Feb 8: U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee has posted information on the Committee website indicating that the EPW is "M.I.A." in the biofuels increase debate and that "New Studies Raise More Concern over Dramatic RFS Increase Passed by Congress in 2007."
Senator Inhofe's posting says that, "Barely a month after Congress passed the most onerous fuels mandates in history, two new studies have found that an increased use of biofuels may have a significant impact on the environment. But of course this isn’t surprising to those who actually applied a critical eye to the legislation before Congress imposed a nearly five-fold expansion of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandate [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The studies released this week are the latest to raise mounting questions surrounding ethanol’s effect on livestock feed prices, its economic sustainability, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its water usage and numerous other issues."
Inhofe cites the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog reports saying, “Ethanol loses more glitter after a new study shows it is worse for the environment than fossil fuels, reports the WSJ. Planting biofuel crops in grasslands or forests wipes out natural carbon sinks, prompting Grist to argue that the U.S. Congress 'blew it' with its recent biofuel mandate. The NYT reports that prominent scientists wrote the White House and Congress urging a rethink.”
On the Nature Conservancy website it reported that one of the new studies from The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota finds that many biofuels -- seen by many as a potentially low-carbon energy source -- actually emit more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels they aim to replace. According to the study, co-authored by Joe Fargione, a regional scientist for the Conservancy, “converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace."
Fargione said, "Previous conclusions that biofuels reduce greenhouse gases were based on incomplete analyses. They did not include the effect that biofuels have on the conversion of natural ecosystems to crops." Commenting on the new RFS standard, and responding to the question: But won't biofuels contribute to energy security?; Fargione said, "Unfortunately, not much. Congress recently passed a 36-billion-gallon biofuel mandate, but that will offset only 14 percent of projected gasoline usage by the year 2022 and would require about 60 million acres. After accounting for the energy needed to produce the ethanol, the true offset would only be 8-11 percent."
According to the information posted by Senator Inhofe, "Last year, while the Senate Energy Committee was the prime mover of the hastily increased RFS mandate, Senator Inhofe called for increased oversight by the EPW Committee and warned of the unintended consequences of such a drastic increase. Before 2007, the EPW Committee had held at least 13 hearings on the RFS program, most recently an oversight hearing in September 2006 which highlighted the implementation of this new federal RFS program. In 2007, the EPW Committee failed to hold one..."
The second study, Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, by Princeton University researcher Timothy Searchinger indicates that, "Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products."
On February 7, at the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Oversight Hearing on the recently-passed renewable fuel standard (RFS) contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA. H.R. 6, now Public Law No: 110-140 [See WIMS 12/14/07]), both Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) expressed concerns over the new RFS [See WIMS 2/8/08].
Access the information posted by Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release on the report from the Nature Conservancy (click here). Access information on the report from the Nature Conservancy (click here). Access an abstract and further information on the Princeton report (click here). The Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements and a webcast (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, February 11, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
State of New Jersey v. EPA Vacates Agency Mercury Rules
Feb 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 05-1097, consolidated with 05-1104, 05-1116, 05-1118, 05-1158, 05-1159, 05-1160, 05-1162, 05-1163, 05-1164, 05-1167, 05-1174, 05-1175, 05-1176, 05-1183, 05-1189, 05-1263, 05-1267, 05-1270, 05-1271, 05-1275, 05-1277, 06-1211, 06-1220, 06-1231, 06-1287, 06-1291, 06-1293, 06-1294. In this high profile case involving many states [CA, CT, DE, IL, ME, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, PA, VT and WI], environmental organizations and industry groups, the Appeals Court considered petitions for review of two final rules promulgated by U.S. EPA regarding the emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) -- the so-called Delisting Rule and CAMR.
The Appeals Court sets the stage saying New Jersey and fourteen additional States, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the City of Baltimore (Government Petitioners), and various environmental organizations (Environmental Petitioners) contend that EPA violated Section 112’s plain text and structure when it did not comply with the requirements of section 112(c)(9) in delisting EGUs. Government and Environmental Petitioners further contend that CAMR is inconsistent with provisions of section 111, and that both the Delisting Rule and CAMR should be vacated. Certain intervenors -- including various industry representatives, States, and state agencies -- join EPA in urging the lawfulness of the two rules.
The first rule removes coal- and oil-fired EGUs from the list of sources whose emissions are regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Revision of December 2000 Regulatory Finding (Delisting Rule), 70 FR 15,994 (3/29/05). The second rule sets performance standards for new coal-fired EGUs and establishes total mercury emissions limits for States and certain tribal areas, along with a voluntary cap-and-trade program for new and existing coal-fired EGUs. Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (CAMR), 70 FR 28,606 (5/1805).
The Appeals Court said, "Petitioners contend that the Delisting Rule is contrary to the plain text and structure of section 112. In response, EPA and certain intervenors rely on section 112(n), which sets special conditions before EGUs can be regulated under section 112, to justify the rule. We hold that the delisting was unlawful. Section 112 requires EPA to regulate emissions of HAPs. Section 112(n) requires EPA to regulate EGUs under section 112 when it concludes that doing so is 'appropriate and necessary.'"
The Appeals Court states further that, "In December 2000, EPA concluded that it was 'appropriate and necessary' to regulate mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants under section 112 and listed these EGUs as sources of HAPs regulated under that section. In 2005, after reconsidering its previous determination, EPA purported to remove these EGUs from the section 112 list. Thereafter it promulgated CAMR under section 111. EPA’s removal of these EGUs from the section 112 list violates the CAA because section 112(c)(9) requires EPA to make specific findings before removing a source listed under section 112; EPA concedes it never made such findings. Because coal-fired EGUs are listed sources under section 112, regulation of existing coalfired EGUs’ mercury emissions under section 111 is prohibited, effectively invalidating CAMR’s regulatory approach. Accordingly, the court grants the petitions and vacates both rules."
New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram issued a release saying, "In ruling as it did, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with New Jersey and other states, as well as numerous environmental petitioners that EPA cannot avoid its legal duty to promulgate strict limits on mercury emissions from all power plants -- and do so expeditiously. The ruling means elimination of the EPA’s cap-and-trade approach to regulating mercury emissions. Cap-and-trade allows power plants to purchase emissions reduction credits from other plants that have cut emissions below targeted levels, rather than meet strict emission levels by installing stringent pollution controls to reduce mercury emissions at their own plants."
Milgram added, “From the beginning we have maintained that the EPA adopted standards for regulating mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin, which were weak, ineffectual and ran counter to the clear intent of the Clean Air Act.” Milgram's release indicates that, "Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of uncontrolled mercury emissions, generating 48 tons of mercury emissions per year nationwide. EPA finalized its cap-and-trade system for regulating mercury emissions from power plants in May 2006 despite reports that called into question the conclusions underlying the rule. Research funded by the EPA itself found that wet mercury deposition rates from local coal-fired industrial sources were many times higher than EPA projections. The research, conducted in Steubenville, Ohio, bolstered arguments that there was significant potential for uncontrolled local emission sources to perpetuate mercury hot-spots."
Vickie Patton, an attorney with Environmental Defense, which along with Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation was represented by Earthjustice in the lawsuit said, “The federal court agrees with the American Medical Association that EPA's flawed mercury program for coal plants is hazardous to our health. This decision is a victory for the health of all Americans, but especially for our children who can suffer permanent brain damage from toxic mercury pollution.” Alice McKeown, coal analyst for the Sierra Club said, “Coal company claims of ‘clean coal’ will now be put to the test. These mercury pollution reductions will be an important trial run to see if coal is still viable in a cleaner energy future.” The environmental groups said that approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants account for the emissions of 48 tons of mercury annually. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat.
Access the complete 18-page opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Jersey AG (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]
The Appeals Court sets the stage saying New Jersey and fourteen additional States, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the City of Baltimore (Government Petitioners), and various environmental organizations (Environmental Petitioners) contend that EPA violated Section 112’s plain text and structure when it did not comply with the requirements of section 112(c)(9) in delisting EGUs. Government and Environmental Petitioners further contend that CAMR is inconsistent with provisions of section 111, and that both the Delisting Rule and CAMR should be vacated. Certain intervenors -- including various industry representatives, States, and state agencies -- join EPA in urging the lawfulness of the two rules.
The first rule removes coal- and oil-fired EGUs from the list of sources whose emissions are regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Revision of December 2000 Regulatory Finding (Delisting Rule), 70 FR 15,994 (3/29/05). The second rule sets performance standards for new coal-fired EGUs and establishes total mercury emissions limits for States and certain tribal areas, along with a voluntary cap-and-trade program for new and existing coal-fired EGUs. Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (CAMR), 70 FR 28,606 (5/1805).
The Appeals Court said, "Petitioners contend that the Delisting Rule is contrary to the plain text and structure of section 112. In response, EPA and certain intervenors rely on section 112(n), which sets special conditions before EGUs can be regulated under section 112, to justify the rule. We hold that the delisting was unlawful. Section 112 requires EPA to regulate emissions of HAPs. Section 112(n) requires EPA to regulate EGUs under section 112 when it concludes that doing so is 'appropriate and necessary.'"
The Appeals Court states further that, "In December 2000, EPA concluded that it was 'appropriate and necessary' to regulate mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants under section 112 and listed these EGUs as sources of HAPs regulated under that section. In 2005, after reconsidering its previous determination, EPA purported to remove these EGUs from the section 112 list. Thereafter it promulgated CAMR under section 111. EPA’s removal of these EGUs from the section 112 list violates the CAA because section 112(c)(9) requires EPA to make specific findings before removing a source listed under section 112; EPA concedes it never made such findings. Because coal-fired EGUs are listed sources under section 112, regulation of existing coalfired EGUs’ mercury emissions under section 111 is prohibited, effectively invalidating CAMR’s regulatory approach. Accordingly, the court grants the petitions and vacates both rules."
New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram issued a release saying, "In ruling as it did, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with New Jersey and other states, as well as numerous environmental petitioners that EPA cannot avoid its legal duty to promulgate strict limits on mercury emissions from all power plants -- and do so expeditiously. The ruling means elimination of the EPA’s cap-and-trade approach to regulating mercury emissions. Cap-and-trade allows power plants to purchase emissions reduction credits from other plants that have cut emissions below targeted levels, rather than meet strict emission levels by installing stringent pollution controls to reduce mercury emissions at their own plants."
Milgram added, “From the beginning we have maintained that the EPA adopted standards for regulating mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin, which were weak, ineffectual and ran counter to the clear intent of the Clean Air Act.” Milgram's release indicates that, "Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of uncontrolled mercury emissions, generating 48 tons of mercury emissions per year nationwide. EPA finalized its cap-and-trade system for regulating mercury emissions from power plants in May 2006 despite reports that called into question the conclusions underlying the rule. Research funded by the EPA itself found that wet mercury deposition rates from local coal-fired industrial sources were many times higher than EPA projections. The research, conducted in Steubenville, Ohio, bolstered arguments that there was significant potential for uncontrolled local emission sources to perpetuate mercury hot-spots."
Vickie Patton, an attorney with Environmental Defense, which along with Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation was represented by Earthjustice in the lawsuit said, “The federal court agrees with the American Medical Association that EPA's flawed mercury program for coal plants is hazardous to our health. This decision is a victory for the health of all Americans, but especially for our children who can suffer permanent brain damage from toxic mercury pollution.” Alice McKeown, coal analyst for the Sierra Club said, “Coal company claims of ‘clean coal’ will now be put to the test. These mercury pollution reductions will be an important trial run to see if coal is still viable in a cleaner energy future.” The environmental groups said that approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants account for the emissions of 48 tons of mercury annually. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat.
Access the complete 18-page opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Jersey AG (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]
Thursday, February 07, 2008
U.S. Funding Russian Assistance On Iranian Nuclear Projects
Feb 6: In a startling revelation, Representatives John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee say that a highly touted Department of Energy (DOE) nonproliferation program, which is intended to keep Soviet-era scientists from migrating to rogue states following the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been funding Russian research institutes that support nuclear projects in Iran. Dingell said, “Only this Administration would complain about proliferation in Iran, as part of President Bush’s nuclear axis of evil, and then finance it with American taxpayer dollars."
The two Representatives wrote Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE's) Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program (IPP). The letter from Stupak and Dingell notes that two IPP-funded institutes in Russia have performed work on the Buhsher nuclear reactor in Iran. The revelations came the day before Bodman testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee on the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget.
Stupak said, “During our hearing in January, Department of Energy and State Department witnesses told me they didn’t know if the United States is funding projects at institutes that are also doing work for the Iranian nuclear program. We now know that they are. I find it to be a rather schizophrenic foreign policy position for the Bush Administration to label Iran part of the ‘axis of evil’ but then send millions of U.S. tax dollars intended for non-proliferation programs to Russian institutes that are doing work on Iran’s nuclear program. I look forward to hearing the Energy and State Departments’ justifications for such a policy.”
Bodman said he is unsure if the allegations are true and DOE is still investigating the charges in the letter, but said it is his belief that U.S. funds are "not contributing to the Iranian nuclear program." He said DOE will get the Committee answers to their questions.
Access a release from Dingell and Stupak with links to the letter and two attachments (click here). Access the Committee hearing website and archived webcast where Secretary Bodman is questioned on this issue (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
The two Representatives wrote Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE's) Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program (IPP). The letter from Stupak and Dingell notes that two IPP-funded institutes in Russia have performed work on the Buhsher nuclear reactor in Iran. The revelations came the day before Bodman testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee on the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget.
Stupak said, “During our hearing in January, Department of Energy and State Department witnesses told me they didn’t know if the United States is funding projects at institutes that are also doing work for the Iranian nuclear program. We now know that they are. I find it to be a rather schizophrenic foreign policy position for the Bush Administration to label Iran part of the ‘axis of evil’ but then send millions of U.S. tax dollars intended for non-proliferation programs to Russian institutes that are doing work on Iran’s nuclear program. I look forward to hearing the Energy and State Departments’ justifications for such a policy.”
Bodman said he is unsure if the allegations are true and DOE is still investigating the charges in the letter, but said it is his belief that U.S. funds are "not contributing to the Iranian nuclear program." He said DOE will get the Committee answers to their questions.
Access a release from Dingell and Stupak with links to the letter and two attachments (click here). Access the Committee hearing website and archived webcast where Secretary Bodman is questioned on this issue (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Senate Second Hearing On Surface Transportation Commission Report
Feb 6: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Perspectives on the Surface Transportation Commission Report. The hearing is the second by the Committee on the recent Transportation for Tomorrow report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released on January 15, 2008. The report was prepared by the specially convened Commission, under Section 1909 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Report includes detailed recommendations for creating and sustaining a pre-eminent surface transportation system in the United States [See WIMS 1/31/08].
Witnesses testifying at the second hearing included: Mary Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; the Secretary for the Kansas Department of Transportation; the Director of Transportation Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the President and CEO of the American Highway Users Alliance; and the Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues Government Accountability Office (GAO). Committee Ranking Member, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement.
Senator Inhofe said, "First, I want to point out that although Secretary Peters along with two other Commissioners voted against the final report, there was much agreement on most of the policy recommendations. For the most part, all the Commissioners found agreement on the vast and unmet needs of our nation’s transportation network, but where they differ is in how to pay for it. I have long advocated for a decreased federal role, which I believe allows for greater flexibility for states to manage their own transportation funding priorities. It would appear those who wrote the dissenting views concur...
"I think the important lessons to take from the report are that if we don’t take dramatic action, growing congestion and deteriorating pavement conditions will choke the US economy. I am glad that there is consensus among the commissioners that modal specific decisions and the current program structure are outdated. Finally, I have to comment on the proposed financing mechanism. I believe increasing the federal fuel tax by the amount proposed in the final report is neither politically viable nor economically sound..."
GAO testified that the nation has reached a critical juncture with its current surface transportation policies and programs. Demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, resulting in increased congestion. In addition, without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund -- the major source of federal highway and transit funding -- is projected to incur significant deficits in the years ahead. GAO's testimony discusses 1) principles to assess proposals for restructuring the surface transportation program and 2) GAO’s preliminary observations on the Commission’s recommendations.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified, "We -- Congress, state and local governments, and the private sector -- cannot treat infrastructure like other problems or programs where you can wait until the very last minute and then write a big check. Infrastructure projects require foresight and years of careful planning... On a typical day, about 43 million tons of goods valued at $29 billion, moved nearly 12 billion ton-miles on the nation’s interconnected transportation network. Bridges serve as critical links in the system... Congestion costs drivers $78 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic... Shoddy road conditions result in $67 billion in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs per year. More important, poorly maintained roads contribute to a third of all highway fatalities. That’s more than 14,000 deaths every year -- a national disgrace..."
The Chamber said it "agrees with Senator Inhofe’s observation made at the EPW hearing last week, '…Both the current model of stovepiped modal decisions and the current program structure are outdated...' When it comes to funding and financing our national transportation system, the Chamber believes that every option must be considered to address the enormous problems of the aging transportation infrastructure..."
Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the complete 258-page Commission report or individual sections (click here). Access the Commission's website for extensive background information (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). [*Transport]
Witnesses testifying at the second hearing included: Mary Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; the Secretary for the Kansas Department of Transportation; the Director of Transportation Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the President and CEO of the American Highway Users Alliance; and the Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues Government Accountability Office (GAO). Committee Ranking Member, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement.
Senator Inhofe said, "First, I want to point out that although Secretary Peters along with two other Commissioners voted against the final report, there was much agreement on most of the policy recommendations. For the most part, all the Commissioners found agreement on the vast and unmet needs of our nation’s transportation network, but where they differ is in how to pay for it. I have long advocated for a decreased federal role, which I believe allows for greater flexibility for states to manage their own transportation funding priorities. It would appear those who wrote the dissenting views concur...
"I think the important lessons to take from the report are that if we don’t take dramatic action, growing congestion and deteriorating pavement conditions will choke the US economy. I am glad that there is consensus among the commissioners that modal specific decisions and the current program structure are outdated. Finally, I have to comment on the proposed financing mechanism. I believe increasing the federal fuel tax by the amount proposed in the final report is neither politically viable nor economically sound..."
GAO testified that the nation has reached a critical juncture with its current surface transportation policies and programs. Demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, resulting in increased congestion. In addition, without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund -- the major source of federal highway and transit funding -- is projected to incur significant deficits in the years ahead. GAO's testimony discusses 1) principles to assess proposals for restructuring the surface transportation program and 2) GAO’s preliminary observations on the Commission’s recommendations.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified, "We -- Congress, state and local governments, and the private sector -- cannot treat infrastructure like other problems or programs where you can wait until the very last minute and then write a big check. Infrastructure projects require foresight and years of careful planning... On a typical day, about 43 million tons of goods valued at $29 billion, moved nearly 12 billion ton-miles on the nation’s interconnected transportation network. Bridges serve as critical links in the system... Congestion costs drivers $78 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic... Shoddy road conditions result in $67 billion in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs per year. More important, poorly maintained roads contribute to a third of all highway fatalities. That’s more than 14,000 deaths every year -- a national disgrace..."
The Chamber said it "agrees with Senator Inhofe’s observation made at the EPW hearing last week, '…Both the current model of stovepiped modal decisions and the current program structure are outdated...' When it comes to funding and financing our national transportation system, the Chamber believes that every option must be considered to address the enormous problems of the aging transportation infrastructure..."
Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the complete 258-page Commission report or individual sections (click here). Access the Commission's website for extensive background information (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). [*Transport]
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Leading Financial Institutions Announce "The Carbon Principles"
Feb 4: Three of the world's leading financial institutions announced the formation of The Carbon Principles, climate change guidelines for advisors and lenders to power companies in the United States. These Principles are the result of a nine-month intensive effort to create an approach to evaluating and addressing carbon risks in the financing of electric power projects. According to a release from Citi, the need for these Principles is driven by the risks faced by the power industry as utilities, independent producers, regulators, lenders and investors deal with the uncertainties around regional and national climate change policy.
The Principles were developed in partnership by Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, and in consultation with leading power companies American Electric Power, CMS Energy, DTE Energy, NRG Energy, PSEG, Sempra and Southern Company. Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), environmental non-governmental organizations, also advised on the creation of the Principles.
The financial giants said, this effort is the first time a group of banks has come together and consulted with power companies and environmental groups to develop a process for understanding carbon risk around power sector investments needed to meet future economic growth and the needs of consumers for reliable and affordable energy. The consortium has developed an Enhanced Diligence framework to help lenders better understand and evaluate the potential carbon risks associated with coal plant investments.
The Principles recognize the benefits of a portfolio approach to meeting the power needs of consumers, without prescribing how power companies should act to meet these needs. However, if high carbon dioxide-emitting technologies are selected by power companies, the signatory banks have agreed to follow the Enhanced Diligence process and factor these risks and potential mitigants into the final financing decision. Matt Arnold, director of Sustainable Finance, which helped coordinate the development of the Principles and Enhanced Diligence process said, "There was full and frank dialogue around the table. There was a remarkable amount of debate and exchange of information and views among the banks, power companies and environmental organizations. The dialogue resulted in a rigorous analysis of the carbon risks in power investments, and sets the stage for further discussion."
Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have pledged their commitment to the Principles to use as a framework when talking about these issues with clients. The effort creates a consistent approach among major lenders and advisors in evaluating climate change risks and opportunities in the US electric power industry. The Principles and associated Enhanced Diligence represent a first step in a process aimed at providing banks and their power industry clients with a consistent roadmap for reducing the regulatory and financial risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The Principles address energy efficiency, renewable and low carbon distributed energy technologies, and conventional and advanced generation.
The Principles are:
The Principles were developed in partnership by Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, and in consultation with leading power companies American Electric Power, CMS Energy, DTE Energy, NRG Energy, PSEG, Sempra and Southern Company. Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), environmental non-governmental organizations, also advised on the creation of the Principles.
The financial giants said, this effort is the first time a group of banks has come together and consulted with power companies and environmental groups to develop a process for understanding carbon risk around power sector investments needed to meet future economic growth and the needs of consumers for reliable and affordable energy. The consortium has developed an Enhanced Diligence framework to help lenders better understand and evaluate the potential carbon risks associated with coal plant investments.
The Principles recognize the benefits of a portfolio approach to meeting the power needs of consumers, without prescribing how power companies should act to meet these needs. However, if high carbon dioxide-emitting technologies are selected by power companies, the signatory banks have agreed to follow the Enhanced Diligence process and factor these risks and potential mitigants into the final financing decision. Matt Arnold, director of Sustainable Finance, which helped coordinate the development of the Principles and Enhanced Diligence process said, "There was full and frank dialogue around the table. There was a remarkable amount of debate and exchange of information and views among the banks, power companies and environmental organizations. The dialogue resulted in a rigorous analysis of the carbon risks in power investments, and sets the stage for further discussion."
Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have pledged their commitment to the Principles to use as a framework when talking about these issues with clients. The effort creates a consistent approach among major lenders and advisors in evaluating climate change risks and opportunities in the US electric power industry. The Principles and associated Enhanced Diligence represent a first step in a process aimed at providing banks and their power industry clients with a consistent roadmap for reducing the regulatory and financial risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The Principles address energy efficiency, renewable and low carbon distributed energy technologies, and conventional and advanced generation.
The Principles are:
- Energy efficiency. An effective way to limit CO2 emissions is to not produce them. The signatory financial institutions will encourage clients to invest in cost-effective demand reduction, taking into consideration the value of avoided CO2 emissions. We will also encourage regulatory and legislative changes that increase efficiency in electricity consumption including the removal of barriers to investment in cost-effective demand reduction. The institutions will consider demand reduction caused by increased energy efficiency (or other means) as part of the Enhanced Diligence Process and assess its impact on proposed financings of certain new fossil fuel generation.
- Renewable and low carbon distributed energy technologies. Renewable energy and low carbon distributed energy technologies hold considerable promise for meeting the electricity needs of the US while also leveraging American technology and creating jobs. We will encourage clients to invest in cost-effective renewables and distributed technologies, taking into consideration the value of avoided CO2 emissions. We will also encourage legislative and regulatory changes that remove barriers to, and promote such investments (including related investments in infrastructure and equipment needed to support the connection of renewable sources to the system). We will consider production increases from renewable and low carbon generation as part of the Enhanced Diligence process and assess their impact on proposed financings of certain new fossil fuel generation.
- Conventional and advanced generation. In addition to cost effective energy efficiency, renewables and low carbon distributed generation, investments in conventional or advanced generating facilities will be needed to supply reliable electric power to the US market. This may include power from natural gas, coal and nuclear technologies. Due to evolving climate policy, investing in CO2-emitting fossil fuel generation entails uncertain financial, regulatory and certain environmental liability risks. It is the purpose of the Enhanced Diligence process to assess and reflect these risks in the financing considerations for certain fossil fuel generation. We will encourage regulatory and legislative changes that facilitate carbon capture and storage (CCS) to further reduce CO2 emissions from the electric sector.
Mark Brownstein, managing director of business partnerships for Environmental Defense, one of the NGOs that advised with the banks in creating the Principles said, "Leading utilities and financial institutions understand that the rules of the road have changed for coal. These principles are a first step in facilitating an honest assessment of electric generation options in light of the obvious and pressing need to substantially reduce national greenhouse gas pollution."
Dale Bryk, senior attorney at NRDC said, "Expectations are rising fast for this industry. Global warming is changing the competitive landscape. Clean power is the name of the game today. Conventional coal facilities are already facing intensive scrutiny. We think the serious money is increasingly going to be on clean, efficient solutions."
CMS Energy of Jackson, MI said, "The electric companies that serve America's families and businesses every day understand the need for a balanced approach to meet our country's energy needs. At CMS Energy, our objective is to provide reliable and affordable power to our customers through a prudent, environmentally responsible mix of conventional and advanced technologies that includes renewable energy and to work with customers to help them use energy efficiently. By adopting these principles, Wall Street is making an important and creative contribution to the ongoing effort to address climate change and a contribution that will be welcomed by those in the utility sector with similar concerns about the environment."
Anthony Earley Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Detroit-based DTE Energy said, "DTE Energy is proud of its history of environmental stewardship and thus we applaud the Carbon Principles approach by leading banks recognizing that a broad range of energy solutions must be considered to address the climate change issue.
Access the release from Citi with further details on the Principles, Enhanced Diligence and further quotes from participants (click here). Access an extensive release from NRDC (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, February 04, 2008
House Climate Change Legislation Design White Papers
Jan 31: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chaired by Representative John Dingell (D-MI) and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Chaired by Rick Boucher (D-VA) are continuing their strategy of issuing a series of Climate Change Legislation Design White Papers as the next step toward enactment of a mandatory, economy-wide climate change program. The latest White Paper entitled, Competitiveness Concerns/Engaging Developing Countries, discusses potential domestic legislative provisions that could encourage developing countries to curb their emissions of greenhouse gases.
Last fall the Committee released its first White Paper on a cap-and-trade control methodology [See WIMS 10/4/07]. The latest White Paper on Competitiveness Concerns will be the subject of a Subcommittee hearing on February 28, 2008. According to Dingell and Boucher, additional White Papers will be released in the coming weeks to address other key issues in of their proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) control strategy. The two Representatives said it is their goal to draft GHG control legislation and get it processed through the Subcommittee and full Committee and to the House Floor in time to conference with legislation from the Senate. They said, "It is our intention to present a final measure to the President to be signed into law before the Congress adjourns this year.
They said their legislation will most likely include a provision to encourage developing countries to curb their GHG emissions. The White Paper examines the need and current proposal to achieve that goal. The two are encouraging interested parties to share their views and suggestions on this issue.
On December 5, 2007, the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), approved S. 2191, the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act. The final vote on approval was 11-8, with all eight Democrats voting for the bill, two Independents voting for the bill, and one Republican, sponsor Senator Warner voting for the bill. The bill now awaits consideration before the full Senate [See WIMS 12/6/07].
Access a memo to members of the Committee including contacts to submit input (click here). Access the 16-page White Paper (click here). [*Climate]
Last fall the Committee released its first White Paper on a cap-and-trade control methodology [See WIMS 10/4/07]. The latest White Paper on Competitiveness Concerns will be the subject of a Subcommittee hearing on February 28, 2008. According to Dingell and Boucher, additional White Papers will be released in the coming weeks to address other key issues in of their proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) control strategy. The two Representatives said it is their goal to draft GHG control legislation and get it processed through the Subcommittee and full Committee and to the House Floor in time to conference with legislation from the Senate. They said, "It is our intention to present a final measure to the President to be signed into law before the Congress adjourns this year.
They said their legislation will most likely include a provision to encourage developing countries to curb their GHG emissions. The White Paper examines the need and current proposal to achieve that goal. The two are encouraging interested parties to share their views and suggestions on this issue.
On December 5, 2007, the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), approved S. 2191, the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act. The final vote on approval was 11-8, with all eight Democrats voting for the bill, two Independents voting for the bill, and one Republican, sponsor Senator Warner voting for the bill. The bill now awaits consideration before the full Senate [See WIMS 12/6/07].
Access a memo to members of the Committee including contacts to submit input (click here). Access the 16-page White Paper (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, February 01, 2008
UN Report On Activities In Relation to Climate Change
Jan 28: The United Nations Secretary-General has released a 52-page report entitled, Overview of United Nations Activities in Relation to Climate Change. The report was prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 62/8 of November 19, 2007, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit, by January 25, 2008, a comprehensive report providing an overview of the activities of the United Nations system in relation to climate change.
According to the report summary, it provides a preliminary overview of the current climate change activities of the United Nations and an indication of the way forward. It contains the results, as of now, of extensive consultations within the Chief Executives Board and its High-level Committee on Programmes. Annex I to the report provides an overview of current United Nations system activities on climate change organized by key areas. Annex II contains a more forward-looking paper entitled “Coordinated United Nations system action on climate change”. Annex II, in particular, is the outcome of extensive consultations among all relevant United Nations system entities on a common approach. It exemplifies the system’s commitment to strengthening and coordinating its work under the four main areas under intergovernmental discussion, namely, adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing, in support of the efforts of Member States to implement existing and future agreements. The report provides extensive and detailed insights into the UN involvement in the issue.
In the Annex II section on Financing, the report indicates that, "Global investments in the magnitude of from $15 trillion to $20 trillion United States dollars may be required over the next 20-25 years to place the world on a markedly different and sustainable energy trajectory. If investment choices are based on solid economic rationale and sound scientific evidence, valuing true costs, they can unlock huge change potential. The high-level event stressed the need to provide developing countries with additional resources for investment and capacity building. While the bulk of investment will come from government and the private sector, the United Nations system can support countries to make choices based on sound scientific and technical criteria. It will become essential to coordinate access and utilize available resources, as the proliferation of funding mechanisms can lead to fragmentation and loss of coherence and effectiveness."
The report concludes, in a section titled, The Way Forward, "The international community acknowledges the United Nations as being the multilateral framework for establishing a post-2012 climate regime, and a source of multisectoral and sectoral support... As a global problem, climate change demands a collective international response. The United Nations commands the ability to support such a response on the basis of a strategic vision, setting out common goals and objectives, assigned roles for United Nations entities and strengthened mechanisms for collaboration. Such a strategy, which should be developed within the Chief Executives Board, would also ensure that future climate programmes of individual agencies in their area of comparative advantage are developed in collaboration within a broader framework and in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process."
The report forms part of the background for an up-coming General Assembly "thematic debate" on climate change. The UN General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim will convene the thematic debate entitled "Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and the World at Work " on February 11 and 12, 2008, at UN Headquarters in New York. Two interactive panel discussions will take place on February 11: Rising to the Challenge: Partnerships on Climate Change; and Responding to a Multifaceted Challenge: The UN at Work. On February 12, 2008, there will be a discussion open to all in which Member States will make statements.
Access the complete UN report (click here). Access extensive information on the upcoming thematic debate on climate change (click here). [*Climate]
According to the report summary, it provides a preliminary overview of the current climate change activities of the United Nations and an indication of the way forward. It contains the results, as of now, of extensive consultations within the Chief Executives Board and its High-level Committee on Programmes. Annex I to the report provides an overview of current United Nations system activities on climate change organized by key areas. Annex II contains a more forward-looking paper entitled “Coordinated United Nations system action on climate change”. Annex II, in particular, is the outcome of extensive consultations among all relevant United Nations system entities on a common approach. It exemplifies the system’s commitment to strengthening and coordinating its work under the four main areas under intergovernmental discussion, namely, adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing, in support of the efforts of Member States to implement existing and future agreements. The report provides extensive and detailed insights into the UN involvement in the issue.
In the Annex II section on Financing, the report indicates that, "Global investments in the magnitude of from $15 trillion to $20 trillion United States dollars may be required over the next 20-25 years to place the world on a markedly different and sustainable energy trajectory. If investment choices are based on solid economic rationale and sound scientific evidence, valuing true costs, they can unlock huge change potential. The high-level event stressed the need to provide developing countries with additional resources for investment and capacity building. While the bulk of investment will come from government and the private sector, the United Nations system can support countries to make choices based on sound scientific and technical criteria. It will become essential to coordinate access and utilize available resources, as the proliferation of funding mechanisms can lead to fragmentation and loss of coherence and effectiveness."
The report concludes, in a section titled, The Way Forward, "The international community acknowledges the United Nations as being the multilateral framework for establishing a post-2012 climate regime, and a source of multisectoral and sectoral support... As a global problem, climate change demands a collective international response. The United Nations commands the ability to support such a response on the basis of a strategic vision, setting out common goals and objectives, assigned roles for United Nations entities and strengthened mechanisms for collaboration. Such a strategy, which should be developed within the Chief Executives Board, would also ensure that future climate programmes of individual agencies in their area of comparative advantage are developed in collaboration within a broader framework and in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process."
The report forms part of the background for an up-coming General Assembly "thematic debate" on climate change. The UN General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim will convene the thematic debate entitled "Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and the World at Work " on February 11 and 12, 2008, at UN Headquarters in New York. Two interactive panel discussions will take place on February 11: Rising to the Challenge: Partnerships on Climate Change; and Responding to a Multifaceted Challenge: The UN at Work. On February 12, 2008, there will be a discussion open to all in which Member States will make statements.
Access the complete UN report (click here). Access extensive information on the upcoming thematic debate on climate change (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Senate Hearing On National Surface Transportation Report
Jan 31: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, “A Hearing to Receive the Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.” On January 15, 2008, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released its major report entitled, Transportation for Tomorrow, prepared by the specially convened Commission, under Section 1909 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Report includes detailed recommendations for creating and sustaining a pre-eminent surface transportation system in the United States [See WIMS 1/15/08].
The Commission's report concluded: "The Commission concludes that the current Federal surface transportation programs should not be 're-authorized' in their current form. We must begin anew. This New Beginning is the dawn of the third era in the modern history of the Federal surface transportation program."
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP; the Wisconsin Department of Transportation; BNSF Railway Company; and The Skancke Company. Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) both delivered opening statements.
Senator Boxer said in part, "On August 1, 2007, the collapse of the I-35 west bridge in Minneapolis claimed the lives of 13 and injured 145 people. This tragedy served as an urgent wake up call that we cannot neglect our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The current highway, transit and highway safety programs of SAFETEA-LU expire at the end of 2009.
"Today we begin our process of developing a new authorization for those programs... In reviewing the Commission’s recommendations, it is clear to me that there is no easy answer to the challenges we face. But without action by the Federal government, our infrastructure will further deteriorate, congestion will increase, additional lives will be lost, and our economy will suffer... If we don’t aggressively pursue safety improvements, more lives will be lost on U.S. roads. In 2006, almost 43,000 people died and 2.6 million were injured... If we act, the Commission’s report suggests that by 2025 we could cut fatalities in half and reduce per-vehicle delay on major urban highways by 20 percent...
"The discussion on financing will explore a myriad of options – several of which are discussed in the report. While the gas tax will continue to fund our surface program, we know that it is not a sustainable, long-term source of funding. Options could include private-sector investment, pricing through tolls and the like, and charges for vehicle miles traveled or VMT. Global warming and other important environmental considerations need to be integrated into our transportation planning..."
Access the hearing website and link to all testimony, opening statements, webcast and related information (click here). Access the complete 258-page report or individual sections (click here). Access the Commission's website for extensive background information (click here). [*Transport]
The Commission's report concluded: "The Commission concludes that the current Federal surface transportation programs should not be 're-authorized' in their current form. We must begin anew. This New Beginning is the dawn of the third era in the modern history of the Federal surface transportation program."
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP; the Wisconsin Department of Transportation; BNSF Railway Company; and The Skancke Company. Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) both delivered opening statements.
Senator Boxer said in part, "On August 1, 2007, the collapse of the I-35 west bridge in Minneapolis claimed the lives of 13 and injured 145 people. This tragedy served as an urgent wake up call that we cannot neglect our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The current highway, transit and highway safety programs of SAFETEA-LU expire at the end of 2009.
"Today we begin our process of developing a new authorization for those programs... In reviewing the Commission’s recommendations, it is clear to me that there is no easy answer to the challenges we face. But without action by the Federal government, our infrastructure will further deteriorate, congestion will increase, additional lives will be lost, and our economy will suffer... If we don’t aggressively pursue safety improvements, more lives will be lost on U.S. roads. In 2006, almost 43,000 people died and 2.6 million were injured... If we act, the Commission’s report suggests that by 2025 we could cut fatalities in half and reduce per-vehicle delay on major urban highways by 20 percent...
"The discussion on financing will explore a myriad of options – several of which are discussed in the report. While the gas tax will continue to fund our surface program, we know that it is not a sustainable, long-term source of funding. Options could include private-sector investment, pricing through tolls and the like, and charges for vehicle miles traveled or VMT. Global warming and other important environmental considerations need to be integrated into our transportation planning..."
Access the hearing website and link to all testimony, opening statements, webcast and related information (click here). Access the complete 258-page report or individual sections (click here). Access the Commission's website for extensive background information (click here). [*Transport]
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
600+ U.S. Scientists Urge Congress To Act On Climate Change
Jan 29: According to a release from the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), more than 600 prominent scientists from across the United States are calling on Congress to pass legislation that will curb America’s global warming pollution and help protect wildlife and other natural resources threatened by global warming. Spearheaded by some of America’s greatest scientific minds, including Harvard Professor E.O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Paul Ehrlich and Camille Parmesan, the scientists have sent a letter to Congress urging action.
Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, renowned conservation biologist and president of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment said, “The science is irrefutable not only about the reality of climate change, but also that plant and animal species are already being harmed by it. Alarming effects are already being observed in nature from mountaintops to the oceans, and from the equator to the polar regions. We have the choice to allow these effects to intensify or to move to avoid the more disastrous consequences for life on earth.”
Dr. Dan Svedarsky, president of The Wildlife Society, on behalf of its over 8,000 professional wildlife biologists said, “The precarious status of polar bears and their melting sea ice habitat in the Arctic is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not just polar bears -- wildlife across America are being impacted by global warming, including birds, butterflies, fish and mammals.” Jeff Price, one of the authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (2007) said, “The science is clear that without major action to both reduce global warming pollution and to help wildlife survive global warming, species will suffer rapidly increasing extinction rates. It is not too late, but we must take action now.”
The U.S. Senate is currently considering legislation that would begin to take the urgent actions these scientists say are necessary [See WIMS 12/6/07 & 1/18/08]. The Climate Security Act (S. 2191), introduced in 2007 by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), creates a market-based system that cuts global warming pollution and helps communities address the impacts of climate change. John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife and global warming at NWF said, “Global warming is an unprecedented challenge for wildlife, adding a host of new threats such as thawing permafrost, disappearing mountain snow pack, and the warming of rivers, lakes and estuaries. Senators Lieberman and Warner recognize the gravity of the threat and the necessity of timely and effective action. The Climate Security Act provides the best hope for saving wildlife at risk of extinction and for conserving ecosystems that are essential for both wildlife and people.”
The signers are hoping to convey to Congress “our sense of urgency. Global warming is already causing serious damage and disruptions to wildlife and ecosystems, and reliable projections call for significant additional damage and disruptions. To fulfill the nation’s longstanding commitment to conserving abundant wildlife and healthy ecosystems for future generations, Congress must craft legislation that greatly reduces global warming pollution and generates substantial dedicated funding to protect and restore wildlife and ecosystems harmed by global warming.”
Access a release from NWF (click here). Access the letter and complete list of signers, organized by state (click here). [*Climate]
Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, renowned conservation biologist and president of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment said, “The science is irrefutable not only about the reality of climate change, but also that plant and animal species are already being harmed by it. Alarming effects are already being observed in nature from mountaintops to the oceans, and from the equator to the polar regions. We have the choice to allow these effects to intensify or to move to avoid the more disastrous consequences for life on earth.”
Dr. Dan Svedarsky, president of The Wildlife Society, on behalf of its over 8,000 professional wildlife biologists said, “The precarious status of polar bears and their melting sea ice habitat in the Arctic is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not just polar bears -- wildlife across America are being impacted by global warming, including birds, butterflies, fish and mammals.” Jeff Price, one of the authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (2007) said, “The science is clear that without major action to both reduce global warming pollution and to help wildlife survive global warming, species will suffer rapidly increasing extinction rates. It is not too late, but we must take action now.”
The U.S. Senate is currently considering legislation that would begin to take the urgent actions these scientists say are necessary [See WIMS 12/6/07 & 1/18/08]. The Climate Security Act (S. 2191), introduced in 2007 by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), creates a market-based system that cuts global warming pollution and helps communities address the impacts of climate change. John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife and global warming at NWF said, “Global warming is an unprecedented challenge for wildlife, adding a host of new threats such as thawing permafrost, disappearing mountain snow pack, and the warming of rivers, lakes and estuaries. Senators Lieberman and Warner recognize the gravity of the threat and the necessity of timely and effective action. The Climate Security Act provides the best hope for saving wildlife at risk of extinction and for conserving ecosystems that are essential for both wildlife and people.”
The signers are hoping to convey to Congress “our sense of urgency. Global warming is already causing serious damage and disruptions to wildlife and ecosystems, and reliable projections call for significant additional damage and disruptions. To fulfill the nation’s longstanding commitment to conserving abundant wildlife and healthy ecosystems for future generations, Congress must craft legislation that greatly reduces global warming pollution and generates substantial dedicated funding to protect and restore wildlife and ecosystems harmed by global warming.”
Access a release from NWF (click here). Access the letter and complete list of signers, organized by state (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
President Bush Delivers Last State Of The Union Address
Jan 28: President George W. Bush delivered his final State of the Union Address, Monday, January 28, 2008, at the U.S. Capitol. The Address dealt largely with the U.S. Economy and the war in Iraq. The word "environment" appeared once in the speech in a sentence stating, "Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil." The term "climate change" also appeared once in the speech in a sentence stating, "The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change."
The term "energy" appeared five times in sentences as follows: "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology... Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources... The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology..."
In his speech the President emphasized the need to generate coal power with carbon sequestration, said the nation should increase renewable and nuclear power; and stressed the need to develop new and advanced technology to deal with energy and climate change issues. He also re-emphasized his position that an international climate change agreement must include "commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride."
In context, approximately three paragraphs of the speech dealt with the subjects of environment, energy and climate change. The President said, "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.
"This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.
"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth."
Congressional Democrats React To The State of the Union Address
Senate Democrats issued a broad-based response saying, "We agree with the President that we must work together to make progress on our most pressing challenges. Yet, tonight, the President offered little more than the status quo. At a time when our economy is on shaky ground and our leadership around the world is eroding, the status quo won't do." On their website they posted a list of what they would like to hear."
On the issue of climate change they said, "We need to hear a plan to take further significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are pushing us closer to the brink of global climate catastrophe -- and to make the U.S. a global leader in bringing all countries into binding agreement. We must build on the work of this Congress to lower vehicle emissions for the first time in 32 years with new CAFE standards, to increase efficiency for buildings, lighting, and appliances, and to increase clean, renewable fuel usage. We need to hear a plan to: design a carbon cap and trade system [and] set a renewable electricity standard nationwide."
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued some comments and a point-counterpoint response to some of the President's statements. Markey said, "During President Bush’s tenure, oil has risen from $26 per barrel to spiking above $100 barrel, and total U.S. heat-trapping emissions have risen by more than 3 percent, and by more than 210 million metric tons in carbon dioxide equivalent -- about the same as the total yearly output of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden combined.
“Too often, President Bush has used positive rhetoric to mask the reality that on his watch, the United States has undermined, not reinforced, the international effort to cap the emissions of heat-trapping gases that endanger the planet. In his short-sighted concession to ignore real solutions to global warming in favor of expediency and special interests, he is risking the fate of the world. History is not likely to judge this legacy kindly.
“But we in the Congress intend to give this president opportunities in his final year to reverse his pattern of negligence when it comes to global warming and be part of kick-starting a green revolution in our country. The president asked Congress to ‘cooperate for results’ tonight – I hope he will follow his own advice.”
The official Democratic response to the State of the Union Address was delivered by Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of the State of Kansas. In one passage, Governor Sebelius says, "You and I - stand ready - ready to protect our environment for future generations, and stay economically competitive. Mayors have committed their cities to going green; governors have joined together, leading efforts for energy security and independence; and the majority in Congress is ready to tackle the challenge of reducing global warming and creating a new energy future for America. So we ask you, Mr. President, will you join us? It's time to get to work..."
Pelosi and Reid issued a second, brief reaction saying in part, "We hope that the bipartisanship on the economic stimulus package that has marked the start of this new year is a sign of things to come. But the President must do much more than simply give speeches that promise progress and commit to cooperation – he must work with Congress to make it happen. If the President holds fast to the commitment he made to bipartisanship tonight, we can make great progress for the American people this year."
Groups React To State of the Union Address
The following is some reaction to the President's State of the Union Address. WIMS notes that very few industry groups issued statements commenting on the President's Address.
Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group (formerly the National Environmental Trust), issued a statement on advance text of the address saying, “The President’s proposal for a worldwide clean technology fund is a major landmark in addressing global warming. Developing countries will need billions in financial assistance to cut the growth of their global warming pollution over the next several decades.
“Still, $2 billion is a very small amount of money given the scale of the problem. China alone is investing over $100 billion a year through its state-owned enterprises in new energy projects and resources, mostly in oil and coal-fired electricity. The President’s proposed fund must be accompanied by a strong new climate treaty to direct global business investment into clean energy technologies.”
Greenpeace USA issued a statement saying in part, "Under his watch, greenhouse gas emissions have increased as the United States’ reputation has plummeted. The damage to both the environment and the U.S.’s international standing will take years to undo. Rather than offer real solutions to global warming, the President has repeatedly kowtowed to the oil and energy industries by sowing confusion on the science and offering policies that are comparable to throwing a thimble-full of water on a raging fire."
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "In his final State of the Union address, President Bush missed his last opportunity to confront America's global warming challenge and commit to enacting binding climate legislation by the end of his term... Any presumption that the crisis of global warming can be met through voluntary measures is a fantasy. Anything less than science-based, binding reductions in global warming pollution isn't going to meet the challenge. American researchers and entrepreneurs respond to market signals, which a market-based cap-and-trade program will send. If there are no mandatory controls there is very little incentive to invest or innovate..."
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) issued a statement saying, "Unfortunately, the president’s plan outlined tonight offers old approaches instead of bold solutions. Congress should act quickly to pass the bipartisan Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to energize America’s economy and reduce global warming pollution. Doing nothing on global warming is a recipe for economic failure. We need to reject the defeatist attitude of those who say that protecting our environment will harm our economy. In the fight against global warming, the science is clear: the path to avoid catastrophic climate change starts with mandatory limits on global warming pollution that create bold new opportunities for clean energy jobs and technologies. A voluntary approach adds up to lots of rhetoric and little actual change..."
Eileen Claussen, President of Pew Center on Global Climate Change issued a statement saying, "President Bush’s proposal tonight to invest $2 billion to deploy clean energy technologies in developing countries is a step in the right direction. A fair and effective global response to climate change is possible only with strong support from industrialized countries. But compared to the level of investment needed, and the $10 billion pledged two days ago by Japan, the president’s proposal appears modest at best.
"The White House must go much further if it wants to be seen as a leader on climate action. At home, the president should work with Congress to enact a mandatory cap-and-trade bill to significantly reduce U.S. emissions. Abroad, the United States must sit down with other countries and negotiate binding international commitments. The so-called national commitments the administration is advocating would be little more than promises, providing no assurance that China, India, and other countries would hold up their end of the bargain. American business and the American public are calling for mandatory federal action on climate change..."
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) issued a statement saying, “After seven years of a presidential assault on environmental protections, of siding with Big Oil over consumers and the environment, of refusing to address the global warming crisis and actively thwarting state efforts to do so, the President promised more of the same tonight. The best thing about President Bush’s State of the Union speech tonight is that it is his last. The very idea that the President would attempt to take credit for ‘leadership’ in the post-2012 global warming program is absurd, especially considering that his Administration was internationally shamed in Bali."
Access the full transcript of the 2008 State of the Union Address with links to video and related information (click here). Access the Senate Democrats "State of Our Union" website (click here). Access the transcript of general comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Markey (click here). Access the Governor Sebelius response (click here). Access the second release from Pelosi and Reid (click here). Access a release from the Pew Environment Group with links to additional information on China Investments (click here). Access the statement from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the NWF statement (click here). Access a release from the Pew Climate Center (click here). Access a release from LCV (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
The term "energy" appeared five times in sentences as follows: "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology... Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources... The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology..."
In his speech the President emphasized the need to generate coal power with carbon sequestration, said the nation should increase renewable and nuclear power; and stressed the need to develop new and advanced technology to deal with energy and climate change issues. He also re-emphasized his position that an international climate change agreement must include "commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride."
In context, approximately three paragraphs of the speech dealt with the subjects of environment, energy and climate change. The President said, "To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.
"This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.
"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth."
Congressional Democrats React To The State of the Union Address
Senate Democrats issued a broad-based response saying, "We agree with the President that we must work together to make progress on our most pressing challenges. Yet, tonight, the President offered little more than the status quo. At a time when our economy is on shaky ground and our leadership around the world is eroding, the status quo won't do." On their website they posted a list of what they would like to hear."
On the issue of climate change they said, "We need to hear a plan to take further significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are pushing us closer to the brink of global climate catastrophe -- and to make the U.S. a global leader in bringing all countries into binding agreement. We must build on the work of this Congress to lower vehicle emissions for the first time in 32 years with new CAFE standards, to increase efficiency for buildings, lighting, and appliances, and to increase clean, renewable fuel usage. We need to hear a plan to: design a carbon cap and trade system [and] set a renewable electricity standard nationwide."
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued some comments and a point-counterpoint response to some of the President's statements. Markey said, "During President Bush’s tenure, oil has risen from $26 per barrel to spiking above $100 barrel, and total U.S. heat-trapping emissions have risen by more than 3 percent, and by more than 210 million metric tons in carbon dioxide equivalent -- about the same as the total yearly output of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden combined.
“Too often, President Bush has used positive rhetoric to mask the reality that on his watch, the United States has undermined, not reinforced, the international effort to cap the emissions of heat-trapping gases that endanger the planet. In his short-sighted concession to ignore real solutions to global warming in favor of expediency and special interests, he is risking the fate of the world. History is not likely to judge this legacy kindly.
“But we in the Congress intend to give this president opportunities in his final year to reverse his pattern of negligence when it comes to global warming and be part of kick-starting a green revolution in our country. The president asked Congress to ‘cooperate for results’ tonight – I hope he will follow his own advice.”
The official Democratic response to the State of the Union Address was delivered by Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of the State of Kansas. In one passage, Governor Sebelius says, "You and I - stand ready - ready to protect our environment for future generations, and stay economically competitive. Mayors have committed their cities to going green; governors have joined together, leading efforts for energy security and independence; and the majority in Congress is ready to tackle the challenge of reducing global warming and creating a new energy future for America. So we ask you, Mr. President, will you join us? It's time to get to work..."
Pelosi and Reid issued a second, brief reaction saying in part, "We hope that the bipartisanship on the economic stimulus package that has marked the start of this new year is a sign of things to come. But the President must do much more than simply give speeches that promise progress and commit to cooperation – he must work with Congress to make it happen. If the President holds fast to the commitment he made to bipartisanship tonight, we can make great progress for the American people this year."
Groups React To State of the Union Address
The following is some reaction to the President's State of the Union Address. WIMS notes that very few industry groups issued statements commenting on the President's Address.
Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group (formerly the National Environmental Trust), issued a statement on advance text of the address saying, “The President’s proposal for a worldwide clean technology fund is a major landmark in addressing global warming. Developing countries will need billions in financial assistance to cut the growth of their global warming pollution over the next several decades.
“Still, $2 billion is a very small amount of money given the scale of the problem. China alone is investing over $100 billion a year through its state-owned enterprises in new energy projects and resources, mostly in oil and coal-fired electricity. The President’s proposed fund must be accompanied by a strong new climate treaty to direct global business investment into clean energy technologies.”
Greenpeace USA issued a statement saying in part, "Under his watch, greenhouse gas emissions have increased as the United States’ reputation has plummeted. The damage to both the environment and the U.S.’s international standing will take years to undo. Rather than offer real solutions to global warming, the President has repeatedly kowtowed to the oil and energy industries by sowing confusion on the science and offering policies that are comparable to throwing a thimble-full of water on a raging fire."
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "In his final State of the Union address, President Bush missed his last opportunity to confront America's global warming challenge and commit to enacting binding climate legislation by the end of his term... Any presumption that the crisis of global warming can be met through voluntary measures is a fantasy. Anything less than science-based, binding reductions in global warming pollution isn't going to meet the challenge. American researchers and entrepreneurs respond to market signals, which a market-based cap-and-trade program will send. If there are no mandatory controls there is very little incentive to invest or innovate..."
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) issued a statement saying, "Unfortunately, the president’s plan outlined tonight offers old approaches instead of bold solutions. Congress should act quickly to pass the bipartisan Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to energize America’s economy and reduce global warming pollution. Doing nothing on global warming is a recipe for economic failure. We need to reject the defeatist attitude of those who say that protecting our environment will harm our economy. In the fight against global warming, the science is clear: the path to avoid catastrophic climate change starts with mandatory limits on global warming pollution that create bold new opportunities for clean energy jobs and technologies. A voluntary approach adds up to lots of rhetoric and little actual change..."
Eileen Claussen, President of Pew Center on Global Climate Change issued a statement saying, "President Bush’s proposal tonight to invest $2 billion to deploy clean energy technologies in developing countries is a step in the right direction. A fair and effective global response to climate change is possible only with strong support from industrialized countries. But compared to the level of investment needed, and the $10 billion pledged two days ago by Japan, the president’s proposal appears modest at best.
"The White House must go much further if it wants to be seen as a leader on climate action. At home, the president should work with Congress to enact a mandatory cap-and-trade bill to significantly reduce U.S. emissions. Abroad, the United States must sit down with other countries and negotiate binding international commitments. The so-called national commitments the administration is advocating would be little more than promises, providing no assurance that China, India, and other countries would hold up their end of the bargain. American business and the American public are calling for mandatory federal action on climate change..."
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) issued a statement saying, “After seven years of a presidential assault on environmental protections, of siding with Big Oil over consumers and the environment, of refusing to address the global warming crisis and actively thwarting state efforts to do so, the President promised more of the same tonight. The best thing about President Bush’s State of the Union speech tonight is that it is his last. The very idea that the President would attempt to take credit for ‘leadership’ in the post-2012 global warming program is absurd, especially considering that his Administration was internationally shamed in Bali."
Access the full transcript of the 2008 State of the Union Address with links to video and related information (click here). Access the Senate Democrats "State of Our Union" website (click here). Access the transcript of general comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Markey (click here). Access the Governor Sebelius response (click here). Access the second release from Pelosi and Reid (click here). Access a release from the Pew Environment Group with links to additional information on China Investments (click here). Access the statement from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the NWF statement (click here). Access a release from the Pew Climate Center (click here). Access a release from LCV (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, January 28, 2008
EPA Launches Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program
Jan 28: U.S. EPA announced its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) and said it wants answers to "What are the human health and environmental risks and benefits of nanoscale chemical products?" Jim Gulliford, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances said, “This program will help strengthen the scientific understanding of nanoscale materials and allow the EPA to more quickly assemble the information needed to ensure appropriate oversight of the products of this promising technology. Participation in this program can help assure the responsible development, use, and acceptance of these materials in the marketplace.”
According to EPA the program calls on manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of engineered nanoscale materials to voluntarily report to EPA key information about these materials within six months. EPA is not requesting that participants develop additional data, only that participants submit existing data.
The Agency will evaluate the information to help ensure the safe manufacture and use of these nanoscale materials. EPA said it will also work with manufacturers, importers, processors and users of nanoscale materials to develop test data to provide a scientific basis for assessing the hazards, exposures, and risks of nanoscale materials. The NMSP is designed to complement and support EPA's new and existing chemical programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [See WIMS 8/2/07 & 10/19/06].
The NMSP includes, but is not limited to, existing chemical nanoscale materials manufactured or imported for commercial purposes as defined by TSCA. EPA encourages manufacturers and importers of new chemical nanoscale materials, which are subject to TSCA reporting requirements prior to manufacture, as well as researchers to consider reporting under the NMSP. EPA said the NMSP will help provide a firmer, scientific foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging the development of key scientific information and use of risk management practices in developing and commercializing nanoscale materials.
EPA said to would publish an interim report on the program in approximately a year from its launching on January 28, 2008. A more detailed report and program evaluation will be published after approximately two years. At the time of the two-year report, EPA intends to determine the future direction of both the basic reporting and in-depth data development phases, although adjustments or decisions on future steps may be made at an earlier point if sufficient experience is gained. This would also include consideration of use of regulatory authorities under TSCA.
Environmental Defense a persistent watchdog, participant and critic of EPA's approach thus far issued a release saying, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited voluntary reporting program for engineered nanomaterials will not deliver critically needed information and serves only to postpone key decisions on how best to mitigate nanotechnology’s potential risks to human health and the environment, according to Environmental Defense. The group harshly criticized the EPA’s new Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program... Richard Denison, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Senior Scientist said, “EPA is simply ‘kicking the can down the road’ by shunning approaches that could have delivered needed information faster, and by opting instead to pursue an open-ended approach with no end in sight."
In a related matter, EPA announced that it has awarded 21 grants totaling $7.34 million to universities to investigate potential adverse health and environmental effects of manufactured nanomaterials. The grants were awarded through EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program in partnership with the National Science Foundation's (NSF), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) who awarded another eight grants for a total of 29. Nine of the grants focus on potential toxicity, and 12 grants study the fate and transport of nanomaterials in the environment.
Access a release from EPA announcing the NMSP (click here). Access EPA's Federal Register announcement [73 FR 4861-4866] (click here). Access further details on the NMSP (click here). Access more information on Nanotechnology under the Toxic Substances Control Act (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release on the nanomaterials grants listing the recipients (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]
According to EPA the program calls on manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of engineered nanoscale materials to voluntarily report to EPA key information about these materials within six months. EPA is not requesting that participants develop additional data, only that participants submit existing data.
The Agency will evaluate the information to help ensure the safe manufacture and use of these nanoscale materials. EPA said it will also work with manufacturers, importers, processors and users of nanoscale materials to develop test data to provide a scientific basis for assessing the hazards, exposures, and risks of nanoscale materials. The NMSP is designed to complement and support EPA's new and existing chemical programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [See WIMS 8/2/07 & 10/19/06].
The NMSP includes, but is not limited to, existing chemical nanoscale materials manufactured or imported for commercial purposes as defined by TSCA. EPA encourages manufacturers and importers of new chemical nanoscale materials, which are subject to TSCA reporting requirements prior to manufacture, as well as researchers to consider reporting under the NMSP. EPA said the NMSP will help provide a firmer, scientific foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging the development of key scientific information and use of risk management practices in developing and commercializing nanoscale materials.
EPA said to would publish an interim report on the program in approximately a year from its launching on January 28, 2008. A more detailed report and program evaluation will be published after approximately two years. At the time of the two-year report, EPA intends to determine the future direction of both the basic reporting and in-depth data development phases, although adjustments or decisions on future steps may be made at an earlier point if sufficient experience is gained. This would also include consideration of use of regulatory authorities under TSCA.
Environmental Defense a persistent watchdog, participant and critic of EPA's approach thus far issued a release saying, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited voluntary reporting program for engineered nanomaterials will not deliver critically needed information and serves only to postpone key decisions on how best to mitigate nanotechnology’s potential risks to human health and the environment, according to Environmental Defense. The group harshly criticized the EPA’s new Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program... Richard Denison, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Senior Scientist said, “EPA is simply ‘kicking the can down the road’ by shunning approaches that could have delivered needed information faster, and by opting instead to pursue an open-ended approach with no end in sight."
In a related matter, EPA announced that it has awarded 21 grants totaling $7.34 million to universities to investigate potential adverse health and environmental effects of manufactured nanomaterials. The grants were awarded through EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program in partnership with the National Science Foundation's (NSF), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) who awarded another eight grants for a total of 29. Nine of the grants focus on potential toxicity, and 12 grants study the fate and transport of nanomaterials in the environment.
Access a release from EPA announcing the NMSP (click here). Access EPA's Federal Register announcement [73 FR 4861-4866] (click here). Access further details on the NMSP (click here). Access more information on Nanotechnology under the Toxic Substances Control Act (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release on the nanomaterials grants listing the recipients (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]
Friday, January 25, 2008
House Begins Investigation Into Bisphenol-A (BPA)
Jan 17: Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, have begun an inquiry with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the manufacturers of infant products regarding bisphenol-A (BPA). The two sent letters to seven manufacturers and the FDA asking questions and requesting information within two weeks. The inquiry focuses on the use of BPA in plastic baby bottles and to line cans that contain infant formula and possible leaching into the infant formula. As well, the letters request information on FDA's review of bisphenol A.
On December 5, 2007, a new investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that BPA is used to line nearly all infant formula cans. They said BPA levels found in liquid formula are likely to be far higher than those that leach from bottles under normal use.
On November 30, 2007, the National Toxicology Program (NTP); Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR); issued a Federal Register announcement [72 FR 67730-67731] indicating the availability of the Final 396-page bisphenol A Expert Panel Report and also requested comments on the report by January 25, 2008 [See WIMS 11/26/07]. The expert panel report is an evaluation of the reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A conducted by an independent, 12-member expert panel composed of scientists from the public and private sectors convened by CERHR.
Access links to the letters from Representatives Dingell and Stupak (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). Access a release from EWG for links to its complete study, an executive summary and on-line guide for parents (click here). Access the EWG website on BPA for additional information (click here). Access the 396-page final bisphenol A report (click here). [*Toxics]
On December 5, 2007, a new investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that BPA is used to line nearly all infant formula cans. They said BPA levels found in liquid formula are likely to be far higher than those that leach from bottles under normal use.
On November 30, 2007, the National Toxicology Program (NTP); Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR); issued a Federal Register announcement [72 FR 67730-67731] indicating the availability of the Final 396-page bisphenol A Expert Panel Report and also requested comments on the report by January 25, 2008 [See WIMS 11/26/07]. The expert panel report is an evaluation of the reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A conducted by an independent, 12-member expert panel composed of scientists from the public and private sectors convened by CERHR.
Access links to the letters from Representatives Dingell and Stupak (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). Access a release from EWG for links to its complete study, an executive summary and on-line guide for parents (click here). Access the EWG website on BPA for additional information (click here). Access the 396-page final bisphenol A report (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, January 24, 2008
European Commission Proposes Energy & Climate Change Package
Jan 23: The European Commission agreed on what they called "a far-reaching package of proposals that will deliver the European Council's commitments to fight climate change and promote renewable energy." According to a release the proposals demonstrate that the targets agreed last year are technologically and economically possible and provide a unique business opportunity for thousands of European companies. They said these measures will dramatically increase the use of renewable energy in each country and set legally enforceable targets for governments to achieve them. All major CO2 emitters will be given an incentive to develop clean production technologies through a thorough reform of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) that will impose an EU-wide cap on emissions.
The package seeks to deliver the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 20% and increases to 20% the share of renewable energies in the energy consumption by 2020, as agreed by EU leaders in March 2007. The emissions reduction will be increased to 30% by 2020 when a new global climate change agreement is reached. Commission President, José Manuel Barroso said, "Responding to the challenge of climate change is the ultimate political test for our generation. Our mission, indeed our duty, is to provide the right policy framework for transformation to an environment friendly European economy and to continue to lead the international action to protect our planet. Our package not only responds to this challenge, but holds the right answer to the challenge of energy security and is an opportunity that should create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs in Europe. We must grasp that opportunity".
Commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas said, "Building on Europe's pioneering emissions trading system, this package demonstrates to our global partners that strong action to fight climate change is compatible with continued economic growth and prosperity. It gives Europe a head start in the race to create a low-carbon global economy that will unleash a wave of innovation and create new jobs in clean technologies. These proposals implement the commitments made by EU leaders last year through a fair share-out of the effort. Now all Member States must make their full contribution."
Building on the EU Emission Trading System (ETS), the Commission proposes to strengthen the single, EU-wide carbon market which will include more greenhouse gases (currently only CO2 is included), and involve all major industrial emitters. The emission allowances put on the market will be reduced year-on-year to allow for emissions covered by the ETS to be reduced by 21% from 2005 levels in 2020.
The power sector -- forming the majority of EU emissions -- will face full auctioning from the start of the new regime in 2013. Other industrial sectors, as well as aviation, will step up to full auctioning gradually, although an exception may be made for sectors particularly vulnerable to competition from producers in countries without comparable carbon constraints. In addition, auctions will be open: any EU operator will be able to buy allowances in any Member State. Revenues resulting from the ETS will accrue to Member States and should be used to help the EU to adjust to an environment friendly economy by supporting innovation in areas such as renewables, carbon capture and storage and R&D. Part of the revenues should also go towards helping developing countries adapt to climate change. The Commission estimates that the revenues from the auctioning could amount to €50 billion annually by 2020.
The Commission said the EU Emissions Trading System, now in its fourth year of operation, has proved an effective instrument to find a market-based solution to provide incentives for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. At present the system covers some 10,000 industrial plants across the EU -- including power plants, oil refineries, and steel mills -- accounting for almost half the EU's CO2 emissions. Under the new system over 40% of total emissions will be covered by the ETS. To reduce the administrative burden, industrial plants emitting less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 will not have to participate in the ETS.
The proposal also addresses the minimum target of 10% for use of biofuels in transport in the EU to be reached by 2020. This is the same for each Member State. Sustainability is essential in implementing this target -- the directive includes clear sustainability criteria. The Commission has also adopted new State aid guidelines on environmental protection which will help Member States to develop a sustainable European climate and energy policy. In comparison with the 2001 guidelines, these new guidelines broaden the scope of aid projects as well as increase the aid intensities. The guidelines set out new conditions for State aid measures to promote environmental protection and strike a very important balance between delivering larger environmental benefits and minimizing distortions of competition.
Access a release from the Commission with further details (click here). Access details of the Commission's proposals (click here). Access a statement from Neelie Kroes European Commissioner for Competition Policy Guidelines (click here). Access a statement from Stavros Dimas Commissioner for the environment (click here). Access a EurActiv article on reactions to the proposals with numerous links to additional information (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
The package seeks to deliver the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 20% and increases to 20% the share of renewable energies in the energy consumption by 2020, as agreed by EU leaders in March 2007. The emissions reduction will be increased to 30% by 2020 when a new global climate change agreement is reached. Commission President, José Manuel Barroso said, "Responding to the challenge of climate change is the ultimate political test for our generation. Our mission, indeed our duty, is to provide the right policy framework for transformation to an environment friendly European economy and to continue to lead the international action to protect our planet. Our package not only responds to this challenge, but holds the right answer to the challenge of energy security and is an opportunity that should create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs in Europe. We must grasp that opportunity".
Commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas said, "Building on Europe's pioneering emissions trading system, this package demonstrates to our global partners that strong action to fight climate change is compatible with continued economic growth and prosperity. It gives Europe a head start in the race to create a low-carbon global economy that will unleash a wave of innovation and create new jobs in clean technologies. These proposals implement the commitments made by EU leaders last year through a fair share-out of the effort. Now all Member States must make their full contribution."
Building on the EU Emission Trading System (ETS), the Commission proposes to strengthen the single, EU-wide carbon market which will include more greenhouse gases (currently only CO2 is included), and involve all major industrial emitters. The emission allowances put on the market will be reduced year-on-year to allow for emissions covered by the ETS to be reduced by 21% from 2005 levels in 2020.
The power sector -- forming the majority of EU emissions -- will face full auctioning from the start of the new regime in 2013. Other industrial sectors, as well as aviation, will step up to full auctioning gradually, although an exception may be made for sectors particularly vulnerable to competition from producers in countries without comparable carbon constraints. In addition, auctions will be open: any EU operator will be able to buy allowances in any Member State. Revenues resulting from the ETS will accrue to Member States and should be used to help the EU to adjust to an environment friendly economy by supporting innovation in areas such as renewables, carbon capture and storage and R&D. Part of the revenues should also go towards helping developing countries adapt to climate change. The Commission estimates that the revenues from the auctioning could amount to €50 billion annually by 2020.
The Commission said the EU Emissions Trading System, now in its fourth year of operation, has proved an effective instrument to find a market-based solution to provide incentives for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. At present the system covers some 10,000 industrial plants across the EU -- including power plants, oil refineries, and steel mills -- accounting for almost half the EU's CO2 emissions. Under the new system over 40% of total emissions will be covered by the ETS. To reduce the administrative burden, industrial plants emitting less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 will not have to participate in the ETS.
The proposal also addresses the minimum target of 10% for use of biofuels in transport in the EU to be reached by 2020. This is the same for each Member State. Sustainability is essential in implementing this target -- the directive includes clear sustainability criteria. The Commission has also adopted new State aid guidelines on environmental protection which will help Member States to develop a sustainable European climate and energy policy. In comparison with the 2001 guidelines, these new guidelines broaden the scope of aid projects as well as increase the aid intensities. The guidelines set out new conditions for State aid measures to promote environmental protection and strike a very important balance between delivering larger environmental benefits and minimizing distortions of competition.
Access a release from the Commission with further details (click here). Access details of the Commission's proposals (click here). Access a statement from Neelie Kroes European Commissioner for Competition Policy Guidelines (click here). Access a statement from Stavros Dimas Commissioner for the environment (click here). Access a EurActiv article on reactions to the proposals with numerous links to additional information (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
2008 Index Ranks Countries Environmental Performance: U.S. 39th
Jan 23: Switzerland tops the global list of countries ranked by environmental performance according to the 2008 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) produced by a team of environmental experts at Yale University and Columbia University. The 2008 EPI, was released at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and ranks 149 countries on 25 indicators tracked across six established policy categories: Environmental Health, Air Pollution, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Climate Change. The EPI identifies broadly-accepted targets for environmental performance and measures how close each country comes to these goals. As a quantitative gauge of pollution control and natural resource management results, the Index provides a powerful tool for improving policymaking and shifting environmental decisionmaking onto firmer analytic foundations.
The 2008 EPI ranks Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Costa Rica two to five, respectively. Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Angola, and Niger occupy the bottom five positions. The United States placed 39th in the rankings, significantly behind other industrialized nations like the United Kingdom (14th) and Japan (21st). The United States ranked 11th in the Americas, and 22 members of the European Union outrank the United States. According to a release, the U.S. score reflects top-tier performance in several indicators, including provision of safe drinking water, sanitation, and forest management. But poor scores on greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of air pollution on ecosystems dragged down the overall U.S. rank. Other major countries ranked as follows: China 104; Russia 28; India 120; Mexico 14.
Gus Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies said, “The United States’ performance indicates that the next administration must not ignore the ecosystem impacts of environmental as well as agricultural, energy and water management policies. The EPI’s climate change metrics ranking the United States alongside India and China near the bottom of the world’s table are a national disgrace.”
The Index also provides “peer group” rankings for each country showing how its performance stacks up against others facing similar environmental challenges. These benchmarks allow easy tracking of leaders and laggards on an issue-by-issue and aggregate basis. The data also support efforts to identify “best practices” in the environmental realm.
Analysis of the drivers underlying the 2008 rankings suggests that wealth is a major determinant of environmental success. At every level of development, however, some countries achieve results that far exceed their peers, demonstrating that policy choices also affect performance. For example, Costa Rica (5th), known for its substantial environmental efforts, significantly outperforms its neighbor Nicaragua (77th). Nicaragua’s history of poor governance and political corruption, violent conflicts, and budgets skewed towards the military instead of environmental infrastructure no doubt adds to the disparity. Top-ranked countries have all invested in water and air pollution control and other elements of environmental infrastructure and have adopted policy measures to mitigate the pollution harms caused by economic activities. Low-ranked countries typically have not made investments in environmental public health and have weak policy regimes.
Project leaders say the Environmental Performance Index aims to promote data-driven and analytically rigorous environmental decisionmaking by using the best global datasets available. Yet, they say, serious data gaps limit the ability to measure performance on a number of important issues, and the overall data quality and availability for some countries are poor. Incomplete data excluded 89 countries from the 2008 EPI. The absence of broadly collected and methodologically consistent indicators for even the most basic issues such as water quality -- and the complete lack of time-series data for most countries -- hampers efforts to shift pollution control and natural resource management onto more empirical foundations. Marc Levy, Deputy Director of Columbia’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network and one of the EPI project leaders said, “At a time when so much scientific evidence is telling us that the Earth's ecosystems are in crisis, it is inexcusable that our collective investment in environmental monitoring is so low. For some critical issues such as water it is actually decreasing. When a hospital patient's health worsens, doctors increase their monitoring, and we need to do the same for the planet.”
Access a release from Yale University (click here). Access the Summary for Policymakers (click here). Access the EPI website for complete information (click here). [*All]
The 2008 EPI ranks Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Costa Rica two to five, respectively. Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Angola, and Niger occupy the bottom five positions. The United States placed 39th in the rankings, significantly behind other industrialized nations like the United Kingdom (14th) and Japan (21st). The United States ranked 11th in the Americas, and 22 members of the European Union outrank the United States. According to a release, the U.S. score reflects top-tier performance in several indicators, including provision of safe drinking water, sanitation, and forest management. But poor scores on greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of air pollution on ecosystems dragged down the overall U.S. rank. Other major countries ranked as follows: China 104; Russia 28; India 120; Mexico 14.
Gus Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies said, “The United States’ performance indicates that the next administration must not ignore the ecosystem impacts of environmental as well as agricultural, energy and water management policies. The EPI’s climate change metrics ranking the United States alongside India and China near the bottom of the world’s table are a national disgrace.”
The Index also provides “peer group” rankings for each country showing how its performance stacks up against others facing similar environmental challenges. These benchmarks allow easy tracking of leaders and laggards on an issue-by-issue and aggregate basis. The data also support efforts to identify “best practices” in the environmental realm.
Analysis of the drivers underlying the 2008 rankings suggests that wealth is a major determinant of environmental success. At every level of development, however, some countries achieve results that far exceed their peers, demonstrating that policy choices also affect performance. For example, Costa Rica (5th), known for its substantial environmental efforts, significantly outperforms its neighbor Nicaragua (77th). Nicaragua’s history of poor governance and political corruption, violent conflicts, and budgets skewed towards the military instead of environmental infrastructure no doubt adds to the disparity. Top-ranked countries have all invested in water and air pollution control and other elements of environmental infrastructure and have adopted policy measures to mitigate the pollution harms caused by economic activities. Low-ranked countries typically have not made investments in environmental public health and have weak policy regimes.
Project leaders say the Environmental Performance Index aims to promote data-driven and analytically rigorous environmental decisionmaking by using the best global datasets available. Yet, they say, serious data gaps limit the ability to measure performance on a number of important issues, and the overall data quality and availability for some countries are poor. Incomplete data excluded 89 countries from the 2008 EPI. The absence of broadly collected and methodologically consistent indicators for even the most basic issues such as water quality -- and the complete lack of time-series data for most countries -- hampers efforts to shift pollution control and natural resource management onto more empirical foundations. Marc Levy, Deputy Director of Columbia’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network and one of the EPI project leaders said, “At a time when so much scientific evidence is telling us that the Earth's ecosystems are in crisis, it is inexcusable that our collective investment in environmental monitoring is so low. For some critical issues such as water it is actually decreasing. When a hospital patient's health worsens, doctors increase their monitoring, and we need to do the same for the planet.”
Access a release from Yale University (click here). Access the Summary for Policymakers (click here). Access the EPI website for complete information (click here). [*All]
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Groups Report 59 Proposed Coal Plants Cancelled In 2007
Jan 17: Research compiled by Coal Moratorium NOW! (CMN) and Rainforest Action Network (RAN) indicates that fifty-nine proposed coal-fired power plants were cancelled or shelved during 2007. Both groups are calling for a moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants. The list, "Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007," including documentation, is posted online (See links below). It includes data supplied by Sierra Club, coalSwarm, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Lab, and utility industry sources.
Becky Tarbotton, director of Rainforest Action Network's Global Finance Campaign said, "Coal-fired power plants are the wrong investment for our climate, our health, and our economy. Utilities, regulators, and investors are realizing that the path ahead is energy efficiency and renewable energy. It's time to stop financing and building coal and to start funding the future." Ted Nace, founder of CWN said, "Although we knew that many plants were being nixed, we were stunned by the total number. It spells real hope for the movement seeking to blunt the coal rush."
Because coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, coal plants are at the top of the list of global warming threats cited by climate scientists. Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Center, the world's largest climate research agency, told Congress on April 26, 2007, that a moratorium on new coal plants is "the most critical action for saving the planet at this time."
Among the study's conclusions: Climate concerns played a role in at least 15 plant cancellations; Coal plants disappeared entirely from some utilities' long-range plans; Renewables began elbowing out coal; Grassroots opposition mounted, financial markets cooled to coal; More plants were abandoned than rejected; and Heavy spending but poor results for "clean coal."
According to the groups' release, after mainly building natural gas turbines during the 1980s and 1990s, utilities returned to coal when natural gas prices jumped in 2000. In May 2007, the Department of Energy's "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (5/07) study counted 151 proposed coal plants. Five months later, "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (10/07) counted 121 proposed plants. According to a survey completed in the first week of January 2008 by Coal Moratorium NOW! and Rainforest Action Network, the number of proposed plants (including those under construction or recently completed) now stands at 113.
Sierra Club also maintains up to date status information about proposed coal plants across the country. The detailed table with links to additional information includes: Status; State; Name; Size(MW); Technology/Plant Type; Fuel Type; Finance Info; and Estimated Annual CO2 Output (in metric tons).
Access a release with links to extensive background data (click here). Access the list of cancellations (click here). Access a Jan. 15, 2008, state-by-state list of new plant proposals with plant information and contacts (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy,*Climate]
Becky Tarbotton, director of Rainforest Action Network's Global Finance Campaign said, "Coal-fired power plants are the wrong investment for our climate, our health, and our economy. Utilities, regulators, and investors are realizing that the path ahead is energy efficiency and renewable energy. It's time to stop financing and building coal and to start funding the future." Ted Nace, founder of CWN said, "Although we knew that many plants were being nixed, we were stunned by the total number. It spells real hope for the movement seeking to blunt the coal rush."
Because coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, coal plants are at the top of the list of global warming threats cited by climate scientists. Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Center, the world's largest climate research agency, told Congress on April 26, 2007, that a moratorium on new coal plants is "the most critical action for saving the planet at this time."
Among the study's conclusions: Climate concerns played a role in at least 15 plant cancellations; Coal plants disappeared entirely from some utilities' long-range plans; Renewables began elbowing out coal; Grassroots opposition mounted, financial markets cooled to coal; More plants were abandoned than rejected; and Heavy spending but poor results for "clean coal."
According to the groups' release, after mainly building natural gas turbines during the 1980s and 1990s, utilities returned to coal when natural gas prices jumped in 2000. In May 2007, the Department of Energy's "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (5/07) study counted 151 proposed coal plants. Five months later, "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (10/07) counted 121 proposed plants. According to a survey completed in the first week of January 2008 by Coal Moratorium NOW! and Rainforest Action Network, the number of proposed plants (including those under construction or recently completed) now stands at 113.
Sierra Club also maintains up to date status information about proposed coal plants across the country. The detailed table with links to additional information includes: Status; State; Name; Size(MW); Technology/Plant Type; Fuel Type; Finance Info; and Estimated Annual CO2 Output (in metric tons).
Access a release with links to extensive background data (click here). Access the list of cancellations (click here). Access a Jan. 15, 2008, state-by-state list of new plant proposals with plant information and contacts (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy,*Climate]
Friday, January 18, 2008
House Subcommittee Hearing Sets Stage For Climate Change Debate
Jan 17: The House Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Chaired by Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), held a hearing entitled, Administration Perspectives on United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali [See WIMS 1/2/08]. The meeting set the stage for what will likely be a contentious debate between Democrats and Republicans in the House in the coming months. House leaders have indicated they want a climate change bill vote by this summer. In the Senate, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), approved S. 2191, the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act on December 5, 2007 [See WIMS 12/6/07]. The Senate bill was reported from Committee with an 11-8 vote that included all eight Democrats, two Independents, and one Republican, the cosponsor Senator Warner. The full Senate is expected to vote on the bill within the next few months.
The only witness for the hearing was James Connaughton, Chairman Council on Environmental Quality for the White House. Additionally, Chairman Boucher introduced the new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee Representative Fred Upton (R-MI). Representative Upton is a strong advocate for nuclear power and is against mandated CO2 limits. He says the solution must involve a global solution and a free market approach.
Representative Upton presented some extensive comments in his opening remarks. He said in part, "Emphasis must be placed on GLOBAL issue. While I feel strongly that addressing climate change is certainly important, I believe we must address this through a global voluntary framework that focuses on innovations in technology and efficiency rather than a pure government mandate. At the end of the day, we’ll need to demonstrate that the price paid – in both jobs and dollars – equates to some tangible environmental benefits to the American people. In my view, spending trillions of dollars and losing a countless number of jobs, to maybe alter temperatures by a tenth of a degree, while China and India continue to spew emissions is not the option that we’re looking for..."
Representative Upton said, "By the year 2030, our energy needs are going to grow by more than 50 percent." He indicated, "Just to stay even with these two zero emissions sources, we would need to build – by 2030 – over 50 new nuclear plants and more than 1,900 hydroelectric plants."
Members of the Subcommittee, including full Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), indicated their displeasure and concern with the brief 1-page testimony prepared James Connaughton. One member asked if this was an indication that the Administration thought the Subcommittee was not important enough for them to prepare full testimony.
Connaughton's full written testimony included the following: "Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify on the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference which took place last month in Bali, Indonesia. As my testimony, I am submitting the Bali Action Plan as agreed to by all parties attending the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the 13th Meeting of the Conference of Parties.
"Additionally, I have included for the Committee a presentation which I delivered on December 12, 2007, at the U.S. Side Event in Bali, entitled, “Partnerships in Action: Energy Security, Clean Development, and Climate Change”. I have also attached additional technical presentations which describe the potential of technologies and some of the actions the U.S. has undertaken to date. These presentations were delivered at the U.S. Side Event by Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; William Hohenstein, Director of USDA’s Global Change Program Office; and William Irving, Team Leader of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
"Lastly, I am submitting the President’s remarks at the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change, delivered on September 28, 2007, in Washington, DC. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to responding to your questions."
Access a the hearing website for a link to the brief testimony document and a webcast of the hearing (click here) [Note: the webcast is very instructional in setting the stage for upcoming U.S. climate change debate]. Access the a WIMS article on the Major Economies meeting with links to related documents (click here). Access the complete statement of Representative Upton (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC and a fact sheet on accomplishments (click here). Access the so-called Bali Action Plan (click here). Access details on all decisions adopted by the COP 13 and CMP 3 and related information (click here, scroll down). Access the U.S. Department of State COP 13 website for links to all releases and statements (click here). Access the UNFCCC COP13/MOP3 website for additional details (click here). Access the IPCC website for additional information including links to reports (click here). [*Climate]
The only witness for the hearing was James Connaughton, Chairman Council on Environmental Quality for the White House. Additionally, Chairman Boucher introduced the new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee Representative Fred Upton (R-MI). Representative Upton is a strong advocate for nuclear power and is against mandated CO2 limits. He says the solution must involve a global solution and a free market approach.
Representative Upton presented some extensive comments in his opening remarks. He said in part, "Emphasis must be placed on GLOBAL issue. While I feel strongly that addressing climate change is certainly important, I believe we must address this through a global voluntary framework that focuses on innovations in technology and efficiency rather than a pure government mandate. At the end of the day, we’ll need to demonstrate that the price paid – in both jobs and dollars – equates to some tangible environmental benefits to the American people. In my view, spending trillions of dollars and losing a countless number of jobs, to maybe alter temperatures by a tenth of a degree, while China and India continue to spew emissions is not the option that we’re looking for..."
Representative Upton said, "By the year 2030, our energy needs are going to grow by more than 50 percent." He indicated, "Just to stay even with these two zero emissions sources, we would need to build – by 2030 – over 50 new nuclear plants and more than 1,900 hydroelectric plants."
Members of the Subcommittee, including full Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), indicated their displeasure and concern with the brief 1-page testimony prepared James Connaughton. One member asked if this was an indication that the Administration thought the Subcommittee was not important enough for them to prepare full testimony.
Connaughton's full written testimony included the following: "Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify on the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference which took place last month in Bali, Indonesia. As my testimony, I am submitting the Bali Action Plan as agreed to by all parties attending the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the 13th Meeting of the Conference of Parties.
"Additionally, I have included for the Committee a presentation which I delivered on December 12, 2007, at the U.S. Side Event in Bali, entitled, “Partnerships in Action: Energy Security, Clean Development, and Climate Change”. I have also attached additional technical presentations which describe the potential of technologies and some of the actions the U.S. has undertaken to date. These presentations were delivered at the U.S. Side Event by Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; William Hohenstein, Director of USDA’s Global Change Program Office; and William Irving, Team Leader of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
"Lastly, I am submitting the President’s remarks at the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change, delivered on September 28, 2007, in Washington, DC. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to responding to your questions."
Access a the hearing website for a link to the brief testimony document and a webcast of the hearing (click here) [Note: the webcast is very instructional in setting the stage for upcoming U.S. climate change debate]. Access the a WIMS article on the Major Economies meeting with links to related documents (click here). Access the complete statement of Representative Upton (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC and a fact sheet on accomplishments (click here). Access the so-called Bali Action Plan (click here). Access details on all decisions adopted by the COP 13 and CMP 3 and related information (click here, scroll down). Access the U.S. Department of State COP 13 website for links to all releases and statements (click here). Access the UNFCCC COP13/MOP3 website for additional details (click here). Access the IPCC website for additional information including links to reports (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, January 17, 2008
$202.5 Billion Needed For Wastewater Management For 20 Years
Jan 16:A new report from U.S. EPA estimates $202.5 billion is the nationwide capital investment needed to control wastewater pollution for up to a 20-year period. Delivered to Congress this week, the 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey summarizes the results of the agency's 14th national survey on the needs of publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs). The estimate includes $134.4 billion for wastewater treatment and collection systems, $54.8 billion for combined sewer overflow corrections, and $9.0 billion for stormwater management. Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles said, "Water infrastructure is a lifeline for health and prosperity in communities across America. EPA is working with our partners to promote sustainable solutions and help utilities and households save money, water and energy."
EPA said communities across the country face challenges in sustaining their water infrastructure. EPA is working with states, tribes, utilities, and other partners to reduce the demand on infrastructure through improved asset management, improved technology, water efficiency, and watershed-based decision making, and is working with Congress to enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal.
The report provides information to help the nation make informed decisions about pollution control needs necessary to meet the environmental and human health objectives of the Clean Water Act. The figures represent documented wastewater investment needs, but do not account for expected investment and revenues. Wastewater treatment utilities pay for infrastructure using revenue from rates charged to customers and may finance large projects using loans or bonds. State and federal funding programs, such as EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, are also available to help communities meet their wastewater pollution control needs. The needs in this survey represent a $16.1 billion (8.6%) increase (in constant 2004 dollars) over the 2000 report. The increase in overall national needs is due to a combination of population growth, more protective water quality standards, and aging infrastructure.
The largest reported total publicly owned wastewater treatment works needs, both more than $20 billion, occur in New York and California. Florida, Illinois and Ohio each have needs in excess of $10 billion. The States with the largest needs per capita are the District of Columbia ($3,670), Hawaii ($1,660) and West Virginia ($1,400). Over three-fourths (76.8 percent) of the total needs reported are concentrated in 18 States; 20 States each reported less than 1 percent of the total needs.
In terms of providing funding for wastewater treatment needs, the CWSRF is one of many supplementary Federal, State and local funding sources. From July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2004, EPA provided an annual average of $1.3 billion in grants to State CWSRF programs to assist with point and nonpoint source pollution control needs. In the same period, States combined these CWSRF funds with State matching funds, bond proceeds and loan repayments to provide assistance, mostly in the form of loans, of approximately $4.4 billion per year to local communities. The gap between facilities’ funding and their total needs is addressed not only by other Federal, State and local funding sources, but also is expected to be increasingly addressed by activities related to EPA’s Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative.
In response to the EPA’s Gap Analysis and other recent 20-year estimations of wastewater treatment needs, the EPA Administrator convened a forum in January 2003 -- Closing the Gap: Innovative Responses for Sustainable Water Infrastructure. Using input from industry, government and academia obtained through this forum, EPA developed the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative. The goal of the initiative is to reduce the infrastructure funding gap through a four part strategy focused on advanced facility management practices, water efficiency promotion, full-cost pricing and a watershed management approach.
In testimony before Congress, EPA Administrator Johnson has described the Water Enterprise Bond proposal as follows. "EPA has worked with Treasury and other parts of the Administration to propose expanded use of tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds for capital investments in drinking water and wastewater projects. The President’s Budget proposes to exempt PABs from the private activity bond unified state volume cap. PABs are tax-exempt bonds issued by a state or local government, the proceeds of which are used by another entity for a public purpose or by the government entity itself for certain public-private partnerships. By removing drinking water and wastewater bonds from the volume cap, this proposal will provide states and communities greater access to PABs to help finance their water infrastructure needs and increase capital investment in the nation’s water infrastructure.
"This Water Enterprise Bond proposal would provide an exception to the unified annual State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for exempt facilities for the 'furnishing of water' or 'sewage facilities.' To ensure the long-term financial health and solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move towards full-cost pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private Activity Bonds. This will help water systems become self-financing and minimize the need for future subsidies."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Clean Watershed Needs Survey website for additional information and background documents (click here). Access links to the 166-page complete report, individual sections, appendices and a summary of findings (click here). Access Congressional testimony on the Water Enterprise Bond proposal (click here). [*Water]
EPA said communities across the country face challenges in sustaining their water infrastructure. EPA is working with states, tribes, utilities, and other partners to reduce the demand on infrastructure through improved asset management, improved technology, water efficiency, and watershed-based decision making, and is working with Congress to enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal.
The report provides information to help the nation make informed decisions about pollution control needs necessary to meet the environmental and human health objectives of the Clean Water Act. The figures represent documented wastewater investment needs, but do not account for expected investment and revenues. Wastewater treatment utilities pay for infrastructure using revenue from rates charged to customers and may finance large projects using loans or bonds. State and federal funding programs, such as EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, are also available to help communities meet their wastewater pollution control needs. The needs in this survey represent a $16.1 billion (8.6%) increase (in constant 2004 dollars) over the 2000 report. The increase in overall national needs is due to a combination of population growth, more protective water quality standards, and aging infrastructure.
The largest reported total publicly owned wastewater treatment works needs, both more than $20 billion, occur in New York and California. Florida, Illinois and Ohio each have needs in excess of $10 billion. The States with the largest needs per capita are the District of Columbia ($3,670), Hawaii ($1,660) and West Virginia ($1,400). Over three-fourths (76.8 percent) of the total needs reported are concentrated in 18 States; 20 States each reported less than 1 percent of the total needs.
In terms of providing funding for wastewater treatment needs, the CWSRF is one of many supplementary Federal, State and local funding sources. From July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2004, EPA provided an annual average of $1.3 billion in grants to State CWSRF programs to assist with point and nonpoint source pollution control needs. In the same period, States combined these CWSRF funds with State matching funds, bond proceeds and loan repayments to provide assistance, mostly in the form of loans, of approximately $4.4 billion per year to local communities. The gap between facilities’ funding and their total needs is addressed not only by other Federal, State and local funding sources, but also is expected to be increasingly addressed by activities related to EPA’s Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative.
In response to the EPA’s Gap Analysis and other recent 20-year estimations of wastewater treatment needs, the EPA Administrator convened a forum in January 2003 -- Closing the Gap: Innovative Responses for Sustainable Water Infrastructure. Using input from industry, government and academia obtained through this forum, EPA developed the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative. The goal of the initiative is to reduce the infrastructure funding gap through a four part strategy focused on advanced facility management practices, water efficiency promotion, full-cost pricing and a watershed management approach.
In testimony before Congress, EPA Administrator Johnson has described the Water Enterprise Bond proposal as follows. "EPA has worked with Treasury and other parts of the Administration to propose expanded use of tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds for capital investments in drinking water and wastewater projects. The President’s Budget proposes to exempt PABs from the private activity bond unified state volume cap. PABs are tax-exempt bonds issued by a state or local government, the proceeds of which are used by another entity for a public purpose or by the government entity itself for certain public-private partnerships. By removing drinking water and wastewater bonds from the volume cap, this proposal will provide states and communities greater access to PABs to help finance their water infrastructure needs and increase capital investment in the nation’s water infrastructure.
"This Water Enterprise Bond proposal would provide an exception to the unified annual State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for exempt facilities for the 'furnishing of water' or 'sewage facilities.' To ensure the long-term financial health and solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move towards full-cost pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private Activity Bonds. This will help water systems become self-financing and minimize the need for future subsidies."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Clean Watershed Needs Survey website for additional information and background documents (click here). Access links to the 166-page complete report, individual sections, appendices and a summary of findings (click here). Access Congressional testimony on the Water Enterprise Bond proposal (click here). [*Water]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
