EPA & DOE Updates On Radiation Levels Here & In Japan

Mar 22: During a detailed analysis of four west coast RadNet air monitor filters, U.S. EPA identified trace amounts of radioactive iodine, cesium, and tellurium consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident. EPA said, "These levels are consistent with the levels found by a Department of Energy monitor last week and are to be expected in the coming days." The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also released data recorded from its Aerial Monitoring System as well as ground detectors deployed along with its Consequence Management Response Teams. DOE said the information has also been shared with the government of Japan as part of the United States' ongoing efforts to support Japan with the recovery and response effort.

 

    EPA's samples were captured by three monitors in California and one in Washington State on Friday, March 18 and sent to EPA scientists for detailed laboratory analysis. The data was reviewed over the weekend and the analysis was completed Monday night (March 21). The radiation levels detected on the filters from California and Washington monitors are hundreds of thousands to millions of times below levels of concern. In addition, last night preliminary monitor results in Hawaii detected minuscule levels of an isotope that is also consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident. This detection varies from background and historical data in Hawaii. This isotope was detected at a fixed monitor in Hawaii, and it is far below any level of concern for human health. The sampling filter from this monitor is being sent to EPA's national radiation lab for further analysis.

    EPA said that in a typical day, Americans receive doses of radiation from natural sources like rocks, bricks and the sun that are about 100,000 times higher than what we have detected coming from Japan. EPA said, ". . .the levels we're seeing coming from Japan are 100,000 times lower than what you get from taking a roundtrip international flight." EPA is in the process of conducting detailed filter analyses for fixed monitors located in Oregon. EPA's RadNet filter results for San Francisco, Seattle, Riverside and Anaheim, California detected minuscule quantities of iodine isotopes and other radioactive particles that pose no health concern at the detected levels.

 

    DOE indicated in a release that on March 15, 33 experts from the Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) arrived in Japan along with more than 17,200 pounds of equipment. After initial deployments at U.S. consulates and military installations in Japan, these teams have utilized their unique skills, expertise and equipment to help assess, survey, monitor and sample areas for radiation. The 33 team members joined another six DOE personnel already in Japan. Since arriving in Japan, NNSA teams have collected and analyzed data gathered from more than 40 hours of flights aboard Department of Defense aircraft and thousands of ground monitoring points. The DOE data has been collected, analyzed and posted on the Department's website. Consistent with the President's commitment to share important information related to health and safety with the public, the Department will seek to update the data posted on its website daily.

 

    A release from Greenpeace citing information available from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) and the Ministry of Food Safety indicates that, "Tests carried by the Tokyo metropolitan government found 210 becquerels of iodine-131 per 1 liter of tap water in the city, more than twice the limit of 100 becquerels considered safe for: babies. [And,] the Japanese authorities have started reporting on the contamination levels found in 11 different vegetables. In many vegetables, such as broccoli and cabbage, from the Fukushima prefecture - the most contaminated area, the radioactivity levels exceeded safety limits set by the Ministry of Food and Safety. In Motomiya, 50 km East of the plant, the Ceasium-137 concentration in 'kukitachina' leaves was detected to be 82,000 becquerels per kilogram, 164 times the limit. Government called on consumers not to eat the 11 vegetables and food exports from the contaminated areas have been banned."

 

    In the release, Greenpeace said, "This alarming rise in reports of radioactive contamination in Japan's food chain and water supply once again demonstrates that the government's constant reassurances and downplaying of the Fukushima nuclear crisis and risks public health are at best unreliable. A few days ago, Tokyo Metropolitan Government stated that radiation levels had decreased in the city, yet today (March 23) warns that babies should not be given Tokyo tap water. The authorities may be trying to brave about the current crisis by trying to avoid causing panic, but are they risking people's health in the process?"

    "The Fukushima disaster once more demonstrates that it is impossible to guarantee public safety in the event of nuclear accident. Over the last two weeks, we've had inconsistent and unclear information from Japanese authorities, and often contradictory advice from international nuclear regulators. Any attempt to throw the nuclear industry a climate change lifeline in the wake of the Fukushima crisis is a dangerous deceit. The only smart response to this nuclear wake up call would be for governments around the world would be to heavily invest in energy efficiency and to redouble their efforts to harness safe and secure renewable energy sources."

    Environment America issued a release saying in part, "We must learn from this moment and never allow this fate for our children. More than 108 million Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, and Tokyo is 150 miles from the Fukushima plant. We should be ensuring the relative safety of existing plants, putting a moratorium on any new plants, and beginning to phase out our use of nuclear power. In all cases the process should start, but not end, with plants on fault lines, near coasts or large bodies of water, in the hurricane zone or of the same design as the reactors in Japan. We can and must move away from energy technologies that put our environment and families' health at massive risk and repower our country with clean, renewable energy, like wind and solar power."

    A national opinion survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI) of 814 Americans on March 15-16, 2011, indicates a widespread concern about nuclear power. In a release, the groups indicate, "While a drop in public support for nuclear power would be expected after an incident like the Fukushima reactor crisis, the nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a much stronger response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power to wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs." The poll found that 53% of Americans support a moratorium on new nuclear construction, and more than three in four Americans (76%) are more supportive now of making a transition from nuclear power to renewable energy, like wind and solar, than they were a month ago.

 

    Beyond major nuclear power policy questions, the survey also found a majority of Americans living near nuclear power plants ill equipped to deal with a major disaster. According to the survey, over half (52 percent) of Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor do not know "what to do in the event of nuclear reactor emergency," such as "the evacuation route and what other steps to take." The poll indicates that nearly one in four (24 percent) of Americans say they live within 50 miles of a nuclear power reactor.   

    Access a release from EPA including the data (click here). Access more information and updates from EPA's Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring website (click here). Access a release from DOE and link to the data (click here). Access DOE's Situation in Japan website for more information (click here). Access more information about NNSA's emergency response capabilities (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace with links to the cited information, a briefing on radiation and health, and more information on Greenpeace activities in Japan (click here). Access a release from Environment America (click here). Access a release from CSI on the opinion survey with details (click here). Access the March 23 update from the UN-IAEA with more information on the food and water contamination (click here). Access the IAEA website for more information (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• Bingaman & Murkowski Release CES White Paper For Comment
• CEQ Launches NEPA Pilot Project Program; Solicits Proposals
• U.S. To Assist Developing Countries On Water Issues
• EDF Reports On International Developments With EU REACH Program
• Groups Sue Re: USDA's GE "Roundup Ready" Alfalfa Decision
• Enviros Challenge NPDES Permit For Allegheny Energy
• Nationwide 2010 Census Data Releases Nearly Completed

(Click here for details)

UN Secretary-General Issues World Water Day Message

Mar 22: Today, on International World Water Day, a day to focus attention on the importance of freshwater and advocating for the sustainable management of freshwater resources, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued the following message. World Water Day, held annually on March 22, was recommended at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The United Nations General Assembly responded by designating March 22, 1993 as the first World Water Day. Each year, World Water Day highlights a specific aspect of freshwater. This year's theme, Water for cities: responding to the urban challenge, aims to spotlight and encourage governments, organizations, communities, and individuals to actively engage in addressing the defy of urban water management.

 

    In his message, the Secretary-General said, "As the world charts a more sustainable future, the crucial interplay among water, food and energy is one of the most formidable challenges we face. Without water there is no dignity and no escape from poverty. Yet the Millennium Development Goal target for water and sanitation is among those on which many countries lag the most. In little over a generation, 60 per cent of the global population will be living in towns and cities, with much of the increase taking place in the inner city slums and squatter settlements of the developing world. The theme of this year's observance of World Water Day -- "Water for Cities" -- highlights some of the main challenges of this increasingly urban future.

 

    "Urbanization brings opportunities for more efficient water management and improved access to drinking water and sanitation. At the same time, problems are often magnified in cities, and are currently outpacing our ability to devise solutions. Over the past decade, the number of urban dwellers who lack access to a water tap in their home or immediate vicinity has risen by an estimated 114 million, and the number of those who lack access to the most basic sanitation facilities has risen by 134 million. This 20 per cent increase has had a hugely detrimental impact on human health and on economic productivity: people are sick and unable to work.

 

    "Water challenges go beyond questions of access. In many countries, girls are forced to drop out of school owing to a lack of sanitation facilities, and women are harassed or assaulted when carrying water or visiting a public toilet. Moreover, the poorest and most vulnerable members of society often have little choice but to buy water from informal vendors at prices estimated to be 20 to 100 per cent higher than that of their richer neighbors, who receive piped city water in their homes. This is not just unsustainable; it is unacceptable.

 

    "Water problems will figure prominently at the forthcoming UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, in 2012 – Rio + 20. My High-level Panel on Global Sustainability and UN-Water are examining ways in which we can connect the dots among water, energy and food security, with the aim of reducing poverty and inequality, generating jobs, and minimizing the risks of climate change and environmental stress.

 

    "On World Water Day, I urge governments to recognize the urban water crisis for what it is -- a crisis of governance, weak policies and poor management, rather than one of scarcity. Let us also pledge to reverse the alarming decline in pro poor investment in water and sanitation. And let us reaffirm our commitment to ending the plight of the more than 800 million people who, in a world of plenty, still do not have the safe drinking water or sanitation they need for a life in dignity and good health."

 

    Access the Secretary-General message (click here). Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the World Water Day website for extensive information and background (click here). Access the UN WWD 2011 website (click here). Access a listing of 2011 International events (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• UN-IAEA Reports "Some Improvements" In Japanese Nuclear Crisis
• DOE Announces Second RFI On Rare Earth Metals
• GOP Governors Tell President About "Hostile" EPA Regulations
• DOI Approves First New Deepwater Exploration Plan Since BP Spill
• Finding The Blue Path For A Sustainable Economy
• Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Penn America Insurance Co.
• Huber v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection

(Click here for details)

EPA & DOE Report On Air Radiation Monitoring From Japan

Mar 18: In a joint statement from U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) indicated that the United States Government has an extensive network of radiation monitors around the country and no radiation levels of concern have been detected. EPA's RadNet system is designed to protect the public by notifying scientists, in near real time, of elevated levels of radiation so they can determine whether protective action is required. EPA's system has not detected any radiation levels of concern. Additionally, DOE has radiation monitoring equipment at research facilities around the country, which also have not detected any radiation levels of concern. As part of the Federal government's continuing effort to make activities and science transparent and available to the public,  EPA said it will continue to keep all RadNet data available in the current online database. 

    According to a release, as part of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization's International Monitoring System (IMS), DOE also maintains the capability to detect tiny quantities of radioisotopes that might indicate an underground nuclear test on the other side of the world. These detectors are extremely sensitive and can detect minute amounts of radioactive materials.

    The release indicates that on March 18, one of the monitoring stations in Sacramento, California that feeds into the IMS detected "miniscule quantities" of iodine isotopes and other radioactive particles that "pose no health concern at the detected levels." Collectively, the agencies said the levels amount to a level of approximately 0.0002 disintegrations per second per cubic meter of air (0.2 mBq/m3). Specifically, the level of Iodine-131 was 0.165 mBq/m3, the level of Iodine-132 was measured at 0.03 mBq/m3, the level of Tellurium-132 was measured at 0.04 mBq/m3, and the level of Cesium-137 was measured at 0.002 mBq/m3.

    Similarly, between March 16 and 17, a detector at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State detected trace amounts of Xenon-133, which is a radioactive noble gas produced during nuclear fission that poses no concern at the detected level. The levels detected were approximately 0.1 disintegrations per second per cubic meter of air (100 mBq/m3).

    The doses received by people per day from natural sources of radiation -- such as rocks, bricks, the sun and other background sources -- are 100,000 times the dose rates from the particles and gas detected in California or Washington State. These types of readings remain consistent with our expectations since the onset of this tragedy, and are to be expected in the coming days. The release indicates that following the explosion of the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 -- the worst nuclear accident in world history -- air monitoring in the United States also picked up trace amounts of radioactive particles, less than one thousandth of the estimated annual dose from natural sources for a typical person.

 

    Access a release from EPA and link to a special Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring (click here).

House Committee Approves H.R. 910; Senate Offers It As Amendment

Mar 15: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Chaired by Chaired by Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) with Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) approved the controversial Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) sponsored by Chairman Upton [See WIMS 3/4/11]. The final vote on the amended bill was 34-19, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting for the approval. The three Democrats voting for the bill included: Representative Mike Ross (D-AR), Jim Matheson (D-UT) and John Barrow (D-GA). Chairman Upton said, "The bill will stop "EPA's controversial backdoor climate change agenda" which "would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak."

 

    Despite the defeat of several amendments offered by Democrats regarding U.S. EPA's findings on the science, causes and impacts of climate change, an amendment offered by Rep. Matheson on "the sense of the Congress" was adopted by a voice vote. The amendment indicates:

 "It is the sense of the Congress that— (1) there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system based upon evidence from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level; (2) addressing climate change is an international issue, involving complex scientific and economic considerations; (3) the United States has a role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis; and (4) [Congress should fulfill that role by developing policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment.]" [brackets indicate an amendment to the Matheson amendment].

    On the Senate side, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced an amendment Tuesday to a pending small business bill being considered by the Senate that he said is "identical to a bill, sponsored by Reps. Fred Upton, R-MI, and Ed Whitfield, R-KY, that is being considered in the House Energy and Commerce Committee." According to Sen. McConnell, the bill would stop the Environmental Protection Agency's back-door national energy tax from taking effect." The amendment was originally introduced as a stand-alone bill (S.482) by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee [See WIMS 3/4/11]. That bill has 43 co-sponsors including one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). In addition to Inhofe, McConnell was joined by two other senators who he said have taken a leadership role in the issue -- Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and John Barrasso (R-WY), Vice Chairman of the Republican Conference.

 

    Sen. McConnell indicated that the "unprecedented EPA regulations, designed to regulate carbon emissions from farmers, manufacturers and power plants, will lead to higher gasoline, grocery, electricity and natural gas prices, while stalling economic and job growth." He said, "These new regulations would destroy jobs at a time when Americans need them most. And they'd be especially devastating for states like Kentucky and other coal states. They're attempting to do through regulation what they couldn't do through legislation -- regardless of whether the American people want it or not. This is an insult to the millions of Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet or find a job."

 

    According to Capitol Hill reporters, "Reid attacked the block-EPA plan but said he would allow the amendment to come up for a vote." Reportedly he told reporters in the Capitol, "The Senate [small-business] bill creates jobs, and I don't know why they would want to divert attention from that. We will debate it, we will have a vote on it in due time. It is something that I don't favor, I think his amendment is very, very misguided."

 

    Sen. Inhofe commented on the Senate amendment and said, "The Energy Tax Prevention Act would end EPA's backdoor cap-and-trade agenda. That agenda is designed to make gasoline and electricity more expensive for consumers, families, farmers, truckers-essentially anyone who fills up or flips a switch.  It's also designed to restrict the supply and block the production of America's vast energy resources, which are the largest on Earth. Today was a wake-up call to my colleagues: we have legislation before us to help keep energy prices affordable.  Now they have a choice: to support the Obama Administration's attack on affordable energy, which will bring fewer jobs, a less competitive manufacturing sector, and a chronically sluggish economy, or vote for the Energy Tax Prevention Act to grow the economy and protect small businesses, manufacturers, and consumers from higher energy prices."

 

    Access the Republican markup website for amendments, votes, webcasts and statements (click here). Access the Democrats markup website for similar information and submitted opposition letters (click here). Access a release and comments on the amendment from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access a release and comments on the amendment from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access The Hill report on Senator Reid's comments about the amendment (click here). Access legislative details of H.R. 910 (click here). Access legislative details of S.482 (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• EPA Proposes First-Ever Power Plant Rules For Mercury, Arsenic, Etc.
• House Passes Another Short-Term Budget CR
• USDA Study Indicates Success Of Agriculture Conservation Practices
• Great Waters Coalition Urges Senate To Reject Budget Cuts
• National Pork Producers, et al v. U.S. EPA

(Click here for details)

Japanese Quake, Tsunami & Nuclear Disaster: Few Good Answers

Mar 15: In the aftermath of the largest recorded earthquake to ever hit Japan (8.9) off the coast of the northeastern city of Sendai which triggered a powerful tsunami that has caused incalculable damage and loss of life, there are now significant concerns over the integrity of several nuclear reactors. Reports are that some 800 nuclear plant workers have been evacuated and some 50-60 workers, which must be thought of as heroes, remain in command of the breached facilities and face very high, if not lethal radiation exposures. Obviously, there are many concerns and questions about the potential near-term and long-term human health, economic, environmental and policy impacts both in Japan and internationally and few answers of good information at this point.

 

    In an effort to put the disaster into some factual context, amidst incredible speculations by many sources, WIMS has uncovered two informative article -- a timeline of events the Christian Science Monitor and a concise, point-by-point article by Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School entitled, Japan's nuclear power plant crisis: Some context. Also, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has launched daily briefings and updates on the nuclear reactor situation (links provide below).

 

    The Bunn article indicates, "Bad as it is, this accident is dramatically less catastrophic than Chernobyl.  That accident spread millions of curies of radioactivity -- 3-4% of all the radioactivity in the reactor core -- around the surrounding countryside, exposing millions of people in several countries. Large areas are uninhabitable to this day.  Here there is no real prospect of a runaway chain reaction as occurred at Chernobyl." However, Bunn says, "this is the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, and in some respects worse than Three Mile Island."

 

    Bunn says the catastrophe, "is clearly an example of the huge importance of taking redundant safety systems seriously, and considering carefully the full scope of events that could occur.  Given the huge magnitude of the quake, I think it is impressive that all the affected reactors initially managed to shut down automatically as planned, and begin emergency cooling operations. . . This reinforces the view that whenever someone says there is less than a one-in-a-million chance of a complex system failing, there is more than a one-in-a-million chance they have made unjustified assumptions in their estimate."

 

    He says, "The reason that the disaster hasn't been worse was that the Japanese system had many, many safety precautions in place. However, on the subject of security, he indicates, "Security, by contrast, is something most people in the nuclear industry might get a half-hour briefing on once a year.  If you have intelligent adversaries, it wouldn't be a surprise to have the main power for the cooling and the backup power both fail — the adversaries would plan to make sure that happened."

 

    On the future of nuclear power, Bunn says, "It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the future of nuclear power in Japan, and the future of nuclear power elsewhere. China will likely continue its ambitious plans, for example. But if I had to guess, I would say public and investor perceptions of the safety of nuclear power around the world has been dealt a serious and lasting blow.  This did not take place in a developing country that had just built its first plant and hadn't had time to develop a proper safety culture -- this took place in Japan, one of the wealthiest, most experienced, and most safety-conscious nations on earth (though one that also has had a history of safety issues that were covered up and not reported to the regulator in a timely way)."   

 

    The timeline article summarizes some key facts to date as follows: Death toll: 2,722 (expected to be much higher); Confirmed missing: 3,742; Evacuated: 439,337; Houses damaged: 68,231; Houses destroyed: 4,648; and Countries offering aid: 102. Also, in separate reports some 140,000 people near the damaged reactors have been advised to remain indoors and attempt to seal their houses. The New York stock market reacted wildly today in response to the Japanese disaster, uncertain economic impacts both here and abroad, as well as the continuing unrest in Libya and north Africa.

 

    On March 14, House Energy & Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA), Subcommittee Ranking Members Bobby Rush (D-IL),  Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Ranking Members, requesting an investigation and hearing to examine the safety and preparedness of nuclear power plants in the United States.

 

    The letter indicates, "The worsening nuclear crisis in Japan is raising serious questions in the minds of many Americans about the safety and preparedness of nuclear power plants in the United States. We request that the Committee conduct an investigation and hold hearings to examine this issue. The nuclear industry has downplayed the significance of the events in Japan. Over the weekend, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying organization, said:  'Obviously, any time you have an incident at a nuclear plant that involves any kind of damage or an explosion, it's not good. … But in the scheme of things, is it a disaster? We don't think so.'

    "The nuclear industry has also asserted that it is far better prepared to respond to a nuclear accident than the oil industry was in responding to the blowout of BP's Macondo well. The vice president of nuclear operations for the Nuclear Energy Institute stated: "The problem with the BP event is that they didn't have a Plan B. … We have, I would say, sufficient defense in depth. We have Plan B, C, D and possibly E.'

    "We hope the nuclear industry's self-confidence is warranted, but we should not accept the industry's assurances without conducting our own independent evaluation of the risks posed by nuclear reactors in the United States and the preparedness of industry and regulators to respond to those risks. This is especially important given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is actively considering license applications for new nuclear power plants, as well as renewal licenses for older existing reactors. In recent years, the NRC has approved over 60 license renewal applications, including several for plants with the same design as the endangered Japanese facilities. In fact, the NRC recently voted to renew the operating license for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is of the same design as some of the reactors experiencing severe problems in Japan."

    On March 12, Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) issued a brief statement in response to ongoing reports about the damage to Japanese nuclear facilities after a historic earthquake and tsunami hit the country on Friday, March 11. He said, "Our first priority is the safety of the Japanese people as they assess the damage and work to recover from this terrible natural disaster, and I support the President in his effort to provide assistance to the Japanese government and its people. I understand the Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical staff have offered support to help mitigate damage to the reactors, and our experts are closely monitoring developments at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and other affected facilities. As we extend our thoughts and prayers to those affected by this historic earthquake and the damage it wrought, we will carefully continue to assess and examine the situation. The details of this tragedy are still unfolding. The head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is scheduled to testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee next week, and we will use that opportunity to explore what is known in the early aftermath of the damage to Japanese nuclear facilities, as well as to reiterate our unwavering commitment to the safety of U.S. nuclear sites."

    Access the Bunn article (click here). Access the Christian Science Monitor article which contains links to related articles (click here). Access a release and the letter from Democrats (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the latest updates on the nuclear disaster from the IAEA (click here). Access a White House press briefing on March 14 with Greg Jaczko the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House Republicans Reject EPA Science Findings On Climate Change
• United States v. Desnoyers
• Del-Ray Battery Company, et al v. Douglas Battery
• City of Los Angeles v.  San Pedro Boat Works, et al
• American Commercial Lines LLC v. Water Quality Ins. Syndicate

(Click here for details)

CRS Report Ranks U.S. #1 In "Recoverable" Energy Resources

Mar 11: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released an updated government report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showing America's combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. The 28-page report, dated November 30, 2010, U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, indicates that America's recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. And, according to the Senators, that's not including "America's immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits."

 

    Senator Murkowski said, "It comes as no surprise that we are once again estimated to have the largest conventional energy resource endowment on Earth. As we debate ways to reduce gas prices and provide relief to American families and businesses, this report should be required reading for every member of Congress. For the sake of our national security, our economy, and the world's environment, we need to explore and develop more of our own resources."

    Senator Inhofe said, "The Obama Administration has made a conscious policy choice to raise energy prices, accomplished in good measure by restricting access to domestic energy supplies. Those supplies are, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest on Earth. We could help bring affordable energy to consumers, create new jobs, and grow the economy if the Obama Administration would simply get out of the way so America can realize its true energy potential."

 

    According to a summary provided by CRS: "Discussions of U.S. and global energy supply refer to oil, natural gas, and coal using several terms that may be unfamiliar to some. The terms used to describe different types of fossil fuels have technically precise definitions, and misunderstanding or misuse of these terms may lead to errors and confusion in estimating energy available or making comparisons among fuels, regions, or nations.

 

    "Fossil fuels are categorized, classified, and named using a number of variables. Naturally occurring deposits of any material, whether it is fossil fuels, gold, or timber, comprise a broad spectrum of concentration, quality, and accessibility (geologic, technical, and cultural). Terminology is adopted to reflect those characteristics.

 

    "For oil and natural gas, a major distinction in measuring quantities of energy commodities is made between proved reserves and undiscovered resources. Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission because they are considered capital assets. In addition to the volumes of proved reserves are deposits of oil and gas that have not yet been discovered, which are called undiscovered resources. The term has a specific meaning: undiscovered resources are amounts of oil and gas estimated to exist in unexplored areas. If they are considered to be recoverable using existing production technologies, they are referred to as undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR). In-place resources are intended to represent all of the oil, natural gas, or coal contained in a formation or basin without regard to technical or economic recoverability.

 

    "In the United States, certain institutions are designated to determine and report quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal reserves and undiscovered resources. Other institutions also estimate these values, but differences in estimating methodology can produce significantly different values.

 

    "U.S. proved reserves of oil total 19.1 billion barrels, reserves of natural gas total 244.7 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids reserves of 9.3 billion barrels. Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet. The demonstrated reserve base for coal is 488 billion short tons, of which 261 billion short tons are considered technically recoverable.

 

    "Comparisons of different fuel types can be made by converting all of them to a common unit, such as barrels of oil equivalent, based on their heat content. The amounts of fossil fuels found in other nations as reserves and undiscovered resources are much more difficult to determine reliably because data are sometimes lacking or unreliable, but gross comparisons of national endowments can be made using available data.

 

    Senators Murkowski and Inhofe in a release, summarized and commented on the CRS report by energy resource sectors and said:

 

    "Oil: CRS offers a more accurate reflection of America's substantial oil resources.  While America is often depicted as possessing just 2 or 3 percent of the world's oil - a figure which narrowly relies on America's proven reserves of just 28 billion barrels - CRS has compiled US government estimates which show that America, the world's third-largest oil producer, is endowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's enough oil to maintain America's current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.  

    "Natural Gas: Further, CRS notes the 2009 assessment from the Potential Gas Committee, which estimates America's future supply of natural gas is 2,047 trillion cubic feet (TCF) - an increase of more than 25 percent just since the Committee's 2006 estimate.  At today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet American demand for 90 years.

    "Coal: The report also shows that America is number one in coal resources, accounting for more than 28 percent of the world's coal. Russia, China, and India are in a distant 2nd, 3rd, and 5th, respectively. In fact, CRS cites America's recoverable coal reserves to be 262 billion short tons. For perspective, the US consumes just 1.2 billion short tons of coal per year. And though portions of this resource may not be accessible or economically recoverable today, these estimates could ultimately prove to be conservative. As CRS states: '...U.S. coal resource estimates do not include some potentially massive deposits of coal that exist in northwestern Alaska. These currently inaccessible coal deposits have been estimated to be more than 3,200 billion short tons of coal.'    

    "Oil Shale: While several pilot projects are underway to prove oil shale's future commercial viability, the Green River Formation located within Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. The Department of Energy estimates that, of this 6 trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels are potentially recoverable. That's equivalent to more than five times the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. 

 

    "Methane Hydrates: Although not yet commercially feasible, methane hydrates, according to the Department of Energy, possess energy content that is "immense ... possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels."  While estimates vary significantly, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently testified that: "the mean in-place gas hydrate resource for the entire United States is estimated to be 320,000 TCF of gas."  For perspective, if just 3% of this resource can be commercialized in the years ahead, at current rates of consumption, that level of supply would be enough to provide America's natural gas for more than 400 years."

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access the CRS report (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• EPA Proposes 3-Year Delay For Biomass-Biogenic GHG Permitting
• GOP Blasts Obama Energy Policy; Tout Their "All-Of-The-Above" Plan
• Rep. Markey Responds To GOP Attack On Obama Energy Policy
• EPA Releases Update To National Air Toxics Assessment Tool
• House Subcommittees Hear EPA Budget Testimony
• Significant Problems With DOE Weapons Cleanup Models Guidance
• U.S. Cities With The Most Energy Star Certified Buildings 
• Southern Nuclear Operating Co. AL, & GA v. U.S

(Click here for details)

President Obama On Gas Prices, Energy Strategy & Budget

Mar 11: At a Presidential news conference today, President Obama had some focused comments on the rising gasoline prices; long-term energy strategy; and budget matters that are now being dealt with on a week-by-week basis in the Congress.

 

    On gasoline prices he said, "Of course, rising prices are not a new phenomenon. Three years ago, before the recession hit, a combination of factors, including rising demand from emerging economies like China, drove gas prices to more than $4 a gallon. The worldwide recession and the decrease in demand pushed prices back down. But over the past year, as the economy has picked up steam and global demand for oil has increased, prices have increased again. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East has added uncertainty to the mix and lost production in Libya has tightened supply. . .

    "Here at home, everybody should know that should the situation demand it, we are prepared to tap the significant stockpile of oil that we have in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We're also using the resources at our disposal at the federal level to monitor any possible manipulation in the oil markets. And I'm asking the Attorney General and relevant state -- relevant agencies to work with state attorneys general to monitor for price gouging to make sure that nobody is taking advantage of working families at the pump. In addition, America is better prepared for supply disruptions than we used to be. Today, we use 7 percent less oil than we did in 2005, even as our economy has grown since then, partly because our economy as a whole is more efficient. We're adapting. We're producing more oil and we're importing less. Our automakers, for example, are manufacturing more fuel-efficient cars -- some that now get more than 50 miles to the gallon -- and our consumers are driving more of these cars. . .

    On a longer-term energy strategy, the President said, "Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we'll always be subject to price spikes. So we've got to get moving on a comprehensive energy strategy that pursues both more energy production and more energy conservation. We need to increase our access to secure energy supplies in the near term, and we've got to make our economy more energy-efficient and energy-independent over the long run. Let me be more specific. First, we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high. For the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed. So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality. . .

    "There is more we can do, however. For example, right now, the industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres –- both offshore and on land –- where they aren't producing a thing. . . But let's be clear -- it is not a long-term solution. Even if we started drilling new wells tomorrow, that oil isn't coming online overnight. And even if we tap every single reserve available to us, we can't escape the fact that we only control 2 percent of the world's oil, but we consume over a quarter of the world's oil. T. Boone Pickens, who made his fortune in the oil business -- and I don't think anybody would consider him unfriendly to drilling -- was right when he said that "this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. We can't place our long-term bets on a finite resource that we only control 2 percent of -– especially a resource that's vulnerable to hurricanes, war, and political turmoil.

    "So beyond increased domestic production, if we want to secure our long-term prosperity and protect the American people from more severe oil shocks in the future, the way to do it is to gradually reduce demand and then do everything we can to break our dependence on oil. . . But the bottom line is this. We've been having this conversation for nearly four decades now. Every few years, gas prices go up; politicians pull out the same old political playbook, and then nothing changes. And when prices go back down, we slip back into a trance. And then when prices go up, suddenly we're shocked. I think the American people are tired of that. I think they're tired of talk. We've got to work together -- Democrats, Republicans, and everybody in between -- to finally secure America's energy future. I don't want to leave this for the next President, and none of us should want to leave it for our kids."

    In response to a question on Presidential leadership on budget matters and the latest discussion of another 2-3 week continuing budget resolution (CR), the President said, ". . .with respect to the budget, I think it's important to understand that right now the discussion is about last year's business. We're talking about how to fund the remainder of this fiscal year. This is an appropriations task. . . The Republicans in the House passed a budget that has been now rejected in the Senate. They are not going to get 100 percent of what they want. The Democrats have put forward spending cuts, many of them pretty painful, that give Republicans already half of what they were seeking, because they're the right thing to do. Many of those cuts are ones that were already embodied in the budget that I proposed for 2012. Now, that's been rejected as well. . . both sides are going to have to sit down and compromise on prudent cuts somewhere between what the Republicans were seeking that's now been rejected and what the Democrats had agreed to that has also been rejected. It shouldn't be that complicated. And so what I've done is, every day I talk to my team, I give them instructions in terms of how they can participate in the negotiations, indicate what's acceptable, indicate what's not acceptable. And our expectation is, is that we should be able to get this completed. . ."

    He continued, "But let me just make some broad points about this. Number one, we can't keep on running the government based on two-week extensions. That's irresponsible. We've got a war in Afghanistan going on. We've got a wide range of issues facing the country on a day-to-day basis. And the notion that we can't get resolved last year's budget in a sensible way with serious but prudent spending cuts I think defies common sense. So we should be able to get it done. . . There are going to be certain things that House Republicans want that I will not accept. And the reason I won't accept them is not because I don't think we've got to cut the budget; we do."

    He said certain cuts "don't make sense." He used examples of cutting $800 out of Pell Grants for 8 million kids and eliminating 200,000 Head Start slots that also would mean the layoffs of 55,000 teachers. He said, "we can't stop investing in our people. We can't stop investing in research and development. We can't stop investing in infrastructure -- those things that are going to make us competitive over the long term and will help us win the future." He also said the Republican budget that passed out of the House included a whole range "riders." He said, "These aren't really budget items. These are political statements. . . If Republicans are interested in social issues that they want to promote, they should put a bill on the floor of the House and promote it, have an up or down vote, send it over to the Senate. But don't try to use the budget as a way to promote a political or ideological agenda. . ."

    Access the President's complete press conference text and response to questions (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House Subcommittee Approves Bill To Stop EPA GHG Rules
• House Republicans Announce The "American Energy Initiative"
• Report Highlights Navy Security & Funding Needs From Climate Change
• House Ag Committee Grills EPA On Agriculture Regulations
• Markey & Upton Release On Daylight Savings Time
• Permit Delays, NIMBY Activism & Lawsuits Block Energy Projects
• NRDC v. County Of Los Angeles

(Click here for details)

No Budget Deal In Sight With One Week To Go

Mar 10: As expected the Senate rejected both a Republican and Democratic proposal for a Continuing Resolution (CR) to continue funding the government through the end of the FY 2011 (ending September 30) [See WIMS 3/7/11]. The Republican proposal called for some $61 billion in cuts and the Democrats proposed some $5 billion in cuts. The short-term CR, passed on March 2, avoided a government shutdown and extended funding until March 18 [See WIMS 3/2/11]. The major differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats continue and yesterday's votes were largely political gamesmanship. As evidenced by the statements from party leaders below, Democrats and Republicans remain far apart on numbers and policy with just one week left on the short-term CR.

 

    Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made the following remarks regarding yesterday's budget votes in the Senate and said, "It's time, once again, for us to get down to business. Yesterday's budget votes didn't bring us any closer to a conclusion, but it did make one thing very clear. That lesson is this: One party alone will not reach a resolution without the other's cooperation and consent. We voted on the Republican budget proposal, and on the Democratic budget proposal. Neither plan came anywhere close to the 60 votes needed to pass, or even the 51 votes that would have represented a majority of the Senate. But the exercise was not in vain. We've demonstrated -- publicly and on the record -- that we know the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Now it's time to find that answer in a budget that will reflect our values, keep the country running and create jobs.

    "I can speak only for my caucus when I say we accept the lesson of yesterday's votes. We know we will have to make sacrifices to reach consensus. We're willing to do that. Republicans have to be willing to move their position, too. Perhaps they're willing to finally acknowledge that given our deep debt, we can't afford government giveaways to millionaires and oil companies making record profits. Both acknowledgements would help close the deficit gap. Both would be big pieces to the puzzle. Perhaps Republicans are willing to offer more reasonable cuts that the Democratic caucus can support. By reasonable cuts, I mean cuts that don't arbitrarily kick Head Start students out of class or rob college students of their Pell Grants -- both cuts the Senate resoundingly rejected yesterday.

    "I mean cuts that don't pull the plug on renewable-energy jobs, or cuts that fire thousands of workers at community health centers across the country. Perhaps Republicans are willing to look in our country's substantial budget and find cuts more worthy than those that would weaken the law enforcement and border security that keep us safe. I hope they will. I hope they will join Democrats in saving money by tackling waste, fraud and abuse. I hope they will join us making tough choices and avoiding the temptation to make counterproductive cuts. Let's come together to cut in a way that strengthens our economy, not weakens it.  Let's cut in a way that makes our neighborhoods, our schools and our borders stronger, not weaker.

    "As the negotiation process begins anew, I remind my Republican friends that time is short. I also remind them that the deadline we face -- March 18, one week from tomorrow -- is a deadline that they set. Democrats warned from the start that this process would take a month. Republicans would agree only to a period half as long -- two weeks. Those two weeks are up next Friday. So my message to my Republican colleagues is this: You set the deadline, and the responsibility of meeting it is as much yours as it is ours. Both parties also share a responsibility to be reasonable. Let's get to work. We cannot negotiate this in the media. We cannot negotiate this if we are unwilling to give any ground. We cannot be stubborn and expect a solution. It's time to negotiate in good faith.  The time for political posturing is over, and the time for pragmatism is overdue."

 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made the following comments prior to the Senate votes yesterday. Senator McConnell said, "At a time when Washington is borrowing about $4 billion a day, Democrat leaders want to cut about four and a half billion in government spending for the rest of the fiscal year, and then call it a day. In other words, they want to take what amounts to a day and a half long holiday from their out-of-control spending and then return to the status quo for the rest of the year. And let me just add that paying lip service to the threat caused by the deficit is not a substitute for responsible leadership and that job-destroying tax hikes on small businesses and American families are not the answer to out-of-control Washington spending.

    "At a time when increasing gas prices are already threatening our economic recovery, a minivan tax that some on the other side have proposed won't solve our nation's fiscal crisis. But I'll tell you what it will do: it will destroy jobs and impose a real on burden families every time they fill up at the pump -- at a time when people are looking for relief instead. Democrats' steadfast refusal to cut another dime from the bloated Washington budget has left them no choice, it seems, but to propose raising taxes on American families and small businesses so that they can continue spending at unsustainable levels. Republicans, on the other hand, have made a serious proposal to rein in wasteful spending.

    "So to me, at least, the choice before us is pretty clear. But as we approach today's vote, it's worth noting that even if we were to pass the biggest spending cuts that have been proposed so far in this debate, it wouldn't even put a dent in the fiscal problems we face as a result of the growth in entitlement spending. Think about it: Democrats have been waging war this week over a proposal to cut $4.7 billion. Meanwhile, the amount of money we've promised to spend on programs like Social Security and Medicare -- money we don't have -- is about $52 trillion. So this week's debate is just a dress rehearsal for the big stuff -- and so far Democrats are showing they're just not up to it. They either lack the stomach or the courage, and the President, as members of his own party point out, is nowhere to be found on the issue.

    "I've talked about this leadership vacuum repeatedly this week on the entitlements -- and how their unchecked growth threatens to bury all of us in red ink before we know it. We can argue about whether to cut $5 billion or $60 billion in day-to-day expenses all we want -- but the fact is, even if we hit the bigger number we're still staring at a catastrophe. And the President appears to be totally uninterested in leading us to a bipartisan solution -- the way Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did the last times we faced a crisis of this magnitude. But when it comes to another crisis -- the jobs crisis -- the President isn't just failing to lead, he's flat-out barring the door with a mountain of stifling new regulations and calculated inaction on outstanding free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. . .

    "In the last few weeks, company after company has come before Congress to testify how important accessing Latin American markets is for their future, and to create jobs here. According to the Chamber of Commerce, failing to pass these trade agreements along with the trade agreement with South Korea could cost us 380,000 U.S. jobs. . . The administration has no excuse for failing to act on these trade agreements. It's in the clear interest of the country to approve them. It would create jobs here at home at a time when we desperately need them. I am confident Congress could pass these on a bipartisan basis today. I urge the administration to act today, and not just on South Korea but on Colombia and Panama. I for one am prepared to do everything in my power to pass these agreements together this year."

    Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access the statement from Sen. McConnell (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• High-Speed Robot Screening System To Test 10,000 Chemicals
• Senate Debates Appliance Efficiency & Light Bulbs
• House Ag Approves Overturn Of National Cotton Council v. EPA
• Subcommittee Markup On Stopping EPA Climate Rules Continues
• Study Examines Impacts Of Dams On Native Trout Species
• $12 Million Program Hopes To Stimulate Green Innovation Eco

(Click here for details)

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Nuclear Power 2021 Act

Mar 8: Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mark Udall (D-CO) introduced legislation to direct the Department of Energy to develop innovative, low-cost nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Power 2021 Act (S. 512) proposes a program to design and certify small modular reactors (< 300 megawatts) which can be built and operated in combination with similar reactors at a single site. According to a release, the National Academy of Sciences and numerous other study groups have identified nuclear energy as a promising and essential technical option for meeting our future electricity needs while lowering our overall emissions of greenhouse gases.    

 

    Senator Bingaman said, "Modular reactors make sense because they do not require as large [an] up-front capital investment as conventional reactors. They will keep construction costs down at a time when the expense of building a traditional plant has become so high. I believe that it is appropriate for the Energy Department to work with utilities on the design and approval process for these reactors because nuclear power will play an important role in a carbon-constrained energy world."

 

    Senator Murkowski said, "Small modular reactors have great potential to help meet our future domestic power needs in a flexible manner, both on and off the grid, as well as open market opportunities overseas. This legislation will help address existing challenges and overcome roadblocks by making the development, licensing, and deployment of small reactors a priority."

  

    Senator Udall said, "I've long said there is no silver bullet to solve today's energy challenges; we're going to need silver buckshot, and nuclear energy should be at the table. Nuclear is among the few low-carbon, large-scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today – and small reactors have the potential to make nuclear power more cost-efficient and secure. This bill will help bring small modular reactors to the market."

 

    The release indicates that smaller reactors can be less capital intensive than the larger 1000-megawatt reactors currently being licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They also have the potential to be built in a modular and step-wise fashion. Under the bill, the Federal effort would be cost-shared with the private sector and selected under a competitive merit review process that emphasizes efficiency, cost, safety and proliferation resistance.

 

    The release summarizes that the Nuclear Power 2021 Act authorizes the Secretary of Energy to work in a public-private partnership to: Develop a standard design for two modular reactors, one of which will not be more than 50 megawatts; Obtain a design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each design by 2018; and Obtain a combined operating license from the Commission by 2021.

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access legislative details for S.512 (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- CEQ Instructions On Integrating Climate Change Adaptation
- Mark Up On House Energy Tax Prevention Act Tomorrow
- Nuclear Interests Sue To Stop Waste Management Fee
- UCS Report On Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants
- USDA Reminds Of Conservation Reserve Program Sign-Up
- Energy Star Updates For TVs & Cable & Satellite Boxes
- On-Farm Renewable Energy Production Shows Significant Growth
- 48 Groups Request Sen. Boxer To Help Protect Wolves

 

(Click here for details)

House Subcommittee Hears Competing Views From Climate Scientists

Mar 8: The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), held a hearing entitled, "Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations." The hearing was held at the request of Democrats and follows last week's introduction of the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) [See WIMS 3/4/11], a bill to block what Republican's said is "EPA's controversial backdoor climate change agenda" which they say "would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak." The bill was introduced in the House by full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Whitfield along with three Democratic leaders; and in the Senate (S.482) by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee and 43 cosponsors including one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV).

 

     Witnesses in today's hearing included a distinguished list of scientists including (in alphabetical order): (1) Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville; (2) Dr. Christopher Field (invited at the request of the minority), Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA; (3) Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer (invited at the request of the minority), Director, University of Michigan Biological Station, University of Michigan; (4) Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder; (5) Dr. Donald Roberts, Professor Emeritus, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; (6) Dr. Richard Somerville (invited at the request of the minority), Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA; (7) Dr. Francis W. Zwiers (invited at the request of the minority), Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia.

 

    In advance of the hearing, Democrats issued a 5-page background memo on climate science and Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) delivered a speech at an event at the Center for American Progress. In his speech, Rep. Waxman said, "I've never been in a Congress where there was such an overwhelming disconnect between science and public policy. The Republicans in Congress have become the party of science deniers and that is profoundly dangerous. Exhibit A in the Republican attack on science is the Upton-Inhofe bill that overturns EPA's scientific determination that carbon emissions endanger health and welfare. When we had a hearing on this legislation last month, Senator Inhofe was the lead witness. He told us that climate change is a 'hoax.' The new Republican majority in the House has a lot of power to write our nation's laws, but they do not have the power to rewrite the laws of nature. Republicans in Congress can't cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking safe. And they can't stop climate change by declaring it a hoax. . ."

 

    In his opening statement, Chairman Whitfield said, "This is our third hearing on the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. The first two focused on the adverse impact that the Environmental Protection Agency's global warming regulatory agenda would have on jobs and the economy. We could probably have another hearing on the economic impacts, as we still have not heard from some of the many job creating sectors that consider EPA's global warming agenda to be one of if not the biggest regulatory threat they face. But the minority wanted a separate science hearing and we have agreed to their request. In my view, holding yet another science hearing is rather excessive, given that we have held 24 such hearings in the House of Representatives over the past 4 years. In any event, I am pleased to have this diverse scientific panel today. . .

 

    ". . .one need not be a skeptic of global warming to be a skeptic of EPA's regulatory agenda. Case in point is EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson who warned about how complex and costly greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act would be. Of course, that was in 2009 and 2010 when the administration was trying to pass through Congress cap and trade legislation. It is only now that cap and trade is dead that the Administrator has changed her tune and emphasizes how reasonable and workable these rules will be. . . Keep that in mind when you hear about these scary global warming scenarios. Even if you believe every word of them, the agency's rules are no solution. . ."

 

    Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville testified, ". . .downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on global CO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to the extra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere. . . Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilization's main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered. Climate change alone is a weak leg on which to stand for such a massive undertaking. (I'll not address the fact there is really no demonstrated technology except nuclear that can replace large portions of the carbon-based energy production.)

 

    He also noted, ". . .we have not considered the many positive benefits of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially for the biological world, nor the tremendous boost to human health, welfare, and security provided by affordable, carbon-based energy. As someone who has lived in a developing country, I can assure the subcommittee that without energy, life is brutal and short."

 

    Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer (invited at the request of the minority), Director, University of Michigan Biological Station, University of Michigan, testified and offered his views on the current and expected ecological impacts of climate change, with a particular emphasis on the Great Lakes basin and said, "We know the climate is changing. It is real, it is happening, and the impacts are becoming clearer the more we observe and study plant and animal distributions, nutrient cycles, atmospheric chemistry, and long-term, large-scale weather and climate patterns. . .

 

    "In light of all of the scientific facts relating to climate change, Michigan scientists have overwhelmingly voiced their support for strong federal policies to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Science is not a partisan endeavor. It provides us with the best information available about how the earth and regions such as the Great Lakes basin are responding to the inexorable and unprecedented (in human time-scale) increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases. We ask that Congress support sound legislative and regulatory policies to limit harmful greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, welfare, environment and our economy.

 

    Access the hearing website and links to all witness testimony, a Republican background memo and opening statement from Rep. Whitfield (click here). Access the hearing announcement (click here). Access the Democrats background memo (click here). Access the speech of Rep. Waxman (click here). Access links to an opening statement from Rep. Waxman as well as letters from Scientists, National Academy of Sciences and Health and Medical Professionals (click here). Access a release from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Ranking Member Subcommittee on Energy and Power (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- Enviros Claim Victory In Ballast Water Discharge Settlement
- Upton & Inhofe Question EPA's Timing & Process For Ozone Rules
- EPA Updates Tools To Gauge Electric Generation Impacts
- Groups Urge Swift Development Of Atlantic Seaboard Offshore Wind
- Groups Deliver Annual "Green Budget" Report To Congress
- Ten Sites Added; 15 Proposed For National Priorities List 

 

(Click here for details)

"Political Games" As Budget Crisis Looms

Mar 4: While Congress bought 2-weeks of time when it approved a short-term extension to the Continuing Resolution (CR) that extends funding for the government and avoids a shutdown until March 18 [See WIMS 3/2/11], the major differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats continue. The Senate will be debating and  voting on a budget bill this week.

 

    Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said, ". . . when you have to make the tough decisions that go into any budget, those decisions have to be practical, not political. They have to be realistic, not ideological. . . As careful as we must be not to waste the American people's money, we must be just as mindful not to waste their time. Regrettably, though, the budget debate has turned into a political exercise, and little more. That's counterproductive. We need to be as serious as the challenge before us. I'm much more concerned with actually keeping our country running and investing smartly in our future than I am in this political game. When they wake up in the morning, the American people want to send their children to a good school and then go to a good job. They want their families to come home to a safe neighborhood at night and they want to go to sleep knowing our country is safe from those who want to harm us. They don't care who gets credit for it. They don't care who thought of how best to do it -- they just want us to do it."

    Senator Reid outlined the Republican and Democratic plans as follows:

 

    The Republican Plan: "First, the reckless Republican plan that the Tea Party has pushed through the House. That irresponsible proposal slashes investments, cuts jobs, and sacrifices security and education. Yes, it cuts a lot of money today, but America would lose so much more tomorrow because these cuts are made arbitrarily, without regard for consequences. That's why leading independent economists agree that it will hurt our recovery, slow growth and cost jobs. We can't afford that. We can't afford to be blinded by the big numbers in the House Republicans' plan. We have to scrutinize how they came to cut $61 billion. And the truth is that it adds up to $61 billion through significant subtraction of program the American people don't want to lose [See WIMS 2/22/11]:

• It slashes more than a billion dollars from Social Security, which means half a million seniors who paid into Social Security their entire lives will be waiting for benefits their country promised them.
• It cuts $700 million from education, which means a million disadvantaged students could lose funding and more than 10,000 teachers, aides and school staff could lose their jobs. It would even take 200,000 children out of Head Start.
• It closes poison-control centers and cut $100 million from food-safety inspections. That means the food we eat could be both less safe and more expensive – and that's a lose-lose proposition.
• It cuts three-quarters of a billion dollars from renewable energy investments, which will cost us jobs, threaten our energy independence and delay the day America lives and works in a clean-energy economy.
• It cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security, port security and FEMA. Even some Republican Congressmen readily admit it's not so smart to pinch pennies on the backs of our national security and first responders.

    "That's just the tip of the iceberg. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said these cuts – and many more like them – will cost a significant number of jobs. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's, put that number at 700,000 jobs.

    The Democrat's Plan: "We know that we have to make cuts. But we also know that when we cut, we have to cut in a way that strengthens our economy -- not in a way that weakens it. We know we have to look carefully at the quality of these cuts and not get blinded by the quantity. After all, as I've said before, you can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs -- but no doctor would recommend it. Our plan cuts $51 billion from President Obama's budget, but in a much more responsible way. We're eliminating redundancies, ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs and cutting funding for earmarks.  [Note: analysts indicate that using the "same baseline," Democratic cuts amount to only $6-$10 billion].

    "Our plan recognizes that we're not in a competition to determine who can cut the most, without regard for the consequences. Rather, we need to cooperate to figure out where we can cut the smartest. While the House-passed plan is based in ideology, ours is based in reality. These are decisions about real money that solve real problems that affect real lives. Our budget affirms and reflects our values. We see our modestly recovering economy, including today's news that employers are hiring at the fastest pace in almost a year, and the national unemployment rate fell to a nearly two-year low. We can't squander this cautiously optimistic news with counterproductive cuts."

 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) commented on March 4 and said, "House Republicans have proposed a plan. It would reduce spending by $61 billion in this year's budget. Earlier this week, we voted on a two-week piece of that bill that reduces spending by $4 billion. The White House's proposal, as outlined by the President's economic advisor yesterday, is to cut another $6 billion and call it a day. Even more outrageous, they say that this proposal meets us 'halfway.' I won't get into their tortured justification. Suffice it to say that Politico says it requires Americans to 'suspend disbelief.' The Washington Post was equally unmoved by the White House's logic. They said Democrats are disingenuous in suggesting they've worked hard to reduce spending. And they agree that calling this latest proposal an effort to meet us halfway is nonsense.

 

    "So amid all the fanfare yesterday, what the White House is proposing is little more than one more proposal to maintain the status quo — to give the appearance of action where there is none. This latest proposal is unacceptable, and it's indefensible.

"The American people are tired of hearing the same tired talking points from our Democrat friends. They want action. They want to cut spending to help create a better environment for job creation. It's time for Washington Democrats to get serious."

 

    President Obama said on March 5, "Just as both parties cooperated on tax relief that is now fueling job growth, we need to come together around a budget that cuts spending without slowing our economic momentum. We need a government that lives within its means without sacrificing job-creating investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure. The budget I sent to Congress makes these investments, but it also includes a 5-year spending freeze, and it will reduce our deficits by $1 trillion over the next decade.  In fact, the cuts I've proposed would bring annual domestic spending to its lowest share of the economy under any president in more than 50 years.

    "Over the last few weeks, Members of Congress have been debating their own proposals.  And I was pleased that Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together a few days ago and passed a plan to cut spending and keep the government running for two more weeks. Still, we can't do business two weeks at a time. It's not responsible, and it threatens the progress our economy has been making. We've got to keep that momentum going. . . Getting our fiscal house in order can't just be something we use as cover to do away with things we dislike politically.  And it can't just be about how much we cut.  It's got to be about how we cut and how we invest.  We've got to be smart about it.  Because if we cut back on the kids I've met here and their education, for example, we'd be risking the future of an entire generation of Americans.  And there's nothing responsible about that. . ."

    Access the statement from Sen. Reid (click here). Access a release from Sen. McConnell (click here).Access the statement from President Obama (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- NAM Questions "Good Faith" Of EPA Regulatory Review
- EPA Wants Comments On 2008 Clean Boating Act
- Draft Report To Congress On Benefits & Costs Of Federal Regulations
- Bill Would Extend Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards
- NOAA Website Tracks Coastal Community Program Funding
- $32 Million To Fund Four New Clean Air Research Centers
- California Seeks To Be First PERC-Free Dry Cleaning State
- Antarctica Research Turns Glacial Formation Upside Down

 

(Click here for details)