CBD Petitions To Regulate Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

Jan 11: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitioned the U.S. EPA to establish water-quality criteria for numerous endocrine-disrupting chemicals under the Clean Water Act. CBD said this is "the first step in regulating and eliminating persistent and widespread chemicals that damage reproductive functions in wildlife and humans." Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with CBD said, “Our drinking water and aquatic habitat for wildlife is being increasingly and unnecessarily contaminated by endocrine disruptors such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. We should be very concerned when we see chemically castrated frogs and frankenfish resulting from these chemicals -- it’s time to get these poisons out of our waterways and ecosystems.”

CBD indicated that endocrine disruptors are chemicals that alter the structure or function of the body’s endocrine system, which uses hormones to regulate growth, metabolism, and tissue function. Endocrine disruptors can mimic naturally occurring hormones like estrogens and androgens, causing overstimulation, and can interfere with natural hormone functions, thereby compromising normal reproduction, development, and growth. They have been shown to damage reproductive functions and offspring, and cause developmental, neurological, and immune problems in wildlife and humans.

Miller said, “As we start looking at this problem, we’re seeing disturbing hormonal responses in fish and wildlife from pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and personal-care products that are contaminating aquatic ecosystems,” said Miller. “The impacts of endocrine disruptors on aquatic wildlife are our canary in the coal mine, since these contaminated waters are often our drinking-water supply. The implications for human health are not good.”

A wide variety of substances, including pharmaceuticals, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT and other pesticides, solvents, and plasticizers can cause endocrine disruption. Pesticides have long been present in our environment, and now additional endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in cosmetics, detergents, deodorants, antibiotics, antihistamines, oral contraceptives, veterinary and illicit drugs, analgesics, sunscreen, insect repellant, synthetic musks, disinfectants, surfactants, plasticides, and caffeine are being introduced to ecosystems and waterways.

CBD notes that U.S. EPA currently regulates some, but not all, of the endocrine disruptors in the petition. They said for those it does regulate, standards are not stringent enough to protect against endocrine-disrupting harm. It is now known that infinitesimally small levels of exposure may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, and current regulatory levels are insufficient to protect against water quality impairment. Miller said, “There is currently a regulatory void for controlling endocrine disruptors, and our petition aims to start the process of protecting human health and wildlife from these dangerous chemicals. We call on the Environmental Protection Agency and states to adopt sensible criteria for endocrine disruptors that will completely eliminate or dramatically reduce the ‘acceptable’ levels of these pollutants in waterways.”

On December 3, 2009, legislation was introduced in the House and Senate by Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to explore linkages between endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment and everyday goods and the dramatic increase of autism, hyperactivity, diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, prostate cancer and other hormone related disorders. The Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009 [H.R. 4190, S. 2828] would facilitate the research necessary to determine whether these chemicals are affecting human health. Specifically, the act would authorize an ambitious new research program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to identify EDCs and establish an independent panel of scientists to oversee research and develop a prioritized list of chemicals for investigation. If the panel determined that a chemical presented even a minimal level of concern, it would compel the federal agencies with established regulatory authority to report to Congress and propose next steps within six months.

Access a release from CBD and links to the petition and background information (click here). Access a release from Representative Moran and Senator Kerry (click here). Access additional information from the organization Beyond Pesticides (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2828 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4190 (click here).

EPA Administrator Reviews 1st Year; Outlines Key Themes

Jan 12: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has released a memo to EPA employees assessing her first year as Administrator and the Agency's progress on key issues. She said the first year had been "a deeply fulfilling 12 months and a wonderful homecoming for me." She said the Agency has made "enormous strides" on all five major issues she outlined a year ago. She said, "we have strengthened our focus and expanded the list of priorities." The memo provides a listing of seven key themes to focus the work of the Agency. The following is verbatim listing.

Taking Action on Climate Change: 2009 saw historic progress in the fight against climate change, with a range of greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. We must continue this critical effort and ensure compliance with the law. We will continue to support the President and Congress in enacting clean energy and climate legislation. Using the Clean Air Act, we will finalize our mobile source rules and provide a framework for continued improvements in that sector. We will build on the success of Energy Star to expand cost-saving energy conservation and efficiency programs. And, we will continue to develop common-sense solutions for reducing GHG emissions from large stationary sources like power plants. In all of this, we must also recognize that climate change will affect other parts of our core mission, such as protecting air and water quality, and we must include those considerations in our future plans.

Improving Air Quality: American communities face serious health and environmental challenges from air pollution. We have already proposed stronger ambient air quality standards for ozone, which will help millions of American breathe easier and live healthier. Building on that, EPA will develop a comprehensive strategy for a cleaner and more efficient power sector, with strong but achievable emission reduction goals for SO2, NOx, mercury and other air toxics. We will strengthen our ambient air quality standards for pollutants such as PM, SO2 and NO2 and will achieve additional reductions in air toxics from a range of industrial facilities. Improved monitoring, permitting and enforcement will be critical building blocks for air quality improvement.

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals: One of my highest priorities is to make significant and long overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies. Last year I announced principles for modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act. Separately, we are shifting EPA’s focus to address high-concern chemicals and filling data gaps on widely produced chemicals in commerce. At the end of 2009, we released our first-ever chemical management plans for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipeline for 2010. Using our streamlined Integrated Risk Information System, we will continue strong progress toward rigorous, peer-reviewed health assessments on dioxins, arsenic, formaldehyde, TCE and other substances of concern.

Cleaning Up Our Communities: In 2009 EPA made strong cleanup progress by accelerating our Superfund program and confronting significant local environmental challenges like the asbestos Public Health Emergency in Libby, Montana and the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Using all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement and compliance efforts, we will continue to focus on making safer, healthier communities. I am committed to maximizing the potential of our brownfields program, particularly to spur environmental cleanup and job creation in disadvantaged communities. We are also developing enhanced strategies for risk reduction in our Superfund program, with stronger partnerships with stakeholders affected by our cleanups.

Protecting America’s Waters: America’s waterbodies are imperiled as never before. Water quality and enforcement programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff, to invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies. We will continue comprehensive watershed protection programs for the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. We will initiate measures to address post-construction runoff, water quality impairment from surface mining, and stronger drinking water protection. Recovery Act funding will expand construction of water infrastructure, and we will work with states to develop nutrient limits and launch an Urban Waters initiative. We will also revamp enforcement strategies to achieve greater compliance across the board.

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice: We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making. We are building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and towns, young people and others, but this is just a start. We must include environmental justice principles in all of our decisions. This is an area that calls for innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs. The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is a top priority, especially with regard to children. Our revitalized Children’s Health Office is bringing a new energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts. We will ensure that children’s health protection continues to guide the path forward.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships: States and tribal nations bear important responsibilities for the day-to-day mission of environmental protection, but declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring state agencies and tribal governments to do more with fewer resources. Strong partnerships and accountability are more important than ever. EPA must do its part to support state and tribal capacity and, through strengthened oversight, ensure that programs are consistently delivered nationwide. Where appropriate, we will use our own expertise and capacity to bolster state and tribal efforts.

Access the complete memo and links to several audio clips on various topics (click here).

EPW Dems United In Opposition To Murkowski Amendment

Jan 11: All of the Members of the Democratic Caucus on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee have joined together to oppose a proposal by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to overturn U.S. EPA's global warming endangerment finding. A January 11, 2009 "Dear Colleague" letter urging Members to oppose the proposal was signed by all twelve of the Majority Members of the Committee: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA).

The letter indicates, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and public welfare. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions were covered under the Clean Air Act and the EPA had a duty to determine whether the endangerment finding was warranted by the science. A "Resolution of Disapproval" using expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act or other similar amendment is expected to be introduced in the Senate to overturn EPA's global warming endangerment finding.

"Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, but repealing an endangerment finding based upon years of work by America's scientists and public health experts is not appropriate. The independent work of scientists and public health experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations should stand on its own. We strongly urge you to vote "no" when a Resolution of Disapproval or a similar amendment comes before the Senate."

On December 14, 2009 Senator Murkowski announced her intention to file a "disapproval resolution" to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 12/15/09]. Murkowski’s resolution comes in the wake of the agency’s recent endangerment finding, which she said will result in "damaging new regulations that endanger America’s economy." The Senator's announced disapproval came one day before EPA's endangerment finding was officially published in the Federal Register [74 FR 66495-66546, 12/15/09]. The endangerment finding was announced by EPA on December 7 [See WIMS 12/8/09].

A Washington Post (WP), January 11 article reported that Senator Murkowski "is likely to postpone offering an amendment next week that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. . ." The issue was scheduled to be considered in the Senate on January 20. The WP article discusses the activities of two industrial lobbyist who worked with Murkowski's staff in drafting an amendment. The legislative maneuvering is complicated by the disapproval resolution procedures of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) which allow the resolution to be placed on the Senate calendar, where it is given expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.

Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director issued a statement commenting on the WP article and said, "We now have proof that lobbyists for Big Oil, dirty coal and other special interests are directly involved in recent attempts to bail out big polluters and gut the Clean Air Act. What's more, these big polluter lobbyists are the same former Bush administration officials who completely disregarded the Clean Air Act and even disobeyed the Supreme Court for years. While Big Oil, dirty coal, and other polluters were busy trying to craft backroom deals with their allies in Congress, last month more than 400,000 Americans voiced their support for President Obama's plans to use the Clean Air Act to fight global warming. Instead of bailing out big polluters, it's time for Congress to get serious about passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. Clean energy and climate legislation can deliver less pollution, more jobs, and greater security."

On January 6, the nonprofit organization, 1Sky issued a statement announcing a national call-in day to Senators' home offices on January 12, to oppose the amendment being proposed by Senator Murkowski [See WIMS 1/6/10].

Access an announcement and the letter from EPW Democrats (click here). Access the WP article with further details and links to the Murkowski amendment (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access a 1Sky blog posting on the momentum for climate change legislation with links to related information (click here).

North Dakota Democrat Introduces Bill To Prevent EPA GHG Regs

Jan 8: Signaling additional controversy and complications for the Obama Administration in attempting to deal with climate change, regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and implement the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120), Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota announced the introduction of H.R. 4396, the Save Our Energy Jobs Act, which he said would prohibit U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. He said the legislation has been introduced in response to a recent EPA announcement that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. In a release he indicated, "This action, if not prevented, could dramatically increase energy rates as well as end up costing North Dakota jobs." The Administration already faces nearly unanimous opposition from House and Senate Republicans on the issue and the Senate will soon consider a "disapproval resolution" proposed by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 12/15/09 & 1/6/10].

Representative Pomeroy said, "Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act is irresponsible and just plain wrong. That is why I introduced the Save Our Energy Jobs Act which would stop the EPA from moving forward with its proposal. I am not about to let some Washington bureaucrat dictate new public policy that will raise our electricity rates and put at risk the thousands of coal-related jobs in our state." There were no cosponsors to the bill which was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA).

On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions should they find these emissions to be harmful to public health and welfare. Subsequent to this new authority, on December 7, 2009, the EPA released a final endangerment finding that greenhouse gas emissions do endanger both public health and welfare [See WIMS 12/8/09]. Making this determination was necessary to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which have been proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration. Once this EPA rule becomes final, greenhouse gases will officially be regulated pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Representative Pomeroy indicated, "This action would then subject stationary sources which emit greenhouse gas emissions, such as power plants and factories like those managed by North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives, Basin Electric and Minnkota Power, to regulation under the Clean Air Act."

In anticipation of this outcome, EPA has announced a proposed rule requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions [See WIMS 10/1/09]. Representative Pomeroy indicated, "These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and would cover all of North Dakota’s seven coal fired power plants, the Tesoro oil refinery in Mandan and other industries across the state. However, current control technologies and measures are either unproven or incredibly expensive and could in effect, make new coal facilities impossible to build."

Included in the Representative's release was a comment from the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives Executive Vice President and General Manager Dennis Hill who said, "Rep. Pomeroy’s bill supports our position that Congress should be in charge of setting the policy on climate change legislation. We’ve been working with our Congressional delegation to adopt provisions in a comprehensive climate change bill that achieve carbon reductions at a pace that’s fair, affordable and achievable. We believe any climate legislation should make clear that Congress, not the EPA, sets the policy on carbon." Representative Pomeroy indicated, "This action could result in significantly raising local energy prices and endanger the 28,000 direct and indirect jobs that are connected to North Dakota’s coal industry, not to mention thousands of jobs connected to our manufacturing and expanding oil and gas industries."

Access a release from Representative Pomeroy (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4396 (click here).

RFA Charges "Orchestrated Campaign" Against Biofuels

Jan 6: The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, issued a press release on a recent “policy paper” from Houston-based Rice University and sponsored by Chevron which they say seeks to continue the "orchestrated campaign to limit, and ultimately eliminate, the use of biofuels to displace foreign oil." RFA said that in its commentary, researchers from Rice "rely upon out-of-date information and questionable assumptions to denigrate Congress, farmers, and ethanol producers for their support of domestically-based renewable fuels."

The Paper issued by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy says, "The United States needs to fundamentally rethink its policy of promoting ethanol to diversify its energy sources and increase energy security." The paper, Fundamentals of a Sustainable U.S. Biofuels Policy, "questions the economic, environmental and logistical basis for the billions of dollars in federal subsidies and protectionist tariffs that go to domestic ethanol producers every year." Amy Myers Jaffe, one of the report's authors and associate director of the Rice Energy Program said, "We need to set realistic targets for ethanol in the United States instead of just throwing taxpayer money out the window."

As an example of the unintended economic consequences of U.S. biofuels policy, the Rice report notes that in 2008 "the U.S. government spent $4 billion in biofuels subsidies to replace roughly 2 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply. The average cost to the taxpayer of those 'substituted' barrels of gasoline was roughly $82 a barrel, or $1.95 per gallon on top of the retail gasoline price (i.e., what consumers pay at the pump)." The report questions whether mandated volumes for biofuels can be met and whether biofuels are improving the environment or energy security.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that mandated production targets for "renewable fuels," mainly biodiesel and ethanol. The bill mandated production targets of 9 billion gallons of biofuels a year in 2008 and rising to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Corn ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons a year in the law, but the study indicates "even that level will be difficult to reach given logistical and commercial barriers." The EISA also calls for 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, produced from sources like switchgrass, corn stover and algae, to be used in the nation’s fuel supply by 2022. But the report determines, "existing mandated targets for advanced biofuels are not currently achievable -- scientifically or commercially -- and should be revisited."

RFA Director of Public Affairs Matt Hartwig said, “Not surprisingly, this oil industry-sponsored analysis relies on myths, generalities, half-truths to dismiss ethanol while providing no comparison to our increasingly dangerous and costly addiction to oil. A debate about the appropriate role of biofuels is valid and should occur, but not without proper context and based upon last century’s assumptions.”

RFA indicates that the Rice paper makes a number of misleading statements and assumptions, including: (1) The paper assumes 44% of the 2007 corn crop will be needed to meet the 15 billion gallons of ethanol called for in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It does not account for the 1/3 of each bushel that is returned to the feed market in the form of distillers’ grains, nor does it give credence to increased yields. Despite difficult planting and harvesting conditions, American farmers achieved record yields in 2009.

(2) The paper states, “The preponderance of evidence shows that existing biofuels offer no improvement over gasoline…” when it comes to carbon emissions. Every credible lifecycle analysis directly comparing ethanol to gasoline shows a carbon benefit to ethanol use, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of a 61% benefit. Only when the unproven and controversial notion of international indirect land use change (ILUC) is applied to ethanol and not to gasoline do the carbon benefits of ethanol suffer.

(3) The paper assumes additional land, including marginal acres, will be needed to fulfill the RFS mandates. This is not necessarily true. Based upon yield trends, corn production on roughly the same amount of acres being cultivated will be sufficient to meet the corn-based ethanol demands of the RFS. New feedstocks, such as crop residues, wood waste, and grasses, will also be used and will require no additional acres.

(4) The paper criticizes the secondary tariff on imports of ethanol, but provides no context. The secondary tariff exists to offset the tax credit available to imports of ethanol. The tariff does not restrict trade, as evidenced by the import of ethanol when needed, but rather protects American taxpayers. Moreover, no discussion is given to the 25% tariff Brazil places on imported ethanol. Given the poor sugar crop in Brazil, it is likely U.S. ethanol could be exported and face the 25% tariff.

(5) The paper generalizes that irrigated corn used for ethanol production will be in the same proportion as all irrigated corn (~18% of the total crop). Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that 96% of all corn used in ethanol production is non-irrigated.

Access a release from Rice University’s Baker Institute (click here). Access links to the complete study and related information (click here). Access a release from the RFA (click here). Access the RFA website for additional information (click here).

EPA Proposes Strengthened Ozone Standards

Jan 7: U.S. EPA proposed the strictest health standards to date for ground-level ozone or smog. EPA said ground-level ozone, is linked to a number of serious health problems, ranging from aggravation of asthma to increased risk of premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Ozone can even harm healthy people who work and play outdoors. The Agency is proposing to replace the standards set by the previous administration, which many believe were not protective enough of human health [See WIMS 3/13/08]. EPA is proposing a rule to set the “primary” standard, which protects public health, at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours. The current primary 8-hour standard is 0.075 ppm. EPA said it will issue final standards by August 31, 2010.

EPA said that children are at the greatest risk from ozone, because their lungs are still developing, they are most likely to be active outdoors, and they are more likely than adults to have asthma. Adults with asthma or other lung diseases, and older adults are also sensitive to ozone. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face. Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities, and drives up our health care costs across the country. Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier.”

EPA is also proposing to set a separate “secondary” standard to protect the environment, especially plants and trees. This seasonal standard is designed to protect plants and trees from damage occurring from repeated ozone exposure, which can reduce tree growth, damage leaves, and increase susceptibility to disease. EPA is proposing to set the level of the secondary standard
within the range of 7-15 ppm-hours. The current secondary standard is the same as the primary standard -- 0.075 ppm. EPA said the new secondary standard should be a cumulative, seasonal standard expressed as an annual index of the sum of weighted hourly concentrations, cumulated over 12 hours per day (8:00 am to 8:00 pm) during the consecutive 3-month period within the O3 season with the maximum index value, set at a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours.

In September 2009 Administrator Jackson announced that EPA would reconsider the existing ozone standards, set at 0.075 ppm in March 2008 [See WIMS 9/16/09]. As part of its reconsideration, EPA conducted a review of the science that guided the 2008 decision, including more than 1,700 scientific studies and public comments from the 2008 rulemaking process. EPA also reviewed the findings of the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which recommended standards in the ranges that EPA has proposed.

EPA said that depending on the level of the final standard, the proposal would yield health benefits between $13 billion and $100 billion. This proposal would help reduce premature deaths, aggravated asthma, bronchitis cases, hospital and emergency room visits and days when people miss work or school because of ozone-related symptoms. Estimated costs of implementing this proposal range from $19 billion to $90 billion. Ground-level ozone forms when emissions from industrial facilities, power plants, landfills and motor vehicles react in the sun. EPA will take public comment for 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The Agency will hold three public hearings on the proposal: Feb. 2, 2010 in Arlington, VA and in Houston; and Feb. 4, 2010 in Sacramento.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement on EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the 2008 ozone standard saying, “The action lacks scientific justification. EPA acknowledges the newer studies on ozone ‘do not materially change any of the broad scientific conclusions regarding the health effects of exposure’. Given that conclusion, there is absolutely no basis for EPA to propose changing the ozone standards promulgated by the EPA Administrator in 2008. To do so is an obvious politicization of the air quality standard setting process that could mean unnecessary energy cost increases, job losses and less domestic oil and natural gas development and energy security."

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., a toxicologist with Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "EPA's proposed standards promise clean air protections that reach from the nation's urban neighborhoods and communities to our rural forests and croplands. Children are especially vulnerable to ozone air pollution. For millions of children, high pollution days make it difficult to attend school, to play outside and to simply breathe." EDF said the Agency's new action reverses a 2008 decision under the Bush EPA and follows the recommendations of expert scientists.

The new proposal from EPA is consistent with recommendations of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) which unanimously advised the previous EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson that the nation's health standard should be between 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million. Additionally, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) which represents the state and local air quality agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country supported the CASAC’s recommendation and had also advocated a distinct, cumulative seasonal secondary standard."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to extensive background information including a fact sheet and the prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access the API statement (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here).

EPA Decisions On Two Mountaintop Coal Mining Operations

Jan 5: U.S. EPA announced what they called "a path forward" on two mountaintop coal mining operations in West Virginia. EPA said it is informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it supports issuing a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County, operated by Hobet Mining, LLC. EPA said it made the decision after extensive discussions between EPA and the company resulted in additional significant protections against environmental impacts.

In a second action, the Federal District Court in Southern West Virginia will extend the court-established deadline to respond to the company's earlier request to end the litigation on the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County. EPA and the mining operator, Mingo Logan Mining Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, agreed to ask for the extension in order to continue discussions to determine if a revised mining plan can be developed that will comply with the Clean Water Act. After close study, EPA determined that the proposed mine raised significant environmental and water quality concerns.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “These are important examples of EPA’s work to bring clarity to this process. Our role, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, is to ensure that mining companies avoid environmental degradation and protect water quality so that Appalachian communities don’t have to choose between jobs and their health. Working closely with mining companies, our federal and state partners, and the public, our goal is to ensure Americans living in coal country are protected from environmental, health and economic damage.”

EPA noted that Appalachian coal mining has buried an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in states including West Virginia. Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife. EPA has committed to use its Clean Water Act regulatory authorities to reduce environmental and water quality impacts associated with surface coal mining [See WIMS 6/11/09].

A release from the Sierra Club, including reactions from a number of organizations, Bill Price, environmental justice organizer for the Sierra Club in West Virginia said, "While we understand that this short term deal means more mining and destruction but also the extension of employment to mine workers, we know that mountaintop removal coal mining is not a long-term economic strategy for Appalachia. As Senator Byrd of West Virginia said last month, it is mechanization and the demand for coal that have eliminated jobs in West Virginia, and it's time to adapt to change and to embrace clean energy solutions."

Patriot Coal Corporation Chief Executive Officer Richard Whiting issued a statement saying, "We are encouraged that, through a constructive process of engagement and discussion, we have reached agreement with EPA on a mine plan that minimizes impact to the environment. In light of the importance of the Hobet 45 permit to our operations and our employees, we are hopeful that we can begin work in the permit area in the very near future." The Hobet surface mine is part of the Company's Corridor G mining complex in southern West Virginia. The company said at full production capability, the complex produces nearly four million tons of thermal coal annually.

Access a lengthy release from EPA with links to further details (click here). Access EPA's Mountaintop Mining website for background (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from Patriot Coal Corporation (click here).

UNEP Ongoing Climate Strategy & COP 15 Day-By-Day Analysis

Dec 30: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) announced it is formulating a rapidly evolving strategy in response to the needs of Member States and the growing number of requests on how best to realize a low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy for the 21st century. The strategy identifies three priority areas that match calls for international guidance, the urgent need for action at a national level on climate change and the organization's skill set, experience and mandate.

UNEP said it is now widely recognized that healthy ecosystems from coral reefs and wetlands to mangroves and fertile soils are a key to successfully adapting to climate change. Their management and maintenance is a buffer and an insurance policy against extreme weather events and a rapidly changing climate. In light of such emerging evidence, UNEP is supporting Member States to implement demonstration projects and said it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to overcome policy and financial barriers and to incorporate ecosystem adaptation measures into national climate, development and sectoral strategies.

Secondly, UNEP indicates that emissions linked with deforestation and forest degradation may account for close to 20 per cent of current global greenhouse gas emissions. Against this backdrop, UNEP is part of the international effort to prepare developing economies for a REDD regime [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries]. Through the UN-REDD Programme, a partnership between UNEP, the Food and Agricultural Organization and UNEP, nine countries are being made ready for REDD. The Programme is supporting those countries through appropriate methodologies, monitoring and verification systems and safeguards in order to ensure REDD delivers value not only in climate and national economic terms but in terms of livelihoods for local communities. REDD should soon allow farmers and landowners to benefit from carbon sequestration of different farming and land management regimes including agroforestry.

Thirdly, UNEP notes that although many low-carbon technologies are already commercially viable, transferring them to new markets and mainstreaming their use globally remains a challenge. To bridge the gap, UNEP and its collaborative partners are already delivering clean tech via smart market mechanisms. In India, for example, UNEP in collaboration with the United Nations Foundation, the Shell Foundation and Indian banks have brought down the cost of solar technology loans. Within a matter of a few years, 100,000 people have accessed solar electricity in rural areas and the initiative is now self-financing. UNEP has launched an effort to help more than 35 countries determine the specific low greenhouse gas technologies best able to meet their development needs and prepare national plans to acquire and use those technologies.

UNEP also said that in terms of catalyzing a set of global norms and standards, it is currently working in four sectors: energy efficiency in building, vehicle fuel efficiency, efficient lighting, and biofuels. UNEP said that in partnership with others it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to incorporate clean tech and renewable energies into national climate, development and sectoral strategies on the road to a low-carbon future.

Finally, the Paris-based IDDRI research organization has issued an informative day-by-day, play-by-play summary of the Copenhagen UNFCCC COP 15 meeting [See WIMS 12/21/09 & 12/18/09] entitled, The Copenhagen Accord: What happened? Is it a good deal? Who wins and who loses? What is next? In and overview, IDDRI indicates, "The two weeks of negotiations in Copenhagen (7-18 December 2009) have been full of twists and turns. The outcome of the first phase, when heads of delegations and Ministers had the leadership, is a set of draft decisions, heavily bracketed, and not recognized by all Parties – especially the US – as a basis for negotiations. It proves the difficulty – if not the impossibility – of making progress towards an agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol (KP) process. The lack of clarity of the Bali Roadmap – setting a two-track process, one under the UNFCCC and one under the KP, but leaving open the form and legal nature of the final outcome – and the lack of skill of the Danish Presidency, did not help.

"The outcome of the second phase, when a small group – around 30 – heads of State took the lead, is a minimalist agreement, disappointing in substance, and hectic in process. It proves that the pileup of countries redlines did not leave room for an ambitious agreement: the agreement found is somehow the lowest common denominator. This is not the deal we hoped, but given the context, and especially given the perception that States had of their own national interests, this was probably the best possible deal."

On December 21, in a United Nations announcement from New York, UN General Assembly President Ali Treki said while most countries are not happy with the outcome of this month's summit on climate change in Copenhagen, "really good progress" was made towards a binding agreement "to save the world," with the United Nations leading the way to possible adoption at next year's meeting in Mexico. He said, "There are complaints that some countries have not been dealt with carefully, other countries believe it was not democratic, other groups believe that the matter has been out of the hand of the UN and they would like also that UN would take over this problem again. But I think we should be realistic that what happened there, it is really something positive. I think that the conclusion of a certain agreement was really good progress and we have to follow that up. We all agree that the United Nations should take the lead and we'll continue to take the lead and we will have certainly the summit of Mexico. We'll finish what we have started in Copenhagen."

Following the Copenhagen summit’s end, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made calls to leaders from countries such as China, the United States, Ethiopia, the Maldives, Grenada, France, Brazil and Australia. He told reporters in NYC on December 30, While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped.” He said, "I urge countries to ensure that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund becomes fully operational as soon as possible. I urge all governments to formally sign on to the Copenhagen Accord by registering their support through the UNFCCC. The faster we have all the signatures, the more momentum we can build. . . During the coming months I will continue my work with world leaders to increase their level of ambition."

Access a lengthy release from UNEP with links to extensive information (click here). Access the 10-page IDDRI document (click here). Access the IDDRI website for additional information (click here). Access a release on the December 21 press briefing in NYC (click here). Access the December 30 press briefing of the UN Secretary-General (click here).

EPA To Establish First-Time “Chemicals Of Concern” List

Dec 30: U.S. EPA announced a series of actions including developing Chemical Action Plans (CAPs) on four chemicals which they said raise serious health or environmental concerns, including phthalates. For the first time, EPA intends to establish a “Chemicals of Concern” list and is beginning a process that "may lead to regulations requiring significant risk reduction measures to protect human health and the environment." EPA said the actions represent its "determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible, recognizing EPA’s strong belief that the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform."

In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing are short-chain chlorinated paraffins; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA. EPA said the chemicals are used in the manufacture of a wide array of products and have raised a range of health and environmental concerns. EPA also recently announced that three U.S. companies agreed to phase out DecaBDE, a widely used fire retardant chemical that may potentially cause cancer and may impact brain function [See WIMS 12/18/09].

Administrator Jackson said, “The American people are understandably concerned about the chemicals making their way into our products, our environment and our bodies. We will continue to use our authority under existing law to protect Americans from exposure to harmful chemicals and to highlight chemicals we believe warrant concern. At the same time, I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation’s outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard. Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward.”

On September 29, 2009, Jackson outlined a set of agency principles to help inform legislative reform and announced that EPA would act on a number of widely studied chemicals that may pose threats to human health [See WIMS 9/30/09]. EPA noted that when TSCA was passed in 1976, there were 60,000 chemicals on the inventory of existing chemicals. Since that time, EPA has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals. An additional 20,000 chemicals have entered the marketplace for a total of more than 80,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory.

The actions announced include: (1) Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list; (2) Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals; and, (3) Reinforcing the DecaBDE phaseout -- which will take place over three years -- with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market. EPA also indicated that chemicals currently in the action plan development process also include: Benzidine dyes and pigments; and Bisphenol A.

This is the first time EPA has used TSCA’s authority to list chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.” EPA said the decision to list the chemicals further signals the Administration’s commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA. Inclusion on the list publicly signals EPA’s strong concern about the risks that those chemicals pose and the agency’s intention to manage those risks. Once listed, chemical companies can provide information to the Agency if they want to demonstrate that their chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a release indicating that although it supports EPA’s effort to outline possible Agency actions for prioritized chemicals under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), ACC and its member companies are disappointed that the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current “high-profile” nature.

Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO, said, “In exercising its authority under TSCA, EPA should prioritize chemicals for the CAP program based on scientific criteria that reflect available hazard, use and exposure information provided to the agency. Unfortunately, until today, there has been little transparency, and significant uncertainty, over the scientific basis for the selection of these chemicals. The action plans released today include references to scientific studies that the agency believes make the case for restrictive action, but the agency should maintain their responsibility to review the weight of evidence for all scientific studies, even those that lead to a different conclusion. The chemical industry supports modernizing the way chemicals are managed in commerce, but the CAP process to date provides no evidence of a systematic, science-based approach to chemicals management. It is vital that this be addressed.”

“ACC members are proud of our products. Chemicals are critical in life saving vaccines, solar panels and energy efficient products, clean water, and so many other uses that improve quality of life, safety, and the environment. ACC members will continue to work with consumer, government and scientific organizations to understand the impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment.”

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in a blog post said that EPA deserved an “A for effort.” EDF said, in response to ACC's claims that “the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current ‘high-profile’ nature; that "back when it [EPA] announced its enhanced program, EPA pretty clearly stated the basis for selecting the first group of chemicals:" EPA said, "The initial chemicals selected for action plan development were chosen on the basis of multiple factors, including chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic; high production volume chemicals; chemicals in consumer products; chemicals of particular potential concern for children’s health because of reproductive or developmental toxicity; chemicals subject to review and potential action in international forums; chemicals found in human blood in biomonitoring programs; and chemicals in categories generally identified as being of potential concern in the new chemicals program." EDF said further that, "each individual plan provides substantial documentation as to why EPA selected the chemical, including detailed hazard and exposure data."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on EPA’s legislative reform principles, a fact sheet on the complete set of actions on the four chemicals, the CAPs and additional information (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to additional information (click here). Access the blog post from EDF (click here).

Update On The Copenhagen Accord; UN Calls For 2010 Final Deal

• Subscribers & Readers Note: Although we are on our Christmas-New Year's holiday break, we are issuing this special report to provide an update on the Copenhagen Accord completed early Saturday morning in Copenhagen.

Dec 21: Acknowledging that the climate change deal reached over the weekend in Copenhagen was not ideal for all nations, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon exhorted world leaders to act in concert to ensure that a legally binding treaty is reached next year. The "political" agreement was struck in the Danish capital on Saturday morning after negotiations had come to a standstill, with Secretary-General Ban intervening at the last minute to assuage nations which felt they had been excluded from parts of the negotiations.

The agreement, now known as the Copenhagen Accord, includes an agreement to working towards curbing global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, efforts to reduce or limit emissions, and pledges to mobilize $100 billion a year for developing countries to combat climate change. According to a UN release, "The leaders were united in purpose, but they were not united in action." Ban told reporters today in New York today (December 21), “While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped.” The two-week-long United Nations conference in Copenhagen, attended by 128 heads of State and government, was marked by interruptions in negotiations due to divisions between States over transparency and other issues.

Ban outlined five key points of the Accord saying, "First, it commits countries to work to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. It also says that they will review this commitment in 2015 to take account of new scientific evidence. (He noted that the IPCC is going to try to release their fifth assessment report in 2014). Second, the Accord includes mid-term mitigation targets by developed countries and mid-term mitigation actions by developing countries.

"Third, countries have agreed on the importance of acting to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. This means we have finally brought the source of nearly one fifth of global emissions into the emerging climate regime. Fourth, the Accord agrees to provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable to cope with climate change. Fifth, the deal is backed by money and the means to deliver it. You know that already $30 billion have been committed until 2012, and after that $100 billion annually up to 2020."

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action. However, we need to be clear that it is a letter of intent and is not precise about what needs to be done in legal terms. So the challenge is now to turn what we have agreed politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable and verifiable."

The Accord specifies that industrialized countries will commit to implement, individually or jointly, quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, to be listed in the accord before January 31, 2010. Additionally, a number of developing countries, including major emerging economies, agreed to communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions every two years, also listing their voluntary pledges before the January 31, 2010.

Following his involvement in the agreement, President Obama issued a brief statement and answered a few questions at a press briefing. The President said, "Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented -- made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen. For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change. . .

"Because of the actions we're taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions. We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change. And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way. These three components -- transparency, mitigation and finance -- form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen. . .

"In addition to our close allies who did so much to advance this effort, I worked throughout the day with Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, who was representing Africa, as well as Premier Wen of China, Prime Minister Singh of India, President Lula of Brazil, and President Zuma of South Africa, to achieve what I believe will be an important milestone. . .

"The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and to shape the future that we seek. That's why I came to Copenhagen today, and that's why I'm committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe. That's also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action. . ."

The next annual UN Climate Change Conference will take place towards the end of 2010 in Mexico City, preceded by a major two week negotiating session in Bonn, Germany, scheduled May 31 to June 11.

Access a release from the UN Secretary-General (click here). Access the official Copenhagen Accord posted by the UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC final press release (click here). Access the President's statement and press briefing following the deal (click here). Access pictures and a blog post of the President in Copenhagen (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here).

Obama: "I Come Here Today -- Not To Talk, But To Act"

• Note: As we wrap up 2009, President Obama is still in Copenhagen attempting to reach an agreement and reports are just coming in that some sort of a deal with China and others has been reached. A news conference is expected soon (4:15 pm EST). We will be taking a few days off for our annual Christmas/New Year's break and return on Monday, January 4, 2010, to begin our 30th year of environmental news services. We wish all of our subscribers and readers a happy and safe holiday season and wish you well in the coming new year. Thank you all for your continuing support.

Dec 18: President Obama delivered brief remarks at the morning plenary session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) High-level session. The session included 119 heads of state and government representing countries that account for 89% of the world's GDP, 82% of the world's population and 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Included in the 119 countries are the 20 largest economies and the top 15 greenhouse gas emitters in the world.

President Obam summarized the current situation as follows, "After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear.

"First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

"Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we're living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

"I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.

"Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if -- and only if -- it is part of a broader accord that I have just described.

"Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula -- one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord -- one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community."

The President continued, "We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.

"Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

"Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

"We are ready to get this done today -- but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past -- and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet."

On December 17, House Speaker Pelosi, Leader Steny Hoyer, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey held a press briefing at the Bella Center in Copenhagen (see link below).

At approximately 8:00 PM, Copenhagen time, a draft agreement was emerging from the negotiators.

Update: In the early evening, U.S. time, a "deal" -- the Copenhagen Accord -- was announced which President Obama called a, "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen." See link to the President's statement and press briefing following the deal below.

Access the full text of the President's address (click here). Access a current report of the progress from the New York Times includes latest, still draft agreement (click here). Access the official Copenhagen Accord posted by the UNFCCC (click here). Access the President's statement and press briefing following the deal (click here). Access pictures and a blog post of the President in Copenhagen (click here). Access the transcript from the House press conference and a video (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here).

Secy. Clinton Says Lack Of Transparency Is "Kind Of A Dealbreaker"

Dec 17: At yesterday's Department of State press briefing it was announced that Secretary Hillary Clinton would be traveling to Copenhagen, Denmark to participate in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), COP 15/CMP 5 meeting. It was stated that, "She and the President decided that she could play a useful role in helping close gaps in the -- our climate talks there by traveling to Copenhagen and personally participating." Today, Secretary Clinton is attending some of the events that are intended for leaders, such as the gala dinner tonight and will attend events in advance of the President, who arrives Friday morning (December 18). She is conducting a number of bilateral meetings.

At a press briefing today, she said, "We have now reached the critical juncture in these negotiations. I understand that the talks have been difficult. I know that our team, along with many others, are working hard and around the clock to forge a deal. And we will continue doing all that we can do. But the time is at hand for all countries to reach for common ground and take an historic step that we can all be proud of. There is a way forward based on a number of core elements: decisive national actions, an operational accord that internationalizes those actions, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The world community should accept no less."

In an important announcement relating to developed countries providing funding for developing countries. She emphasized that the effort is designed to assist "the poorest and most vulnerable" countries, implying that the funding is not intended for major developing countries link China, India and Brazil. She said, ". . .we also recognize that an agreement must provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. That’s why we joined an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.

"And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us."

She concluded, "Over the next two days, we will be discussing these issues further. This problem is not going away, even when we leave Copenhagen. But neither is our resolve. We must try to overcome the obstacles that remain. We must not only seize this moment, but raise our oars together and row in the same direction toward our common destination and destiny. And the United States is ready to do our part."

In response to a question asking whether the U.S. would walk away from the agreement if China does not commit to transparency, incorporating their commitments into an international treaty that the U.S. is asking; she said, "It would be hard to imagine, speaking for the United States, that there could be the level of financial commitment that I have just announced in the absence of transparency from the second biggest emitter - and now I guess the first biggest emitter, and now nearly, if not already, the second biggest economy."

In response to a question regarding what standards the U.S. would expect China and other major developing nations to meet in order for there to be a deal in which the U.S. could go ahead with a financial commitment; she said, "Well, we have presented and discussed numerous approaches to transparency with a number of countries and there are many ways to achieve transparency that would be credible and acceptable. But there has to be a willingness to move toward transparency in whatever form we finally determine is appropriate. So, if there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, that’s kind of a dealbreaker for us. . . there have been occasions in this past year when all the major economies have committed to transparency. Now that we are trying to define what transparency means and how we would both implement it and observe it, there is a backing away from transparency. And, you know, that to us is something that undermines the whole effort that we’re engaged in."

In response to a question on details of the funding commitments for developing countries, it was mentioned that the EU has committed about 10 billion dollars, Japan 15 billion and so what the U.S. offering; she responded briefly, "We are committed to the fast funding start, and we are going to do our proportion of it. .."

Following Secretary Clinton's comments, the Associated Press reported later in the day that "China says it is willing to provide details about its actions to control carbon emissions, moving to meet a key US demand for verification of China's promises to fight global warming." AP quoted Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei as saying China is ready for "dialogue and cooperation that is not intrusive, that does not infringe on China's sovereignty."

Access the complete transcript of Secretary Clinton's statement and press briefing (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here). Access the AP report (click here).

Without Developing World Commitment, A Solution Is Impossible

Dec 15: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged international negotiators in Copenhagen to reach a "broad operational agreement to combat climate change." In an op-ed published by the International Herald Tribune, the Secretary laid out a way forward that will promote sustainable development by moving the world toward a low-carbon economy. Secretary Clinton is currently on her way to Copenhagen to attend the climate change conference. The so-called "high level segment" of the conference began on December 15.

In her op-ed she said, "A successful agreement depends upon a number of core elements, but two are shaping up to be essential: first, that all major economies set forth strong national actions and resolve to implement them; and second, that they agree to a system that enables full transparency and creates confidence that national actions are in fact being implemented."

She said further, "Our world is on an unsustainable path that threatens not only our environment, but our economies and our security. It is time to launch a broad operational accord on climate change that will set us on a new course. . . It is no secret that the United States turned a blind eye to climate change for too long. But now, under President Obama’s leadership, we are taking responsibility and taking action.

"Already, the Obama administration has done more at home to promote clean energy and address climate change than ever before in our history. We are investing more than $80 billion in clean energy and working with Congress to advance comprehensive climate and energy legislation. And we have announced our intention to cut our emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and ultimately in line with final climate and energy legislation. In light of the president’s goals, the expected pathway in pending legislation would extend those cuts to 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and more than 80 percent by 2050. These are the kind of strong national actions that a successful agreement requires.

"So there should be no doubt about our commitment. We have come to Copenhagen ready to take the steps necessary to achieve a comprehensive and operational new agreement that will provide a foundation for long-term, sustainable economic growth. This needs to be a common effort. All major economies, developed and developing, need to take robust and transparent action to reduce their carbon emissions. Of course, the actions required of the developed and major developing countries will not be identical, but we must all do our part.

The simple fact is that nearly all of the growth in emissions in the next 20 years will come from the developing world. Without their participation and commitment, a solution is impossible. Some are concerned that a strong agreement on climate change will undermine the efforts of developing nations to build their economies, but the opposite is true. This is an opportunity to drive investment and job creation around the world, while bringing energy services to hundreds of millions of the world’s poor.

"That is why United States is supporting an accord that both complements and promotes sustainable development by moving the world toward a low-carbon economy. The accord we seek will provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. And we are prepared to join an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.

"We can all see the way forward that has emerged from months of negotiations: decisive national action, an operational accord that internationalizes those commitments, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The United States is ready to embrace this path, and we hope that the rest of the world will rally around it this week."

At yesterday's (December 15) press briefing in Copenhagen by Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change and Head of the United States Delegation, in response to a question stating that the "U.S. wouldn’t sign up to Kyoto or Kyoto with another name. Is that still your position?" Stern responded, "That is definitely still our position. That doesn’t mean that there are – that there aren’t some elements of the Kyoto Protocol that would still be relevant. I mean there’s some really important elements of the Kyoto Protocol that the United States wrote, even though we didn’t end up in the agreement. So all of the whole architecture of emissions trading and the so-called clean development mechanism, which is - you know, allows the purchase of offsets from developing countries. All of those are ideas and provisions that were created by the U.S. and which actually, interestingly, although this is past history, but which the EU fought quite hard against back in 1997. Then, of course, the U.S. went in another direction and then didn’t end up there, and the EU, to its credit did, and put in place emissions trading and a lot of other things. So, there are provisions, certainly, from Kyoto that we’d be very comfortable with. But in terms of the overall Kyoto architecture, no."

In response to a question regarding how does the U.S. reconcile it's commitment to greenhouse gas reduction of 17% below 2005 levels with scientists’ recommendations, who say that developed countries need to reduce emission by 25 to 40 %, relative to 1990? And the U.S. commitment is equivalent to a 3% reduction from 1990.

Stern responded, "I actually absolutely can reconcile it, and here’s the reason. I think that the 25 to 40 % reduction below 1990 was included in what has become a kind of iconic chart in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the scientific body. And that sets forth a good pathway for essentially holding emissions to around 450 parts per million, which is designed to give us a decent chance of holding temperature increases to 2 degrees above preindustrial. It’s not the only pathway, at all. There are a whole lot of other pathways that can get you there. We have -- our proposal and the legislation that’s pending in Congress would take us, decade by decade -- about 20% every decade -- to an 80% reduction. Actually, 80% below 1990, 83% below 2005 -- which would be right on target with what we would need to do. There is all kinds of scientific work that -- the President’s science advisor, John Holdren is actually here; I’m sure [he] would be happy to talk to you about this in Copenhagen -- has laid out a whole set of other pathways that can get you where you need to go. The difference -- just so you can sort of again have the frame in mind -- the difference between the pathway that the U.S. has charted and the pathway that would involve starting at that 25 to 40 % below 1990 -- the difference between that and what we’re doing is about 1 part per million in 2050. So I think that we’re on a very good path."

On the critical question regarding commitments from China, the question was asked: "It seems as though one of the real potential showstoppers here is between the U.S. and China. And I’m wondering if you could sort of help us think of a way to get out of the fact that China seems resolutely not wanting to put in paper – in writing – its domestic announcement. And the U.S. is obviously resolutely insisting upon that as a condition of an agreement here."

Stern responded, "It is an issue. It’s a big issue. You know, I’m not quite sure what to tell you. I think that from our point of view, you can’t even begin to have an environmentally-sound agreement without the adequate and significant participation of China. Look, I have said on many occasions about China and many of the other major developing countries that I think they are doing a great deal. If you go to China you will see a really significant amount of activity, a significant amount of engagement on this issue. But if we are going to have an international agreement, as opposed to a bunch of individual countries doing their own domestic thing, but an international agreement where countries come together to work together, then they have got to be prepared to put what they are doing into that international agreement. I actually think that we’re going to get there with China, but you know -- don’t know for sure yet. But it is a tough issue. But it is just one that I think is necessary in order to have an environmentally-sound agreement."

Access the full text of Secretary Clinton's op-ed (click here). Access the complete and very informative press briefing with Todd Stern (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here).

Sen. Murkowski's Disapproval Resolution On Endangerment Finding

Dec 14: U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), announced her intention to file a disapproval resolution to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski’s resolution comes in the wake of the agency’s recent endangerment finding, which she said will result in "damaging new regulations that endanger America’s economy." The Senator's announced disapproval came one day before EPA's endangerment finding was officially published in the Federal Register [74 FR 66495-66546, 12/15/09]. The endangerment finding was announced by EPA on December 7 [See WIMS 12/8/09].

Murkowski said, “I remain committed to reducing emissions through a policy that will protect our environment and strengthen our economy, but EPA’s backdoor climate regulations achieve neither of those goals. EPA regulation must be taken off the table so that we can focus on more responsible approaches to dealing with global climate change.” Murkowski indicated that while the Administration claims the endangerment finding is merely an affirmation of the science behind global climate change, she said "that aspect is just the tip of the iceberg."

She said further, “The EPA administrator’s move has thrown open the door to expensive and intrusive government regulation -- as far from a market-based solution as we can possibly imagine. The endangerment finding is aptly named. It endangers jobs, it endangers economic growth, and it endangers American competitiveness, while setting the stage for backdoor bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans on an unprecedented scale. The EPA has taken these actions despite the fact that Congress is continuing to work on climate legislation. I find that highly counter-productive, especially as our nation struggles to regain its economic footing. The endangerment finding must be stopped so that Congress can pass responsible legislation that is sound on its own merits, and not merely a defense against the threat of damaging regulations.”

Murkowski warned those who believe EPA action will prod Congress to act faster that such a strategy is likely to fail and carry with it unintended consequences. She said, “Make no mistake -- Congress is being threatened in a misguided attempt to move a climate bill forward. But this strategy is highly flawed because it assumes Congress will pass economically damaging legislation in order to stave off economically damaging regulations. That’s a false choice and it should be rejected outright. “This administration should be able to work with this Congress to pass needed, common-sense, and transparent reforms to our energy and environmental policies. Until the administration stops playing Russian roulette with the economy and decides to reach across the aisle, however, it will be difficult to do anything but oppose the irresponsible decisions that are being made.”

In a release, Murkowski indicated she will file her disapproval resolution pursuant to the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Senators Don Nickles (R-OK) and Harry Reid (D-NV), were the principal sponsors of the CRA, incorporated into the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). If the committee does not favorably report the resolution within 20 calendar days, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.

Access a release from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access a video of the Senator's floor speech (click here). Access the full text of the floor speech (click here).

Final Week Of Turbulent Copenhagen Climate Change Meeting

Dec 14: At the start of what he called "the most critical week in global efforts to forge a new deal to curb climate change," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speaking to reporters from the UN Headquarters in New York City, warned that the world stood at "the crossroads between a sustainable future and a path to catastrophe." He said, “Now is the moment to act. Seldom in history has a choice been so clear. We can move toward a future of sustainable green growth, or we can continue down the road to ruin. We can act on climate change now, or we can leave it to our children and grandchildren -- a debt that can never be paid, a poisoned legacy that threatens our planet and its people. I call on the world’s leaders to lead. Time is running out. There is no time left for posturing or blaming. Every country must do its part to seal a deal in Copenhagen.”

New draft negotiating texts were released on Friday, December 11, at the climate change conference under way in Copenhagen. The drafts are designed to move the talks forward; however, the United Nations stressed that they do not presuppose either a final outcome or its legal form. The texts released included: Chair’s Proposed Draft Text on the Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA, 7-pages); and Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP, 27-pages).

According to a release from the UN, "the texts seek to promote discussion on the broader picture of a possible outcome to arise from the gathering in the Danish capital before high-level government officials start arriving as early as tomorrow." Negotiators are currently examining the new texts and will decided this evening whether they are a useful basis for their further work. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said that "considerable progress has been made in areas including technology, adaptation and the prevention of deforestation." He said, “It is now also time to begin to focus on the big picture."

De Boer said he welcomed the announcement by leaders of the European Union (EU) to provide €7.2 billion over the next three years to help developing countries take action on climate change. He indicated that the amount pledged by the EU is nearly one-third of the $30 billion needed from 2010-2012 to help poorer nations cope with the impacts of global warming and plan for low-emissions growth. He said, "One of the things that has been holding [the Copenhagen] process back is lack of clarity on how short-term financial support is going to be provided to developing countries and the fact that Europe has now very clearly put a figure on the table will, I think, be a huge encouragement to the process.”

Among many other items the AWG-LCA draft calls for a long term vision saying, "a. Parties shall cooperate to avoid dangerous climate change, in keeping with the ultimate objective of the Convention, recognizing [the broad scientific view] that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed [2degreesC][1.5degreesC]; b. Parties should collectively reduce global emissions by at least [50] [85] [95] per cent from 1990 levels by 2050 and should ensure that global emissions continue to decline thereafter: (c) Developed country Parties as a group should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
by [75–85] [at least 80–95] [more than 95] per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. . ."

Regarding mid-term targets, the draft says, "Developed country Parties shall undertake, individually or jointly, legally binding nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, [including][expressed as] quantified economywide emission reduction objectives with a view to reducing the collective greenhouse gas emissions of developed country Parties by at least [25–40] [in the order of 30] [40] [45] per cent from 1990 levels by 2020;" Note: numbers in brackets indicate options being considered.

Further the draft indicates, "Developed country Parties shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing country Parties. . ."

After reviewing the LCA draft, Todd Stern, Special Envoy on Climate Change and Head of the U.S. Delegation said at a press conference that the U.S. agreed with some parts of the draft and didn't agree with other parts; however, he said, the "mitigation" section could not serves as a basis of negotiation because, "the U.S. will not do a deal without the major developing countries stepping up and taking major actions. It [the draft text] calls for developed countries to have legally binding commitments to Kyoto-type targets, but does not in any sense call upon major developing countries to set forth their own actions or stand behind them -- this is a basic element of a deal for the United States."

Access a release from the UN on the beginning of the final week (click here). Access a release from the UN on the release of the draft texts (click here). Access the AWG-LCA draft (click here). Access the AWG-KP draft (click here). Access a video of the complete Todd Stern press conference (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and press briefings (click here).