Parties Still Far Apart On "Fiscal Cliff" Issues

Nov 7: Now that the election is in the past, the President and Congress must quickly address the so-called "fiscal cliff" issue. The "fiscal cliff" refers to a large predicted reduction in the budget deficit and a corresponding projected slowdown of the economy if specific laws are allowed to automatically expire or go into effect at the beginning of 2013. The laws include tax increases due to the expiration of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the former Bush tax cuts) and the severe spending reductions ("sequestrations") under the Budget Control Act of 2011, negotiated as part of a political deal between Democrats and Republicans and signed by the President to address the budget deficit. The extreme spending reductions will deal a serious blow to environmental, conservation and energy programs.

 

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recently released a report [See WIMS 10/26/12], Fiscal Shock: America's Economic Crisis, that shows that the United States is already struggling due to Washington's failure to address the pending fiscal cliff. The report indicates that there will be a 0.6 percent loss in GDP growth by the end of 2012. The NAM report warns that, the Congress fails to act, there will be significant harm from to the economy due to massive tax increases and sequestration cuts will over the next three years. They say the results will include the following: More than 6 million jobs lost; Unemployment rate of more than 11 percent; A cumulative 12.8 percent drop in GDP; 10 percent loss in household income; and A recession in 2013 and dramatically slowed growth in 2014.

 

    With such severe consequences hanging in the balance the President has indicated that he wants to sit down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward and is "looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together: reducing our deficit; reforming our tax code. . ." However, just a few days ago, at a campaign event in Colorado the President said:

[referring to President Bill Clinton term of office] ". . .And his economic plan asked the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more so we could reduce our deficit and invest in the skills and ideas of our people. And at the time, you may be surprised to learn that the Republican Congress -- and a Senate candidate by the name of Mitt Romney -- said Bill Clinton's plan would kill jobs, kill the economy. Turns out their math back then was just as bad as it is now. Because by the end of President Clinton's second term, America had created 23 million new jobs. Incomes were up; poverty was down. Our deficit had become a surplus. . .

". . .we know our ideas work because they've been tested, they've been tried.  And we also know that the other folks' ideas don't work because they've been tested. Now, after Bill Clinton left office, for most of the last decade, we tried giving big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans that we couldn't afford. We tried giving insurance companies and oil companies and Wall Street the license to do whatever they pleased. And what we got was falling incomes, and record deficits, and the slowest job growth in half a century, and an economic crisis that we've been cleaning up after ever since. . . So we've got ideas that work; we've got ideas that don't. We've tried both. We should be able to make a pretty clear choice. . ."

    Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) delivered a carefully worded statement which many political pundits have characterized as "conciliatory," and presenting a new effort toward finding bipartisan solutions to the nations fiscal problems. However, a careful reading of the statement indicates he is suggesting the same Republican solution that the President has been campaigning against, and saying he would not accept in the future. Speaker Boehner said, Republicans are "willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions." Then he outlines the conditions saying:

"There will be many who say that with the election over, we should confront the first of these challenges by simply letting the top two tax rates expire, and pushing the sequester off to a later date. . . And we certainly won't solve it by simply raising tax rates. . . Mr. President, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives stands ready to work with you to do what's best for our country. . . Ernst and Young says going over part of the fiscal cliff and raising tax rates on the top two brackets will cost our economy more than 700,000 jobs. Ernst and Young also confirms many of those hit with the rate increase will be small business owners – the very people both parties acknowledge are the key to private sector job creation. 

 

"There is an alternative to going over the fiscal cliff, in whole or in part. It involves making real changes to the financial structure of entitlement programs, and reforming our tax code to curb special-interest loopholes and deductions. By working together and creating a fairer, simpler, cleaner tax code, we can give our country a stronger, healthier economy. A stronger economy means more revenue, which is what the president seeks. . . in order to garner Republican support for new revenues, the president must be willing to reduce spending and shore up the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt. We aren't seeking to impose our will on the president; we're asking him to make good on his 'balanced' approach. . .

 

"But a 'balanced' approach isn't balanced if it means higher tax rates on the small businesses that are key to getting our economy moving again and keeping it moving. . . A 'balanced' approach isn't balanced if it's done in the old Washington way of raising taxes now, and ultimately failing to cut spending in the future. A 'balanced' approach isn't balanced if it means slashing national defense instead of making the common-sense spending cuts that are truly needed. . .

 

". . .we're willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions. What matters is where the increased revenue comes from, and what type of reform comes with it. Does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the American people earn through higher tax rates? Or does it come as the byproduct of a growing economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes, and lower rates for all?. . . Tax reform, done in the manner I've described, will result in the additional revenue the president seeks. It will support economic growth, which means more revenue is generated for the Treasury. . ."

    Similarly, as WIMS reported yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the President needs to propose solutions that can pass the Republican controlled House. He said, "Now it's time for the President to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely-divided Senate, step up to the plate on the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office. To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet him half way. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the 'fiscal cliff' without harming a weak and fragile economy, and when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system. Republicans are eager to hear the President's proposals on these and many other pressing issues going forward and to do the work the people sent us here to do." 

 

   Access the President's Colorado campaign speech (click here). Access the complete statement and video from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access the statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access a release from NAM and link to the complete report and a summary (click here). Access more information on the fiscal cliff (click here). [#All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Obama Wins Electoral & Popular Vote

Nov 6: U.S. voters re-elected President Barack Obama for another 4 year term and candidate Mitt Romney made a gracious concession speech calling for the parties and the American people to come together to deal with the nation's pressing issues. The latest results (still not final) show the President with 303 Electoral votes and 60,044,390 Popular votes; compared to 206 Electoral votes and 57,365,674 Popular votes. Speaking to supporters in his acceptance speech the President said in part:   

"Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward. It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression; the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope -- the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family, and we rise or fall together, as one nation, and as one people.

 

"Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come. I want to thank every American who participated in this election. Whether you voted for the very first time or waited in line for a very long time -- by the way, we have to fix that. Whether you pounded the pavement or picked up the phone -- (applause) -- whether you held an Obama sign or a Romney sign, you made your voice heard, and you made a difference. 

 

"I just spoke with Governor Romney, and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard-fought campaign. . .  In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward. . .

 

"As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts.  It's not always a straight line.  It's not always a smooth path.  By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won't end all the gridlock, or solve all our problems, or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus, and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward.  But that common bond is where we must begin. . .

 

"But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America's future.  We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers -- a country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow. We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt; that isn't weakened by inequality; that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. . .

 

"Our economy is recovering.  A decade of war is ending.  A long campaign is now over. And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you.  I have learned from you.  And you've made me a better President.  With your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do, and the future that lies ahead.

  

"Tonight, you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours.  And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together:  reducing our deficit;  reforming our tax code; fixing our immigration system; freeing ourselves from foreign oil.  We've got more work to do. . .

 

"And tonight, despite all the hardship we've been through, despite all the frustrations of Washington, I've never been more hopeful about our future. I have never been more hopeful about America.  And I ask you to sustain that hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism -- the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.  I'm not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight.  I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us, so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. 

 

"America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made, and continue to fight for new jobs, and new opportunity, and new security for the middle class.  I believe we can keep the promise of our founding -- the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or where you love -- it doesn't matter whether you're black or white, or Hispanic or Asian, or Native American, or young or old, or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight -- you can make it here in America if you're willing to try. 

  

I believe we can seize this future together -- because we are not as divided as our politics suggest; we're not as cynical as the pundits believe; we are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions; and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states.  We are, and forever will be, the United States of America. And together, with your help, and God's grace, we will continue our journey forward, and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth. . ." 

    Access the President's acceptance speech (click here). Access Presidential election results from Politico (click here). [#All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

The Global Garbage Crisis: No Time to Waste

Nov 6: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) indicates that with approximately 1.3 billion tonnes of municipal waste generated each year, and volumes expected to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025 (according to World Bank figures), urgent action is needed to head off the threat to the environment and human health posed by this global waste crisis. This growing problem was foremost in the minds of delegates who gathered at the biennium conference of the UNEP-hosted Global Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM), held on November 5 and 6 in Osaka, Japan, The conference brought together waste experts from around the world to find answers to the global challenge of waste management and reap the economic and environmental benefits through better coordination.

    UNEP said the threat posed by poor waste management is particularly prominent in low-income countries where waste-collection rates are often below 50 per cent. Piles of garbage along river banks; thick smoke from open burning of mixed, and partly toxic, waste; pungent odors; flies and rodents are an all too familiar scene. Ever-faster population growth, urbanization and economic development are producing increasing quantities of waste that are overburdening existing waste-management systems.

    According to a release, there is no end in sight to this trend: by 2030, the global middle-class will have grown from 2 billion to 4.9 billion, each of these new affluent consumers longing for greater quantities of more sophisticated and resource-intensive goods. Public waste systems in cities cannot keep pace with urban expansion; rapid industrialization is happening in countries that have not yet developed the appropriate systems to deal with hazardous and special wastes; and the growing trade in waste poses significant challenges. Waste management is one of the most complex and cost-intensive public services, absorbing large chunks of municipal budgets even when organized and operated properly.

    Basic human needs such as clean water, clean air and safe food are jeopardized by improper waste management practices, with severe consequences for public health. Poor waste collection can lead to the spread of disease and improper waste disposal - for example, hazardous waste mixed with household waste can be extremely harmful for workers in the waste sector, adjacent communities, and the environment. Besides having serious economic, environmental and health implications, unsound waste management has a social dimension. Like most environmental hazards, deficiencies in waste management disproportionately affect poorer communities as waste is often dumped on land adjacent to slums. Left with the choice between going hungry and waste picking, one per cent of the urban population in developing countries choose to sift through the detritus on dumps and dirty streets.

    Millions of these waste pickers are being exposed to hazardous substances as they try to secure their and their families' survival. Lead, mercury and infectious agents from healthcare facilities -- as well as dioxins and other harmful emissions released during the recovery of valuable materials from e-waste -- not only affect the health of waste pickers, but further contribute to air, land and water contamination.

    As the crisis unfolds, there are significant opportunities for organizing the waste sector, with all its complexities, in a way that is more economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. Matthew Gubb, Director of the UNEP's International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), recognizes both risks and opportunities inherent in the waste sector and highlights it as "a model area for greening the economy." UNEP indicates that if handled properly, waste management has huge potential to turn problems into solutions and to "lead the way towards sustainable development" through the recovery and reuse of valuable resources; the creation of new business and employment opportunities, including for the informal sector; reduced emissions of greenhouse gases from waste management operations, such as landfills; and conversion of waste to energy.

    Access a release from UNEP (click here). Access more information on the Global Partnership on Waste Management (click here). Access the background papers from the conference (click here). [#Solid, #Haz, #P2]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

PwC Index Indicates Near Impossible Task Toward Decarbonization

Nov 4: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) has released its annual Low Carbon Economy Index which they say centers on one core statistic: the rate of change of global carbon intensity. This year PwC estimated that the required improvement in global carbon intensity to meet a  2°C warming target has risen to 5.1% a year, from now to 2050. They indicate that the world has passed a critical threshold -- not once since World War Two has the world achieved that rate of decarbonization in a single year, but the task now confronting us is to achieve it for 39 consecutive years.

    According to PwC the 2011 rate of improvement in carbon intensity was 0.8%. Even doubling the rate of decarbonization, would still lead to emissions consistent with six degrees of warming. To give ourselves a more than 50% chance of avoiding two degrees will require a six-fold improvement in our rate of decarbonization.

    The 2011 "rate of improvement" in carbon intensity was 0.7%, giving an average rate of decarbonization of 0.8% a year since 2000. If the world continues to decarbonize at the rate since the turn of the millennium, there will be an emissions gap of approximately 12 GtCO2 by 2020, 30GtCO2 by 2030 and nearly 70GtCO2 by 2050, as compared to our 2-degree scenario.

    the report indicates that, "In the emerging markets, where the E7 are now emitting more than the G7, improvements in carbon intensity have largely stalled, with strong GDP growth closely coupled with rapid emissions growth. Meanwhile the policy context for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear, critical technologies for low carbon energy generation, remains uncertain. Government support for renewable energy technologies is also being scaled back. As negotiators convene every year to attempt to agree a global deal, carbon emissions continue to rise in most parts of the world. Business leaders have been asking for clarity in political ambition on climate change. Now one thing is clear: businesses, governments and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world -- not just 2°C, but 4°C, or even 6°C.

    The 2°C target was formally agreed at COP-15 at Copenhagen 2009, and is based on a carbon budget that would stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm which would give a 50% probability of limiting warming to 2°C. Governments have since agreed to launch a review in 2013 to consider strengthening the long-term goal to 1.5°C.

    The report indicates that, "Governments' ambitions to limit warning to 2°C now appear highly unrealistic. This new reality means that we must contemplate a much more challenging future. While the negotiators continue to focus on 2°C, a growing number of scientists and other expert organizations are now projecting much more pessimistic scenarios for global temperatures. The International Energy Agency, for example, now considers 4°C and 6°C scenarios as well as 2°C in their latest analysis.

    In the period leading up to the Copenhagen UN summit on climate change in 2009, major economies came forward and pledged carbon reduction targets for 2020. Analyses of those pledges suggest that they are collectively insufficient to meet a 2°C target. Even more worryingly, with eight years to go, it is questionable whether several of these pledges can be met.

    PwC discusses what it calls "The shale gas dilemma" saying, "The boom of shale gas in the United States that has helped pushed down emissions there has sparked a debate on the use of gas as a transition fuel to a low carbon economy. The development and widespread deployment of fracking technology in the US has lowered the price of natural gas and resulted in a fall in greenhouse gas emissions as it displaces coal in power generation (although some analysts have raised questions around the lifecycle emissions of shale gas). Despite concerns about the possible environmental impacts of fracking, a world-wide hunt for unconventional gas reserves had already begun – China, India, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Russia and Saudi Arabia are all known to have significant reserves.

    "Gas may buy some time much needed by the global climate system and help limit emissions growth – displacing coal with gas in power generation roughly halves carbon emissions. But low gas prices may also reduce the incentive for investment in lower-carbon nuclear power and renewable energy. Large scale renewables and low carbon technology such as CCS and nuclear will require significant amounts of political will, finance and time. Our analysis suggests that at current rates of consumption, replacing 10% of global oil and coal consumption with gas could deliver a savings of around 1 GtCO2e per year, or 3% of global energy emissions."

    Looking toward the upcoming UNFCCC 18th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP18) meeting, November 26 to December 7, 2012, at the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha, Qatar, PwC indicates, "Regardless of the outcomes at the UN climate change summit in Doha this year, one thing is clear. Governments and businesses can no longer assume that a 2°C warming world is the default scenario. Any investment in long-term assets or infrastructure, particularly in coastal or low-lying regions, needs to address more pessimistic scenarios. Sectors dependent on food, water, energy or ecosystem services need to scrutinize the resilience and viability of their supply chains. More carbon intensive sectors need to anticipate more invasive regulation and the possibility of stranded assets. And governments' support for vulnerable communities needs to consider more drastic actions.

    "The only way to avoid the pessimistic scenarios will be radical transformations in the ways the global economy currently functions: rapid uptake of renewable energy, sharp falls in fossil fuel use or massive deployment of CCS, removal of industrial emissions and halting deforestation. This suggests a need for much more ambition and urgency on climate policy, at both the national and international level. Either way, business-as-usual is not an option."

    Access an overview and video discussion of the report (click here). Access the complete 16-page report (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for extensive information on the upcoming COP18 meeting (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Rep. Fattah Introduces Bill For $12 Billion In Sandy Assistance

Nov 2: Representative Chaka Fattah (D-PA) introduced legislation for $12 billion in emergency disaster relief funds -- with no budget offsets -- to provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other agencies with resources related to national recovery from Hurricane Sandy. "The Hurricane Sandy Recovery and Rebuilding Supplemental Appropriations Act" directs $6.7 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund and sets aside $5 billion for FEMA to provide direct loans to state and local governments in a Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account. These funds would help to compensate for tax revenue lost due to the storm and its aftermath. The latest estimates of total damage from Sandy are $60 billion.

    In addition, the bill directs $45 million to the Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Account and $255 million for the Small Business Administration's disaster loans program. Rep. Fattah said, "Leaders at all levels -- from President Obama to governors, mayors and first responders -- demonstrated the value of being prepared before this cataclysmic storm. We in Congress must take the same pro-active approach to providing resources for recovery. FEMA may have enough on reserve to start the process of recovery. But it's evident from scale of destruction that this will be a costly, perhaps unprecedented recovery across as many as two dozen states. New York State alone is requesting $6 billion in federal aid. It is critical that cash-strapped state and local governments everywhere know that their needs will be met."

    Fattah is a senior Appropriator who serves as Ranking Member on the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies. His Philadelphia based district was one of many in the East and Midwest that have experienced major impacts from Sandy's devastation. He said, "The American people impacted by Sandy have a right to a full, smart, bipartisan recovery support effort from Washington. We cannot accomplish this on the cheap. The President has pledged to state and local officials and to individuals in Sandy's path that we will provide every resource for recovery. It's time for Congress to step up."

    Rep. Fattah introduced the emergency funding bill during the brief, pro-forma session of the House on Friday. He called for full debate and quick enactment when Congress returns in regular session on November 13. In a release he noted that while routine appropriations require offsetting budget cuts under Congressional pay-go rules, he indicated there is ample precedent for emergency spending without offsets. He said, "We have always provided funding for emergencies without cutting the budget elsewhere, and the pay-go rules of the House provide for these exceptions. Clearly, with major population and commercial centers hobbled, Sandy meets the emergency test. We have a responsibility to ensure that FEMA doesn't run out of money part way through the job."

    This week's BloombergBusinessweek cover story is entitled, "It's Global Warming, Stupid." In opening remarks, the article states: "In an Oct. 30 blog post, Mark Fischetti of Scientific American took a spin through Ph.D.-land and found more and more credentialed experts willing to shrug off the climate caveats. The broadening consensus: 'Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth's atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.' Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that. . ."

    Access a release from Rep. Fattah (click here). Access the Businessweek issue with many links and further details (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

ASP Report On Climate Change & National Security

Nov 1: The American Security Project (ASP), a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, released a report analyzing the threats to national security both at home and abroad from climate change. An announcement indicates that "the events of this week, extreme weather -- exacerbated by a changing climate -- poses clear threats to the United States."

    Christine Todd Whitman, ASP Board Member, Former EPA Administrator and Governor of New Jersey said, "There will be costs to our economic security from climate change -- and significant ones at that -- if we do nothing but continue business as usual. We are seeing all sorts of issues that come from climate change and we must adapt to them. This summer's drought throughout the Midwest is just the tip on the kind of changes we can expect from a rapidly (in nature's terms) changing climate."

    Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, USA (Ret.), ASP Board Member said, "Climate Change is already a national security imperative. Combatant Commanders are preparing now for the consequences of climate change in their areas of operation. The destabilizing impacts in key regions of the world are indisputable and will likely only worsen in the years ahead."

    Brigadier General Stephen  Cheney, USMC (Ret.), ASP CEO said, "One of the most significant challenges to the global security system in the 21st Century will be a changing climate. Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States through its effects on our global allies as well as its direct effects on our agriculture, infrastructure, economy and public health. The impact of Hurricane Sandy shows that this is a threat today. The following report aims to move past the current debate about climate change and towards a real, informed discussion about its security implications -- both global and domestic."

    Part I of the report indicates that, "Climate change is real: we see its impacts every day, around the world. A melting Arctic, unprecedented droughts across the world, extreme examples of flooding, and uncontrollable wildfires are all examples of the changing climate. These present a greater challenge than just new and different weather patterns: it will challenge the world's security architecture to prepare for and adapt to new security challenges, like disaster response, food security, and water availability. . .

 

    "This rise in temperature corresponds directly with a global surge in CO2 emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The consequences of the Industrial Revolution have led to the highest levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 800,000 years. CO2 levels are up almost 40% since the industrial revolution, at over 396 parts per million (ppm) in August 2012 from approximately 285 ppm in the late 1800s. CO2 levels have been rising at an average annual rate of about 2.0 ppm per year over the past decade. . . Although there are political arguments questioning the science, they do not hold up under close examination. . ."

 

    Part II of the report indicates, "Climate change will exacerbate regional and local tensions in 'hot-zones' around the world. In these regions, the impacts of a changing climate will act as an accelerant of instability by multiplying problems like water scarcity, food shortages, and overpopulation. As a global superpower with military forces deployed around the world, the interests of the U.S. and its allies will be impacted by a changing climate, especially in certain 'hot-zones' detailed within this chapter." The hot zones include: Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, the East Asia-Pacific, and the Arctic.

 

    Part III of the report indicates, "America's national security leaders agree that climate change is a threat to national security, because it will affect global stability and humanitarian crises around the world. However, American policymakers often overlook that the U.S. should lead in climate change adaptation and mitigation because the U.S. homeland is directly threatened by climate change as well. Climate change will harm America's infrastructure, agriculture, economy and population; these directly affect America's homeland and the security of its citizens. Our country is large and the consequences of warming will vary dramatically

across regions and sectors. Despite the variations in its effects, we must understand its impact on homeland security." Part III highlights include:

• Climate change will threaten the security of the American Homeland. The effects will be different across the country because of regional climate variations.
• Extreme weather – including storms, droughts, floods, or heat waves – across the U.S. is likely to be the most acute threat to infrastructure and to the livelihoods of American citizens
• America's military bases, both at home and abroad, are directly threatened by the extreme weather that will be more likely because of a changing climate.
• Less acute changes in climate –a gradual warming or a slow change in weather patterns – could harm human health and reduce economic activity in traditional jobs.
• The U.S. government has begun the process of preparing for climate change, but a lack of political consensus and long-term foresight is holding back efforts to strategically prepare for the long-term effects of climate change.

    The report concludes, "While America's national security leaders agree that climate change is a threat to national security, due to its effects on global instability and humanitarian crises around the world, it is time to address the threat that climate change poses to America's domestic security. The threats to each region are real and could be severe. Certain sectors of the American economy, notably energy and agriculture -- the base of so much else -- are at risk due to a warming climate.

 

    "The U.S. needs to further develop plans for responding to and preparing for the effects of climate change. U.S. government capability will also greatly benefit from the development of an open, honest dialogue about the facts surrounding climate change and how it will affect our country and our national security. By discussing it in a non-partisan, open manner, the U.S. will be able move past the partisan debate and towards and dialogue about what is happening and how we can fix it."

 

    Access a release announcing the report (click here). Access links to the three part report (click here). Access the ASP website for more information (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Past, Present, Future: U.S. Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Oct 31: Philip Wallach with the Brookings Institution has released a 15-page paper entitled, "U.S. Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions." The paper provides a concise look back at how the U.S. policy to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has evolved, how it has developed over the last several years including the political and legal entanglements; and, importantly, where it might be headed under different leadership scenarios in the Executive office and Congress. Also, of great importance the paper provides extensive links to referenced documents and information and thus becomes an important reference.

 

    In the introductory overview, Wallach indicates, "Where does U.S. climate change policy stand today? Most politically attentive Americans probably know just two salient facts: President Obama and Democrats failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation back when they controlled Congress, and the issue has received very little attention on the 2012 campaign trail. Nevertheless, regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate climate change are real and growing in importance at state, regional, and national level. Without the benefit of new legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized rules under the Clean Air Act affecting motor vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions from power plants. Recently, the D.C. Circuit rejected a number of legal challenges to these rules, ensuring that they will remain in place and grow in importance in coming years. This research note surveys the development of climate change policy in the program without new legislation, and assesses where GHG regulation can and should go from here."

    In the concluding section of the paper, Wallach looks ahead and says, ". . .without straining our imaginations, suppose that our current state of gridlocked divided government persists into 2013 and beyond, with at least one of the House, Senate, or White House unwilling to allow either comprehensive climate change legislation or simple removal of EPA's authority over GHGs. In this case, state and regional efforts will probably grow in importance, even as they suffer from periodic attrition. Federal regulations will have a major impact, reducing GHGs far less efficiently than a cap and trade system or a carbon tax. EPA will probably do its best to keep the scope of its rules fairly narrow, "tailoring" the CAA in many ways to prevent regulation from engulfing all small businesses. This continuation of the status quo is legally troubling, economically sub-optimal, and of dubious efficacy -- but it probably doesn't portend the economic disaster Republicans sometimes warn of. On the other hand, if environmentalist litigation successfully forces the EPA to create NAAQS for GHGs and thereafter to require states to tackle global carbon levels in their SIPs, the whole machinery of the CAA could be gummed up with little compensating benefit. . .

 

    "In the meantime, the status quo poses a dilemma for the policy-minded. If our first priority is to ensure that regulations' benefits exceed their costs, what should we make of the current set of GHG policies under the CAA? On the one hand, we might think that when it comes to climate change, something is better than nothing and the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. On the other hand, there is a real danger of settling for mediocre and wasteful policies simply because 'doing nothing' feels wrong. Arguably, the most important effect of adopting sensible American climate change policy would be to put the United States in a position of global leadership on the issue. But the current CAA policies, which are bitterly contested by half of our political class, are incapable of fulfilling this role. Indeed, they pose a danger of undermining the case for acting against climate change; when critics say that our GHG emission controls are wasteful, poorly designed, and imposed by 'fiat,' they will be more than a little correct. Executing a legislative tradeoff enacting efficient carbon pricing and ending the strange interpretive odyssey under the Clean Air Act should be a priority for believers in sensible policy."

 

    Access the complete paper from the Brookings Institution (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

"Superstorm Sandy" Consistent With Climate Change Warnings

Oct 30: Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee issued a release indicating that "Superstorm Sandy" is the latest example of climate change contributing to extreme weather. He said it underscores the need for the United States and the world to take urgent action to reduce the pollution that is causing climate change and intensifying extreme weather events. He pointed to the latest studies on climate change, and the real-world events that have occurred just in the last two years, as "all the evidence needed to enact strong limits on the pollution that is destabilizing our climate" [See WIMS 10/22/12]. 

    Rep. Markey said, "For this superstorm to occur so late in the storm season, reach such fury, and have the kinds of flooding impacts that we are seeing, is fully consistent with what scientists have told us we should expect due to global warming. It's time to admit the obvious fact that climate change is here. Warmer water in the Atlantic is fueling stronger storms, the seas are higher, and the dramatic changes in the Arctic are potentially altering the path of storms hundreds of miles away. Climate change is no longer some far off issue; it's at our doorstep. We must consider how to address the underlying factors that are fueling these extreme weather events. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of those killed and impacted by this superstorm. The federal government and all United States citizens stand at the ready to help those in need."
 
    Rep. Markey released a report last week on climate change effects in New England. In September, Reps. Markey and Henry  Waxman (D-CA) released a report on extreme weather and climate change, which summarized the recent extreme weather events and science in the United States. Reps. Markey and Waxman are the co-authors of the only climate change bill to pass a chamber of Congress, in 2009. Rep. Markey said, "If we don't cut carbon pollution, the oceans will get warmer, the seas will get higher, and the storms will get stronger. We still have time to heed these extreme weather warnings."

 

    The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), the successor to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to advance strong policy and action to address the twin challenges of energy and climate change, issued a fact sheet on "Climate Change and Hurricane Sandy" indicating, "Hurricane Sandy is a stark reminder of the rising risks of climate change. A number of warming-related factors may well have intensified the storm's impact. Higher ocean temperatures contributed to heavier rainfall. Higher sea levels produced stronger storm surges. New research suggests that Arctic melting may be increasing the risk of the kind of atmospheric traffic jam that drove Sandy inland. While no single weather event can be said to have been directly caused by climate change, our weather now is the product of our changing climate, as increased warming raises the probability of extreme weather events. In highlighting our vulnerabilities to extreme weather, Hurricane Sandy underscores two imperatives: We need to reduce the risks of climate change by reducing our carbon emissions, and we must strengthen our defenses against future impacts that it may be too late to avoid." 

 

    Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a statement saying, "All of us at Environmental Defense Fund send our thoughts and prayers to the victims of this humbling and unprecedented storm. A number of factors converged to make Sandy one of the most ferocious weather disasters in our recorded history, and the best science tells us that we are one of those factors. As a consequence of global climate change caused by human activities, sea levels are higher, the Atlantic waters are warmer, and there's more moisture in the atmosphere – three of the reasons this storm packed such destructive force. Sandy is not just a weather disaster but also a climate disaster. Today, as we rush to ensure the safety of our loved ones and communities, we should remember that unless we finally get serious about climate solutions there can be no lasting protection from the ferocity of our warming world."

 

    Access a release from Rep. Markey with additional information and links to the referenced reports (click here). Access the complete fact sheet from C2ES (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access 258 images of Hurricane Sandy devastation from the Weather Channel (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Massive Hurricane Sandy Shuts Down News & Information

Oct 29: Stu Ostro, Senior Meteorologist, The Weather Channel has posted a commentary on the historical extreme weather event being played out on the east coast of the United States. As WIMS reported last week, a new study by Munich Re, one of the world's leading reinsurance companies, shows that North America has been most affected by weather-related extreme events in recent decades [See WIMS 10/22/12]. The publication -- Severe weather in North America: Perils · Risks · Insurance -- analyzes all kinds of weather perils and their trends. The latest development with Hurricane Sandy will certainly add to the insurance and reinsurance concerns with massive damages expected. Landfall is expected early this evening along with high tides.

 

    Ostro notes that, "History is being written as an extreme weather event continues to unfold, one which will occupy a place in the annals of weather history as one of the most extraordinary to have affected the United States. . . Early Monday morning, aircraft reconnaissance found a central pressure of 946 millibars, one of the lowest on record for a hurricane near that location, and maximum sustained winds which have increased to 85 mph.

    "A meteorologically mind-boggling combination of ingredients is coming together: one of the largest expanses of tropical storm (gale) force winds on record with a tropical or subtropical cyclone in the Atlantic or for that matter anywhere else in the world; a track of the center making a sharp left turn in direction of movement toward New Jersey in a way that is unprecedented in the historical database, as it gets blocked from moving out to sea by a pattern that includes an exceptionally strong ridge of high pressure aloft near Greenland; a 'warm-core' tropical cyclone embedded within a larger, nor'easter-like circulation; and moisture from the tropics and cold air from the Arctic combining to produce very heavy snow in interior high elevations. This is an extraordinary situation, and I am not prone to hyperbole."

    Subscribers Note: During the next few days WIMS will continue to publish, however, considering the devastating conditions from Hurricane Sandy combined with the nearness to the Presidential election, the availability of quality environmental and energy news and information is extremely limited. WIMS will continue to search for relevant news, but we expect it will be sparse.

    Access the complete commentary from Ostro (click here). Access maps and satellite imagery, watches, tracks, threats, radar, etc.(click here). Access NASA images and commentary on Hurricane Sandy (click here). Access the National Hurricane Center website for extensive information (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

U.S. Can Nearly Meet Copenhagen 17% GHG Reduction Pledge

Oct 25: Resources for the Future (RFF) released a new discussion paper entitled, US Status on Climate Change Mitigation. The abstract of the report indicates that in 2009, President Obama pledged that, by 2020, the United States would achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 17 percent from 2005 levels. With the failure of Congress to adopt comprehensive climate legislation in 2010, the feasibility of the pledge was put in doubt. However, RFF finds that the United States is near to reaching this goal; currently, the country is on course to achieve reductions of 16.3 percent from 2005 levels in 2020. Three factors contribute to the outcome: (1) greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act; (2) secular trends including changes in relative fuel prices and energy efficiency; and (3) subnational efforts. Perhaps even more surprising, domestic emissions are probably less than would have occurred if the Waxman–Markey cap-and-trade proposal had become law in 2010. However, at this point the United States is expected to fail to meet its financing commitments under the Copenhagen Accord for 2020.

 

    On the issue of the U.S. financial commitments, RFF indicates that the United States joined other developed countries in committing to support emissions mitigation and adaptation in developing countries through financing that would grow to $100 billion per year from public and private sources by 2020 [See WIMS 10/18/12]. However, the United States has not put a plan in place to achieve its share of this commitment. The public contribution to the financing goals in future years appears to be insufficient. The contribution of private capital, including payments for international offsets, was expected to fulfill the lion's share of the US financing commitment but international offsets play no role in meeting regulations under the Clean Air Act. Private investment capital in energy resource development already substantially exceeds the $100 billion target, but this cannot be seen as an additional source of funding, as implied by the Copenhagen Accord.

 

    On the subject of U.S. EPA regulations and in particular those that have not yet been fully implemented the paper indicates EPA has already finalized fuel efficiency standards for mobile sources and rules for preconstruction permitting under the Act. The most important regulation from EPA will be the expected operating performance standards for new and existing stationary sources, and the design and stringency of these standards is the most important source of uncertainty in the RFF estimate.

 

    RFF indicates that the first proposed standards, issued in April 2012 for new fossil-steam power plants, require these plants to achieve a carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rate of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour; this is based on the performance of a new natural gas combined-cycle plant. A new coal-fired plant would be required to install carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to achieve this emissions rate. However, the standard includes a provision that allows a coal plant to operate for up to 10 years without CCS if it then installs CCS so that it achieves a 30-year average emissions rate that meets the standard of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour. Similar new source performance standards for other source categories -- including refineries, pulp and paper, iron and steel, and other emitting sources -- are expected to roll out over time.

 

    RFF says, "Regulations governing the operation of stationary sources are in development, although at a slow pace. Taken together, these initiatives are expected to achieve emissions reductions of 10.5 percent by 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline. It is uncertain whether these reductions will be fully realized, but the legal and institutional dominoes are in place for this to occur."

 

    Regarding the secular trends and subnational policies, RFF indicates that secular trends in the economy, including changing relative fuel prices and the expanded influence of energy efficiency, will lead to additional reductions in the electricity sector that measure to be 3.3 percent, compared to 2005 levels. The subnational policies are increasingly important. California's goal, embedded in State law; cap and trade in the Northeast (RGGI); and state renewable electricity and energy efficiency programs should contribute additional emissions reductions. These subnational policies alone, without the effects of secular trends in the electricity sector or any new regulations under the Clean Air Act, put the United States on target to have emissions 2.5 percent below 2005 levels. The RFF paper concludes:

"In sum, we estimate that the United States is on track to achieve emissions reductions of 16.3 percent by 2020 relative to 2005 levels.

"Important uncertainties are associated with the current path of US emissions reduction efforts that would have been lessened with the passage of comprehensive climate legislation. To forecast what will happen next in the United States, one must consider two key touchstones. One is the California program. If the first planned auction happens in November 2012, then the program will almost certainly begin in January 2013, with big implications for the nation. It is likely to face various legal challenges, but for the most part it is expected to survive intact.

"Second is the finalization of the new source performance standard for electric steam boilers, which is expected early next year, and EPA's posture in the development of existing source standards. The existing source standards may be more stringent than the technical documents have identified. That is because it is a state-driven process in which states develop implementation plans for EPA's approval. Many states view this as an opportunity to strengthen and broaden the regional trading programs. The uncertainty about the issuance of these standards is a concern, but the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act are clear. A new administration could -- slow walk -- the regulatory development and delay it for years, but is unlikely to stop it altogether.

"Another possibility is the reversal of the Clean Air Act, or at least the removal of authority for enforcing the GHG rules. This seems far-fetched because it would require an unbalanced legislature and administration. However, a less extreme outcome could be for a new legislature and administration to defund the activities of EPA in developing these rules. This would delay the rules indefinitely.

"If the eventualities play out as they currently are aligned, we find that not only is President Obama's pledge in Copenhagen within reach, but emissions reductions within the domestic economy could actually be greater than would have occurred under comprehensive climate policy with cap and trade, as proposed by Waxman–Markey. The reason is that a large portion of the emissions reductions that were expected under cap and trade would have been offsets, whereas many of the factors driving emissions reductions under the current Clean Air Act regime would have been effectively or explicitly preempted under cap and trade. . .

"In the short run, to the surprise of many, the United States appears able to meet its mitigation obligations under the Copenhagen agreement. In contrast, however, the United States seems off-course with respect to meeting its financing obligations under the agreement. Cap and trade provided a vehicle and incentive to direct private capital toward investment in developing countries through the purchase of emissions offsets. It also provided a source of funds for the federal government that could have supported the public fund contribution to the financing obligation. In contrast, under a regulatory approach, these avenues are not available. In particular, international offsets appear to be unavailable as a legal compliance instrument by which to meet GHG reduction standards under the Clean Air Act. The subnational cap-and-trade policies allow for international offsets, but their supply in those programs is limited. Private financing of energy development internationally is already extensive but generally could not be seen as an additional contribution to the outcome of US climate policy. In the absence of cap-and-trade policies in general, and an active offset market in particular, the United States is likely to have difficulty meeting its commitment to finance international investments."

    Access the complete 23-page RFF discussion paper (click here). Access links to several media articles based on the RFF paper  (click here). [#Climate, #Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Californians To Vote On GMO Labeling Of Food Products

Oct 25: A highly controversial ballot initiative in California will allow voters to decide whether mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food should be required. If the measure is approved it will certainly be considered in other states and in future legislation. California's Proposition 37, if approved, would require: 

• Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
• Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
• Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

    The initiative is highly opposed by large chemical and pesticide companies like Monsanto, E.I. Dupont, DOW Agrisciences, Bayer Cropscience, BASF Plant Science, Syngenta Corporation, Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Nestle, and Conagra Foods who have all donated over $1 million to defeat the proposal. In all, opposition companies have contributed $35.6 million to defeat Proposition 37. Industry argues that the proposal is deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions -- without providing any health or safety benefits; is full of special interest exemptions; and authorizes shakedown lawsuits.

 

    Supporters of the initiative -- Organic Consumers Fund, Mercola Health Resources, Kent Whealy and others -- have raised some $7.7 million in support of the initiative. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), that supports the proposal indicates in a release that, "Americans eat their weight yearly in genetically engineered food, much of it created by large chemical and pesticide companies funding an expensive ad campaign to defeat the common-sense Proposition 37 to label genetically engineered foods in California."

 

    Ken Cook, EWG president and a resident of California said, "If genetically engineered ingredients are good for you, why do these companies want to keep you in the dark? Americans have a right to know what's in their food so we can make an informed decision for ourselves."

 

    EWG indicated in a release, "Anti-Proposition 37 ads are urging consumers to trust corporate giants like Monsanto, Bayer and DuPont, which have long records of releasing toxic pollution into communities' water and air and now claim that genetically engineered ingredients hidden in food are safe. In fact, neither the government nor independent research institutions have conducted health testing or long-term monitoring of the health dangers of genetically modified foods. The only studies that exist have been performed by seed companies that make so-called genetically engineered organisms [GMO]."

 

    Access complete information for and against Proposition 37 from the BallotPedia website (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). [#Toxics]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

NRC Scoping Meetings For New Waste Confidence Directorate EIS

Oct 24: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Directorate announced it will hold two public meetings November 14 at agency headquarters in Rockville, Md., to discuss the scope of the Agency's review of the environmental impacts of extended interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, including impacts associated with never building a permanent spent fuel repository and risks from spent fuel pool leaks and fires. The public scoping meetings are the initial step in developing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to support a revised "waste confidence" decision and rule. The Agency's plan for public outreach to solicit comments on the scope of the EIS includes the November 14 meetings and webinars scheduled for December 5 and 6.

    The waste confidence EIS and rulemaking stem from a game-changing, June 8 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that struck down the NRC's 2010 waste confidence decision and rule [See WIMS 6/8/12]. On August 7, the Commission issued an Order saying the NRC will not issue licenses dependent on the waste confidence rule -- such as new reactors and early site permits, renewal of existing reactor operating licenses, and renewal of certain spent fuel storage facility licenses -- until the Court's remand is appropriately addressed. On September 6, the Commission directed the staff to develop the environmental study and the revised rule within 24 months [See WIMS 9/6/12].

    Among other things, the Appeals Court ruled, "We recognize that the Commission is in a difficult position given the political problems concerning the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Nonetheless, the Commission's obligations under NEPA require a more thorough analysis than provided for in the WCD [Waste Confidence Decision] Update. We note that the Commission is currently conducting an EIS regarding the environmental impacts of SNF [spent nuclear fuel] storage beyond the sixty-year post-license period at issue in this case, and some or all of the problems here may be addressed in such a rulemaking. In any event, we grant the petitions for review, vacate the WCD Update and TSR [Temporary Storage Rule], and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

    To facilitate public outreach, the Waste Confidence Directorate has established its own page on the NRC website (see link below). The website will be updated regularly with new public documents and information regarding the waste confidence EIS and rule. NRC's Office of Public Affairs will also provide updates on the waste confidence project through social media. Keith McConnell, director of the Waste Confidence Directorate in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards said, "In order to meet our 24-month deadline for this important project, we will work diligently to ensure the public is fully informed and has a chance to provide feedback. We are committed to giving the public meaningful opportunities to participate in this process."

    The November 14 meetings will take place in the Commission Hearing Room in the One White Flint North building of NRC headquarters, at 11555 Rockville Pike. The first will be held from 1-4 PM, and will be webcast with a moderated teleconference line to accommodate interested members of the public unable to attend in person. The second meeting will be held from 9 PM to midnight (6-9 PM Pacific Time) to accommodate people in other time zones. The evening meeting will be by webcast and moderated teleconference only (with no members of the public in attendance in Rockville), and will cover the same material as the earlier meeting. The meetings will be transcribed and the webcasts archived on the NRC website. In addition to the public meetings, the NRC staff will conduct webinars on December 5 from 1-4 PM and December 6 from 9 PM to midnight (both Eastern Time), to explain the staff's progress in developing the scope of the EIS and to accept public comments.

    More information about the scoping process, public meetings and webinars will be included in a Federal Register notice to be published tomorrow and subsequent updates to the waste confidence website. Public comments on the scope of the environmental review will be accepted through January 2. Comments may be submitted through the Federal government's rulemaking website or by mail.

    Access a release from NRC (click here). Access the Waste Confidence website for more information (click here). Access the COMSECY-12-0016 Memo (click here). Access the September 6, 2012 Staff Directive Memo (click here). Access the NRC votes and individual Commissioner comments (click here). Access the complete Appeals Court opinion (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Industry Study Touts Major Benefits From Shale Energy Development

Oct 23: A comprehensive new study co-sponsored by the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy demonstrates that shale energy will create millions of jobs and trillions in investments over the coming decades. The Chamber partnered with the American Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council and Natural Gas Supply Association to sponsor the study. According to a release, the report was produced by IHS CERA, a leading independent global energy research firm. The study, America's New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the U.S. Economy, is the first-ever to examine the impact of shale energy development across the country and provide concrete numbers to help Americans understand how beneficial the impacts of shale could be.

    Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Energy Institute said, "We've known for some time that shale energy is truly a game-changer for America -- and now we can prove it. This new, comprehensive study demonstrates that shale energy is already contributing over $200 billion to our economy, with much more to come, if policymakers at all levels of government don't stand in the way." The study indicates that shale energy development has created 1.75 million jobs over the past few years alone. By 2015, shale and unconventional energy will be responsible for 2.5 million jobs; by 2020, 3 million, and by 2035, 3.5 million.

    Daniel Yergin, IHS vice chairman and author of The Quest said, "The growth of unconventional oil and gas production is creating a new energy reality for the United States. That growth has not only contributed to U.S. energy security but is a significant source of new jobs and economic activity at a time when the economy is a top priority." In 2012, shale energy is responsible for $62 billion in tax revenue according to the study. Between now and 2035, shale energy development is expected to contribute more than $2.5 trillion in total tax revenue -- more than half of which will go to states and localities.  Overall, between now and 2035, the energy industry will invest more than $5.1 trillion in energy development.

    In addition to the benefit to our economy, there is a tangible benefit to America's energy security from shale. Shale oil production has helped increase domestic production of oil by more than 25 percent over the last four years. By 2015, oil production is expected to increase by 46 percent over 2008, and by 2020, there will be a 68 percent increase -- predominantly because of shale. Harbert said, "Shale energy not only creates jobs, it will also strengthen our energy security. Thanks largely to shale, America now has enough natural gas to supply our nation for over 100 years. In addition, shale also will reduce the need for oil imports. In fact, our study shows that by 2020, net oil imports will decrease by 60 percent, and America will spend $200 billion less on imported oil."

    The IHS CERA study released today is the first in a three-part series designed to shed light on the impact of shale. Part one of the study focuses exclusively on the impact of operations surrounding the extraction of oil and gas (referred to as "upstream" operations.)  A second study will be released that will quantify the impacts of shale by state. The final installment will examine the entire economic impact of shale, including components like manufacturing and chemicals (known as "downstream" operations).

    ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley said, "This study delivers plenty of good news for the chemical industry and other American manufacturers. Abundant and affordable supplies of natural gas are revitalizing the chemical industry and providing a competitive edge for manufacturers in the global marketplace. This study confirms that these benefits from natural gas liquids are not a short-term phenomenon but an ongoing trend expected to last for decades."

    API President and CEO Jack Gerard said, "The study highlights the extraordinary opportunities we have right here at home to develop our unconventional oil and gas resources and return our economy to a pro-growth engine. Polls show Americans' top priority is job creation and the oil and natural gas industry will be a driver for those new jobs, with nearly three quarters of a million new jobs added over just the next three years."

     R. Skip Horvath, president and CEO of NGSA said, "The main take-away from this study is that 94 percent of the jobs accrue to our customers, with just 6 percent of the jobs accounted for by producers. That's why people are justified in calling unconventional gas a renaissance for the entire U.S. economy."

    Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from NGSA (click here). Access the report website and link to the complete 184-page report, a video, summary information and more (click here). [#Energy/Shale]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals