House Passes "Farm Bill" Without SNAP - What Next?

Jul 11: The U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of a Farm Bill -- H.R.2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act of 2013 -- by a vote of 216-208. The revised bill, introduced July 10, which breaks an historic legislative tradition by eliminating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, i.e. food stamp program), passed with no Democratic votes in support. Twelve Republicans voted against the bill. An earlier House version H.R.1947, that included a $20.5 billion cut in SNAP funding, was defeated because many House conservatives did not think to SNAP cuts were deep enough [See WIMS 6/21/13]. The Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill -- S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 ) -- by a wide bipartisan margin, 66-27, on June 10 [See WIMS 6/11/13]. 

 

    House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) said, "Today was an important step toward enacting a five-year farm bill this year that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty, provides regulatory relief to small businesses across the country, significantly reduces spending, and makes common-sense, market-oriented reforms to agricultural policy. I look forward to continuing conversations with my House colleagues and starting conversations with my Senate colleagues on a path forward that ultimately gets a farm bill to the President's desk in the coming months."

 

    The Ranking Member on the Agricultural Committee Collin Peterson (D-MN) had a different reaction saying, "The House Majority's decision to ignore the will of the more than 500 organizations with a stake in the farm bill, setting the stage for draconian cuts to nutrition programs and eliminating future farm bills altogether would be laughable if it weren't true. This was not the only option. Following the House failure to pass a comprehensive, bipartisan, five-year farm bill, I repeatedly expressed a willingness to work with the Majority on a path forward. I firmly believed that if we could find a way to remove the partisan amendments adopted during the House farm bill debate we would be able to advance a bipartisan bill, conference with the Senate and see it signed into law this year. Now all that is in question."

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement saying, "Our farm and food stamp programs need reform. The status quo is unacceptable, which is why I voted against most of the farm bills of the past two decades, and supported this one.  I'm pleased the House took a positive first step forward in providing some much-needed reforms to our farm programs today. Reforming our food stamp programs is also essential. Chairman Lucas should be commended for his work on this bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and our members as we move this process forward."

 

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a statement saying, "House Republicans have stooped to a new low.  Unable to secure passage of a farm bill the first time around, Republicans decided to conjure up a new version late last night, strip out SNAP, and hastily push their partisan agenda through the House without a single Democratic vote. In turning their back on a long history of bipartisanship on the farm bill, Republicans abandoned the health and economic security of millions of Americans -- from seniors and children to farmers and ranchers.

    "Americans in the districts of every single Member of Congress needed us to work together so they wouldn't have to worry about going to bed hungry. Instead, Republicans decided to jeopardize the certainty and stability of America's rural communities, and risk taking food out of the mouths of those who need it most. It is shameful, disgraceful, and wrong -- wrong for our families, wrong for our communities, and wrong for our country. As Americans, our democracy is only as strong as we are as a people. Our strength depends on the economic security and prosperity of every hardworking American family who aspires to become part of the middle class -- the backbone of our democracy. Today, House Republicans undermined that strength. Now, it's time for them to change course and work with Democrats to protect and promote the prosperity of our children, families, and future generations."

    U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, issued a statement saying, "The bill passed by the House today is not a real Farm Bill and is an insult to rural America, which is why it's strongly opposed by more than 500 farm, food and conservation groups. We will go to conference with the bipartisan, comprehensive Farm Bill that was passed in the Senate that not only reforms programs, supports families in need and creates agriculture jobs, but also saves billions more than the extremely flawed House bill."

    The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) issue a brief statement saying it "looks forward to moving ahead with fundamental farm policy legislation, following House passage today of H.R. 2642. While we don't yet know what the next steps will be, we will be working with both sides of the aisle and both chambers of Congress to ensure passage of a new five-year farm bill. While we were hopeful the farm bill would not be split, nor permanent law repealed, we will now focus our efforts on working with lawmakers to deliver a farm bill to the president's desk for his signature by September."

 

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administrative Policy on H.R.2642 on July 10, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2642. . .[and] if the President were presented with H.R.2642, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The OMB Statement indicates further, "Because the 608 page bill was made available only this evening, the Administration has had inadequate time to fully review the text of the bill. It is apparent, though, that the bill does not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms and does not invest in renewable energy, an important source of jobs and economic growth in rural communities across the country. Legislation as important as a Farm Bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the Nation. This bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans -- in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our Nation's food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the Farm Bill advances."

 

    Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Vice President for Government Affairs said, ". . .The 'farm only' farm bill passed today by House Republicans – over the objections of everyone from the American Farm Bureau to the Heritage Foundation – is, simply put, the most fiscally irresponsible piece of farm legislation in history. This bill not only increases unlimited insurance subsidies, but also increases price guarantees for major crops and creates new subsidy programs for farm businesses. This bill locks in these new income subsidies for eternity under the guise of 'reform.' No one who voted for this terrible farm bill can reasonably claim to be fiscally conservative. At a time of record farm profits and record fiscal deficits, lawmakers should reject – not expand – the sort of needless corporate welfare that causes Americans to lose faith in Congress."

 

    Franz Matzner, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) associate director of government affairs said, "Once again, House Republicans are pushing an extreme agenda, this time to gut critically important conservation programs farmers depend on to be good stewards of our land and water and wildlife. Their farm bill also eviscerates oversight of pesticides and in a stunning example of federal overreach, blocks states from adopting food and farm standards. Without a moment's hesitation, this House farm bill should be plowed under, like the fertilizer it is, and never again see the light of day."

 

    There appears to be general confusion about what the next steps will be. The two, drastically different bills, based in wildly different political philosophies, will go to a Conference Committee, where it seems impossible to imagine a "compromise." Whatever emerges, if anything, will likely be rejected by one of the Chambers and a veto is certainly possible if the Administration's position is not preserved. The various scenarios do not look good for the Farm Bill, SNAP, or continuing budget debates that must be resolved before September 30.

    Access a release from Rep. Lucas and link to his Floor speech (click here). Access a release from Rep. Peterson and link to his Floor speech (click here). Access a release from Speaker Boehner that includes an opportunity to comment (click here). Access a release from Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Sen. Stabenow  (click here). Access the statement from AFBF (click here). Access the OMB Statement of Administrative Policy (click here). Access the statement from EWG (click here). Access the roll call vote for H.R.2642 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2642 (click here). Access legislative details for S.954 including amendments and roll call votes (click here). [#Agriculture, #MIAgriculture, #Land, #Water, #Energy] 

NRC 17-Yr. Old Environmental Review Guidance Needs Updating

Jul 10: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Nuclear Reactor License Renewal: NRC Generally Follows Documented Procedures, but Its Revisions to Environmental Review Guidance Have Not Been Timely (GAO-13-493, May 30, 2013). The report was requested by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman EPW Subcommittee on Oversight; Bernard Sanders (I-VT); and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA).

 

    In background information, GAO indicates that many U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors are reaching the end of their initial 40-year operating period. To continue operating, their owners must renew their licenses with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the independent federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear reactors. NRC evaluates license renewal applications under two parallel reviews for safety and potential environmental impacts. NRC's license renewal process has received increasing public scrutiny due, in part, to the 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

    GAO was asked to review NRC's license renewal process for commercial nuclear power reactors. The report examines: (1) the scope of the license renewal process; (2) the extent to which NRC updates its safety and environmental review guidance; (3) the extent to which NRC follows its documented license renewal procedures; and (4) knowledgeable stakeholders' views on the strengths and weaknesses in the license renewal process and any suggestions for improvements. GAO reviewed documents; visited two nuclear power plants selected based on characteristics such as having gone through the license renewal process; assessed the consistency of NRC reviews with documented procedures; and interviewed NRC officials and stakeholders from industry and public interest groups. GAO did not evaluate the adequacy or substance of NRC reviews or the quality of the agency's license renewal procedures. The plants that GAO visited included: Millstone Power Station in Connecticut and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts.

    GAO found that the scope of NRC's license renewal process focuses on managing the effects of aging on a reactor and its associated systems, structures, and components (i.e. safety) and assessing certain potential environmental impacts of extending a reactor's operating-life. As a result, reviews done as part of this process are not required to address as many topics as reviews for initial licensing, which include security and emergency planning.

    GAO indicates that NRC has regularly updated the safety review guidance it uses in the license renewal process but has not revised most of its environmental review regulations and guidance since they were first issued. NRC has revised its safety review guidance twice -- in 2005 and 2010 -- and has issued interim updates for selected safety issues between those revisions. In contrast, NRC has not revised most of its environmental review regulations and guidance since they were first issued starting in 1996. NRC regulations state the agency's goal is to review its environmental findings every 10 years and update its license renewal regulations and guidance, if necessary. Consistent with this goal, NRC initiated the revision process in 2003. In December 2012, the NRC Commissioners approved draft regulations, but they directed agency staff to make additional changes. As of March 2013, NRC staff were working on these changes. According to NRC officials, reasons for the lengthy revision process include limited staff resources and competing demands on those resources as well as an unusually large number of technical issues needing evaluation. NRC requires applicants and expects agency staff to consider new and significant environmental information in the license renewal process, but its use of regulations and guidance originally issued 17 years ago has created the impression among some that the agency is using outdated information and has caused uncertainty for some license renewal applicants about what guidance will be used to evaluate their application.

    GAO said that NRC generally followed its procedures when reviewing selected safety and environmental elements in eight license renewal applications GAO examined. NRC's safety reviews were generally consistent with the agency's procedures for evaluating both an applicant's identification of components within the scope of the license renewal process and proposed buried piping and tanks inspection and fire protection programs for aging management. NRC's environmental reviews were also generally consistent with agency procedures for evaluating: (1) new and significant information for two generic environmental issues; (2) applicants' assessments of two site-specific environmental issues; and (3) applicants' analyses of alternatives for mitigating severe reactor accidents.

    Knowledgeable stakeholders interviewed by GAO identified various perceived strengths and weaknesses and potential improvements to the license renewal process. Stakeholders most often identified NRC staff's technical knowledge and the thoroughness of the agency's reviews as perceived strengths of the process. Stakeholders also identified a range of perceived weaknesses in the license renewal process, including claims that its scope is too narrow and that its public hearing process is flawed and inhibits meaningful public participation. Accordingly, some stakeholders suggested potential changes to improve the license renewal process, including broadening the scope of NRC's reviews and modifying aspects of the public hearing process.

    Access the complete 60-page GAO report (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

Alaska Submits Plan For 3-D Seismic Exploration In ANWR

Jul 9: Alaska Governor Sean Parnell announced that the State of Alaska is officially submitting a plan for seismic exploration activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 Area, pursuant to Section 1002(e) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Governor Parnell said, "The 1002 Area of ANWR holds enormous promise for Alaska and for our nation. Federal law provides clear direction and mandates a number of actions that the Interior Secretary must take upon the submission of a 1002 Area exploration plan. We look forward to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell's prompt review and approval of this exploration plan."

    On May 18, with support from North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer Rex Rock, the State of Alaska submitted a detailed 1002 Area exploration proposal and offered to help finance seismic studies in the 1002 Area. In late June, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell completely rejected the State's proposal and offer of funding support. Therefore, the State is submitting a formal exploration plan and special use permit application for the 1002 Area.

    Natural Resource Commissioner Dan Sullivan, noting that the U.S. Department of Interior approved 1002 Area exploration plans in the 1980s and that the law does not contain a sunset provision and therefore is still on the books, said, "ANILCA requires the Secretary to take formal action on this exploration plan. This 240-page, world-class document meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements for a 1002 Area exploration plan contained within the Code of Federal Regulations and in ANILCA. If an exploration plan meets all of these requirements, the Secretary is required by law to approve it."

    The exploration plan and accompanying special permit application builds upon the detailed proposal the State submitted in May. The plan will take advantage of current technology, which will have significantly less environmental impacts than the exploration activities approved and conducted in the 1002 Area during the 1980s. The 1002 Area is thought to be one of the most prolific regions for undiscovered oil in America. The State seeks to conduct low-impact, three-dimensional surveys across the 1002 Area from 2014 to 2017. This work will only be done during the winter, with very limited impact to tundra, fish and wildlife. The Governor said, "I am renewing my pledge to seek support from the Alaska Legislature during its 2014 session to fund a 3-D seismic program for the 1002 Area. If this plan and permit application is promptly reviewed and approved as required by ANILCA, I will request a minimum of $50 million to execute this plan."

    U..S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, voiced her continued support for the state of Alaska's plan to fully assess the potential oil and natural gas resources in ANWR coastal plain. She said, "The coastal plain holds valuable oil and natural gas resources, which is why Congress reserved it for oil production more than 30 years ago. Any effort to change the way the area is managed must only be considered with the best available information. Gov. Parnell's offer to help pay for a full resource assessment of the coastal plain using 3-D seismic is generous, sensible and legally allowed under the 1980 lands act."

    She indicated in a release that the ANWR coastal plain offers the United States' best chance of a major onshore, domestic oil and natural gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the coastal plain has a 50 percent chance of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, resources worth more than $1 trillion at current market prices. Those estimates are based on old two-dimensional seismic studies done in 1982-1983. Sen. Murkowski said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is drafting a new management plan for the refuge, which is expected to include new wilderness designation recommendations for the coastal plain. Such a recommendation without knowing the full potential of the coastal plain is "irresponsible." She said, "The problem with Fish and Wildlife Service's work on a new management plan is that it fails to consider the potential economic benefits of oil and gas production. They claim that's because development would require an act of Congress, but, of course, so would a wilderness designation -- their argument doesn't hold up. Instead of trying to lock up our resources, we should develop them as part of a balanced energy plan that creates jobs, invests in research and technology, and bolsters our economy."

    Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director for The Wilderness Society said, "The Arctic Refuge was established for the conservation of the landscape's extraordinary values, including fish and wildlife populations, and habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, other predators, musk oxen, Dall sheep, and migratory birds and fish, among others. Drilling on the coastal plain of the refuge would not lower gasoline prices, but it would permanently diminish one of the last great wilderness landscapes in the world. Instead, this portion of our nation's heritage should be protected for future generations."

    The Wilderness Society indicated in a release, "Like other supporters of the oil industry, Alaska's governor looks at the wilderness landscape of the Arctic Refuge and sees only dollar signs. But the refuge is worth far more than the value of the oil that may lie beneath it. Parnell's assault on the refuge – like all the attacks that came before it – must be stopped. The refuge must be protected for the creatures that call it home, for the Alaska Native communities that depend on its wildlife for cultural traditions and as a source of food, and for future generations of Americans who deserve to inherit an intact, spectacular, wilderness."

    Access a release from the Governor and link to the letter to Secretary Jewell (click here). Access the 240-page ANILCA Section 1002(e) Exploration Plan and Special Use Permit Application and Supporting Materials (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from The Wilderness Society (click here). [#Energy/ANWR]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Beekeeping Organizations Appeal Sulfoxaflor Registration

Jul 8: National Beekeeping organizations along with the National Honey Bee Advisory Board have come together in an attempt to protect the bee industry by an appeal against EPA for its approval of the pesticide Sulfoxaflor, which they indicate has been shown to be "highly toxic" to honey bees, and other insect pollinators. Sulfoxaflor is a new chemistry, and the first of a newly assigned sub-class of pesticides in the "neonicotinoid" class of pesticides, which scientists across the globe have linked as a potential factor to widespread and massive bee colony collapse. The case is filed as the beekeeping industry across the country struggles for survival, and faces the costly effects of pesticides upon their businesses. The groups are being represented by the public interest law organization Earthjustice. The appeal process through the courts is the only mechanism open to challenge EPA's decision; it is commonly used by commodity groups to rectify inadequate pesticide labeling.

 

    The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith have filed the appeal against U.S. EPA in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting changes needed in the Sulfoxaflor label, the Biological Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) assessment of the value of pollinators and their established habits, and the EPA's Risk Assessment Process. According to a release, the changes would acknowledge pollinator's critical role in the U.S. food supply, and ensure that decisions regarding new pesticides comply with applicable laws.

    Sulfoxaflor was granted a full registration by EPA for most crops, many of which require pollinators. Many other registered crops are utilized by pollinators, including honey bees, as forage. Based on the approved registration, pollinators, especially honey bees, may potentially be exposed numerous times by labeled Sulfoxaflor applications as honey bees are moved across the country to pollinate crops, produce the nation's supply of honey, and recuperate from the rigors of pollination.

    On May 6, 2013, EPA granted unconditional registrations for the new active ingredient sulfoxaflor, formulated as a manufacturing use product and two end-use products for use in production agriculture. EPA is granted the use of sulfoxaflor on barley, bulb vegetables, canola, citrus, cotton, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, low-growing berries, okra, ornamentals (herbaceous and woody), pistachio, pome fruits, root and tuber vegetables, small vine climbing fruit (except fuzzy kiwifruit), soybean, stone fruit, succulent, edible podded and dry beans, tree nuts, triticale, turfgrass, watercress and wheat. The registrant is Dow AgroSciences LLC.

    Attorney Janette Brimmer of Earthjustice said, "Our country is facing widespread bee colony collapse, and scientists are pointing to pesticides like Sulfoxaflar as the cause. The effects will be devastating to our nation's food supply and also to the beekeeping industry, which is struggling because of toxic pesticides. This lawsuit against the EPA is attempt by the beekeepers to save their suffering industry. The EPA has failed them. And the EPA's failure to adequately consider impacts to pollinators from these new pesticides is wreaking havoc on an important agricultural industry and gives short shrift to the requirements of the law."

    According to an Earthjustice release, EPA is required by FIFRA to determine that a pesticide does not pose an unreasonable risk to the environment or to economic interests such as that of the bee industry. Earthjustice indicates that "EPA's testing did not adequately examine the impact of acute and sub-lethal poisoning of adult honey bees, brood, bee life span, in light the dynamics of the colony organism. The EPA's reviewed research and analysis of bee foraging behavior and habits is being questioned based on long accepted publications; the Agency lacked the necessary data on how Sulfoxaflor remains systemically absorbed in the crop tissue, and how that may harm bees and bee colonies long term subjected to levels below the lethal toxicity level to adult bees; and the EPA failed entirely to look at how differing amounts of pesticides affect pollinators over time."

    On May 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health. The report states that there are multiple factors playing a role in honey bee colony declines, including parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure. The agencies said, "the report represents the consensus of the scientific community studying honey bees." [See WIMS 5/2/13].

    Access a lengthy release from Earthjustice with additional quotes from various parties to the case, additional facts on Sulfoxaflar and links to related information (click here). Access EPA's statement of registration approval and link to the EPA docket for background information (click here). Access the complete 72-page report on honey bee health (click here). [#Agriculture, #Wildlife, #Toxics]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Bill Calls For Transparency In "Social Cost Of Carbon"

Jul 1: U.S. Representatives Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced H.R.2593, the Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Transparency Enhancement Act in response to a change in what is known as the "social cost of carbon," included in a little-noticed federal rule on microwave ovens. The bipartisan legislation requires that any cost-benefit analysis and key methods used to justify regulations must be held for at least 60-days pending public review and comment. 

    According to a release from the Members, by increasing the social cost of carbon to $38 a metric ton, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions are considered more valuable, while actions supporting the completion of the Keystone Pipeline and other energy production, for instance, are deemed more costly. Rep. Hunter said, "The social cost of carbon has significant implications on rule making and this calculation could be revised and even manipulated to make cuts in emissions appear more or less valuable in any cost-benefit analysis. Tucking the latest social cost of carbon calculation into an unnoticed rule on microwave ovens raises questions about intent, given that the calculation could be used to justify specific actions supported by the Administration. There should be an opportunity for public review and comment, so that industry and stakeholders can weigh in and provide feedback on cost-benefit analyses and key methods, including the social cost of carbon.  Evidently, this is a process that needs to be more open and transparent, and this legislation will guarantee adequate time and opportunity for congressional and public review."

    The Congressional Research Service (CRS) indicates that the bill, in essence, would require executive branch agencies to report to, and allow the opportunity for comment from,Congress and the public (using the Federal Register) on any cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or regulatory impact analysis (RIA)used in rulemaking. The reporting requirement would apply when an agency is required to conduct an RIA under current statutory and executive order requirements. This bill itself does not appear to create any new requirement for an RIA. The required report would include both the results of the agency's analysis and the methods used to come to those results, including any "key method." The bill explicitly defines a "key method" to include any method that determines the social cost of carbon.

   On May 31, 2013, U.S. Department Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz announced that the Agency had finalized new energy efficiency standards for microwave ovens that would save consumers nearly $3 billion on their energy bills through 2030. The regulatory impact analysis associated with the rule also incorporates an update to the interagency "social cost of carbon" (SCC) values [See WIMS 6/3/13], based on the best available science, used to calculate the societal and health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as discussed in this year's Economic Report of the President. 

        Access a release from Rep. Hunter (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2593 (click here). Access the CRS analysis H.R.2593 (click here). Access the EPA docket for the microwave rule with supporting documents and comments (click here). [#Climate, #Energy/Efficiency]

WMO: Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Extremes

SUBSCRIBERS & READERS NOTICE:

WIMS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHING ON JULY 4 & 5, 2013.

WE WILL RESUME PUBLICATION ON MONDAY, JULY 8, 2013.

 

HAVE A SAFE AND ENJOYABLE JULY 4TH HOLIDAY & WEEKEND !

 

Jul 3: A new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) indicates that the world experienced "unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of accelerating global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade. The report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Extremes, analyzed global and regional temperatures and precipitation, as well as extreme events such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, Tropical Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa and floods in Pakistan.

    According to a release, the decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world's glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report. The WMO report charted rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global-average concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to 389 parts per million in 2010 (an increase of 39% since the start of the industrial era in 1750), methane to 1 808.0 parts per billion (158%) and nitrous oxide to 323.2 parts per billion (20%).

    WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said, "A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change. WMO's report shows that global warming accelerated in the four decades of 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat. Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans -- as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events -- means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times."

    The 100-page report and an executive summary, incorporating findings from a unique survey of 139 National Meteorological and Hydrological Services and socio-economic data and analysis from several UN agencies and partners, were released to coincide with the first session of the Intergovernmental Board on Climate Services. This Board is overseeing the implementation of the Global Framework for Climate Services -- an international initiative to improve and expand scientifically-based climate information to help society cope with the natural variability of our climate and human induced climate change.

    Jarraud said, "A decadal perspective makes it possible to assess trends in the climate system and anticipate the future. It can also inform efforts to develop operational climate services that provide information and forecasts for decision-making in agriculture, health, disaster risk, water resources and other sectors. These efforts are being coordinated through the WMO-led Global Framework for Climate Services. Climate services are more necessary than ever to help us cope with global changes in our climate, which are accentuated at regional and national scales. Despite the significant decrease in casualties due to severe storms and flooding, the WMO report highlighted an alarming impact on health and mortality rates caused by the European and Russian heat-waves. Given that climate change is expected to lead to more frequent and intense heat-waves, we need to be prepared.''

Temperatures: The average land and ocean-surface temperature for the decade 2001-2010 was estimated to be 14.47°C, or 0.47°C above the 1961 - 1990 global average and +0.21°C above the 1991 - 2000 global average (with a factor of uncertainty of ± 0.1°C). Results from WMO's survey showed that nearly 94% of reporting countries had their warmest decade in 2001-2010 and no country reported a nationwide average decadal temperature anomaly cooler than the long term average.

Precipitation, floods, & droughts: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records. Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet. Droughts affect more people than any other kind of natural disaster owing to their large scale and long-lasting nature. The decade 2001-2010 saw droughts occur in all parts of the world. Some of the highest-impact and long-term droughts struck Australia (in 2002 and other years), East Africa (2004 and 2005, resulting in widespread loss of life) and the Amazon Basin (2010) with negative environmental impacts.

Tropical cyclones: Between 2001 and 2010, there were 511 tropical cyclone related disaster events which resulted in a total of nearly 170,000 persons reported killed, over 250 million people reported affected and estimated economic damages of US$ 380 billion. According to the U.S. NOAA, 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin. An average of 15 named storms per year was recorded, well above the long-term average of 12. The North Indian Ocean saw the deadliest tropical cyclone recorded during the decade, when Tropical Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in early May 2008. More than 138 000 people were reported killed or missing, eight million people were affected and thousands of homes were destroyed.

Impacts: During the decade 2001-2010, more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate conditions, including heat, cold, drought, storms and floods, according to the data provided by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). This was 20% higher than 1991-2000. This increase is due mainly to the 2003 heat wave in Europe and the 2010 in Russia which contributed to an increase of more than 2000% in the global death toll from heat waves (from less than 6000 in 1991-2000 to 136 000 in 2001-2010). On the other hand, there was a 16% decline in deaths due to storms and 43% decline in deaths from floods, thanks mainly to better early warning systems and increased preparedness and despite an increase in populations in disaster-prone areas. According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114% globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world's population increased by 87% from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192%, in the same period.

    Access a release from WMO with charts and link to the more information and a video (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access a 20-page summary report(click here). Access the WMO website for more information (click here). Access the Global Framework for Climate Services (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Prioritizing Energy Efficient Renewables (PEER) Act

Jun 27: U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced H.R.2539, the Prioritizing Energy Efficient Renewables (PEER) Act. The legislation would permanently extend the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind, geothermal, hydro, and marine power and eliminate the tax credit for intangible drilling costs, the domestic manufacturing tax credit for oil and gas, and the percentage depletion credit for oil and gas wells. The legislation is revenue positive, as the approximately $1.6 billion cost of the PTC last year is outweighed by the approximately $3.7 billion in annual costs of the three oil and gas credits.

 

    Rep. Schakowsky was joined by 17 colleagues in introducing the legislation, which is supported by major environmental organizations including Earthjustice, Environment America, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Greenpeace, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Wilderness Society. Rep. Schakowsky said, "As the President highlighted this week, global warming is real and its consequences are devastating. The tremendous challenge of climate change also offers an opportunity. We should invest in renewable energy technologies that will help our country reduce hazardous carbon emissions, driving the growth of good American jobs, improving public health, and leaving behind a safe climate for our children and grandchildren. I look forward to moving the PEER Act forward as we discuss our country's energy future."

    Dave Hamilton, Director of Clean Energy at the Sierra Club commented saying, "We thank Representative Schakowsky for introducing the Prioritizing Energy Efficient Renewables Act of 2013. It's high time we provide renewable energy the same certainty of federal support that big oil and gas have enjoyed for decades. The Schakowsky bill would make a commitment to developing clean energy sources while ending unnecessary support for highly profitable and polluting fossil fuels. Wind, solar, and other clean energy innovators should not have to scrap for federal investment every year, while oil and gas fat cats sit back and enjoy unfair tax breaks while racking up billions in profits."

    Without Congressional action, the PTC will again expire at year's end. The tax credit, which provides up to 2.3 cents per kWh of energy produced, has driven clean energy and economic growth nationwide. The PTC has been especially important for wind energy. Last year wind power represented 44 percent of all new electrical generating capacity in the U.S., leading all other sources. Wind also employs about 75,000 Americans, and the American Wind Energy Association believes it could employ 500,000 and supply 20 percent – up from 3.5 percent today -- of U.S. electricity by 2030.

    The bill is timely considering the President's Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13] and developments in the wind energy market. On June 28, Nordex USA, Inc. that it will cease manufacturing wind turbine housings at its factory in Jonesboro, Arkansas, largely because of unpredictable U.S. policies, the U.S. wind energy industry renewed its call for a predictable tax policy to keep U.S. manufacturing jobs. Dr. Jürgen Zeschky, CEO of the German-based, Nordex SE, explained, "This was an extremely difficult decision for Nordex. We are reacting to the weakened demand from the US market, brought on by the unpredictable extensions of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), and the resulting low utilization rate of our US assembly plant. We see great potential in the US and Latin American markets and are committed to serving those markets and increasing our installed base. With this decision we also increase our flexibility to react to US demand for our turbines out of one single plant in Rostock, Germany. We will be maintaining the extensive expertise in sales, engineering, service, project management, training and support which we have built at our Chicago and Jonesboro locations to continue the growth we have achieved through these challenging times."

    Rob Gramlich, Senior Vice President for Public Policy of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said, "Wind power has been good for Arkansas consumers and businesses, and wind power could do a lot more for the state if we had predictable national policies to create a stable business environment. That starts by keeping the federal Production Tax Credit in place to allow wind energy to scale up as rapidly as it can. Nordex said uncertainty is one of the main reasons for their business decision to cease building wind turbine nacelles in Jonesboro. Arkansas has positioned itself to take advantage of the wind industry's growth in the region, which is providing low-cost electricity in Arkansas and exporting energy east. And consumers are saving, because wind power holds down the overall cost of electricity on fixed-price contracts. But predictable policies to create a stable business environment are critical, especially if we want to maintain this new U.S. manufacturing sector and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. That will take action by Congress."
 
    Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) responded to the news today by saying, "I've always supported the renewable energy production tax credit. Unfortunately, some in Congress believe we should cut funding for renewable energy. I hope we'll consider a long-term production tax credit as part of comprehensive tax reform. These companies need more certainty than a one-year extension." Senator John Boozman (R-AR) commented, "Promising industries like wind turbine production are particularly sensitive to this uncertainty as Washington has been unable to tell them what their tax burden will be beyond a very short term. You can't make major planning decisions from a business perspective on that timeframe. There must be a longer term extension in place so that companies like Nordex and Mitsubishi can grow and put Arkansans to work. I support the credit, have voted for the extensions, and would like to see the wind tax credit authorized for a longer time period to provide certainty to business owners." Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe (D) said, "I have been saying for years that there must be stable tax policy with this kind of intense capital investment. Congress has totally failed to provide one, wavering year-to-year on the wind energy tax credit. This indecisiveness is costing Arkansas, and America, jobs."

    The Wilderness Society issued a release on Rep. Schakowsky's bill saying, "Without a long-term extension of the PTC, we will see investments in wind energy projects dry up and they will be abandoned across the country. This would be disastrous for the renewable energy industry and the economy as a whole as the wind energy industry is a vital, growing part of the economy. Oil and gas development is a major issue confronting our public lands. But it is important to remember that renewable energy on public lands have large impacts as well. That is why The Wilderness Society has long advocated a "Smart from the Start" policy when it comes to energy development on public lands. While we certainly support a transition from a fossil fuel based economy to one that is focused on clean and renewable energy, as an organization we are continuing to make sure that these renewable energy projects are directed to low impact places that do not spoil our wild lands and important habitats. This bill displays the folly of giving tax breaks to an industry that has claimed over a trillion dollars in profits over the last decade but it also helps a growing industry that is moving our economy away from a fossil fuels based one to a clean energy one."

    Access a release from Rep. Schakowsky (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2539 (click here). Access a release from Nordex (click here). Access a release from AWEA (click here). Access a release from the Wilderness Society with links to further information (click here). [#Energy/Wind, #Energy/Renewable]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

NAS Calls For A National Sustainability Policy

Jun 28: A report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) indicates that the United States should establish a National Sustainability Policy and take additional steps to encourage federal agencies to collaborate on sustainability challenges that demand the expertise of many agencies, such as improving disaster resilience and managing ecosystems. The report -- Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Government Linkages -- indicates that currently, the government is generally not organized to deal with the complex, long-term nature of sustainability challenges.  Statutes and government culture encourage agencies to focus on a single area -- energy, water, or health, for example -- with little attention to how areas affect one another. This "stovepipe" or "silo" effect makes it difficult to address issues that cut across agency boundaries.   

     The report says, the Federal government should take steps to help build linkages among agencies and stakeholders outside government to address these challenges. A National Sustainability Policy, developed with input from agencies, NGOs, and the private sector, could help surmount obstructions and enable initiatives that cut across agency jurisdictions.  The policy would establish the principles of promoting the long-term sustainability of the nation's economy, natural resources, and social well-being.  It should set out broad general objectives, management principles, and a framework for addressing complex issues. Several models exist for such a policy, including the National Oceans Policy, which was created in 2010 through an executive order to guide management decisions with the goal of protecting the nation's coasts. Once a National Sustainability Policy is in place, agencies should develop specific plans that define how they expect to implement it. 

    The report offers a decision-making framework that can be applied to sustainability-related projects and programs. The framework can help agencies identify and enlist other agencies and private stakeholders that should be involved.  Given the inherent complexities and uncertainties of many sustainability issues, strategies may need to be altered based on emerging results; the framework builds in an "adaptive management" approach that allows for these adjustments. Although the framework can be applied to many sustainability challenges, the committee that wrote the report identified four challenges of national importance that should be top priorities: 

• Connections among energy, food and water. Producing and using energy often consumes water and can also impact water quality, air quality, land use, and the agricultural sector. For example, intensive production of corn for ethanol requires water for irrigation, and chemical fertilizers that are heavily applied to corn run off into rivers and become a major source of pollution.
• Diverse and healthy ecosystems. Ecosystems, which are affected by the actions of many agencies, provide services to human communities -- such as water supplies, coastal storm buffers, productive fisheries, and pollination of food crops.
• Resilience of communities to natural disasters and other extreme events. Improving the sustainability of communities means identifying their vulnerabilities and enhancing their resilience to catastrophic events -- such as earthquakes or terrorist attacks -- as well as to more gradual processes, such as climate change.
• Human health and well-being. Sustainability efforts may affect human health and well-being in complex, crosscutting ways.  For example, agricultural practices affect the nutritional content and contaminant levels in food, as well as food's availability and price, and land use and transportation decisions affect levels of physical activity, which in turn affect the risk for cardiovascular disease, many cancers, and other conditions.

    The report also recommends that the Federal government offer incentives to its employees to collaborate across agency boundaries. Agencies should nurture "change agents" both in the field and at regional and national offices, an effort that may include revisions to managers' performance plans, rewards, and training. Similarly, agencies should encourage and enable cross-agency management and funding of linked sustainability activities; in some cases, changes in statutory authority may be needed to do so. Because sustainability challenges play out over long time scales, agencies should invest in long-term research projects to provide the scientific understanding needed to inform strategies, the report says. Agencies should collaborate to design and implement cross-agency research portfolios in order to better leverage funding.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete 142-page report and related information (click here). [#Sustain]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Enviros Outline Case For Reopening Keystone XL Environmental Review

Jun 27: This week (June 24), environmentalists called on the State Department to reopen the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline environmental review process. They said new information from the Department of Energy (DOE), the International Energy Agency (IEA), industry analysts, and refining executives offers new evidence that Keystone XL will, in fact, directly contribute to increased tar sands development, U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and pollution at U.S. refineries, calling into question the original State Department findings. Groups signing the letter include Bold Nebraska, Center for Biological Diversity, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International, and the Sierra Club.

    On June 25, one day after the group letter, President Obama said in his speech announcing his Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/26/13], "Now, I know there's been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That's how it's always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It's relevant."

    Doug Hayes, Sierra Club attorney said, "Since the close of the comment period, evidence of inaccuracies and bias in the State Department's review of Keystone XL has been steadily mounting. This new information demonstrates that the review relies on an overly-simplistic, outdated view of a rapidly-changing oil market." The groups said the new data contradicts three primary conclusions by the State Department: that increased rail shipments of crude oil have the potential to completely replace the capacity of Keystone XL if the pipeline were rejected; that increasing domestic production of oil will not affect the demand for heavy Canadian crude oil in Gulf Coast refineries; and that Canadian crude will not be exported from the Gulf Coast if the pipeline is built.

    Lorne Stockman, Research Director at Oil Change International and coauthor of the letter said, "The State Department is alone in its conclusion that the Keystone XL pipeline is not fundamental to the prospects of the dirty tar sands industry. State needs to take a careful look at the new evidence that we've compiled in the past several weeks and they will reach the same conclusion that we do: that the Keystone XL pipeline is crucial to the expansion of the tar sands, and that expansion is not in the public interest."

    The groups cited evidence that Keystone XL is the lynchpin for tar sands development which they detailed in the letter including: A Goldman Sachs report that says that rail shipments of tar sands could not replace the proposed pipeline logistically and economically [See WIMS 6/11/13]; Royal Bank of Canada's estimate that denial of Keystone XL would jeopardize $9.4 billion in tar sand development; and U.S. EPA estimates that Keystone XL will add 18.7 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year. And a new U.S. government report increases the estimated social cost of this pollution -- related to human health, sea level rise and other natural disasters -- by as much as double.

    Anthony Swift, NRDC attorney said, "This recent information paints a clear picture. The Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline would significantly increase climate emissions while providing few benefits to the United States -- it really is an all risk and no reward proposition for the American people." According to the groups, the State Department is obliged by federal law to analyze and respond to this new data.

    The groups' 54-page communication to the State Department resembles a legal brief and includes multiple linked citations to extensive referenced information and documentation. The communication concludes, "The significant new information highlighted in this letter is directly relevant to the environmental impacts of Keystone XL, because it casts further doubt on the DSEIS's  [Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement] conclusion that Keystone XL will have no impact on the rate of tar sands development. The North American oil market is undergoing massive changes at a very rapid pace, and evidence contradicting the analysis contained in the DSEIS is becoming available on near-weekly basis. It is crucial that the Department of State consider this new information if it is to make an accurate assessment Keystone XL's impacts. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Department of State prepare a supplement to its DSEIS based on significant new information pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9."

    Access a release from the groups (click here). Access the 54-page communication to DOS (click here). [#Energy/KXL]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

"Gray Wolf Lost A Popularity Contest Among Wildlife Managers"

Jun 27: According to documents obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)  lawsuit, the organization says, the federal government's plan to remove the gray wolf from the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) [See WIMS 6/7/13] was "hammered out through political bargaining with affected states," contrary to requirements of the ESA that listing decisions must be governed by the best available science. PEER says the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) presided over a process in which "political and economic considerations were at the forefront."

 

    PEER indicates in a release that the 52 documents produced by Fish & Wildlife Service detail how the "National Wolf Strategy" was developed in a series of closed-door Federal-state meetings called "Structured Decision Making" or SDM beginning in August 2010. The meetings involved officials from every region of the Service and representatives from the game and fish agencies of 13 states.

 

    PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch who had been seeking the records since April 2012 said, "These documents confirm our worst suspicions that the fate of the wolf was decided at a political bazaar. The meeting notes certainly explain why no outside scientists were welcome. From what we can see, Structured Decision Making was structured primarily to deal out the lower-48 population of gray wolves. The Obama administration keeps preaching integrity of science and transparency but seems to practice neither on any matter of consequence. In simplest terms, these documents detail how the gray wolf lost a popularity contest among wildlife managers."

 

    In addition to the release, PEER released a number of documents including: View the SDM overview and flowchart; Look at the political matrix for assessing alternatives; See the "New Fantastic Alternative"; Read scientists' critique of de-listing plan; Examine state litigation threats; Scan background on Structured Decision Making for the gray wolf; and Revisit politics pervading Mexican wolf decisions.

 

    A release from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) indicates that the documents show that the Fish and Wildlife Service "constrained the possible geographic scope of wolf recovery based on perceptions of 'what can the public tolerate' and 'where should wolves exist' rather than where suitable habitat for wolves exists or what is scientifically necessary for recovery. The meetings left state agencies in a position to dictate the fate of gray wolves across most of the lower 48 states." Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at CBD said, "This process made a mockery of the spirit of the Endangered Species Act. These documents show that years ago the Fish and Wildlife Service effectively handed over the reins on wolf recovery to state fish and game agencies, many of which are openly hostile to wolves. In order to ensure this politically contrived outcome, the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent the past three years cherry-picking scientific research that justifies the predetermined outcome that wolves don't need protection anymore."

 

    CBD said, "In August 2010 officials from a select group of state fish and game agencies were invited to a week-long workshop at the Fish and Wildlife training center in West Virginia to effectively decide the future of gray wolf recovery in the United States. The decisions made at the meeting were largely adopted in the agency's June 2013 proposal to end federal protections for gray wolves across most of the lower 48."

 

    Hartl said, "The Fish and Wildlife Service's actions demonstrate a near total lack of transparency and scientific integrity," said Hartl. "If the Service had followed this same logic 20 years ago, there would be no wolves in Yellowstone National Park today -- and no wolves roaming across the northern Rocky Mountains. The Service needs to go back to the drawing board and let the scientific facts guide how to recover wolves across the millions of acres of suitable wolf habitat remaining in the western United States and the Northeast."

 

    A number of scientists sent a joint letter to Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell on May 21, in advance of the proposal and said, "As scientists with expertise in carnivore taxonomy and conservation biology, we are writing to express serious concerns with a recent draft rule leaked to the press that proposes to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 States, excluding the range of the Mexican gray wolf. Collectively, we represent many of the scientists responsible for the research referenced in the draft rule. Based on a careful review of the rule, we do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves, or is in accordance with the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

 

    "The Service's draft rule proposes to: 1) 'remove the gray wolf from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife'; 2) 'maintain endangered status for the Mexican wolf by listing it as a subspecies (Canis lupus baileyi)'; 3) 'recognize a new species of wolf known as Canis lycaon [that] occurs in southeastern Canada and historically occurred in the northeastern United States and portions of the upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions)'; and 4) deny protection to wolves in the Pacific Northwest because they do not qualify as a distinct population segment for lack of discreteness from wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. We find these proposals problematic both in terms of their scientific support and their consistency with the intent of the statute. . ."

 

    On June 7, the Service proposed to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of threatened and endangered species. According to a release, the proposal comes after a comprehensive review confirmed its successful recovery following management actions undertaken by Federal, state and local partners following the wolf's listing under the Endangered Species Act over three decades ago. FWS said, "The proposed rule is based on the best science available and incorporates new information about the gray wolf's current and historical distribution in the contiguous United States and Mexico." FWS Director Dan Ashe said, "From the moment a species requires the protection of the Endangered Species Act, our goal is to work with our partners to address the threats it faces and ensure its recovery. An exhaustive review of the latest scientific and taxonomic information shows that we have accomplished that goal with the gray wolf, allowing us to focus our work under the ESA on recovery of the Mexican wolf subspecies in the Southwest." On June 13, FWS published its proposed rule for the gray wolves in the Federal Register and the proposal is now under a 90-day comment period extending until September 11, 2013.

 

    Access a release from PEER and link to the documents including the letter from scientists (click here). Access a release from CBD and link to related information (click here). Access the FR notice (click here). Access a release from FWS with links to more information on gray and Mexican wolves, supporting comments, including the proposed rules and commenting procedures (click here). [#Wildlife]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

President's Climate Speech Addresses Keystone XL & Fracking

Jun 25: In yesterday's speech announcing the Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/25/13], President Obama briefly addressed the Keystone XL pipeline, and indirectly fracking, even though neither was mentioned directly in the plan itself. Neither the actual Plan or the speech mentioned the controversial subject of natural gas exports.

 

    The President said, "I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil.  And, by the way, it's certainly got to be about more than just building one pipeline. 

    "Now, I know there's been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That's how it's always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It's relevant."

    The President also addressed the increasing production of natural gas much of which is possible through the highly controversial use of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Although he did not mention fracking directly he said, "Now, even as we're producing more domestic oil, we're also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth. And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this: We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions. 

    "Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas. And now, we'll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we're not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy. The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. It's lowering many families' heat and power bills. And it's the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future."

    The actual Climate Action Plan addressed the natural gas issue saying, "Burning natural gas is about one-half as carbon-intensive as coal, which can make it a critical "bridge fuel" for many countries as the world transitions to even cleaner sources of energy. Toward that end, the Obama Administration is partnering with states and private companies to exchange lessons learned with our international partners on responsible development of natural gas resources. We have launched the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program to share best practices on issues such as water management, methane emissions, air quality, permitting, contracting, and pricing to help increase global gas supplies and facilitate development of the associated infrastructure that brings them to market. Going forward, we will promote fuel-switching from coal to gas for electricity production and encourage the development of a global market for gas. Since heavy-duty vehicles are expected to account for 40 percent of increased oil use through 2030, we will encourage the adoption of heavy duty natural gas vehicles as well." (page 19)

    Access the full text of President's climate speech  (click here). Access a video of the President's speech (click here). Access the complete 21-page Climate Action Plan (click here). Access the Presidential Memo on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards (click here). Access a fact sheet from the White House (click here). Access a visual presentation of the President's Plan (click here). Access the White House climate change website for additional information (click here). [#Climate]

---

More Comments On The President's Climate Action Plan - Jun 26: The following are some additional comments in reaction to President Obama's Climate Action Plan [See also WIMS 6/25/13]:

 

    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) issued a release indicating that, "President Obama unveiled a plan today that aims to cut carbon pollution, prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to combat climate change.  The National Research Council has produced a number of consensus reports on these and related issues that may be of use to policymakers, researchers, business owners, and the public as they consider ways to address climate change and develop innovative solutions." The release provides a listing and direct links to various NAS reports related to climate change.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres said: "President Obama's climate action plan is a necessary next step to meet an immediate, worrying shortfall in action to deal with climate change and can be a critical move forward on the path towards a new, global climate agreement. It remains vital that the United States as the world's largest developed economy is seen to be leading serious action to deal with climate change, both at home and abroad. These new steps will help to meet those goals, if they are implemented to the fullest extent to which they are intended. It is significant that the new plan aims to start up rapidly and covers the full menu of solutions to climate change: clean energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency and the many actions that all countries need to take to adapt to accelerating climate change. This climate action plan should be positive for the US economy and the economies of other countries, as the US shifts faster towards a sustainable, low carbon model, including addressing directly the heaviest sources of emissions from unmodified coal and gas plants.

    "When the United States leads action, it also encourages more rapid international efforts to combat climate change by strengthening political trust, building business momentum and driving new technology solutions. . . I applaud the fact that the US intends to play a leading role by helping to forge a truly global solution to climate change that galvanizes international action to significantly reduce emissions, prepares for climate impacts, and drives progress through the international negotiations. This US climate action plan must also be leveraged into fresh, high-level political consensus among countries that will smooth the way for faster progress in the international climate change negotiations under the United Nations."

    Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen said: "President Obama's plan to address climate change is welcome news that deserves widespread support. Continuing to fill our atmosphere with carbon pollution is immoral. We have a responsibility to current and future generations to hand down a livable planet. We must begin now to fulfill our obligation. . . Two of the actions in the president's plan are likely to be particularly effective. The first is reducing carbon pollution from our dirtiest power plants, which is long overdue. These plants, some of which date all the way back to the 1940's, are responsible for the lion's share of the nation's carbon pollution and currently operate without any carbon pollution controls. Secondly, the president's plan to increase efficiency of the appliances we use every day will reduce our carbon pollution while saving consumers money by lowering operating costs. . ."

 

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said: "The president's plan runs a serious risk of punishing Americans with higher energy bills, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy, while delivering negligible benefits to the environment. The administration must fully, transparently, and continually evaluate the impact of its proposed rules on jobs and the economy--just as the law requires. American consumers, workers, and businesses simply cannot afford another smothering layer of new regulations whose benefits are unproven and whose true costs are hidden. It is unfortunate that on a matter of such importance to all Americans that the administration has chosen to bypass our elected representatives in favor of unilateral actions and go-it-alone tactics. . ."

 

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) said: "Years after a Democrat-controlled Congress rejected the President's plan to impose a new national energy tax, President Obama is now trying to go at it alone and take unilateral action to push through job-destroying taxes and red tape. This is the latest example of President Obama's long-running war on coal, which a White House advisor now openly admits 'is exactly what's needed.' However, this is not only a war on coal. It's a war on jobs, our economy, affordable energy, American families and small businesses. While the President is calling for new energy taxes and regulations, which will cost jobs and increase energy prices, House Republicans this week will vote to expand American energy production in order to create jobs and lower energy prices. The difference couldn't be starker. The President's plan will cost tens of thousands of American jobs and impede economic growth. The Republican plan will create over a million jobs and generate $1.5 billion in new revenue."

 

    Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) said: "We welcome the fact that President Obama seems to be finally acknowledging the value of the Keystone XL pipeline. However, actions speak louder than words. We hope his statement means the State Department will immediately approve the pipeline, since several environmental reviews have concluded that building Keystone XL will lead to fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than if we did not build it. Moving ahead on this project is critical for creating thousands of jobs, as well as maintaining and strengthening America's national and economic security.

    "Unfortunately, the overall plan is poised to once again pick winners and losers among energy producers, but at the end of the day, the biggest loser will be the U.S. economy. If world action is dependent on the 'United States taking the lead,' as advocates of fossil fuel energy rationing have claimed, then why haven't nations with poor environmental standards followed our lead in reducing GHGs and other emissions over the last twelve years?. . . Ironically, the President's proposal ignores his own regulatory contradictions and also makes claims with little basis in fact. He claims to have a goal of reducing GHG emissions, but is moving forward with Tier 3 gasoline and other stationary source regulations that will increase such emissions. He also expresses support for the RFS, despite data from EPA and the National Academy of Sciences showing that the broken ethanol mandate will increase GHG and other criteria pollutant emissions. . ."

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee said: "Today the President has shown he is willing to use the powers granted under existing law to accelerate efforts to contain dangerous carbon pollution. By focusing on the remedies under the Clean Air Act, the potential of using government lands to develop clean energy, and continuing efforts on fuel economy and energy efficiency, the President is using all of the tools in his toolbox, and I applaud him for that. The President's commitment today to only approve the tar sands pipeline if there is no net increase in carbon pollution is promising, but tar sands are one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet and the devil is in the details. We also need a price on carbon pollution, and I intend to work with my colleagues on this issue as part of a comprehensive plan to address climate change."

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said: "Today, President Obama has shown he is keeping his word to future generations.  His inspiring call to action is a testament to the vibrancy of the grassroots climate movement and the work of millions of activists to make tackling climate disruption a key part of the President's legacy. The Sierra Club's 2.1 million members and supporters issued a collective cheer as they heard the President declare that the most effective defense against climate disruption will be by tackling the biggest single source of carbon pollution: coal plants. . . The President's strong commitment to using climate pollution as the standard by which Keystone XL will be decided means his decision to reject it should now be easy.  Any fair and unbiased analysis of the tar sands pipeline shows that the climate effects of this disastrous project would be significant. . . There is still more work to be done. The President's climate commitment and his speech today gives us great hope that he will finally address some of the remaining, worst abuses of the fossil fuel industry, including dirty and dangerous fracking, ending the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia, halting destructive oil drilling in the Arctic, and overhauling the sweetheart deal on public lands that pads the bottom line of coal companies at public expense"

 

    Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee said: "The central feature of the president's climate agenda is command-and-control regulations that will drive up energy costs for all Americans. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be seeking from our energy and environmental policies. In the past several years, we've already seen substantial decreases in greenhouse gas emissions thanks to low natural gas prices, improved vehicle efficiency and other trends. Unfortunately, economic stagnation contributed to those emission decreases as well, and that is an experience we should avoid repeating. Addressing climate change will require continued American innovation, but the president does not have the power to will technologies into existence through sheer force or scope of regulation. That will require a longer-term commitment to basic, scientific research that enables genuine breakthroughs. Instead, the president is again putting us on a path where government dictates circumvent elected representatives in Congress. . ."

    Access the NAS release (click here). Access the UNFCCC release (click here). Access the Earrthjustice release (click here). Access the U.S. Chamber release (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access a release from AFPM (click here). Access a release from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). [#Climate}

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals