Mar 18: The House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) held a hearing titled, “Competitiveness and Climate Policy: Avoiding Job Losses and Global Warming Progress in International Business Competition.” The hearing addressed potential domestic legislative provisions to prevent the loss of jobs and carbon emission reductions from the United States to countries that do not take similar action to curb heat-trapping carbon pollution.
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: Energy Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation; American Electric Power; Pew Center on Global Climate Change; Resources for the Future; Industrial Energy Consumers of America; and American Council for Capital Formation.
In an opening statement Chairman Markey said, "Global warming does not recognize national borders. CO2 emitted in California has the same warming effect as CO2 emitted in China, Europe, or India. Rising sea levels threaten millions of people across the globe, in places as far apart as Bangladesh, Boston and Shanghai. Global warming highlights that we are, in fact, 'one world.' And just as we are connected environmentally, so too are we connected economically. The actions we take in the United States to curb global warming pollution and create jobs cannot stand alone."
Markey said, "Once you drill down on the facts it's clear that a relatively small number of industry sectors are highly energy-intensive and directly vulnerable to international competitive effects brought about by carbon limits. Those industry sectors include iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, paper and pulp, and basic chemicals. . . These important industrial sectors interestingly constituted a little more than 3 percent of America's gross domestic output in 2005 and accounted for less than 2 percent of our jobs."
To avoid shipping jobs or emissions overseas, one suggestion is requiring that energy intensive products imported into the United States be accompanied by some kind of fee or surcharge, unless the product comes from a country with carbon pollution limits. Thus, putting imported, carbon-intensive products on the same footing as American made goods and thus "level the playing field." American Electric Power testified on the tariff/allowance proposal the company co-authored with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Another way of dealing with potential competitive effects is to take some of the allowance values from the carbon market and give them to the "trade exposed" industry sectors to aid in their transition to a low-carbon economy. The Energy Intensive Manufacturers Working Group testified in support of such an approach. Markey said, "Finally, we should remember that in order to stop global warming, it will be necessary for virtually all countries, particularly industrialized countries, to limit their emissions of carbon pollution."
Ranking Member Fred Upton (R-MI) submitted a letter from former U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab which indicated, “we have serious concerns… particularly the enthusiasm for using import provisions that might be perceived as unilateral trade restrictions directed against other countries to push them to move rapidly to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gasses. This approach… will take us down a dangerous path and adversely affect US manufacturing, farmers, and consumers… and even [cause] an all-out trade war where no one wins and everyone loses.”
Upton said, "What happens to our National Security when we don’t manufacture anything? What happens when we need to order all of our steel and aluminum from China? If we take the wrong legislative path dealing with climate change; we run the real risk of permanently destroying our manufacturing and defense supply chains. In times of crisis, we will be helpless, at the mercy of others. . . By design, a cap and trade scheme works by adding to the cost of energy and through that an increase in production costs for energy intensive industries and manufacturing. There are cost containment mechanisms that will be discussed this morning that may help mitigate some of the increases, but at the end of the day, they won’t be enough to save these jobs. And when factories move overseas, the environment is worse for it. . ." Upton said that American steelmakers emit 1.2 tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) per ton of steel compared to Chinese steel emissions estimated to be in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 tons of GHG per ton of steel.
He continued further stating that, "To reach the lofty goal of 80% [GHG] reduction, emissions from the entire transportation sector would have to drop to zero; emissions from all electricity generation would have to drop to zero; and then we’d need to reduce the remainder by 50%. Think about the industries and jobs we’d have to lose to meet those goals. Can America remain a power on the world stage if we shed these industries? Can our economy recover without those jobs?"
The Markey Energy and Environment Subcommittee has also held additional hearings in recent weeks on various aspects of climate change legislation including: The Role of Offsets in Climate Legislation (March 5); The Future of Coal Under Climate Legislation (March 10); and Consumer Protection Provisions in Climate Legislation (March 12).
Access the hearing website and link to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access an overveiw and opening statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access the opening statement from Representative Upton (click here). Access links to the recent Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearings (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, March 23, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Senate Hearing On Nuclear Energy Development
Mar 18: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) held a hearing to receive testimony on nuclear energy development. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Dale E. Klein - Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI); and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) both delivered statements.
Chairman Bingaman provided some background and indicated that 104 nuclear power plants now operating in the U.S. supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity. He said, "They do so reliably, cost-effectively, and without emitting greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is an essential part of our energy mix, and must remain so for the foreseeable future." He noted that the current generation of nuclear power plants was mostly built in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. For nearly 30 years, utilities did not order a single new nuclear power plant, but in the last two years, 17 companies or groups of companies have ordered 26 new reactors.
The hearing focused on two main themes -- the licensing process and the financial challenges and other obstacles facing new nuclear power plant development. Bingaman indicated that, “The original licensing process was often blamed for the construction delays and cost overruns experienced in the past, but the Commission and Congress replaced that process with a new, streamlined, one-step process, which is now in place but has yet to be fully demonstrated." He said, "The high capital cost of building a new nuclear power plant is a serious obstacle to developing new nuclear power plants. We have previously tried to address the financial challenges through loan guarantees, delay and accident insurance, and production tax credits."
Finally, he indicated that, “What to do with the spent fuel nuclear power plants is, of course, one of the biggest unsolved problems facing the nuclear industry. But nuclear waste is not the subject of today's hearing. I hope to schedule a separate hearing on nuclear waste in the weeks ahead. Nonetheless, I recognize the keen interest that Senators have in the problem, and in the Administration's decision to stop work on the Yucca Mountain repository, and I expect we will have questions for the panel on the waste problem as well.”
Senator Murkowski called on the Obama Administration "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost domestic power generation by supporting nuclear energy projects." She said, “There’s not just one solution to the energy challenges we face -- there are many. Nuclear energy is one of the few solutions that’s already commercially viable, tested and proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re seeing a lot of license applications for new reactors. Assuming they’re all approved, we need to be prepared to take the next step and support construction. Our ultimate goal is to develop a robust and self-sustaining nuclear energy industry.”
She said the Administration’s recent removal of support for Nevada’s Yucca Mountain repository for spent nuclear fuel, "despite the Administration’s oft stated support for the industry" sends the wrong signal to potential investors and suggests the Administration is not serious about expanding domestic nuclear power. I’m concerned about the future of nuclear energy if we don’t take substantive steps to address the disposal of nuclear waste until the Administration has an alternative, we need to fund and support the Yucca Mountain license review.”
Marvin Fertel, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) testified on behalf of members that include all companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S., nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. His testimony focused on five major areas including: Current status of the U.S. nuclear energy industry; The need for new nuclear generating capacity; Progress toward new nuclear power plant construction; Financial challenges facing the electric power sector; and Policy actions necessary to address the challenges facing new nuclear plant development.
He testified that the NRC is reviewing construction and operating license applications from 17 companies or groups of companies for 26 new reactors totaling 34,200 MW. The new plants will be built at a measured pace over the next 10-15 years. NEI estimates a new nuclear power plant could cost $6 billion to $8 billion, including financing costs.
Under policy actions, Fertel said NEI is encouraged by Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s intent, expressed before this committee during his confirmation hearing and at other times, to address the difficulties that have arisen during implementation of the Title XVII loan guarantee program. He said many of these problems can be corrected through rulemaking, and NEI understands that DOE is developing revised rules to address defects in the current rule and to implement the new loan guarantee program authorized in the economic stimulus legislation.
On the subject to management of used nuclear fuel Fertel said it "is managed safely and securely at nuclear plant sites today, and can be managed safely and securely for an extended period of time. For this reason, used nuclear fuel does not represent an impediment to new nuclear plant development in the near term. It is, however, an issue that must be addressed for the long-term." He indicated that the Obama Administration has made it clear that Yucca Mountain “is not an option.”
He said, the nuclear industry’s position on used fuel management is clear: " The Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes an unequivocal federal legal obligation to manage used nuclear fuel, and remains the law of the land. Until that law is changed, the nuclear industry believes the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain license application should continue. If the administration unilaterally decides to abandon the Yucca Mountain project without enacting new legislation to modify or replace existing law, it should expect a new wave of lawsuits seeking further damage payments and refunds of at least $22 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund already collected from consumers that has not been spent on the program.Given the uncertainties associated with the Yucca Mountain project, DOE should reduce the fee paid by consumers to cover only costs incurred by DOE, NRC and local Nevada government units that provide oversight of the program. . ."
Dr. Thomas Cochran, Senior Scientist for the NRDC Nuclear Program testified and said that NRDC's testimony focused on three issues: a) whether additional federal loan guarantees should be provided to construct new nuclear power plants; b) whether the United States should engage in reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; and c) whether Congress should intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rulemakings on temporary storage of spent fuel and so-called "waste confidence," that is, "whether sufficient confidence exists today in the long-term ability to isolate spent fuel from the biosphere that we can responsibly license new reactors that will add to the nuclear waste burden."
On Spent Fuel Reprocessing, NRDC said, "The federal government should not encourage or support commercial spent fuel processing. Putting aside for the moment the serious proliferation and security concerns in any future global shift toward reprocessing, it's clear that combating climate change is an urgent task that requires near term investments yielding huge decarbonization dividends on a 5 to 20 year timescale. . .Congress and the new Administration should terminate funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and its associated efforts to close the nuclear fuel cycle and introduce fast burner reactors in the United States [See WIMS 5/23/08]."
On Nuclear Waste Disposal, NRDC said, "As the political sun sets on the proposed Yucca Mountain project, the federal government needs to begin identifying alternative geological disposal sites for the country's nuclear waste. Congress should initiate a search for a new geologic repository site for the disposal of spent fuel, and insure that adequate federal funding is available to retain the technical community associated with the Yucca Mountain project, so that this expertise will be available to assess and develop new proposed geological waste disposal sites. The Congress should not interfere in the NRC's ongoing Waste Confidence and Temporary Storage rulemakings, and let this regulatory body attempt to fulfill its independent regulatory mandate."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Murkowski (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear]
Chairman Bingaman provided some background and indicated that 104 nuclear power plants now operating in the U.S. supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity. He said, "They do so reliably, cost-effectively, and without emitting greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is an essential part of our energy mix, and must remain so for the foreseeable future." He noted that the current generation of nuclear power plants was mostly built in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. For nearly 30 years, utilities did not order a single new nuclear power plant, but in the last two years, 17 companies or groups of companies have ordered 26 new reactors.
The hearing focused on two main themes -- the licensing process and the financial challenges and other obstacles facing new nuclear power plant development. Bingaman indicated that, “The original licensing process was often blamed for the construction delays and cost overruns experienced in the past, but the Commission and Congress replaced that process with a new, streamlined, one-step process, which is now in place but has yet to be fully demonstrated." He said, "The high capital cost of building a new nuclear power plant is a serious obstacle to developing new nuclear power plants. We have previously tried to address the financial challenges through loan guarantees, delay and accident insurance, and production tax credits."
Finally, he indicated that, “What to do with the spent fuel nuclear power plants is, of course, one of the biggest unsolved problems facing the nuclear industry. But nuclear waste is not the subject of today's hearing. I hope to schedule a separate hearing on nuclear waste in the weeks ahead. Nonetheless, I recognize the keen interest that Senators have in the problem, and in the Administration's decision to stop work on the Yucca Mountain repository, and I expect we will have questions for the panel on the waste problem as well.”
Senator Murkowski called on the Obama Administration "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost domestic power generation by supporting nuclear energy projects." She said, “There’s not just one solution to the energy challenges we face -- there are many. Nuclear energy is one of the few solutions that’s already commercially viable, tested and proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re seeing a lot of license applications for new reactors. Assuming they’re all approved, we need to be prepared to take the next step and support construction. Our ultimate goal is to develop a robust and self-sustaining nuclear energy industry.”
She said the Administration’s recent removal of support for Nevada’s Yucca Mountain repository for spent nuclear fuel, "despite the Administration’s oft stated support for the industry" sends the wrong signal to potential investors and suggests the Administration is not serious about expanding domestic nuclear power. I’m concerned about the future of nuclear energy if we don’t take substantive steps to address the disposal of nuclear waste until the Administration has an alternative, we need to fund and support the Yucca Mountain license review.”
Marvin Fertel, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) testified on behalf of members that include all companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S., nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. His testimony focused on five major areas including: Current status of the U.S. nuclear energy industry; The need for new nuclear generating capacity; Progress toward new nuclear power plant construction; Financial challenges facing the electric power sector; and Policy actions necessary to address the challenges facing new nuclear plant development.
He testified that the NRC is reviewing construction and operating license applications from 17 companies or groups of companies for 26 new reactors totaling 34,200 MW. The new plants will be built at a measured pace over the next 10-15 years. NEI estimates a new nuclear power plant could cost $6 billion to $8 billion, including financing costs.
Under policy actions, Fertel said NEI is encouraged by Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s intent, expressed before this committee during his confirmation hearing and at other times, to address the difficulties that have arisen during implementation of the Title XVII loan guarantee program. He said many of these problems can be corrected through rulemaking, and NEI understands that DOE is developing revised rules to address defects in the current rule and to implement the new loan guarantee program authorized in the economic stimulus legislation.
On the subject to management of used nuclear fuel Fertel said it "is managed safely and securely at nuclear plant sites today, and can be managed safely and securely for an extended period of time. For this reason, used nuclear fuel does not represent an impediment to new nuclear plant development in the near term. It is, however, an issue that must be addressed for the long-term." He indicated that the Obama Administration has made it clear that Yucca Mountain “is not an option.”
He said, the nuclear industry’s position on used fuel management is clear: " The Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes an unequivocal federal legal obligation to manage used nuclear fuel, and remains the law of the land. Until that law is changed, the nuclear industry believes the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain license application should continue. If the administration unilaterally decides to abandon the Yucca Mountain project without enacting new legislation to modify or replace existing law, it should expect a new wave of lawsuits seeking further damage payments and refunds of at least $22 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund already collected from consumers that has not been spent on the program.Given the uncertainties associated with the Yucca Mountain project, DOE should reduce the fee paid by consumers to cover only costs incurred by DOE, NRC and local Nevada government units that provide oversight of the program. . ."
Dr. Thomas Cochran, Senior Scientist for the NRDC Nuclear Program testified and said that NRDC's testimony focused on three issues: a) whether additional federal loan guarantees should be provided to construct new nuclear power plants; b) whether the United States should engage in reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; and c) whether Congress should intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rulemakings on temporary storage of spent fuel and so-called "waste confidence," that is, "whether sufficient confidence exists today in the long-term ability to isolate spent fuel from the biosphere that we can responsibly license new reactors that will add to the nuclear waste burden."
On Spent Fuel Reprocessing, NRDC said, "The federal government should not encourage or support commercial spent fuel processing. Putting aside for the moment the serious proliferation and security concerns in any future global shift toward reprocessing, it's clear that combating climate change is an urgent task that requires near term investments yielding huge decarbonization dividends on a 5 to 20 year timescale. . .Congress and the new Administration should terminate funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and its associated efforts to close the nuclear fuel cycle and introduce fast burner reactors in the United States [See WIMS 5/23/08]."
On Nuclear Waste Disposal, NRDC said, "As the political sun sets on the proposed Yucca Mountain project, the federal government needs to begin identifying alternative geological disposal sites for the country's nuclear waste. Congress should initiate a search for a new geologic repository site for the disposal of spent fuel, and insure that adequate federal funding is available to retain the technical community associated with the Yucca Mountain project, so that this expertise will be available to assess and develop new proposed geological waste disposal sites. The Congress should not interfere in the NRC's ongoing Waste Confidence and Temporary Storage rulemakings, and let this regulatory body attempt to fulfill its independent regulatory mandate."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Murkowski (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear]
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sen. "Moderates" Will Influence Environmental & Energy Legislation
Mar 18: The major announcement that 15 Senators -- 14 "moderate" Democrats and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) -- were forming a coalition to help shape public policy may have a huge impact on pending proposals for environmental, energy and climate change legislation. In a release, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced the diverse Group of 15 Senators will meet regularly to shape public policy. He said the group’s goal is to work with the Senate leadership and the new administration to craft "common-sense solutions to urgent national problems."
The Group of 15, including some strong supporters of President Obama is lead by: Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper (D-DE) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); and also includes Mark Udall (D-CO); Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK); Kay Hagan (D-NC); Herb Kohl (D-WI); Mary Landrieu (D-LA); Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO); Ben Nelson (D-NE); Bill Nelson (D-FL); Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH); and Mark Warner (D-VA).
With the delicate balance of power in the Senate requiring near unanimous Democratic support, plus a handful Republicans to achieve the "magic" 60 number to avoid a filibuster; the group immediately becomes a force to be reckoned with. Even if the widely discussed "reconciliation" process, requiring only 50 votes is utilized, the new group's support will be essential. The three group leaders are all honorary co-chairs of Third Way, a progressive Democratic policy group, and Senators Bayh and Carper have led the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.
While much of the media coverage on the Group of 15 was buried in the mass of coverage of the AIG bonuses issue, most reporting dealt with the groups influence and concerns with the Obama budget proposal. It is important to note that the group has defined its mission to help "shape public policy" in general. Major environmental issues on the table including climate change, cap-and-trade v. carbon tax, the California waiver, renewable energy standards, the future of coal, nuclear waste management, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and other public lands; Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and more; will obviously be high on the group's agenda.
With the Obama Administration already calling for bipartisan solutions to major issues, ending "earmarks as we know them," and making coal and nuclear power part of the energy mix, the new coalition may provide an interesting twist on finding more "middle of the road" solutions and buffering the opposition from the extreme ends of the Republican and Democratic parties. Early attempts at bipartisan solutions, as demonstrated by the narrow passage of the stimulus bill in the Senate, have proven difficult and will likely get worse with other major issues including controversial energy and environmental issues.
Senator Bayh indicated that the "Moderate Dems Working Group" will meet every other Tuesday before the Democratic Caucus lunch to discuss legislative strategies and ideas. The Moderate Dems held their second meeting Tuesday to focus on the upcoming budget negotiations and the importance of passing a fiscally responsible spending plan in the Senate. At the working group meeting, Senator Bayh acknowledged that such a large group was unlikely to agree on all major issues before the Senate. Yet he said, "the Moderate Dems are joined by a shared commitment to pursue pragmatic, fiscally sustainable policies across a range of issues, such as deficit containment, health care reform, the housing crisis, educational reform, energy policy and climate change."
Bayh said, “We have a wonderful opportunity to break gridlock in Washington and accomplish big things for the American people, but we also have a responsibility to pursue sensible solutions that will work. Our group seeks to work collaboratively with the Obama administration and Senate leadership to make sure legislation is crafted in a practical way that will solve people’s problems. It’s going to take all of us working together in the Senate to get the 60 votes necessary to deliver the change the American people deserve.”
Senator Carper said, “The number of moderate Democrats has grown substantially in the past two Congresses -- and in America. We can play a constructive role in helping our leadership and the Obama administration get things done in this new Congress. Now, more than ever, the Senate needs to put ideology aside, to find common ground on legislation, and to deliver results for the American people.”
Senator Lincoln said, “Arkansans are pragmatic and expect results from their leaders in Congress. I’m proud to play a constructive role as we work with the administration and Senate leadership to help reach consensus on important issues and serve as a voice for fiscal responsibility.”
Senator Bayh's release included a comment from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) saying, “If we are going to deliver the change Americans demanded and move our country forward, it will require the courage to get past our political differences and get to work. Established organizations like Third Way and new ventures like this group offer us a new opportunity to get things done, and I support every effort that puts real solutions above political posturing.”
Access a release from Senator Bayh (click here). [*All]
The Group of 15, including some strong supporters of President Obama is lead by: Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper (D-DE) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); and also includes Mark Udall (D-CO); Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK); Kay Hagan (D-NC); Herb Kohl (D-WI); Mary Landrieu (D-LA); Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO); Ben Nelson (D-NE); Bill Nelson (D-FL); Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH); and Mark Warner (D-VA).
With the delicate balance of power in the Senate requiring near unanimous Democratic support, plus a handful Republicans to achieve the "magic" 60 number to avoid a filibuster; the group immediately becomes a force to be reckoned with. Even if the widely discussed "reconciliation" process, requiring only 50 votes is utilized, the new group's support will be essential. The three group leaders are all honorary co-chairs of Third Way, a progressive Democratic policy group, and Senators Bayh and Carper have led the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.
While much of the media coverage on the Group of 15 was buried in the mass of coverage of the AIG bonuses issue, most reporting dealt with the groups influence and concerns with the Obama budget proposal. It is important to note that the group has defined its mission to help "shape public policy" in general. Major environmental issues on the table including climate change, cap-and-trade v. carbon tax, the California waiver, renewable energy standards, the future of coal, nuclear waste management, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and other public lands; Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and more; will obviously be high on the group's agenda.
With the Obama Administration already calling for bipartisan solutions to major issues, ending "earmarks as we know them," and making coal and nuclear power part of the energy mix, the new coalition may provide an interesting twist on finding more "middle of the road" solutions and buffering the opposition from the extreme ends of the Republican and Democratic parties. Early attempts at bipartisan solutions, as demonstrated by the narrow passage of the stimulus bill in the Senate, have proven difficult and will likely get worse with other major issues including controversial energy and environmental issues.
Senator Bayh indicated that the "Moderate Dems Working Group" will meet every other Tuesday before the Democratic Caucus lunch to discuss legislative strategies and ideas. The Moderate Dems held their second meeting Tuesday to focus on the upcoming budget negotiations and the importance of passing a fiscally responsible spending plan in the Senate. At the working group meeting, Senator Bayh acknowledged that such a large group was unlikely to agree on all major issues before the Senate. Yet he said, "the Moderate Dems are joined by a shared commitment to pursue pragmatic, fiscally sustainable policies across a range of issues, such as deficit containment, health care reform, the housing crisis, educational reform, energy policy and climate change."
Bayh said, “We have a wonderful opportunity to break gridlock in Washington and accomplish big things for the American people, but we also have a responsibility to pursue sensible solutions that will work. Our group seeks to work collaboratively with the Obama administration and Senate leadership to make sure legislation is crafted in a practical way that will solve people’s problems. It’s going to take all of us working together in the Senate to get the 60 votes necessary to deliver the change the American people deserve.”
Senator Carper said, “The number of moderate Democrats has grown substantially in the past two Congresses -- and in America. We can play a constructive role in helping our leadership and the Obama administration get things done in this new Congress. Now, more than ever, the Senate needs to put ideology aside, to find common ground on legislation, and to deliver results for the American people.”
Senator Lincoln said, “Arkansans are pragmatic and expect results from their leaders in Congress. I’m proud to play a constructive role as we work with the administration and Senate leadership to help reach consensus on important issues and serve as a voice for fiscal responsibility.”
Senator Bayh's release included a comment from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) saying, “If we are going to deliver the change Americans demanded and move our country forward, it will require the courage to get past our political differences and get to work. Established organizations like Third Way and new ventures like this group offer us a new opportunity to get things done, and I support every effort that puts real solutions above political posturing.”
Access a release from Senator Bayh (click here). [*All]
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Climate Change To Seriously Impact Public Health; Research Lacking
Mar 18: According to a release from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a report published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, "Climate change will seriously impact public health, but the United States is failing to support the research needed to prepare for it." The report, "U.S. Funding is Insufficient to Address the Human Health Impacts of and Public Health Responses to Climate Variability and Change" warns, "The lack of attention from the Federal government on the health risks of climate change to U.S. populations is needlessly putting multitudes at risk."
The report is co-authored by the same authors who wrote the Climate Change and Human Health chapter in the July 2008 U.S. EPA report [See WIMS 7/17/08] entitled, "Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems," including Environmental Defense Fund's Chief Health Scientist Dr. John Balbus. Dr. Balbus is also a member of the National Academy of Science Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research and Medicine, and the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The release indicates that global warming is expected to worsen many health problems, including heat-related mortality, diarrheal diseases, and diseases associated with exposure to ozone and allergens from the air. Health effects are also likely to result from altered air, water, agriculture, and ecosystems processes. Despite these facts, Federal funding of health research related to climate change is estimated to be less than $3 million per year. The report concludes that more than $200 million is needed annually to sponsor "robust intra- and extramural programs" in federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. EPA.
The report indicates that funding research in climate change and health research "that is directly linked to protective action at the local level is a wise investment, consistent with the goals of restoring economic stability, justice and environmental quality, and reducing health care costs." The inadequate level of U.S. funding, the report states, "appears to be due to the low priority placed on identifying and managing the health risks of climate change by Congress and the Federal government." The report also concludes that reporting of the research funding needs more transparency and clarity.
Access a release from EDF (click here). Access the complete 31-page report (click here). Access an abstract (click here). Access an overview, background documents and link to the complete 283-page EPA report referenced above (click here). [*Climate]
The report is co-authored by the same authors who wrote the Climate Change and Human Health chapter in the July 2008 U.S. EPA report [See WIMS 7/17/08] entitled, "Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems," including Environmental Defense Fund's Chief Health Scientist Dr. John Balbus. Dr. Balbus is also a member of the National Academy of Science Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research and Medicine, and the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The release indicates that global warming is expected to worsen many health problems, including heat-related mortality, diarrheal diseases, and diseases associated with exposure to ozone and allergens from the air. Health effects are also likely to result from altered air, water, agriculture, and ecosystems processes. Despite these facts, Federal funding of health research related to climate change is estimated to be less than $3 million per year. The report concludes that more than $200 million is needed annually to sponsor "robust intra- and extramural programs" in federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. EPA.
The report indicates that funding research in climate change and health research "that is directly linked to protective action at the local level is a wise investment, consistent with the goals of restoring economic stability, justice and environmental quality, and reducing health care costs." The inadequate level of U.S. funding, the report states, "appears to be due to the low priority placed on identifying and managing the health risks of climate change by Congress and the Federal government." The report also concludes that reporting of the research funding needs more transparency and clarity.
Access a release from EDF (click here). Access the complete 31-page report (click here). Access an abstract (click here). Access an overview, background documents and link to the complete 283-page EPA report referenced above (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
University Study Reveals Seven Myths About Green Jobs
Mar 16: According to a release from the University of Illinois College of Law, academics and researchers from four U.S. universities released a joint study, Seven Myths About Green Jobs, that analyzes the assumptions, findings and methodologies of green jobs projections and benefits put forth in reports issued by several special interest groups, industry associations and international organizations which have subsequently been widely referenced by government officials, policymakers and the media.
While acknowledging the importance of energy conservation and ongoing research and investment into new technologies, the authors set out to evaluate the fundamental soundness of green job claims. In aggregate, the academic team's study concludes that "a lack of sound research methods, erroneous economic assumptions and technological omissions have routinely been utilized to lend support, rather than provide legitimate analysis, to major public policies and government spending initiatives."
The report authors also indicate that the reports that were reviewed have been issued without the benefit of peer-reviewed analysis or transparency of their models and calculations. Reports analyzed by the academic team include those from the following organizations: The American Solar Energy Society (ASES); The Center for American Progress; The U.S. Conference of Mayors; and The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).
Professor Andrew Morriss, H. Ross & Helen Workman Professor of Law and Business and Professor at the University of Illinois' Institute for Government and Public Affairs said, "When the claim of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of green jobs are used as the basis for billions in new government spending, we ought to insist that those claims be backed by transparent documentation and sound methodology, not implausible assumptions and inconsistent definitions."
The release indicates that, "Key findings of the study show that no definition for green jobs exists causing great discrepancy in how numbers are counted; that green job estimates often include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic and administrative positions that do not produce goods or services for consumption; and that problematic assumptions are made about economic predictions, prices and technology advancements leading some to ultimately favor mandates over free market realities. These serious flaws, as well as the failure to include technical data, render the prevailing green job estimates virtually unreliable."
Dr. Roger Meiners, Goolsby Distinguished Professor of Economic and Law at the University of Texas-Arlington and a study co-author said, "It is not our intention to debate the energy proposals these jobs estimates seek to justify. We simply believe that if the government is going to establish a new policy paradigm and spend huge sums of money to do so, it should be based on verifiable data and peer-reviewed research."
Much of the study examines the methodology used by various special interest groups to calculate how many green jobs new energy policies would create. The authors indicate that, "Starting with simple fundamentals, these studies do not define new job creation in an economically sound manner failing to account for employment productivity or efficient use of labor. These basic flaws make comparison of job claims almost impossible and thus fail to create a statistical consensus."
Dr. William Bogart, Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Economics at York College of Pennsylvania, another study author said, "Economic analysis is not a matter of justifying policy goals by making optimistic assumptions and ignoring those realities that fail to support your objectives. Our work here clearly shows that the foundations of these 'green' jobs claims do not measure up to the kind of research standards we should demand when evaluating change in direction for our economy."
The study notes that one of the major flaws in existing research is "its failure to acknowledge that mandating a move to new 'green' sectors of the economy and away from fossil fuel-based sectors will shift jobs rather than create new jobs and thus overall economic growth." The study concludes that "significant opportunities abound to develop new energy sources, new industries, and new eco-friendly jobs in the future but that a market-based process will do a far better job than could a series of government mandates based on flawed data."
Access a release on the study and an executive summary (click here). Access a 20-page article reviewing the issues (click here); and a 100-page, in-depth analysis (click here). [Note: click on "Download" at the top of the page and then click on the SSRN logo to begin download.] Access the Twitter RSS feed for "Myths About Green Jobs" for updates on reactions to this report (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
While acknowledging the importance of energy conservation and ongoing research and investment into new technologies, the authors set out to evaluate the fundamental soundness of green job claims. In aggregate, the academic team's study concludes that "a lack of sound research methods, erroneous economic assumptions and technological omissions have routinely been utilized to lend support, rather than provide legitimate analysis, to major public policies and government spending initiatives."
The report authors also indicate that the reports that were reviewed have been issued without the benefit of peer-reviewed analysis or transparency of their models and calculations. Reports analyzed by the academic team include those from the following organizations: The American Solar Energy Society (ASES); The Center for American Progress; The U.S. Conference of Mayors; and The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).
Professor Andrew Morriss, H. Ross & Helen Workman Professor of Law and Business and Professor at the University of Illinois' Institute for Government and Public Affairs said, "When the claim of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of green jobs are used as the basis for billions in new government spending, we ought to insist that those claims be backed by transparent documentation and sound methodology, not implausible assumptions and inconsistent definitions."
The release indicates that, "Key findings of the study show that no definition for green jobs exists causing great discrepancy in how numbers are counted; that green job estimates often include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic and administrative positions that do not produce goods or services for consumption; and that problematic assumptions are made about economic predictions, prices and technology advancements leading some to ultimately favor mandates over free market realities. These serious flaws, as well as the failure to include technical data, render the prevailing green job estimates virtually unreliable."
Dr. Roger Meiners, Goolsby Distinguished Professor of Economic and Law at the University of Texas-Arlington and a study co-author said, "It is not our intention to debate the energy proposals these jobs estimates seek to justify. We simply believe that if the government is going to establish a new policy paradigm and spend huge sums of money to do so, it should be based on verifiable data and peer-reviewed research."
Much of the study examines the methodology used by various special interest groups to calculate how many green jobs new energy policies would create. The authors indicate that, "Starting with simple fundamentals, these studies do not define new job creation in an economically sound manner failing to account for employment productivity or efficient use of labor. These basic flaws make comparison of job claims almost impossible and thus fail to create a statistical consensus."
Dr. William Bogart, Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Economics at York College of Pennsylvania, another study author said, "Economic analysis is not a matter of justifying policy goals by making optimistic assumptions and ignoring those realities that fail to support your objectives. Our work here clearly shows that the foundations of these 'green' jobs claims do not measure up to the kind of research standards we should demand when evaluating change in direction for our economy."
The study notes that one of the major flaws in existing research is "its failure to acknowledge that mandating a move to new 'green' sectors of the economy and away from fossil fuel-based sectors will shift jobs rather than create new jobs and thus overall economic growth." The study concludes that "significant opportunities abound to develop new energy sources, new industries, and new eco-friendly jobs in the future but that a market-based process will do a far better job than could a series of government mandates based on flawed data."
Access a release on the study and an executive summary (click here). Access a 20-page article reviewing the issues (click here); and a 100-page, in-depth analysis (click here). [Note: click on "Download" at the top of the page and then click on the SSRN logo to begin download.] Access the Twitter RSS feed for "Myths About Green Jobs" for updates on reactions to this report (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, March 16, 2009
Formaldehyde & 1,4-Dioxane In Popular Baby Bath Products
Mar 12: Despite marketing claims like “gentle” and “pure,” dozens of top-selling children’s bath products are contaminated with the cancer-causing chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, according to the March 2009 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) report entitled, "No More Toxic Tub." This study is the first to document the widespread presence of both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane in bath products for children, including baby shampoos, bubble baths and baby lotions. Many products tested contained both chemicals.
The founding members of the CSC include: Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, National Black Environmental Justice Network, National Environmental Trust and Women's Voices for the Earth.
The CSC commissioned an independent laboratory to test 48 products for 1,4-dioxane; 28 of those products were also tested for formaldehyde. The lab found that: 17 out of 28 products tested -- 61 percent -- contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. 23 out of 28 products -- 82 percent -- contained formaldehyde at levels ranging from 54 to 610 parts per million (ppm). 32 out of 48 products -- 67 percent -- contained 1,4-dioxane at levels ranging from 0.27 to 35 ppm. Products tested included top-selling Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, Sesame Street Bubble Bath, and Baby Magic.
Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at Environmental Working Group (EWG) and creator of the Skin Deep cosmetic safety database said, “Products made in the U.S. and marketed for children should not contain chemicals linked to cancer or any other health problem,” said Congress urgently needs to reform federal policy to protect the most vulnerable members of our society by ensuring that the personal care products we use every day are free from harmful chemicals.”
According to a release from EWG, formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are known to cause cancer in animals and are listed as probable human carcinogens by U.S. EPA. Formaldehyde can also trigger skin rashes in some children. Sharon Jacob, M.D., assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California San Diego and contact dermatitis specialist at Rady Children’s Hospital said, “Given the recent data showing that formaldehyde and the formaldehyde-releasing preservative, quaternium-15, are significant sensitizers and causal agents of contact dermatitis in children, it would be prudent to have these removed from children’s products." The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says that “the presence of 1,4-dioxane, even as a trace contaminant, is cause for concern.”
According to the announcement from CSC, "While a single product might not be cause for concern, the reality is that babies may be exposed to several products at bath time, several times a week, in addition to other chemical exposures in the home and environment. Those small exposures add up and may contribute to later-life disease." EWG indicates that, "Contrary to industry statements, there are no regulatory standards that limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane or most other toxic chemicals in personal care products sold in the United States. Other nations have stricter standards. Formaldehyde is banned from personal care products in Japan and Sweden. The European Union bans 1,4-dioxane from personal care products and has recalled products found to contain the chemical."
CSC reported that Congressional concerns are picking up. The cited the following Congressional leaders expressing concerns. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said, “When products for babies are labeled ‘gentle’ and ‘pure,’ parents expect that they are just that. To think that cancer-causing chemicals are contaminating baby shampoos and lotions is horrifying. I intend to soon introduce legislation requiring greater oversight of our cosmetics industry. We need to ensure that the chemicals that are used in our everyday products are safe.” Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said, “The fact that we are bathing our kids in products contaminated with carcinogens shows how woefully out of date our cosmetics laws are and how urgently they need to be updated. The science has moved forward, now the FDA needs to catch up and be given the authority to protect the health of Americans.” Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) commented that, “Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are better suited for the chem lab, not a child's bathtub. This important report shows that 'No More Tears' can trigger toxic fears, and it provides another reason why these and other cosmetic products must be further regulated. ”
Access an announcement from CSC (click here). Access the complete 32-page report (click here). Access a release from CSC with links to more information (click here). Access the EWG Cosmetics database (click here). [*Toxics]
The founding members of the CSC include: Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, National Black Environmental Justice Network, National Environmental Trust and Women's Voices for the Earth.
The CSC commissioned an independent laboratory to test 48 products for 1,4-dioxane; 28 of those products were also tested for formaldehyde. The lab found that: 17 out of 28 products tested -- 61 percent -- contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. 23 out of 28 products -- 82 percent -- contained formaldehyde at levels ranging from 54 to 610 parts per million (ppm). 32 out of 48 products -- 67 percent -- contained 1,4-dioxane at levels ranging from 0.27 to 35 ppm. Products tested included top-selling Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, Sesame Street Bubble Bath, and Baby Magic.
Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at Environmental Working Group (EWG) and creator of the Skin Deep cosmetic safety database said, “Products made in the U.S. and marketed for children should not contain chemicals linked to cancer or any other health problem,” said Congress urgently needs to reform federal policy to protect the most vulnerable members of our society by ensuring that the personal care products we use every day are free from harmful chemicals.”
According to a release from EWG, formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are known to cause cancer in animals and are listed as probable human carcinogens by U.S. EPA. Formaldehyde can also trigger skin rashes in some children. Sharon Jacob, M.D., assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California San Diego and contact dermatitis specialist at Rady Children’s Hospital said, “Given the recent data showing that formaldehyde and the formaldehyde-releasing preservative, quaternium-15, are significant sensitizers and causal agents of contact dermatitis in children, it would be prudent to have these removed from children’s products." The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says that “the presence of 1,4-dioxane, even as a trace contaminant, is cause for concern.”
According to the announcement from CSC, "While a single product might not be cause for concern, the reality is that babies may be exposed to several products at bath time, several times a week, in addition to other chemical exposures in the home and environment. Those small exposures add up and may contribute to later-life disease." EWG indicates that, "Contrary to industry statements, there are no regulatory standards that limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane or most other toxic chemicals in personal care products sold in the United States. Other nations have stricter standards. Formaldehyde is banned from personal care products in Japan and Sweden. The European Union bans 1,4-dioxane from personal care products and has recalled products found to contain the chemical."
CSC reported that Congressional concerns are picking up. The cited the following Congressional leaders expressing concerns. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said, “When products for babies are labeled ‘gentle’ and ‘pure,’ parents expect that they are just that. To think that cancer-causing chemicals are contaminating baby shampoos and lotions is horrifying. I intend to soon introduce legislation requiring greater oversight of our cosmetics industry. We need to ensure that the chemicals that are used in our everyday products are safe.” Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said, “The fact that we are bathing our kids in products contaminated with carcinogens shows how woefully out of date our cosmetics laws are and how urgently they need to be updated. The science has moved forward, now the FDA needs to catch up and be given the authority to protect the health of Americans.” Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) commented that, “Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are better suited for the chem lab, not a child's bathtub. This important report shows that 'No More Tears' can trigger toxic fears, and it provides another reason why these and other cosmetic products must be further regulated. ”
Access an announcement from CSC (click here). Access the complete 32-page report (click here). Access a release from CSC with links to more information (click here). Access the EWG Cosmetics database (click here). [*Toxics]
Friday, March 13, 2009
NAS Report Warns Climate Change Alters Design Assumptions
Mar 12: A report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) warns that many state and local officials and private organizations are basing decisions -- such as how to build bridges, manage water supplies, implementing zoning rules, using private motor vehicles -- on the assumption that current climate conditions will continue, but that assumption is no longer valid. The report recommends that to produce the climate information these decision makers need and to deliver it to them effectively, Federal agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. EPA should expand their activities in these areas.
The report -- Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate -- recommends six principles that all agencies should follow in supporting decision makers who are facing the effects of climate change. The report says, "agencies' efforts should be driven by the needs of end users in the field, not by scientific research priorities. And agencies should create close ties between the scientists who produce climate change information and the practitioners who use it." The committee that wrote the report also urged an expansion of Federal research to generate the information regional and local decision makers need -- for example, studies on which locations are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and on ways to mitigate or adapt to these effects. Studies should also assess the best ways to collect and disseminate such information.
In addition, the report calls for a new Federal initiative to identify and serve decision makers, such as county planners, who may not already be served by particular agencies. This new initiative should not be centralized in a single agency; instead, it should involve and coordinate all agencies that either serve constituencies affected by climate change or collect the information that these decision makers need. This broad initiative will need strong leadership from the Executive Office of the President, including the President's science adviser and the new coordinator of energy and climate policy.
According to the report, "As a result of human activity, the average temperature of Earth will soon leave the less-than-1 degree Celsius range that it has maintained for more than 10,000 years. Moreover, despite 15 years of intense international climate negotiations, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been growing 33 percent faster during the last 8 years than they did in the 1990s.
"Climate change will create a novel and dynamic decision environment. The parameters of the new climate regime cannot be envisioned from past experience. Moreover, climatic changes will be superimposed on social and economic changes that are altering the climate vulnerability of different regions and sectors of society, as well as their ability to cope. Decision makers will need new kinds of information and new ways of thinking and learning to function effectively in a changing climate. Many decision makers are experiencing or anticipating a new climate regime and are asking questions about climate change and potential responses to it that federal agencies are unprepared to answer. . .
"Our study found that climate change poses challenges not only for the many decision makers it will affect, but also for federal agencies and for the scientific community. The end of climate stationarity requires that organizations and individuals alter their standard practices and decision routines to account for climate change."
Among the many recommendations contained in the report, the first recommendations is: "Government agencies at all levels and other organizations, including in the scientific community, should organize their decision support efforts around six principles of effective decision support: (1) begin with users’ needs; (2) give priority to process over products; (3) link information producers and users; (4) build connections across disciplines and organizations; (5) seek institutional stability; and (6) design processes for learning."
Access a release on the report from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here). [*Climate]
The report -- Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate -- recommends six principles that all agencies should follow in supporting decision makers who are facing the effects of climate change. The report says, "agencies' efforts should be driven by the needs of end users in the field, not by scientific research priorities. And agencies should create close ties between the scientists who produce climate change information and the practitioners who use it." The committee that wrote the report also urged an expansion of Federal research to generate the information regional and local decision makers need -- for example, studies on which locations are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and on ways to mitigate or adapt to these effects. Studies should also assess the best ways to collect and disseminate such information.
In addition, the report calls for a new Federal initiative to identify and serve decision makers, such as county planners, who may not already be served by particular agencies. This new initiative should not be centralized in a single agency; instead, it should involve and coordinate all agencies that either serve constituencies affected by climate change or collect the information that these decision makers need. This broad initiative will need strong leadership from the Executive Office of the President, including the President's science adviser and the new coordinator of energy and climate policy.
According to the report, "As a result of human activity, the average temperature of Earth will soon leave the less-than-1 degree Celsius range that it has maintained for more than 10,000 years. Moreover, despite 15 years of intense international climate negotiations, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been growing 33 percent faster during the last 8 years than they did in the 1990s.
"Climate change will create a novel and dynamic decision environment. The parameters of the new climate regime cannot be envisioned from past experience. Moreover, climatic changes will be superimposed on social and economic changes that are altering the climate vulnerability of different regions and sectors of society, as well as their ability to cope. Decision makers will need new kinds of information and new ways of thinking and learning to function effectively in a changing climate. Many decision makers are experiencing or anticipating a new climate regime and are asking questions about climate change and potential responses to it that federal agencies are unprepared to answer. . .
"Our study found that climate change poses challenges not only for the many decision makers it will affect, but also for federal agencies and for the scientific community. The end of climate stationarity requires that organizations and individuals alter their standard practices and decision routines to account for climate change."
Among the many recommendations contained in the report, the first recommendations is: "Government agencies at all levels and other organizations, including in the scientific community, should organize their decision support efforts around six principles of effective decision support: (1) begin with users’ needs; (2) give priority to process over products; (3) link information producers and users; (4) build connections across disciplines and organizations; (5) seek institutional stability; and (6) design processes for learning."
Access a release on the report from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, March 12, 2009
House Science Subcommittee Examines "Advance Coal Programs"
Mar 11: The House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Brian Baird (D-WA), held a hearing to examine FutureGen and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) advanced coal programs. Subcommittee Members heard testimony on near-term and long-term strategies to accelerate research, development and demonstration of advanced technologies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.
At the hearing Members discussed a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report comparing the DOE’s past efforts to where they are now to determine the best path to take moving forward. According to a Committee release, it is well understood that the burning of fossil fuels significantly contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal and 41 percent of the electricity produced worldwide comes from coal. China is the world’s largest coal user, accounting for 63 percent of the country’s total primary energy supply.
Subcommittee Chairman Baird, said, “We burn a lot of coal in this country and around the world. The United States is one of the largest consumers of coal and this is one of the major reasons we are one of the largest emitters of gases that lead to lethal warming and acidification of our oceans. But we are not the only country with strong dependence on coal. China and India have both expanded their coal use, and in 2007 China surpassed us to become the largest contributor to global CO2 emissions. I do not say this to point fingers, but to point out that climate change truly is a global problem, and we must work with other developed nations and developing economies to find solutions to this staggering problem.”
It was noted that the DOE manages several programs -- such as the Clean Coal Power Initiative, FutureGen, Innovations from Existing Plants Programs, Advanced Turbines Program, Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Program, Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership -- designed to research and develop new technologies to help reduce GHG emissions from our nation’s coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources while also maximizing performances and minimizing costs.
In 2003, the DOE’s FutureGen initiative was announced by the Bush Administration as the first zero-emissions, coal-fired electricity-generating plant that would also test advanced coal technologies. Under the FutureGen program, DOE would oversee a consortium of industrial interests and international partners that would manage the construction of a $1 billion next-generation integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant to produce electricity and hydrogen. In January of 2008, the DOE announced a major restructuring of the FutureGen program which eliminated the hydrogen production and the living laboratory of components of the original program and left our international partners unsure of their involvement with the initiative. Since the announcement of the restructuring of FutureGen, the DOE has received many proposals to review. Recently, Secretary Steven Chu testified that he would support the original FutureGen plant with “some modifications.”
In February 2008, the Science Committee asked GAO to investigate the Bush Administration’s decision to pull their support for FutureGen -- a project intended to demonstrate the next generation of coal-fired power production and once the centerpiece of the Department of Energy’s(DOE) program on clean coal technology [See WIMS 2/19/08]. At the hearing, GAO released a 53-page report entitled, Clean Coal: DOE's Decision to Restructure FutureGen Should Be Based on a Comprehensive Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Risks (GAO-09-248, February 13, 2009). GAO also released a 9-page testimony delivered to the Subcommittee entitled, Clean Coal: DOE Should Prepare a Comprehensive Analysis of the Relative Costs, Benefits, and Risks of a Range of Options for FutureGen (GAO-09-465T, March 11, 2009.
GAO testified that the original FutureGen plant was to capture and store underground about 90 percent of its CO2 emissions. DOE’s cost share was to be 74 percent, and industry partners agreed to fund the rest. Concerned about escalating costs, DOE announced in January 2008 that it had decided to restructure FutureGen. In October 2008, DOE received a small number of applications for the restructured FutureGen; however, some of these applications were for proposals outside the restructured FutureGen’s scope. DOE is currently assessing proposals received and stated it expected to announce a selection of projects by December 2008; however, as of the beginning of March 2009, it had made no decision.
DOE requested supplemental information from restructured FutureGen applicants, which will be reviewed before any selection decision. GAO indicated, "As you know, the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, known as the stimulus law, provides DOE an additional $3.4 billion for 'Fossil Energy Research and Development'. Such a substantial amount of funding could significantly impact DOE’s decisions about how to move forward with programs such as FutureGen."
GAO concluded, "Given the magnitude of the current fiscal and economic challenges facing our nation, along with the urgent need to secure an adequate and sustainable energy supply that does not contribute to climate change, much rides on the success of clean coal programs, such as FutureGen. To ensure the best uses of billions of federal dollars, informed and thoughtful approaches should be taken when making decisions about these programs, including the restructuring of FutureGen." GAO indicated that its February 2009 report recommended that DOE conduct a comprehensive analysis of different options.
In its February report, GAO concludes, ". . .in its decision, DOE [the Bush DOE] compared two cost estimates for the original FutureGen that were not comparable because DOE’s $950 million estimate was in constant 2004 dollars and the $1.8 billion estimate of DOE’s industry partners was inflated through 2017. As its restructuring decision did not consider a comprehensive analysis of costs, benefits, and risks, DOE has no assurance that the restructured FutureGen is the best option to advance CCS."
Senior Committee Member Jerry Costello (D-IL), where the original FutureGen project was to be located said, “These reports make clear the decision by President Bush and Secretary Bodman was not supported by the facts. The result is we lost at least a year and a half and perhaps more time to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies. President Bush took what could have been a tremendous bipartisan achievement with real impact on global climate change and made it yet another poor decision.”
Full Committee Chair, Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) said, "It is extremely unfortunate that the previous Administration used ‘bad math’ to restructure a major climate-change initiative. The end result has been lost time to develop carbon capture storage (CCS) technologies and increased skepticism from around the globe about our commitment to demonstrate CCS."
Representative Baird said, “I think the United States should take the lead in reducing energy consumption and particularly consumption of fossil fuels. We have a variety of tools at our disposal to accomplish that goal. We can develop and deploy advanced, green technologies, adopt better conservation practices and energy efficiency policies, and as individuals, behave more responsibly. Without bold policies and public and personal commitment, we run the risk of serious damage to our environment and our society. That outcome is simply unacceptable. It is my sincere hope and expectation that we can devise a strategy forward that achieves remarkable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in a safe, responsible and sustainable manner.”
Access the Committee release on the hearing (click here). Access the hearing website with links to testimony, the GAO report, a staff report, the hearing charter, and extensive background information (click here).
At the hearing Members discussed a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report comparing the DOE’s past efforts to where they are now to determine the best path to take moving forward. According to a Committee release, it is well understood that the burning of fossil fuels significantly contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal and 41 percent of the electricity produced worldwide comes from coal. China is the world’s largest coal user, accounting for 63 percent of the country’s total primary energy supply.
Subcommittee Chairman Baird, said, “We burn a lot of coal in this country and around the world. The United States is one of the largest consumers of coal and this is one of the major reasons we are one of the largest emitters of gases that lead to lethal warming and acidification of our oceans. But we are not the only country with strong dependence on coal. China and India have both expanded their coal use, and in 2007 China surpassed us to become the largest contributor to global CO2 emissions. I do not say this to point fingers, but to point out that climate change truly is a global problem, and we must work with other developed nations and developing economies to find solutions to this staggering problem.”
It was noted that the DOE manages several programs -- such as the Clean Coal Power Initiative, FutureGen, Innovations from Existing Plants Programs, Advanced Turbines Program, Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Program, Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership -- designed to research and develop new technologies to help reduce GHG emissions from our nation’s coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources while also maximizing performances and minimizing costs.
In 2003, the DOE’s FutureGen initiative was announced by the Bush Administration as the first zero-emissions, coal-fired electricity-generating plant that would also test advanced coal technologies. Under the FutureGen program, DOE would oversee a consortium of industrial interests and international partners that would manage the construction of a $1 billion next-generation integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant to produce electricity and hydrogen. In January of 2008, the DOE announced a major restructuring of the FutureGen program which eliminated the hydrogen production and the living laboratory of components of the original program and left our international partners unsure of their involvement with the initiative. Since the announcement of the restructuring of FutureGen, the DOE has received many proposals to review. Recently, Secretary Steven Chu testified that he would support the original FutureGen plant with “some modifications.”
In February 2008, the Science Committee asked GAO to investigate the Bush Administration’s decision to pull their support for FutureGen -- a project intended to demonstrate the next generation of coal-fired power production and once the centerpiece of the Department of Energy’s(DOE) program on clean coal technology [See WIMS 2/19/08]. At the hearing, GAO released a 53-page report entitled, Clean Coal: DOE's Decision to Restructure FutureGen Should Be Based on a Comprehensive Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Risks (GAO-09-248, February 13, 2009). GAO also released a 9-page testimony delivered to the Subcommittee entitled, Clean Coal: DOE Should Prepare a Comprehensive Analysis of the Relative Costs, Benefits, and Risks of a Range of Options for FutureGen (GAO-09-465T, March 11, 2009.
GAO testified that the original FutureGen plant was to capture and store underground about 90 percent of its CO2 emissions. DOE’s cost share was to be 74 percent, and industry partners agreed to fund the rest. Concerned about escalating costs, DOE announced in January 2008 that it had decided to restructure FutureGen. In October 2008, DOE received a small number of applications for the restructured FutureGen; however, some of these applications were for proposals outside the restructured FutureGen’s scope. DOE is currently assessing proposals received and stated it expected to announce a selection of projects by December 2008; however, as of the beginning of March 2009, it had made no decision.
DOE requested supplemental information from restructured FutureGen applicants, which will be reviewed before any selection decision. GAO indicated, "As you know, the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, known as the stimulus law, provides DOE an additional $3.4 billion for 'Fossil Energy Research and Development'. Such a substantial amount of funding could significantly impact DOE’s decisions about how to move forward with programs such as FutureGen."
GAO concluded, "Given the magnitude of the current fiscal and economic challenges facing our nation, along with the urgent need to secure an adequate and sustainable energy supply that does not contribute to climate change, much rides on the success of clean coal programs, such as FutureGen. To ensure the best uses of billions of federal dollars, informed and thoughtful approaches should be taken when making decisions about these programs, including the restructuring of FutureGen." GAO indicated that its February 2009 report recommended that DOE conduct a comprehensive analysis of different options.
In its February report, GAO concludes, ". . .in its decision, DOE [the Bush DOE] compared two cost estimates for the original FutureGen that were not comparable because DOE’s $950 million estimate was in constant 2004 dollars and the $1.8 billion estimate of DOE’s industry partners was inflated through 2017. As its restructuring decision did not consider a comprehensive analysis of costs, benefits, and risks, DOE has no assurance that the restructured FutureGen is the best option to advance CCS."
Senior Committee Member Jerry Costello (D-IL), where the original FutureGen project was to be located said, “These reports make clear the decision by President Bush and Secretary Bodman was not supported by the facts. The result is we lost at least a year and a half and perhaps more time to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies. President Bush took what could have been a tremendous bipartisan achievement with real impact on global climate change and made it yet another poor decision.”
Full Committee Chair, Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) said, "It is extremely unfortunate that the previous Administration used ‘bad math’ to restructure a major climate-change initiative. The end result has been lost time to develop carbon capture storage (CCS) technologies and increased skepticism from around the globe about our commitment to demonstrate CCS."
Representative Baird said, “I think the United States should take the lead in reducing energy consumption and particularly consumption of fossil fuels. We have a variety of tools at our disposal to accomplish that goal. We can develop and deploy advanced, green technologies, adopt better conservation practices and energy efficiency policies, and as individuals, behave more responsibly. Without bold policies and public and personal commitment, we run the risk of serious damage to our environment and our society. That outcome is simply unacceptable. It is my sincere hope and expectation that we can devise a strategy forward that achieves remarkable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in a safe, responsible and sustainable manner.”
Access the Committee release on the hearing (click here). Access the hearing website with links to testimony, the GAO report, a staff report, the hearing charter, and extensive background information (click here).
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
DOE Testimony On Budget; Climate; Coal; Nuclear Power; Yucca
Mar 11: Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu testified before the Senate Budget Committee, Chaired by Senator Ken Conrad (D-ND), with Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-NH), to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget for DOE. Chu said, "The President’s Budget recognizes the enormous challenges and threats we face because of the ways we use energy. Today, we import roughly 60 percent of our oil, draining resources from our economy and leaving it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Much of that oil is controlled by regimes that do not share our values, weakening our security. Additionally, if we continue our current rates of greenhouse gas emissions, the consequences for our climate could be disastrous."
He said, ". . .we must decrease our dependence on oil, use energy in the most efficient ways possible, and lower our carbon emissions. Meeting these challenges will require both swift action in the near-term and a sustained commitment for the long-term to build a new economy, powered by clean, reliable, affordable, and secure energy."
He began with an overview of provisions contained within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, the "stimulus bill"). It includes $5 billion to weatherize the homes of low-income families; a $1,500 tax credit to help homeowners invest in efficiency upgrades; $4.5 billion to “green” federal buildings, including reducing their energy consumption; and $6.3 billion for state and local efficiency and renewable efforts. It also includes: $6 billion for loan guarantees and more than $13 billion in estimated tax credits and financial assistance instruments (grants and cooperative agreements) that may leverage tens of billions in private sector investment in clean energy and job creation. Additionally, it includes investments in key technologies, such as $2 billion in advanced battery manufacturing; $3.4 billion for fossil energy research and development in support of clean coal efforts; and $4.5 billion to modernize the electric grid.
He said the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget "will continue this transformation to a clean energy economy, while returning to fiscal responsibility." The FY 2010 Budget provides $26.3 billion for the Department of Energy, with investments in basic science and in clean energy technologies, while securing and properly managing our nation’s nuclear materials. He indicated that the budget is coordinated with the ARRA and complements those investments. The line-by-line details of the FY 2010 budget are not final yet.
Chu highlighted the priorities within the FY 2010 Budget including: Investing in Science; Clean Energy Technology; Smart Electricity Infrastructure; Increased Nuclear Security; and a Cap-and-Trade System. On the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository he said, "the Budget begins to eliminate funding for Yucca Mountain as a repository for our nation’s nuclear waste. Both the President and I have made clear that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option and that we will begin a thoughtful dialogue on a better solution for our nuclear waste storage needs."
On the Cap-and-Trade system he said, "For the longer term, the President has pledged to work with Congress to design a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such legislation will place a market-based cap on carbon emissions and drive the production of more renewable energy in America. It will provide the framework for transforming our energy system to make our economy less carbon-intensive, and less dependent on oil."
In response to questions from Senator Conrad he said, "we have to develop clean coal technology" and carbon sequestration. Senator Gregg asked, "Is the Administration going to support licensing new nuclear power plants?" Chu responded that nuclear power must be part of the overall energy mix and he doesn't think that nuclear licensing should be put on hold. He said he would support more funding to encourage the nuclear power industry to grow. In response to a question -- Shouldn't we be drilling more aggressively for natural gas? He said developing more natural gas should be part of our overall energy plan.
In closing comments Senator Conrad commented on climate change and said, "I think it is very important for the administration to understand what I am hearing. You know, I reported yesterday some of what I had been hearing, and I know it discomforts some in the administration to hear that the budget as is, in my judgment, just as it has been written, probably can’t pass here. I say that because I have colleagues coming to me every day saying to me, 'If this is in, don’t count on my vote.'”
In a release on the hearing, Senator Gregg commented, "I’m also concerned about climate change and I think we should try to move away from carbon-based production of energy and that’s why I’ve been a strong supporter of nuclear power. And I’m genuinely concerned about this Administration’s approach to nuclear power. If you look at the recent stimulus bill that was passed, stripped from that bill was approximately $50 billion of potential loan guarantees, which would have helped us fund an expansion of nuclear power."
Access the complete testimony of Secretary Chu (click here). Access charts used at the hearing (click here). Access a link to a flash player webcast of the hearing (click here, scroll down to "Wednesday, March 11"). Access the statement from Senator Conrad (click here). Access a release from Senator Gregg (click here). [*Energy]
He said, ". . .we must decrease our dependence on oil, use energy in the most efficient ways possible, and lower our carbon emissions. Meeting these challenges will require both swift action in the near-term and a sustained commitment for the long-term to build a new economy, powered by clean, reliable, affordable, and secure energy."
He began with an overview of provisions contained within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, the "stimulus bill"). It includes $5 billion to weatherize the homes of low-income families; a $1,500 tax credit to help homeowners invest in efficiency upgrades; $4.5 billion to “green” federal buildings, including reducing their energy consumption; and $6.3 billion for state and local efficiency and renewable efforts. It also includes: $6 billion for loan guarantees and more than $13 billion in estimated tax credits and financial assistance instruments (grants and cooperative agreements) that may leverage tens of billions in private sector investment in clean energy and job creation. Additionally, it includes investments in key technologies, such as $2 billion in advanced battery manufacturing; $3.4 billion for fossil energy research and development in support of clean coal efforts; and $4.5 billion to modernize the electric grid.
He said the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget "will continue this transformation to a clean energy economy, while returning to fiscal responsibility." The FY 2010 Budget provides $26.3 billion for the Department of Energy, with investments in basic science and in clean energy technologies, while securing and properly managing our nation’s nuclear materials. He indicated that the budget is coordinated with the ARRA and complements those investments. The line-by-line details of the FY 2010 budget are not final yet.
Chu highlighted the priorities within the FY 2010 Budget including: Investing in Science; Clean Energy Technology; Smart Electricity Infrastructure; Increased Nuclear Security; and a Cap-and-Trade System. On the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository he said, "the Budget begins to eliminate funding for Yucca Mountain as a repository for our nation’s nuclear waste. Both the President and I have made clear that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option and that we will begin a thoughtful dialogue on a better solution for our nuclear waste storage needs."
On the Cap-and-Trade system he said, "For the longer term, the President has pledged to work with Congress to design a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such legislation will place a market-based cap on carbon emissions and drive the production of more renewable energy in America. It will provide the framework for transforming our energy system to make our economy less carbon-intensive, and less dependent on oil."
In response to questions from Senator Conrad he said, "we have to develop clean coal technology" and carbon sequestration. Senator Gregg asked, "Is the Administration going to support licensing new nuclear power plants?" Chu responded that nuclear power must be part of the overall energy mix and he doesn't think that nuclear licensing should be put on hold. He said he would support more funding to encourage the nuclear power industry to grow. In response to a question -- Shouldn't we be drilling more aggressively for natural gas? He said developing more natural gas should be part of our overall energy plan.
In closing comments Senator Conrad commented on climate change and said, "I think it is very important for the administration to understand what I am hearing. You know, I reported yesterday some of what I had been hearing, and I know it discomforts some in the administration to hear that the budget as is, in my judgment, just as it has been written, probably can’t pass here. I say that because I have colleagues coming to me every day saying to me, 'If this is in, don’t count on my vote.'”
In a release on the hearing, Senator Gregg commented, "I’m also concerned about climate change and I think we should try to move away from carbon-based production of energy and that’s why I’ve been a strong supporter of nuclear power. And I’m genuinely concerned about this Administration’s approach to nuclear power. If you look at the recent stimulus bill that was passed, stripped from that bill was approximately $50 billion of potential loan guarantees, which would have helped us fund an expansion of nuclear power."
Access the complete testimony of Secretary Chu (click here). Access charts used at the hearing (click here). Access a link to a flash player webcast of the hearing (click here, scroll down to "Wednesday, March 11"). Access the statement from Senator Conrad (click here). Access a release from Senator Gregg (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Presidential Memorandum On Scientific Integrity
Mar 9: As part of the well publicized signing of Stem Cell Executive Order, President Obama also signed a separate Presidential Memorandum On Scientific Integrity. Regarding the Memorandum, the President said, ""Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology."
According to the White House, the Memorandum helps to implement one of the President’s key campaign commitments on science policy, which was to "restore scientific integrity in government decision making." A fact sheet indicates that science and technology are essential to achieving a broad range of national goals: driving economic growth and job creation; allowing Americans to live longer, healthier lives; developing clean sources of energy that reduce our dependence on foreign oil; protecting our environment for future generations of Americans; strengthening national and homeland security; and more.
Realizing the potential of science and technology to help achieve all of these goals requires that the Administration’s decisions about public policy be guided by the most accurate and objective scientific advice available. The public must be able to trust that advice, as well, and to be confident that public officials will not conceal or distort the scientific findings that are relevant to policy choices. Accordingly, the President is assigning to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) [Dr. John Holdren, nominated to be Director OSTP, See WIMS 2/13/09], the responsibility of ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological issues.
According to the Memo, within 120 days, the Director of OSTP must develop a strategy for ensuring that: (1) The selection of scientists and technology professionals for science and technology positions in the executive branch is based on those individuals’ scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, and experience; (2) Agencies make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied upon in policy decisions; (4) Agencies use scientific and technological information that has been subject to well-established scientific processes such as peer review; and (5) Agencies have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency, including whistleblower protection.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) indicated that the Obama Memo follows the recommendations they made to prevent the abuse, manipulation and suppression of federal science. Dr. Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS's Scientific Integrity Program said, "Just a few years ago, almost 15,000 scientists across the country signed a UCS-sponsored statement denouncing the politicization of federal science, and today's memorandum is proof that the Obama administration heard their cry. Federal policy decisions that affect public health and the environment must be based on robust scientific analysis free of political interference and manipulation. UCS surveys at nine agencies have documented that, over the past eight years, federal scientists have been working in a climate of fear and intimidation. For example, 60 percent of the EPA scientists who filled out a 2007 survey said they personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the previous five years. . ."
Access a fact sheet on the Memo (click here). Access the complete text of the Memo (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access UCS's Scientific Integrity website for more information (click here). [*All]
According to the White House, the Memorandum helps to implement one of the President’s key campaign commitments on science policy, which was to "restore scientific integrity in government decision making." A fact sheet indicates that science and technology are essential to achieving a broad range of national goals: driving economic growth and job creation; allowing Americans to live longer, healthier lives; developing clean sources of energy that reduce our dependence on foreign oil; protecting our environment for future generations of Americans; strengthening national and homeland security; and more.
Realizing the potential of science and technology to help achieve all of these goals requires that the Administration’s decisions about public policy be guided by the most accurate and objective scientific advice available. The public must be able to trust that advice, as well, and to be confident that public officials will not conceal or distort the scientific findings that are relevant to policy choices. Accordingly, the President is assigning to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) [Dr. John Holdren, nominated to be Director OSTP, See WIMS 2/13/09], the responsibility of ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological issues.
According to the Memo, within 120 days, the Director of OSTP must develop a strategy for ensuring that: (1) The selection of scientists and technology professionals for science and technology positions in the executive branch is based on those individuals’ scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, and experience; (2) Agencies make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied upon in policy decisions; (4) Agencies use scientific and technological information that has been subject to well-established scientific processes such as peer review; and (5) Agencies have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency, including whistleblower protection.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) indicated that the Obama Memo follows the recommendations they made to prevent the abuse, manipulation and suppression of federal science. Dr. Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS's Scientific Integrity Program said, "Just a few years ago, almost 15,000 scientists across the country signed a UCS-sponsored statement denouncing the politicization of federal science, and today's memorandum is proof that the Obama administration heard their cry. Federal policy decisions that affect public health and the environment must be based on robust scientific analysis free of political interference and manipulation. UCS surveys at nine agencies have documented that, over the past eight years, federal scientists have been working in a climate of fear and intimidation. For example, 60 percent of the EPA scientists who filled out a 2007 survey said they personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the previous five years. . ."
Access a fact sheet on the Memo (click here). Access the complete text of the Memo (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access UCS's Scientific Integrity website for more information (click here). [*All]
Monday, March 09, 2009
Seven Democrats Introduces Alternative Carbon Tax Bill
Mar 5: Representative John Larson (D-CT) has introduced the America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009 (H.R. 1337), which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States domestic energy supply by creating a carbon tax. There are six cosponsors of the bill including: Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR); Rush Holt, (D-NJ); Jim McDermott (D-WA); George Miller (D-CA); James Moran (D-VA); and David Wu (D-OR). The bill, which counters the preferred "cap-and-trade" approach favored by most Democrats and President Obama to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.
According to the Carbon Tax Center (CTC), Representative Larson's new bill builds on and improves his 2007 bill with the following provisions: The first-year tax rate is $15 per ton of carbon dioxide; The rate rises by $10/ton per year; After five years, that increase rate is automatically bumped up to $15/ton if U.S. emissions stray from an EPA-certified glide path to cut emissions by 80% from 2005 levels in 2050; To protect domestic manufacturers, the bill authorizes the Treasury Department to impose a "carbon equivalency fee" on carbon-intensive products imported from non-carbon-taxing nations; Clean-tech R&D and investments are eligible for $10 billion a year in tax credits; Impacted workers and industries are eligible for transition assistance of $7.5 billion in the first year; this is phased out after year 10 but still totals $41 billion; and All other revenue is tax-shifted to Americans via reductions in payroll taxes.
Last year, Larson spoke on behalf of his carbon tax legislation and said, "Let's look at what would be revenue neutral. Let's look at taxing polluters upstream but passing the benefits downstream to the consumers, reducing payroll taxes and using our creativity and this committee's authority to create a system that will provide the opportunity and innovation and tax relief they need as well."
One of the major supporters of the carbon tax approach, as opposed to cap-and-trade is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who called carbon tax policy, like the one in Congressman Larson's bill, "the best way forward." He said, "Larson has proposed legislation that will reduce payroll taxes for citizens in exchange for a tax levied on the carbon emissions spewed by approximately 2,000 polluters. It passes the benefits of the tax onto consumers."
Bloomberg, at the 2007 Mayors Climate Protection Summit in Seattle [See WIMS 11/06/07], and at the February, 2008 United Nations General Assembly thematic debate on Climate Change said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden -- but they're still there. . . A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start -- and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first."
Among others, in addition to Bloomberg, supporting a carbon tax, that WIMS has reported on in the past include: Peter Orszag, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and now Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration; James Hansen, PhD, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; and Friends of the Earth (FOE) President Brent Blackwelder. Even one of the most cynical climate change opponents, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, has said that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” way to regulate CO2 emissions and “could offer significant advantages” over the cap-and-trade approach [See WIMS 2/22/08].
According to a release from the Carbon Tax Center, the tax would take effect in 2009 and tax emissions at a rate of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide and increase by $10 each year (or by $15 each year if needed to keep emissions falling fast enough). It would be virtually revenue-neutral, with over 95% of carbon tax revenues used to cut payroll taxes to help Americans with higher energy prices.
Charles Komanoff, co-director of CTC said, "Congressman Larson has shown great leadership in introducing this bill and ramping up the debate on carbon pricing in this Congress. It's a debate we urgently need to have. President Obama took a big step forward in proposing carbon pricing in his budget. The strong consensus among economists is that a carbon tax is the quickest, most effective and most transparent approach. Now that we have a well-crafted carbon tax bill to work with (and more such bills in the pipeline), Congress will be able to compare the details of actual carbon tax and cap-and-trade bills, and debate them on the merits. As that debate unfolds, you'll see a groundswell of support and eventual consensus line up behind a carbon tax proposal like Rep. Larson's."
CTC indicated that unlike cap-and-trade proposals, the Larson bill calls for taxing carbon at the source, such as oil refineries and coal mines for domestic fuel, or shipping terminals for imported fuel. A total of $100 billion over the first 10 years, equivalent to three percent of the revenue, would be dedicated to tax breaks for clean energy, while another $41 billion, equivalent to one percent of the revenue (more in the initial years, less in later years) would be used for transitional assistance for workers in industries directly impacted by the carbon tax. All of the remaining carbon tax revenue - over 95% - would be spent on cutting payroll taxes, offsetting increased energy prices for working families, and helping stimulate job growth. This would amount to a tax shift rather than a tax increase. In fact, most working families will actually come out ahead if they conserve energy modestly.
Access a release from the CTC (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1337 (click here). Access a 2008 release from Rep. Larson (click here). Access the CTC website for extensive background and related information (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the carbon issue (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
According to the Carbon Tax Center (CTC), Representative Larson's new bill builds on and improves his 2007 bill with the following provisions: The first-year tax rate is $15 per ton of carbon dioxide; The rate rises by $10/ton per year; After five years, that increase rate is automatically bumped up to $15/ton if U.S. emissions stray from an EPA-certified glide path to cut emissions by 80% from 2005 levels in 2050; To protect domestic manufacturers, the bill authorizes the Treasury Department to impose a "carbon equivalency fee" on carbon-intensive products imported from non-carbon-taxing nations; Clean-tech R&D and investments are eligible for $10 billion a year in tax credits; Impacted workers and industries are eligible for transition assistance of $7.5 billion in the first year; this is phased out after year 10 but still totals $41 billion; and All other revenue is tax-shifted to Americans via reductions in payroll taxes.
Last year, Larson spoke on behalf of his carbon tax legislation and said, "Let's look at what would be revenue neutral. Let's look at taxing polluters upstream but passing the benefits downstream to the consumers, reducing payroll taxes and using our creativity and this committee's authority to create a system that will provide the opportunity and innovation and tax relief they need as well."
One of the major supporters of the carbon tax approach, as opposed to cap-and-trade is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who called carbon tax policy, like the one in Congressman Larson's bill, "the best way forward." He said, "Larson has proposed legislation that will reduce payroll taxes for citizens in exchange for a tax levied on the carbon emissions spewed by approximately 2,000 polluters. It passes the benefits of the tax onto consumers."
Bloomberg, at the 2007 Mayors Climate Protection Summit in Seattle [See WIMS 11/06/07], and at the February, 2008 United Nations General Assembly thematic debate on Climate Change said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden -- but they're still there. . . A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start -- and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first."
Among others, in addition to Bloomberg, supporting a carbon tax, that WIMS has reported on in the past include: Peter Orszag, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and now Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration; James Hansen, PhD, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; and Friends of the Earth (FOE) President Brent Blackwelder. Even one of the most cynical climate change opponents, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, has said that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” way to regulate CO2 emissions and “could offer significant advantages” over the cap-and-trade approach [See WIMS 2/22/08].
According to a release from the Carbon Tax Center, the tax would take effect in 2009 and tax emissions at a rate of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide and increase by $10 each year (or by $15 each year if needed to keep emissions falling fast enough). It would be virtually revenue-neutral, with over 95% of carbon tax revenues used to cut payroll taxes to help Americans with higher energy prices.
Charles Komanoff, co-director of CTC said, "Congressman Larson has shown great leadership in introducing this bill and ramping up the debate on carbon pricing in this Congress. It's a debate we urgently need to have. President Obama took a big step forward in proposing carbon pricing in his budget. The strong consensus among economists is that a carbon tax is the quickest, most effective and most transparent approach. Now that we have a well-crafted carbon tax bill to work with (and more such bills in the pipeline), Congress will be able to compare the details of actual carbon tax and cap-and-trade bills, and debate them on the merits. As that debate unfolds, you'll see a groundswell of support and eventual consensus line up behind a carbon tax proposal like Rep. Larson's."
CTC indicated that unlike cap-and-trade proposals, the Larson bill calls for taxing carbon at the source, such as oil refineries and coal mines for domestic fuel, or shipping terminals for imported fuel. A total of $100 billion over the first 10 years, equivalent to three percent of the revenue, would be dedicated to tax breaks for clean energy, while another $41 billion, equivalent to one percent of the revenue (more in the initial years, less in later years) would be used for transitional assistance for workers in industries directly impacted by the carbon tax. All of the remaining carbon tax revenue - over 95% - would be spent on cutting payroll taxes, offsetting increased energy prices for working families, and helping stimulate job growth. This would amount to a tax shift rather than a tax increase. In fact, most working families will actually come out ahead if they conserve energy modestly.
Access a release from the CTC (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1337 (click here). Access a 2008 release from Rep. Larson (click here). Access the CTC website for extensive background and related information (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the carbon issue (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Friday, March 06, 2009
House Hearing On The Role Of Offsets in Climate Legislation
Mar 5: House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), held a hearing entitled, The Role of Offsets in Climate Legislation. The hearing addressed the potential role of offsets as a cost-containment mechanism in a U.S. cap-and-trade program. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office (GAO); Climate Action Reserve; Federal Global Warming Program Director, Environment America; Manager of Business Development, Environmental Products, Shell Energy North America; Forest Carbon Dialogue; and Stanford Law School.
There are major differences between various interests on the use of offsets. Shell Energy testified that, "The use of offsets from non-covered domestic and international sources is critical to making that transition at lowest cost." Environment America testified that, "Because of their inherent risks and [tradoffs], offsets should not be included in a federal climate program -- at least not until the program has matured and proven effective."
The Forest Carbon Dialogue (FCD) a unique environmental-corporate coalition that includes SFM, Environmental Defense Fund, American Electric Power, Shell, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, PG&E, The Woods Hole Research Center, John Deere, Conservation International, Duke Energy, and Defenders of Wildlife testified that there have been "serious mistakes of the flawed model of the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, which has done almost nothing to incentivize forest-related efforts"; however it is "committed to only support forest-based credits that have integrity and that make real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. . . We believe that is essential for countries seeking forest credits to move towards a full national accounting framework of sources and sinks in their forest sector."
In the testimony, GAO explains that carbon offsets -- reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from an activity in one place to compensate for emissions elsewhere -- can reduce the cost of regulatory programs to limit emissions because the cost of creating an offset may be less than the cost of requiring entities to make the reductions themselves. To be credible, however, an offset must be additional -- it must reduce emissions below the quantity emitted in a business-as-usual scenario -- among other criteria.
In the U.S., there are no Federal requirements to limit emissions and offsets may be purchased in a voluntary market. Outside the U.S., offsets may be purchased on compliance markets to meet requirements to reduce emissions. The Congress is considering adopting a market-based cap-and-trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Such a program would create a price on emissions based on the supply and demand for allowances to emit. Under such a program, regulated entities could potentially substitute offsets for on-site emissions reductions, thereby lowering their compliance costs.
GAO said its testimony summarized GAO’s prior work examining: (1) the challenges in ensuring the quality of carbon offsets in the voluntary market; (2) the effects of and lessons learned from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an international offset program; and, (3) matters that the Congress may wish to consider when developing regulatory programs to limit emissions.
In an August 2008 report, GAO identified four primary challenges related to the United States voluntary carbon offset market. First, the concept of a carbon offset is complicated because offsets can involve different activities, definitions, greenhouse gases, and timeframes for measurement. Second, ensuring the credibility of offsets is challenging because there are many ways to determine whether a project is additional to a business-as-usual baseline, and inherent uncertainty exists in measuring emissions reductions relative to such a baseline. Related to this, the use of multiple quality assurance mechanisms with varying requirements may raise questions about whether offsets are fully fungible -- interchangeable and of comparable quality. Third, including offsets in regulatory programs to limit greenhouse gas emissions could result in environmental and economic tradeoffs. For example offsets could lower the cost of complying with an emissions reduction policy, but this may delay on-site reductions by regulated entities. Fourth, offsets could compromise the environmental certainty of a regulatory program if offsets used for compliance lack credibility.
In a November 2008 report, GAO examined the environmental and economic effects of the CDM -- an international program allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for offset projects in developing countries -- and identified lessons learned about the role of carbon offsets in programs to limit emissions. While the CDM has provided cost containment in a mandatory emissions reduction program, its effects on emissions are uncertain, largely because it is nearly impossible to determine the level of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of each project. Although a rigorous review process seeks to ensure the credibility of projects, available evidence from those with experience in the program suggests that some offset projects were not additional. In addition, the project approval process is lengthy and resource intensive, which significantly limits the scale and cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions.
GAO summarizes and concludes that, "The findings from these two reports illustrate how challenges in the voluntary offset market and the use of offsets for compliance -- even in a rigorous, standardized process like the CDM -- may compromise the environmental integrity of mandatory programs to limit emissions and should be carefully evaluated. As a result of these challenges, GAO suggested that, as it considers legislation that allows the use of offsets for compliance, the Congress may wish to consider, among other things, directing the establishment of clear rules about the types of projects that regulated entities can use as offsets, as well as procedures to account and compensate for the inherent uncertainty associated with offset projects. Further, GAO suggested that the Congress consider key lessons from the CDM, including the possibility that, (1) due to the tradeoffs involving cost savings and the credibility of offsets, their use in mandatory programs may be, at best, a temporary solution to achieving emissions reductions, and (2) the program’s approval process may not be a cost-effective model for achieving emission reductions."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). [*Climate]
There are major differences between various interests on the use of offsets. Shell Energy testified that, "The use of offsets from non-covered domestic and international sources is critical to making that transition at lowest cost." Environment America testified that, "Because of their inherent risks and [tradoffs], offsets should not be included in a federal climate program -- at least not until the program has matured and proven effective."
The Forest Carbon Dialogue (FCD) a unique environmental-corporate coalition that includes SFM, Environmental Defense Fund, American Electric Power, Shell, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, PG&E, The Woods Hole Research Center, John Deere, Conservation International, Duke Energy, and Defenders of Wildlife testified that there have been "serious mistakes of the flawed model of the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, which has done almost nothing to incentivize forest-related efforts"; however it is "committed to only support forest-based credits that have integrity and that make real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. . . We believe that is essential for countries seeking forest credits to move towards a full national accounting framework of sources and sinks in their forest sector."
In the testimony, GAO explains that carbon offsets -- reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from an activity in one place to compensate for emissions elsewhere -- can reduce the cost of regulatory programs to limit emissions because the cost of creating an offset may be less than the cost of requiring entities to make the reductions themselves. To be credible, however, an offset must be additional -- it must reduce emissions below the quantity emitted in a business-as-usual scenario -- among other criteria.
In the U.S., there are no Federal requirements to limit emissions and offsets may be purchased in a voluntary market. Outside the U.S., offsets may be purchased on compliance markets to meet requirements to reduce emissions. The Congress is considering adopting a market-based cap-and-trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Such a program would create a price on emissions based on the supply and demand for allowances to emit. Under such a program, regulated entities could potentially substitute offsets for on-site emissions reductions, thereby lowering their compliance costs.
GAO said its testimony summarized GAO’s prior work examining: (1) the challenges in ensuring the quality of carbon offsets in the voluntary market; (2) the effects of and lessons learned from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an international offset program; and, (3) matters that the Congress may wish to consider when developing regulatory programs to limit emissions.
In an August 2008 report, GAO identified four primary challenges related to the United States voluntary carbon offset market. First, the concept of a carbon offset is complicated because offsets can involve different activities, definitions, greenhouse gases, and timeframes for measurement. Second, ensuring the credibility of offsets is challenging because there are many ways to determine whether a project is additional to a business-as-usual baseline, and inherent uncertainty exists in measuring emissions reductions relative to such a baseline. Related to this, the use of multiple quality assurance mechanisms with varying requirements may raise questions about whether offsets are fully fungible -- interchangeable and of comparable quality. Third, including offsets in regulatory programs to limit greenhouse gas emissions could result in environmental and economic tradeoffs. For example offsets could lower the cost of complying with an emissions reduction policy, but this may delay on-site reductions by regulated entities. Fourth, offsets could compromise the environmental certainty of a regulatory program if offsets used for compliance lack credibility.
In a November 2008 report, GAO examined the environmental and economic effects of the CDM -- an international program allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for offset projects in developing countries -- and identified lessons learned about the role of carbon offsets in programs to limit emissions. While the CDM has provided cost containment in a mandatory emissions reduction program, its effects on emissions are uncertain, largely because it is nearly impossible to determine the level of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of each project. Although a rigorous review process seeks to ensure the credibility of projects, available evidence from those with experience in the program suggests that some offset projects were not additional. In addition, the project approval process is lengthy and resource intensive, which significantly limits the scale and cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions.
GAO summarizes and concludes that, "The findings from these two reports illustrate how challenges in the voluntary offset market and the use of offsets for compliance -- even in a rigorous, standardized process like the CDM -- may compromise the environmental integrity of mandatory programs to limit emissions and should be carefully evaluated. As a result of these challenges, GAO suggested that, as it considers legislation that allows the use of offsets for compliance, the Congress may wish to consider, among other things, directing the establishment of clear rules about the types of projects that regulated entities can use as offsets, as well as procedures to account and compensate for the inherent uncertainty associated with offset projects. Further, GAO suggested that the Congress consider key lessons from the CDM, including the possibility that, (1) due to the tradeoffs involving cost savings and the credibility of offsets, their use in mandatory programs may be, at best, a temporary solution to achieving emissions reductions, and (2) the program’s approval process may not be a cost-effective model for achieving emission reductions."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Interrelations Between Soil And Climate Change
Mar 5: A new report made public by the European Union Environmental Commission underlines the crucial role that soils can play in mitigating climate change. Soils contain around twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and three times the amount to be found in vegetation. According to an announcement from the Commission, Europe's soils are an enormous carbon reservoir, containing around 75 billion tonnes, and poor management can have serious consequences: a failure to protect Europe's remaining peat bogs, for example, would release the same amount of carbon as an additional 40 million cars on Europe's roads.
The report, a synthesis of the best available information on the links between soil and climate change, underlines the need to sequester carbon in soils. The technique is cost competitive and immediately available, requires no new or unproven technologies, and has a mitigation potential comparable to that of any other sector of the economy. In line with the Thematic Strategy for soil protection, the current trend of soil degradation needs to be reversed, and soil management practices must be improved if a high rate of soil carbon sequestration is to be achieved.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said, “Properly managed soils can absorb enormous quantities of carbon from the atmosphere, buying us valuable time to reduce emissions and move towards sustainability. But Europe's soils urgently need better protection, and the answer must be a coordinated solution. I welcome this report, which reinforces the message of the June 2008 Commission conference on Soil and Climate Change [See WIMS 6/13/08], and gives a clear indication of the direction we need to take.”
The announcement indicates that "Europe's soils contain an estimated 73 to 79 billion tonnes of carbon. Almost 50% of this carbon is sequestered in the peat bogs of Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Soil plays a huge role in climate change, because even a tiny loss of 0.1% of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from European soils is the equivalent to the carbon emission of 100 million extra cars on our roads -- an increase of about half of the existing car fleet. Conversely, at today's prices, an increase in soil carbon of the same small amount would be worth some €200 million.
"Land use significantly affects soil carbon stocks. Most soils in Europe are accumulating carbon: soils under grassland and forest act as sinks, sequestering up to 100 million tonnes of carbon per year, although soils under arable land act as net emitters, releasing between 10 and 40 million tonnes of carbon per year. Carbon is lost from soils when grasslands, managed forest lands or native ecosystems are converted to croplands, a process that is slowly reversed when cropland is converted back.
"Some of the report's conclusions make for uncomfortable reading. As the world population continues to grow, ever greater areas of grasslands and forests are converted to croplands, and soils that are currently carbon sinks will turn into net emitters. The most effective strategy to prevent global soil carbon loss would be to halt these land conversions -- but this may conflict with growing global demand for food."
The report underlines the importance of protecting soils that are high in carbon -- particularly pristine peatlands many of which have now been lost to agriculture, forestry, urbanization or erosion. The report also underlines how agricultural practices can be improved to minimize carbon losses, at the level of the crop and the crop residues, and by ensuring that soils are protected against water and rain with a permanent vegetation cover, less intrusive plowing techniques and less machinery.
The report calls for a need to improve monitoring of soil carbon stock and trends to ensure that soils play a more prominent role in a future climate change mitigation agreement. The announcement notes that the Commission presented a legislative proposal to protect European soils in 2006, with support from the European Parliament, but opposition from five Member States have resulted in the proposal being blocked in Council.
Access the announcement from the EU Environmental Commission with links to the complete report, the Soil and Climate Change conference (June 2008); the Thematic Strategy for soil protection; and additional soil websites (click here). [*Land, *Climate]
The report, a synthesis of the best available information on the links between soil and climate change, underlines the need to sequester carbon in soils. The technique is cost competitive and immediately available, requires no new or unproven technologies, and has a mitigation potential comparable to that of any other sector of the economy. In line with the Thematic Strategy for soil protection, the current trend of soil degradation needs to be reversed, and soil management practices must be improved if a high rate of soil carbon sequestration is to be achieved.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said, “Properly managed soils can absorb enormous quantities of carbon from the atmosphere, buying us valuable time to reduce emissions and move towards sustainability. But Europe's soils urgently need better protection, and the answer must be a coordinated solution. I welcome this report, which reinforces the message of the June 2008 Commission conference on Soil and Climate Change [See WIMS 6/13/08], and gives a clear indication of the direction we need to take.”
The announcement indicates that "Europe's soils contain an estimated 73 to 79 billion tonnes of carbon. Almost 50% of this carbon is sequestered in the peat bogs of Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Soil plays a huge role in climate change, because even a tiny loss of 0.1% of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from European soils is the equivalent to the carbon emission of 100 million extra cars on our roads -- an increase of about half of the existing car fleet. Conversely, at today's prices, an increase in soil carbon of the same small amount would be worth some €200 million.
"Land use significantly affects soil carbon stocks. Most soils in Europe are accumulating carbon: soils under grassland and forest act as sinks, sequestering up to 100 million tonnes of carbon per year, although soils under arable land act as net emitters, releasing between 10 and 40 million tonnes of carbon per year. Carbon is lost from soils when grasslands, managed forest lands or native ecosystems are converted to croplands, a process that is slowly reversed when cropland is converted back.
"Some of the report's conclusions make for uncomfortable reading. As the world population continues to grow, ever greater areas of grasslands and forests are converted to croplands, and soils that are currently carbon sinks will turn into net emitters. The most effective strategy to prevent global soil carbon loss would be to halt these land conversions -- but this may conflict with growing global demand for food."
The report underlines the importance of protecting soils that are high in carbon -- particularly pristine peatlands many of which have now been lost to agriculture, forestry, urbanization or erosion. The report also underlines how agricultural practices can be improved to minimize carbon losses, at the level of the crop and the crop residues, and by ensuring that soils are protected against water and rain with a permanent vegetation cover, less intrusive plowing techniques and less machinery.
The report calls for a need to improve monitoring of soil carbon stock and trends to ensure that soils play a more prominent role in a future climate change mitigation agreement. The announcement notes that the Commission presented a legislative proposal to protect European soils in 2006, with support from the European Parliament, but opposition from five Member States have resulted in the proposal being blocked in Council.
Access the announcement from the EU Environmental Commission with links to the complete report, the Soil and Climate Change conference (June 2008); the Thematic Strategy for soil protection; and additional soil websites (click here). [*Land, *Climate]
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Obama Suspends Bush Endangered Species Rule
Mar 3: At his meeting with Department of Interior employees, President Obama announced that he "signed a memorandum that will help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations." He said, "For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife, and we should be looking for ways to improve it -- not weaken it." The President's action effectively suspends the Bush Administration rule (See links below) and calls for a review of the regulation. Until such a review is completed, the President said, "I request the heads of all agencies to exercise their discretion, under the new regulation, to follow the prior longstanding consultation and concurrence practices" involving the Fish and Wildlife Services and the National Marine Fisheries Service."
According to the President's Memo, "The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16U.S.C. 1531 et seq., reflects one of the Nation's profound commitments. Pursuant to that Act, the Federal Government has long required a process of broad interagency consultation to ensure the application of scientific and technical expertise to decisions that may affect threatened or endangered species. . . On December 16, 2008, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce issued a joint regulation that modified these longstanding requirements. See 73 Fed. Reg. 76272. . . I hereby request the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to review the regulation issued on December 16, 2008, and to determine whether to undertake new rulemaking procedures with respect to consultative and concurrence processes that will promote the purposes of the ESA."
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) released a statement after President Barack Obama announced, during a visit to the Interior Department, that his Administration will change course on a Bush Administration regulation that would have allowed Federal agencies to decide on their own whether or not to comply with the consultation requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), one of the Nation's landmark conservation laws [See WIMS 10/27/08, WIMS 12/12/08, WIMS 12/16/08].
Chairman Rahall said, "I wholeheartedly support the President's proposal to restore the protections for endangered species that the Bush Administration spent so many years trying to undermine. It is one more indication that the new Administration truly represents change for the better and is committed to the protection of our natural resources and our environment. I think we know who would have been the winner in this fox-guarding-the-hen-house scenario advanced by the Bush Administration, and it would not be the hens."
The public interest law firm, Earthjustice who filed litigation challenging the Bush Administration changes in Federal district court in San Francisco on December 16 [See WIMS 12/18/08], issued a statement saying, ". . .we applaud the new administration's leadership in restoring scientific integrity to this agency and its mandate to protect our nation's wildlife. We're heartened that President Obama intends to return wildlife biologists to their rightful role in determining protections for America's plants and animals. What's needed now is for the Senate to defeat an attempt by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that seeks to make it more difficult for the Obama administration to undo this misguided rule change by the former administration. President Obama's directive sends a loud and clear signal that the former administration's political manipulation of science will no longer be tolerated. . ."
John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said, “This action demonstrates President Obama’s commitment to protecting America’s endangered species and the habitats that both people and wildlife depend upon. Reinstating independent scientific review of the impacts of federal actions on endangered species is a giant first step in restoring the Endangered Species Act after eight years of attacks from the Bush Administration. With just one stroke of the pen, President Obama has done more today to uphold the scientific integrity of the Endangered Species Act than President Bush did during his entire eight years in office. Members of the Senate should follow President Obama’s lead and pass the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill , which includes language making it clear that President Obama has the authority to immediately and completely reverse President Bush's last-minute Endangered Species Act changes.” The House of Representatives approved the $410 billion omnibus FY 2009 appropriations bill (H.R. 1105), by a vote of 245-178, on February 25 [See WIMS 2/27/09]. The bill is now under consideration in the Senate.
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which is at the center of many endangered species act decisions said, “This is welcome news for endangered species. Obama has restored independent, scientific oversight to the heart of the Endangered Species Act. Obama’s move today puts expert scientists back in the driver’s seat for management of the nation’s endangered species,” said Suckling. “Obama has acted swiftly to meet an important campaign promise and show that he puts science and endangered species before politics. We are hopeful that the Senate will pass the Omnibus Appropriations bill and the Obama administration will fully rescind both of these rules.”
U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mark Begich (D-AK), introduced an amendment to the FY 2009 omnibus spending bill which they said "would maintain the public process for revisions to regulations under the Endangered Species Act." They indicated in a release that, "The omnibus appropriations bill that passed the House of Representatives last week and is before the Senate this week includes language that would allow the administration to withdraw two current rules under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within 60 days of adoption of the omnibus bill without having to go through any notice or public comment period, and without being subject to any judicial review. The first rule relates to the specific listing of the polar bear, while the second rule deals with regulation of carbon dioxide emissions nationwide, a related issue to the polar bear listing."
The Senators explained, "Last year the Bush administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA. The listing decision specifically included a provision -- permitted by Section 4(d) of the ESA -- that prevented oil or gas or subsistence hunting from being impacted by any action plan that the Department will craft to remedy bear population issues in the future. This provision was added after full public comment and was based on a full scientific review." They said the Murkowski-Begich amendment would require that if the secretaries of the Interior and Commerce Departments withdraw or reissue the current rules under the ESA, the action would be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), with at least a 60-day comment period.
Murkowski said, "Withdrawal of the existing rule could mean that any increase in carbon dioxide or any greenhouse gas, anywhere in the country could be subject to legal challenges asserting that those activities are harming a polar bear, or that there has not been sufficient consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding activities that are funded, carried out or authorized by the federal government. The Center for Biological diversity has already stated that it wants to use the polar bear listing to regulate greenhouse gases. While I believe lawsuits by environmental groups would eventually overreach and cause a backlash against the ESA, massive economic harm could result before Congress steps in to remedy the situation.”
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member, James Inhofe (R-OK) also commented on the omnibus budget bill provision calling for "the removal of a rider . . . that would authorize the Department of the Interior to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and reverse common-sense revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation procedures." He said, "The omnibus rider is flagrant attempt to regulate emissions without going through the proper process of public regulatory or legislative debate. This provision is a direct attack on our economy and energy security. Rescinding the polar bear rules with the congressional stroke of the pen means that any emitter of greenhouse gases could be regulated in the name of protecting habitat regardless of whether sufficient scientific evidence justifies that action. ESA was never intended or designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or air quality. The fact is that activists and their Congressional supporters are selectively ignoring their commitments to transparency in order to improve their odds in court."
Access remarks from the President (click here). Access the President's Memo (click here). Access a release from Chairman Rahall (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a lengthy release from Senators Murkowski & Begich (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1105 including the roll call vote (click here). Access the Bush Administration final ESA rule published 12/16/08 (click here). Access the FWS ESA website for program information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate, *Land]
According to the President's Memo, "The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16U.S.C. 1531 et seq., reflects one of the Nation's profound commitments. Pursuant to that Act, the Federal Government has long required a process of broad interagency consultation to ensure the application of scientific and technical expertise to decisions that may affect threatened or endangered species. . . On December 16, 2008, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce issued a joint regulation that modified these longstanding requirements. See 73 Fed. Reg. 76272. . . I hereby request the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to review the regulation issued on December 16, 2008, and to determine whether to undertake new rulemaking procedures with respect to consultative and concurrence processes that will promote the purposes of the ESA."
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) released a statement after President Barack Obama announced, during a visit to the Interior Department, that his Administration will change course on a Bush Administration regulation that would have allowed Federal agencies to decide on their own whether or not to comply with the consultation requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), one of the Nation's landmark conservation laws [See WIMS 10/27/08, WIMS 12/12/08, WIMS 12/16/08].
Chairman Rahall said, "I wholeheartedly support the President's proposal to restore the protections for endangered species that the Bush Administration spent so many years trying to undermine. It is one more indication that the new Administration truly represents change for the better and is committed to the protection of our natural resources and our environment. I think we know who would have been the winner in this fox-guarding-the-hen-house scenario advanced by the Bush Administration, and it would not be the hens."
The public interest law firm, Earthjustice who filed litigation challenging the Bush Administration changes in Federal district court in San Francisco on December 16 [See WIMS 12/18/08], issued a statement saying, ". . .we applaud the new administration's leadership in restoring scientific integrity to this agency and its mandate to protect our nation's wildlife. We're heartened that President Obama intends to return wildlife biologists to their rightful role in determining protections for America's plants and animals. What's needed now is for the Senate to defeat an attempt by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that seeks to make it more difficult for the Obama administration to undo this misguided rule change by the former administration. President Obama's directive sends a loud and clear signal that the former administration's political manipulation of science will no longer be tolerated. . ."
John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said, “This action demonstrates President Obama’s commitment to protecting America’s endangered species and the habitats that both people and wildlife depend upon. Reinstating independent scientific review of the impacts of federal actions on endangered species is a giant first step in restoring the Endangered Species Act after eight years of attacks from the Bush Administration. With just one stroke of the pen, President Obama has done more today to uphold the scientific integrity of the Endangered Species Act than President Bush did during his entire eight years in office. Members of the Senate should follow President Obama’s lead and pass the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill , which includes language making it clear that President Obama has the authority to immediately and completely reverse President Bush's last-minute Endangered Species Act changes.” The House of Representatives approved the $410 billion omnibus FY 2009 appropriations bill (H.R. 1105), by a vote of 245-178, on February 25 [See WIMS 2/27/09]. The bill is now under consideration in the Senate.
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which is at the center of many endangered species act decisions said, “This is welcome news for endangered species. Obama has restored independent, scientific oversight to the heart of the Endangered Species Act. Obama’s move today puts expert scientists back in the driver’s seat for management of the nation’s endangered species,” said Suckling. “Obama has acted swiftly to meet an important campaign promise and show that he puts science and endangered species before politics. We are hopeful that the Senate will pass the Omnibus Appropriations bill and the Obama administration will fully rescind both of these rules.”
U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mark Begich (D-AK), introduced an amendment to the FY 2009 omnibus spending bill which they said "would maintain the public process for revisions to regulations under the Endangered Species Act." They indicated in a release that, "The omnibus appropriations bill that passed the House of Representatives last week and is before the Senate this week includes language that would allow the administration to withdraw two current rules under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within 60 days of adoption of the omnibus bill without having to go through any notice or public comment period, and without being subject to any judicial review. The first rule relates to the specific listing of the polar bear, while the second rule deals with regulation of carbon dioxide emissions nationwide, a related issue to the polar bear listing."
The Senators explained, "Last year the Bush administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA. The listing decision specifically included a provision -- permitted by Section 4(d) of the ESA -- that prevented oil or gas or subsistence hunting from being impacted by any action plan that the Department will craft to remedy bear population issues in the future. This provision was added after full public comment and was based on a full scientific review." They said the Murkowski-Begich amendment would require that if the secretaries of the Interior and Commerce Departments withdraw or reissue the current rules under the ESA, the action would be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), with at least a 60-day comment period.
Murkowski said, "Withdrawal of the existing rule could mean that any increase in carbon dioxide or any greenhouse gas, anywhere in the country could be subject to legal challenges asserting that those activities are harming a polar bear, or that there has not been sufficient consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding activities that are funded, carried out or authorized by the federal government. The Center for Biological diversity has already stated that it wants to use the polar bear listing to regulate greenhouse gases. While I believe lawsuits by environmental groups would eventually overreach and cause a backlash against the ESA, massive economic harm could result before Congress steps in to remedy the situation.”
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member, James Inhofe (R-OK) also commented on the omnibus budget bill provision calling for "the removal of a rider . . . that would authorize the Department of the Interior to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and reverse common-sense revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation procedures." He said, "The omnibus rider is flagrant attempt to regulate emissions without going through the proper process of public regulatory or legislative debate. This provision is a direct attack on our economy and energy security. Rescinding the polar bear rules with the congressional stroke of the pen means that any emitter of greenhouse gases could be regulated in the name of protecting habitat regardless of whether sufficient scientific evidence justifies that action. ESA was never intended or designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or air quality. The fact is that activists and their Congressional supporters are selectively ignoring their commitments to transparency in order to improve their odds in court."
Access remarks from the President (click here). Access the President's Memo (click here). Access a release from Chairman Rahall (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a lengthy release from Senators Murkowski & Begich (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1105 including the roll call vote (click here). Access the Bush Administration final ESA rule published 12/16/08 (click here). Access the FWS ESA website for program information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate, *Land]
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
President Announces First Distribution Of Highway Stimulus Funds
Mar 3: President Obama addressed a crowd of 500 gathered at the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC to discuss the release of $26.6 billion in infrastructure spending for roads and bridges as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The President appeared along with Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood listen.
The President said in part, "Two weeks ago, I signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the most sweeping economic recovery plan in history. And already, its impact is being felt across this nation. Hardworking families can now worry a little less about next month's bills because of the tax cut they'll soon find in the mail. Renewable energy companies that were once downsizing are now finding ways to expand. And transportation projects that were once on hold are now starting up again -- as part of the largest new investment in America's infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System.
"Of the 3.5 million jobs that will be created and saved over the next two years as a result of this recovery plan, 400,000 will be jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, repairing our faulty levees and dams, connecting nearly every American to broadband, and upgrading the buses and trains that commuters take every day. Many of these projects will be coordinated by Secretary LaHood and all of you at the Department of Transportation. And I want you to know that the American public is grateful to public servants like you -- men and women whose work isn't always recognized, but whose jobs are critical to our nation's safety, security, and prosperity. You have never been more important than you are right now, and for that we are all grateful.
"Now, in the coming days and weeks, my administration will be announcing more details about the kinds of transportation projects that will be launched as part of the recovery plan. But today, I want to speak about an investment we are making in one part of our infrastructure. Through the Recovery Act, we will be investing $28 billion in our highways, money that every one of our 50 states can start using immediately to put people back to work. It's an investment being made at an unprecedented pace, thanks in large part to Joe Biden, who's leading the effort to get the money out the door quickly. Because of Joe, and because of all the governors and mayors, county and city officials who are helping implement this plan, I can say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are seeing shovels hit the ground.
"As Secretary LaHood noted, the first contract will be awarded to American Infrastructure, a family business in Pennsylvania that will be resurfacing a road in Maryland. More than 100 other people will begin receiving funds today, as well. Over the next few weeks, we will launch more than 200 construction projects across this country, fueling growth in an industry that's been hard hit by our economic crisis. Altogether, this investment in highways will create or save 150,000 jobs by the end of next year, most of them in the private sector."
Access the complete comments of the President and Vice President (click here). Access a video of the presentation (click here). Access a state-by-state interactive map with the distribution of highway funds by category (click here). Access more about how the funds are being spent, including state-by-state and urban-suburban-rural breakdowns on the Recovery.gov website (click here).
The President said in part, "Two weeks ago, I signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the most sweeping economic recovery plan in history. And already, its impact is being felt across this nation. Hardworking families can now worry a little less about next month's bills because of the tax cut they'll soon find in the mail. Renewable energy companies that were once downsizing are now finding ways to expand. And transportation projects that were once on hold are now starting up again -- as part of the largest new investment in America's infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System.
"Of the 3.5 million jobs that will be created and saved over the next two years as a result of this recovery plan, 400,000 will be jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, repairing our faulty levees and dams, connecting nearly every American to broadband, and upgrading the buses and trains that commuters take every day. Many of these projects will be coordinated by Secretary LaHood and all of you at the Department of Transportation. And I want you to know that the American public is grateful to public servants like you -- men and women whose work isn't always recognized, but whose jobs are critical to our nation's safety, security, and prosperity. You have never been more important than you are right now, and for that we are all grateful.
"Now, in the coming days and weeks, my administration will be announcing more details about the kinds of transportation projects that will be launched as part of the recovery plan. But today, I want to speak about an investment we are making in one part of our infrastructure. Through the Recovery Act, we will be investing $28 billion in our highways, money that every one of our 50 states can start using immediately to put people back to work. It's an investment being made at an unprecedented pace, thanks in large part to Joe Biden, who's leading the effort to get the money out the door quickly. Because of Joe, and because of all the governors and mayors, county and city officials who are helping implement this plan, I can say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are seeing shovels hit the ground.
"As Secretary LaHood noted, the first contract will be awarded to American Infrastructure, a family business in Pennsylvania that will be resurfacing a road in Maryland. More than 100 other people will begin receiving funds today, as well. Over the next few weeks, we will launch more than 200 construction projects across this country, fueling growth in an industry that's been hard hit by our economic crisis. Altogether, this investment in highways will create or save 150,000 jobs by the end of next year, most of them in the private sector."
Access the complete comments of the President and Vice President (click here). Access a video of the presentation (click here). Access a state-by-state interactive map with the distribution of highway funds by category (click here). Access more about how the funds are being spent, including state-by-state and urban-suburban-rural breakdowns on the Recovery.gov website (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
