of increasing fuel efficiency while maintaining or improving environmental, safety and productivity of commercial vehicles is as important as it is complex. It is fitting that a key solution for solving this challenge lies in the diesel engine. . ."

 

    Access a release from the agencies (click here). Access the complete proposal and information about how to submit comments from EPA (click here); and NHTSA (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to additional information (click here). Access a release from ATA and link to additional information (click here). Access a release from UCS and link to the virtual tractor-trailer design and related information (click here). Access the statement from the DTF (click here).

Arctic Continues To Heat Up According To Annual Report Card

Oct 21: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its annual Arctic Report Card, a yearly assessment of Arctic conditions developed by a team of 69 international scientists. According to the report, the Arctic region, also called the "planet's refrigerator," continues to heat up, affecting local populations and ecosystems as well as weather patterns in the most populated parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

    Among the 2010 highlights: Greenland is experiencing record-setting high temperatures, ice melt and glacier area loss; Summer sea ice continues to decline -- the 2009-2010 summer sea ice cover extent was the third lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and sea ice thickness continues to thin. The 2010 minimum is the third lowest recorded since 1979, surpassed only by 2008 and the record low of 2007; and Arctic snow cover duration was at a record minimum since record-keeping began in 1966.

    NOAA indicates that there is also evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes. Winter 2009-2010 showed a link between mid-latitude extreme cold and snowy weather events and changes in the wind patterns of the Arctic, related to a phase of the Arctic Oscillation.

    Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator said, "To quote one of my NOAA colleagues, 'whatever is going to happen in the rest of the world happens first, and to the greatest extent, in the Arctic'. Beyond affecting the humans and wildlife that call the area home, the Arctic's warmer temperatures and decreases in permafrost, snow cover, glaciers and sea ice also have wide-ranging consequences for the physical and biological systems in other parts of the world. The Arctic is an important driver of climate and weather around the world and serves as a critical feeding and breeding ground that supports globally significant populations of birds, mammals and fish."

    In 2006, NOAA's Climate Program Office introduced the annual Arctic Report Card, which established a baseline of conditions at the beginning of the 21st century to monitor the quickly changing conditions in the Arctic. Using a color-coded system of "red" to indicate consistent evidence of warming and "yellow" to show that warming impacts are occurring in many climate indicators and species, the Report Card is updated annually in October and tracks the Arctic atmosphere, sea ice, biology, ocean, land and changes in Greenland.

    Access a release from NOAA and links to a video and the Report Card (click here).