Jan 9: American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company Inc. (AISLIC) has agreed to pay $42.5 million to clean up contamination at four industrial facilities in a suit in which the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies. The four sites, formerly owned by Fruit of the Loom, are located in Michigan, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said, "Insurers should take note that they may be liable for the cost of cleaning up their bankrupt clients' environmental messes.EPA will keep pursuing companies who pollute the environment."
Fruit of the Loom filed for bankruptcy in 1999 and the court set up two trusts to receive and distribute the company's remaining assets, including its environmental insurance policies. The trusts subsequently tried to collect environmental cleanup costs from AISLIC, a member company of AIG Insurance, under the insurance policy which covered response costs and natural resource damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). AISLIC denied coverage and then brought a suit seeking to confirm that it was not obligated to pay the trusts for these costs.
The settlement resolves a lawsuit that began in 2005 over environmental insurance coverage between AISLIC and the two bankruptcy trusts, and concludes litigation in which the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of EPA, the Department of Interior, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The states of New Jersey, Tennessee, Illinois and Michigan have also joined the settlement.
Under the settlement agreement, AISLIC will make an initial $30 million payment plus interest from May 15, 2007 and ten annual payments of $1.25 million to the Fruit of the Loom trusts. The three largest sites -- the St. Louis, MI, the Bergen County, NJ, and the Toone, TN, sites -- will each receive more than $12.5 million for environmental cleanup and restoration activities. The Breckenridge, MI, site will receive $2.1 million for cleanup. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to a 30-day public comment period. Following public comment, if appropriate, the United States would file a motion for entry with the court, seeking final court approval of the settlement agreement.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a fact sheet and link to the 139-page settlement agreement (click here). [*Remed]
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Supreme Court Decides John R. Sand & Gravel Co. Case
Jan 8: The Michigan case of John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. U.S. (No. 06-1164) was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case on appeal from the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case No. 05-5033. decided on August 9, 2006. According to the Supreme Court docket, the issues in the case are: (1) Whether the statute of limitations in the Tucker Act limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; and (2) Whether a claim for a permanent physical taking of a portion of real property first accrues upon the government’s temporary exclusion of the property holder from another portion of the property.
The various briefs for Petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Co.; Brief for Respondent United States; Reply Brief for Petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Co.; and two amicus briefs from the Pacific Legal Foundation and National Association of Home Builders are available from the links below.
In its 7-2 opinion the Supreme Court said, "The question presented is whether a court must raise on its own the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims, despite the Government’s waiver of the issue. We hold that the special statute of limitations governing the Court of Federal Claims requires that sua sponte [spontaneous action without prompting from another party] consideration." The High Court opinion said a Federal Appeals Court was correct in raising the deadline question without being asked to do so (sua sponte), and to rule that the company had missed the deadline for suing the Federal government in property disputes. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Alito joined in the opinion. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined and Justice Ginsburg filed a separate dissenting opinion.
In the opinion, the High Court explains that petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Company filed an action in the Court of Federal Claims in May 2002. The complaint explained that petitioner held a 50-year mining lease on certain land [in Metamora Township in Lapeer County, MI]. And it asserted that various Environmental Protection Agency activities on that land (involving, e.g., the building and moving of various fences) amounted to an "unconstitutional taking of its leasehold rights."The Government initially asserted that petitioner’s several claims were all untimely in light of the statute providing that "[e]very claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” 28 U. S. C. §2501.
The Government subsequently won on the merits and petitioner appealed the adverse judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Government’s brief said nothing about the statute of limitations, but an amicus brief called the issue to the court’s attention. The court considered itself obliged to address the limitations issue, and it held that the action was untimely. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed to consider whether the Court of Appeals was right to ignore the Government’s waiver and to decide the timeliness question.
The Supreme Court majority affirmed the Appeals Court decision which said, "Because we conclude that JRS&G did not file its complaint within the six-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2501, we hold that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction. We therefore vacate the Court of Federal Claims’s decision and remand the case to the court with the instruction that it dismiss JRS&G’s complaint." [See WIMS 8/10/06]. Commentary on the SCOTUS Blog indicates the decision means that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must always consider whether cases making claims against the Federal government were filed on time, even if the Federal government has waived that issue. And, that the Supreme Court concluded the result was dictated by the Court’s precedents from 1883, 1887 and 1957, among others.
In the dissent of Justice Stevens, concurred in by Justice Ginsburg, he said, "With respect to provisions as common as time limitations, Congress, in enacting statutes, and judges, in applying them, ought to be able to rely upon a background rule of considerable clarity. Irwin [Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95–96 (1990)] announced such a rule, and I would apply that rule to the case before us. Because today’s decision threatens to revive the confusion of our pre-Irwin jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent." Justice Ginsburg indicated that her separate dissent was, "...to explain why I would regard this case as an appropriate occasion to revisit those precedents even if we had not already 'directly overrule[d]' them."
Access the complete opinion, syllabus and dissenting opinions (click here). Access the SCOTUS commentary (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket No. 06-1164 (click here). Access the complete Appeals Court opinion (click here). Access links to various briefs in the case (click here). Access a link to the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to various media reports on the decision (click here). [*Land]
The various briefs for Petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Co.; Brief for Respondent United States; Reply Brief for Petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Co.; and two amicus briefs from the Pacific Legal Foundation and National Association of Home Builders are available from the links below.
In its 7-2 opinion the Supreme Court said, "The question presented is whether a court must raise on its own the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims, despite the Government’s waiver of the issue. We hold that the special statute of limitations governing the Court of Federal Claims requires that sua sponte [spontaneous action without prompting from another party] consideration." The High Court opinion said a Federal Appeals Court was correct in raising the deadline question without being asked to do so (sua sponte), and to rule that the company had missed the deadline for suing the Federal government in property disputes. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Alito joined in the opinion. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined and Justice Ginsburg filed a separate dissenting opinion.
In the opinion, the High Court explains that petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Company filed an action in the Court of Federal Claims in May 2002. The complaint explained that petitioner held a 50-year mining lease on certain land [in Metamora Township in Lapeer County, MI]. And it asserted that various Environmental Protection Agency activities on that land (involving, e.g., the building and moving of various fences) amounted to an "unconstitutional taking of its leasehold rights."The Government initially asserted that petitioner’s several claims were all untimely in light of the statute providing that "[e]very claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” 28 U. S. C. §2501.
The Government subsequently won on the merits and petitioner appealed the adverse judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Government’s brief said nothing about the statute of limitations, but an amicus brief called the issue to the court’s attention. The court considered itself obliged to address the limitations issue, and it held that the action was untimely. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed to consider whether the Court of Appeals was right to ignore the Government’s waiver and to decide the timeliness question.
The Supreme Court majority affirmed the Appeals Court decision which said, "Because we conclude that JRS&G did not file its complaint within the six-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2501, we hold that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction. We therefore vacate the Court of Federal Claims’s decision and remand the case to the court with the instruction that it dismiss JRS&G’s complaint." [See WIMS 8/10/06]. Commentary on the SCOTUS Blog indicates the decision means that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must always consider whether cases making claims against the Federal government were filed on time, even if the Federal government has waived that issue. And, that the Supreme Court concluded the result was dictated by the Court’s precedents from 1883, 1887 and 1957, among others.
In the dissent of Justice Stevens, concurred in by Justice Ginsburg, he said, "With respect to provisions as common as time limitations, Congress, in enacting statutes, and judges, in applying them, ought to be able to rely upon a background rule of considerable clarity. Irwin [Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95–96 (1990)] announced such a rule, and I would apply that rule to the case before us. Because today’s decision threatens to revive the confusion of our pre-Irwin jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent." Justice Ginsburg indicated that her separate dissent was, "...to explain why I would regard this case as an appropriate occasion to revisit those precedents even if we had not already 'directly overrule[d]' them."
Access the complete opinion, syllabus and dissenting opinions (click here). Access the SCOTUS commentary (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket No. 06-1164 (click here). Access the complete Appeals Court opinion (click here). Access links to various briefs in the case (click here). Access a link to the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to various media reports on the decision (click here). [*Land]
Monday, January 07, 2008
SAB Report On Hypoxia In The Northern Gulf of Mexico
Jan 7: U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board has released a massive 333-page update report entitled, Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science Advisory Board. Over a year ago, EPA's Office of Water (OW) asked the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to evaluate the most recent science on the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico as well as potential options for reducing the size of the zone. The hypoxic zone, an area of low dissolved oxygen that cannot support most marine life, has been documented in the Gulf of Mexico since 1985 and was most recently measured at 20,500 km2. The SAB was asked to address the science that has emerged since the 2000 publication of, An Integrated Assessment: Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Integrated Assessment), the seminal study by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources that served as the basis for activities coordinated by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.
The SAB was also asked to address the most recent science on water quality in the Mississippi Atchafalaya River Basin, an area of 31 States and Tribes that drains approximately 40% of the contiguous United States. Further, the SAB was asked to discuss options for reducing hypoxia in terms of cost, feasibility and social welfare. To address this question, the SAB found it necessary to discuss recent research on water quality as well as research on policy options, in particular, those policies that create economic incentives.
Following OW’s request, the Science Advisory Board Staff Office convened an expert panel under the auspices of the chartered SAB. The SAB Panel consisted of 21 distinguished scientists from academia, industry and government agencies with expertise in the fields of oceanography, ecology, agronomy, agricultural engineering, economics and other fields. Over the past year, the SAB Panel held numerous public meetings and considered information from invited speakers as well as over 60 sets of public comments in the development of this report.
In issuing the report, the SAB reaffirms the major finding of the Integrated Assessment, namely that contemporary changes in the hypoxic area in the northern Gulf of Mexico are primarily related to nutrient loads from the Mississippi Atchafalaya River basin. If the size of the hypoxic zone is to be reduced, the SAB finds that a dual nutrient strategy is needed that achieves at least a 45% reduction in both riverine total nitrogen flux and riverine total phosphorus flux. The SAB offers these as initial targets while stressing the importance of moving in a directionally correct fashion and adjusting policy adaptively on the basis of future data, changing conditions and lessons learned. Climate change will likely contribute to changing conditions. A number of studies have suggested that climate change will create conditions where larger nutrient reductions, e.g., 50 – 60% for nitrogen, would be required to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone. An adaptive management approach, coupling nutrient reductions with continuous monitoring and evaluation, can provide valuable lessons to improve future decisions.
The SAB was asked to comment on the Task Force’s goal of reducing the size of the hypoxic zone to 5,000 km2 by 2015. With respect to the time frame, the SAB finds that such a significant reduction is not likely to be achievable over the next eight years. We conclude this for two reasons. First, there is limited current movement to implement policies, programs and strategies that reduce nutrients. Second, there are time lags between reductions in nutrient inputs and the response of the ecological system. Hence, while the 5,000 km2 target remains a reasonable objective in an adaptive management context; it may no longer be possible to achieve this goal by 2015. SAB says this makes it even more important to proceed in a directionally correct fashion to manage factors affecting hypoxia than to wait for greater precision in setting the goal for the size of the zone.
SAB finds that to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf, a systems view, looking at all sources and effects, is needed. The SAB urges the Agency to consider its options with respect to both non-point and point sources. Non-point sources have long been acknowledged as the primary source of nutrient loadings, however the SAB finds point sources are a more significant contributor than previously thought. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is also playing a role in hypoxia.
Access the complete report which includes an executive summary (click here). [*Water]
The SAB was also asked to address the most recent science on water quality in the Mississippi Atchafalaya River Basin, an area of 31 States and Tribes that drains approximately 40% of the contiguous United States. Further, the SAB was asked to discuss options for reducing hypoxia in terms of cost, feasibility and social welfare. To address this question, the SAB found it necessary to discuss recent research on water quality as well as research on policy options, in particular, those policies that create economic incentives.
Following OW’s request, the Science Advisory Board Staff Office convened an expert panel under the auspices of the chartered SAB. The SAB Panel consisted of 21 distinguished scientists from academia, industry and government agencies with expertise in the fields of oceanography, ecology, agronomy, agricultural engineering, economics and other fields. Over the past year, the SAB Panel held numerous public meetings and considered information from invited speakers as well as over 60 sets of public comments in the development of this report.
In issuing the report, the SAB reaffirms the major finding of the Integrated Assessment, namely that contemporary changes in the hypoxic area in the northern Gulf of Mexico are primarily related to nutrient loads from the Mississippi Atchafalaya River basin. If the size of the hypoxic zone is to be reduced, the SAB finds that a dual nutrient strategy is needed that achieves at least a 45% reduction in both riverine total nitrogen flux and riverine total phosphorus flux. The SAB offers these as initial targets while stressing the importance of moving in a directionally correct fashion and adjusting policy adaptively on the basis of future data, changing conditions and lessons learned. Climate change will likely contribute to changing conditions. A number of studies have suggested that climate change will create conditions where larger nutrient reductions, e.g., 50 – 60% for nitrogen, would be required to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone. An adaptive management approach, coupling nutrient reductions with continuous monitoring and evaluation, can provide valuable lessons to improve future decisions.
The SAB was asked to comment on the Task Force’s goal of reducing the size of the hypoxic zone to 5,000 km2 by 2015. With respect to the time frame, the SAB finds that such a significant reduction is not likely to be achievable over the next eight years. We conclude this for two reasons. First, there is limited current movement to implement policies, programs and strategies that reduce nutrients. Second, there are time lags between reductions in nutrient inputs and the response of the ecological system. Hence, while the 5,000 km2 target remains a reasonable objective in an adaptive management context; it may no longer be possible to achieve this goal by 2015. SAB says this makes it even more important to proceed in a directionally correct fashion to manage factors affecting hypoxia than to wait for greater precision in setting the goal for the size of the zone.
SAB finds that to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf, a systems view, looking at all sources and effects, is needed. The SAB urges the Agency to consider its options with respect to both non-point and point sources. Non-point sources have long been acknowledged as the primary source of nutrient loadings, however the SAB finds point sources are a more significant contributor than previously thought. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is also playing a role in hypoxia.
Access the complete report which includes an executive summary (click here). [*Water]
Friday, January 04, 2008
Senate Passes Farm Bill; Now Conference Committee
Dec 14: Mid-afternoon on December 14, 2007, as WIMS was beginning our holiday break, the U.S. Senate passed its version of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, with a bipartisan vote of 79-14 with 7 members not voting. The U.S. House of Representatives passed its hotly contested version of the Farm Bill by a largely party-line vote of 231-191, on July 27, 2007 [See WIMS 7/30/07]. The differences will now be resolved in a Conference Committee. According to a release from Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, the measure continues and improves farm income protection and makes historic investments for the future in energy, conservation, nutrition and rural development initiatives -- all while staying within strict budget limits.
Senator Harkin said, “This is a strong, bipartisan bill -- evident by the fact that it passed Committee after only one day of deliberation with no negative votes voiced against it and passed the Senate today by an overwhelming majority. After months of negotiations, we were able to work within a very strict budget allocation to complete our work and pass a farm bill that is good for agriculture, good for rural areas and good for the health of Americans. This is a forward-looking farm bill with greatly strengthened initiatives to support renewable energy, conservation, nutrition, rural development and to promote better diets and health for all Americans. It maintains a strong safety net for farm producers, and strengthens programs that will help agricultural producers of all kinds across our nation. I thank all Committee members for their cooperation and support in getting this bill passed and join them in looking forward to a swift conference with the House.”
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee also praised the passage of the bill and said it includes the most significant reforms to payment limitations in the history of American farm policy, as well as increased funding for nutrition, energy and conservation programs. Senator Chambliss, who coauthored the bill said, “Passage of the farm bill is a real victory for American agriculture. The legislation will strengthen the nation’s food security, protect the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, preserve our efforts to remain good stewards of the environment, and enhance our nation’s energy security efforts. I consider a safe, affordable and abundant food supply a critical national security interest and this bill takes us in the right direction to ensure those priorities.”
Despite the bipartisan Senate support for the bill, the Administration expressed displeasure with the bill and called it "fundamentally flawed." Acting USDA Secretary Chuck Conner issued a statement saying, "Farmers and ranchers face enormous uncertainties and deserve a safety net, and I am a firm believer in federal support of agriculture. Yet, the farm bill just passed by the Senate fails to strengthen the safety net and increases taxes to generate $15 billion in revenue used to grow the size and scope of government. The bill further increases price supports and continues to send farm subsidies to people who are among the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The Senate-passed farm bill does not represent fiscal stewardship and lacks farm program reform.
"This legislation is fundamentally flawed. Unless the House and Senate can come together and craft a measure that contains real reform, we are no closer to a good farm bill than we were before today's passage. Farmers need a stable safety net that helps in years they need it most. And farmers deserve a farm bill that is free of budget smoke and mirrors and tax increases. The measure passed today has $22 billion in unfunded commitments and budget gimmicks, and includes $15 billion in new taxes -- the first time a farm bill has relied on tax increases since 1933.
"The House and Senate need to address the concerns that matter to farmers the most. We have heard from farmers all across America in over 50 Farm Bill Forums since 2005, and most have made it clear that there must be an end to income subsidy payments for the richest people in the country. Farmers understand that a program that takes tax dollars from middle income America and transfers those dollars to the nation's wealthiest few is bad policy, and damages the credibility and the purpose of farm programs. As the House and Senate work to come to a consensus on their different bills, it is imperative that substantial changes are made to this legislation. I am eager to work with Congress on ways to make this a good farm bill that benefits our rural communities and America's farmers."
According to Senator Harkin's release, the bill includes a newly named Producer Income Protection title of that continues basic features of the 2002 bill, which have worked well, and it gives producers a new option, beginning with the 2010 crop year, to choose to participate in a state-level revenue protection system. The Average Crop Revenue program, modeled after legislation introduced by Senators Durbin and Brown, offers producers better options for managing risk on their farms in today’s uncertain, rapidly changing farm environment.
The conservation title extends key conservation programs and increases critical funding. This will allow CSP – now renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program -- to grow vigorously at a pace of more than 13 million acres a year, which with the 15 million acres already enrolled, will equal 80 million acres in 5 years. This funding will also continue to allow increased enrollment in the Wetland Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Grassland Reserve Program.
The energy title provides investments in farm-based energy by creating initiatives with financial incentives to help farmers transition into biomass crops, and supports the construction of biorefineries from cellulose ethanol with a loan guarantee program that will provide up to 80 percent of total project cost with a loan cap of $250 million. The bill expands markets for biobased products, and invests in farm-based energy R&D, and in helping farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses move to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Harkin also indicated that the nutrition title strengthens our commitment to fighting hunger and promoting sound health and nutrition; the livestock title will promote market opportunities for producers, protect animal health, strengthen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act; the rural development title provides $400 million in budget authority for a variety of initiatives that will promote economic growth and create jobs in rural communities; the bill greatly increases assistance to growers of fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops; and it contains a full reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act until 2013.
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), one of the few environmental organizations to comment on the passage said it was pleased to see the Senate pass the Farm bill and hoped for a speedy conference with the House of Representatives. NWF said,“The Senate Farm Bill is a mixed bag for wildlife. We are disappointed that critical programs like the Grassland Reserve Program would see a cut from the 2002 Farm Bill levels -- not even factoring in inflation. We are pleased that the bill makes important strides in streamlining, focusing and adequately funding the Conservation Security Program.
“But clearly we have a lot of work to do in the conference. Farm Bill conservation programs provide wildlife habitat on over 40 million acres of land across the United States, and we cannot afford to retreat from investments in conservation that benefit farmers, ranchers, wildlife, and rural communities. Included in this overall package was the Endangered Species Recovery Act, which provides tens of millions of dollars in incentives for private landowners to conserve endangered species. The Senate’s enactment of this bill, which was introduced as S. 700 earlier this year by Senators Crapo (R-ID), Lincoln (D-AR), Baucus (D-MT), and Grassley (R-IA), represents an exciting step forward for endangered species conservation.”
Access links to releases, video and related information from Senators Harkin and Chambliss (click here). Access links to the Senate-passed version and the amendment list (click here). Access details of the Senate roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). Access the statement from Secretary Conner (click here). Access the statement from NWF (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]
Senator Harkin said, “This is a strong, bipartisan bill -- evident by the fact that it passed Committee after only one day of deliberation with no negative votes voiced against it and passed the Senate today by an overwhelming majority. After months of negotiations, we were able to work within a very strict budget allocation to complete our work and pass a farm bill that is good for agriculture, good for rural areas and good for the health of Americans. This is a forward-looking farm bill with greatly strengthened initiatives to support renewable energy, conservation, nutrition, rural development and to promote better diets and health for all Americans. It maintains a strong safety net for farm producers, and strengthens programs that will help agricultural producers of all kinds across our nation. I thank all Committee members for their cooperation and support in getting this bill passed and join them in looking forward to a swift conference with the House.”
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee also praised the passage of the bill and said it includes the most significant reforms to payment limitations in the history of American farm policy, as well as increased funding for nutrition, energy and conservation programs. Senator Chambliss, who coauthored the bill said, “Passage of the farm bill is a real victory for American agriculture. The legislation will strengthen the nation’s food security, protect the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, preserve our efforts to remain good stewards of the environment, and enhance our nation’s energy security efforts. I consider a safe, affordable and abundant food supply a critical national security interest and this bill takes us in the right direction to ensure those priorities.”
Despite the bipartisan Senate support for the bill, the Administration expressed displeasure with the bill and called it "fundamentally flawed." Acting USDA Secretary Chuck Conner issued a statement saying, "Farmers and ranchers face enormous uncertainties and deserve a safety net, and I am a firm believer in federal support of agriculture. Yet, the farm bill just passed by the Senate fails to strengthen the safety net and increases taxes to generate $15 billion in revenue used to grow the size and scope of government. The bill further increases price supports and continues to send farm subsidies to people who are among the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The Senate-passed farm bill does not represent fiscal stewardship and lacks farm program reform.
"This legislation is fundamentally flawed. Unless the House and Senate can come together and craft a measure that contains real reform, we are no closer to a good farm bill than we were before today's passage. Farmers need a stable safety net that helps in years they need it most. And farmers deserve a farm bill that is free of budget smoke and mirrors and tax increases. The measure passed today has $22 billion in unfunded commitments and budget gimmicks, and includes $15 billion in new taxes -- the first time a farm bill has relied on tax increases since 1933.
"The House and Senate need to address the concerns that matter to farmers the most. We have heard from farmers all across America in over 50 Farm Bill Forums since 2005, and most have made it clear that there must be an end to income subsidy payments for the richest people in the country. Farmers understand that a program that takes tax dollars from middle income America and transfers those dollars to the nation's wealthiest few is bad policy, and damages the credibility and the purpose of farm programs. As the House and Senate work to come to a consensus on their different bills, it is imperative that substantial changes are made to this legislation. I am eager to work with Congress on ways to make this a good farm bill that benefits our rural communities and America's farmers."
According to Senator Harkin's release, the bill includes a newly named Producer Income Protection title of that continues basic features of the 2002 bill, which have worked well, and it gives producers a new option, beginning with the 2010 crop year, to choose to participate in a state-level revenue protection system. The Average Crop Revenue program, modeled after legislation introduced by Senators Durbin and Brown, offers producers better options for managing risk on their farms in today’s uncertain, rapidly changing farm environment.
The conservation title extends key conservation programs and increases critical funding. This will allow CSP – now renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program -- to grow vigorously at a pace of more than 13 million acres a year, which with the 15 million acres already enrolled, will equal 80 million acres in 5 years. This funding will also continue to allow increased enrollment in the Wetland Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Grassland Reserve Program.
The energy title provides investments in farm-based energy by creating initiatives with financial incentives to help farmers transition into biomass crops, and supports the construction of biorefineries from cellulose ethanol with a loan guarantee program that will provide up to 80 percent of total project cost with a loan cap of $250 million. The bill expands markets for biobased products, and invests in farm-based energy R&D, and in helping farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses move to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Harkin also indicated that the nutrition title strengthens our commitment to fighting hunger and promoting sound health and nutrition; the livestock title will promote market opportunities for producers, protect animal health, strengthen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act; the rural development title provides $400 million in budget authority for a variety of initiatives that will promote economic growth and create jobs in rural communities; the bill greatly increases assistance to growers of fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops; and it contains a full reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act until 2013.
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), one of the few environmental organizations to comment on the passage said it was pleased to see the Senate pass the Farm bill and hoped for a speedy conference with the House of Representatives. NWF said,“The Senate Farm Bill is a mixed bag for wildlife. We are disappointed that critical programs like the Grassland Reserve Program would see a cut from the 2002 Farm Bill levels -- not even factoring in inflation. We are pleased that the bill makes important strides in streamlining, focusing and adequately funding the Conservation Security Program.
“But clearly we have a lot of work to do in the conference. Farm Bill conservation programs provide wildlife habitat on over 40 million acres of land across the United States, and we cannot afford to retreat from investments in conservation that benefit farmers, ranchers, wildlife, and rural communities. Included in this overall package was the Endangered Species Recovery Act, which provides tens of millions of dollars in incentives for private landowners to conserve endangered species. The Senate’s enactment of this bill, which was introduced as S. 700 earlier this year by Senators Crapo (R-ID), Lincoln (D-AR), Baucus (D-MT), and Grassley (R-IA), represents an exciting step forward for endangered species conservation.”
Access links to releases, video and related information from Senators Harkin and Chambliss (click here). Access links to the Senate-passed version and the amendment list (click here). Access details of the Senate roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). Access the statement from Secretary Conner (click here). Access the statement from NWF (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]
Thursday, January 03, 2008
CA, Enviros & Other States Sue EPA On Waiver Request
Jan 2: As promised, California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., on behalf of the State of California, filed its lawsuit against U.S. EPA for “wrongfully and illegally” blocking the State's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards [See WIMS 1/2/08]. Brown filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to challenge the EPA’s denial of California's request to implement its emissions law -- which requires a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle GHG emissions by 2016. California's new standards require Federal approval in the form of a waiver from the EPA. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's request on December 19, 2007 in a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Simultaneously, five nonprofit groups also filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA decision to deny California's request to implement its law limiting GHG emissions from new automobiles. The petitioners -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club -- also filed their suit in the Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. It is expected that 15 states will also file a motion to intervene in support of California.
In a release, Attorney General Brown said, “The denial letter [form U.S. EPA] was shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator's unprecedented action. The EPA has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California's landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that sixteen states have moved to adopt them.” Brown indicated that fifteen other states or state agencies -- Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington -- are joining the lawsuit as interveners.
Jim Tripp, general counsel of Environmental Defense said, “While global warming marches onward, EPA continues to drag its feet. The agency’s decision defies the law, the science and the will of states representing nearly half of the U.S. population. The Administrator’s denial of California’s request relies on a flawed argument that the federal courts already have rejected. We’ve won before in the federal courts, so we expect to win again this time too."
On December 19, 2007, the day of the EPA decision, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) president and CEO Dave McCurdy issued a statement saying, "Automakers acted in good faith when working with Congress and the administration to develop the tough new national fuel economy law for the next 12 years and beyond. By denying this waiver, EPA has not wavered in preserving a national program that raises fuel economy while reducing carbon dioxide. We commend EPA for protecting a national, 50-state program.
"Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency, and uncertainty for automakers and consumers. Under the new national fuel economy law, automakers will make dramatic, 30-percent reductions in carbon dioxide. In fact, automakers are the first manufacturing industry to step forward and agree to make major carbon dioxide reductions, and we expect others to follow. The new fuel economy law represents an early milestone in the road map laid out in Bali, so automakers are now in step with others around the world trying to address climate change."
Access a release from the CA AG Brown including links to the EPA rejection letter and the State’s lawsuit challenging the denial (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the enviros' lawsuit (click here). Access the AAM statement (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Simultaneously, five nonprofit groups also filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA decision to deny California's request to implement its law limiting GHG emissions from new automobiles. The petitioners -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club -- also filed their suit in the Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. It is expected that 15 states will also file a motion to intervene in support of California.
In a release, Attorney General Brown said, “The denial letter [form U.S. EPA] was shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator's unprecedented action. The EPA has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California's landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that sixteen states have moved to adopt them.” Brown indicated that fifteen other states or state agencies -- Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington -- are joining the lawsuit as interveners.
Jim Tripp, general counsel of Environmental Defense said, “While global warming marches onward, EPA continues to drag its feet. The agency’s decision defies the law, the science and the will of states representing nearly half of the U.S. population. The Administrator’s denial of California’s request relies on a flawed argument that the federal courts already have rejected. We’ve won before in the federal courts, so we expect to win again this time too."
On December 19, 2007, the day of the EPA decision, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) president and CEO Dave McCurdy issued a statement saying, "Automakers acted in good faith when working with Congress and the administration to develop the tough new national fuel economy law for the next 12 years and beyond. By denying this waiver, EPA has not wavered in preserving a national program that raises fuel economy while reducing carbon dioxide. We commend EPA for protecting a national, 50-state program.
"Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency, and uncertainty for automakers and consumers. Under the new national fuel economy law, automakers will make dramatic, 30-percent reductions in carbon dioxide. In fact, automakers are the first manufacturing industry to step forward and agree to make major carbon dioxide reductions, and we expect others to follow. The new fuel economy law represents an early milestone in the road map laid out in Bali, so automakers are now in step with others around the world trying to address climate change."
Access a release from the CA AG Brown including links to the EPA rejection letter and the State’s lawsuit challenging the denial (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the enviros' lawsuit (click here). Access the AAM statement (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
EPA Denies California GHG Vehicles Emission Rule Waiver
Dec 19: U.S. EPA announced that the Bush Administration is moving forward with a national solution to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from American vehicles. The Agency said that the new energy legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush this week [See WIMS 12/14/07] provides a federal fuel economy standard that offers environmental benefits, energy security and economic certainty for the nation. Simultaneously, the Agency denied the State of California's request for a waiver that would have allowed it and 16 other states to adopt the California-equivalent rules to curb GHG emission from vehicles. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution -- not a confusing patchwork of state rules -- to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles. President Bush and Congress have set the bar high, and, when fully implemented, our federal fuel economy standard will achieve significant benefits by applying to all 50 states.”
EPA said it had determined that a unified Federal standard of 35 miles per gallon will deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks in all 50 states, which would be more effective than a partial state-by-state approach of 33.8 miles per gallon. On November 8, 2007, California sued EPA, to force the Agency to take action on its request to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles [See WIMS 11/8/07]. Also, on December 12, 2007, a Federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected an auto industry lawsuit challenging the California-equivalent rules requiring [See WIMS 12/13/07].
EPA said that California’s current waiver request was distinct from all prior requests. The Agency said, "Previous waiver petitions covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. Greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature, which is unlike the other air pollutants covered by prior California waiver requests. These gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union. Therefore, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, EPA did not find that separate California standards are needed to 'meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.'” The Clean Air Act requires EPA to follow a process when determining waiver requests. EPA must provide a public comment and hearing opportunity. The statute also provides three very specific criteria that EPA should evaluate for any California waiver petition.
EPA held two hearings on the waiver request and the comment period began April 30 and closed June 15, 2007. EPA said it reviewed more than 100,000 written comments and thousands of pages of technical and scientific documentation received during the public comment period. The comments represented a wide scope of interests including those of states and localities, public health and environmental groups, academia, industry and private citizens.
EPA indicated that the two primary approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are increasing the fuel economy of vehicles and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their fuel. The Agency said the recently signed energy bill (H.R. 6, now Public Law No: 110-140) addresses both approaches by increasing the fuel economy from vehicles to 35 miles per gallon, an increase of forty percent, as well as increasing the amount of renewable fuel used to 36 billion gallons, nearly a five-fold increase.
California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. blasted EPA's rejection of the State's waiver request saying, “It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars. There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request -- Governor Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment.” Brown said under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by requesting a waiver from EPA and such requests have been approved more than 50 times in the past. California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016. The Attorney General said the 16 other states impacted by the decision -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards. Other reports also list Iowa, making a total of 17 additional states.
On December 21, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson saying, "The actions of the EPA in denying the California request cannot help but raise serious questions about the support of the Bush Administration for state efforts to safeguard the environment and the health of their residents. As we discussed, your decision will be challenged immediately in the courts and will be carefully scrutinized by the Congress as well.” In her letter the Speaker said, "Surely you and others in the Bush Administration were aware that the Congress rejected requests from the Administration to waive the Environmental Protection Agency’s longstanding authority to regulate emissions and to grant states waivers under the Clean Air Act. Citing the passage of our new law as a justification for denying California’s request defies the legislative history as well as the explicit language of the 'Energy Independence and Security Act.'”
On December 20, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which he Chairs was launching an investigation and requested EPA to produce to the Committee "all responsive documents from your office by January 10, 2008. All responsive documents from the Office of Transportation and Air Quality
and the Office of General Counsel should be produced by January 17,2008, and all other responsive documents should be produced by January 23,2008." In his letter, Waxman said, "Your decision appears to have ignored the evidence before the agency and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In fact, reports indicate that you overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA's legal and technical staffs in rejecting California's petition."
Environmental groups also reacted, criticizing EPA's decision. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense said, “This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze. For 40 years, EPA administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new standards to fight pollution.” Jim Marston, general counsel for Environmental Defense said, “New CAFE standards, if they go into effect, do not fully phase in until 2020. The California greenhouse gas limits will occur earlier -- beginning in 2009 and fully phased in by 2016. With the mounting evidence of climate change impacts occurring now, it is imperative that we are take action immediately.”
David Doniger, Climate Center Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "The EPA administrator claimed the new energy law sets a standard of 35 miles per gallon and thereby precludes California’s more effective standards. That is just plain wrong. The energy law only sets a fuel economy floor. It requires the administration to set standards of ‘at least 35 miles per gallon,’ expressly giving the administration the power to go farther. And the law expressly preserves California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set independent, stronger standards to meet the challenge of global warming. Let's be clear: the California standard is stronger and more effective than the 35-mile-per-gallon floor established in the new energy law."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access an EPA fact sheet on the CA waiver decision (click here). Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi and a copy of the letter to EPA (click here). Access the letter from Representative Waxman (click here). Access a lengthy release and link to additional information from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access PL 110-140 (click here). Access the 12/12/07 57-page CA Federal Court order (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
EPA said it had determined that a unified Federal standard of 35 miles per gallon will deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks in all 50 states, which would be more effective than a partial state-by-state approach of 33.8 miles per gallon. On November 8, 2007, California sued EPA, to force the Agency to take action on its request to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles [See WIMS 11/8/07]. Also, on December 12, 2007, a Federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected an auto industry lawsuit challenging the California-equivalent rules requiring [See WIMS 12/13/07].
EPA said that California’s current waiver request was distinct from all prior requests. The Agency said, "Previous waiver petitions covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. Greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature, which is unlike the other air pollutants covered by prior California waiver requests. These gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union. Therefore, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, EPA did not find that separate California standards are needed to 'meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.'” The Clean Air Act requires EPA to follow a process when determining waiver requests. EPA must provide a public comment and hearing opportunity. The statute also provides three very specific criteria that EPA should evaluate for any California waiver petition.
EPA held two hearings on the waiver request and the comment period began April 30 and closed June 15, 2007. EPA said it reviewed more than 100,000 written comments and thousands of pages of technical and scientific documentation received during the public comment period. The comments represented a wide scope of interests including those of states and localities, public health and environmental groups, academia, industry and private citizens.
EPA indicated that the two primary approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are increasing the fuel economy of vehicles and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their fuel. The Agency said the recently signed energy bill (H.R. 6, now Public Law No: 110-140) addresses both approaches by increasing the fuel economy from vehicles to 35 miles per gallon, an increase of forty percent, as well as increasing the amount of renewable fuel used to 36 billion gallons, nearly a five-fold increase.
California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. blasted EPA's rejection of the State's waiver request saying, “It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars. There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request -- Governor Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment.” Brown said under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by requesting a waiver from EPA and such requests have been approved more than 50 times in the past. California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016. The Attorney General said the 16 other states impacted by the decision -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards. Other reports also list Iowa, making a total of 17 additional states.
On December 21, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson saying, "The actions of the EPA in denying the California request cannot help but raise serious questions about the support of the Bush Administration for state efforts to safeguard the environment and the health of their residents. As we discussed, your decision will be challenged immediately in the courts and will be carefully scrutinized by the Congress as well.” In her letter the Speaker said, "Surely you and others in the Bush Administration were aware that the Congress rejected requests from the Administration to waive the Environmental Protection Agency’s longstanding authority to regulate emissions and to grant states waivers under the Clean Air Act. Citing the passage of our new law as a justification for denying California’s request defies the legislative history as well as the explicit language of the 'Energy Independence and Security Act.'”
On December 20, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which he Chairs was launching an investigation and requested EPA to produce to the Committee "all responsive documents from your office by January 10, 2008. All responsive documents from the Office of Transportation and Air Quality
and the Office of General Counsel should be produced by January 17,2008, and all other responsive documents should be produced by January 23,2008." In his letter, Waxman said, "Your decision appears to have ignored the evidence before the agency and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In fact, reports indicate that you overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA's legal and technical staffs in rejecting California's petition."
Environmental groups also reacted, criticizing EPA's decision. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense said, “This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze. For 40 years, EPA administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new standards to fight pollution.” Jim Marston, general counsel for Environmental Defense said, “New CAFE standards, if they go into effect, do not fully phase in until 2020. The California greenhouse gas limits will occur earlier -- beginning in 2009 and fully phased in by 2016. With the mounting evidence of climate change impacts occurring now, it is imperative that we are take action immediately.”
David Doniger, Climate Center Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "The EPA administrator claimed the new energy law sets a standard of 35 miles per gallon and thereby precludes California’s more effective standards. That is just plain wrong. The energy law only sets a fuel economy floor. It requires the administration to set standards of ‘at least 35 miles per gallon,’ expressly giving the administration the power to go farther. And the law expressly preserves California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set independent, stronger standards to meet the challenge of global warming. Let's be clear: the California standard is stronger and more effective than the 35-mile-per-gallon floor established in the new energy law."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access an EPA fact sheet on the CA waiver decision (click here). Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi and a copy of the letter to EPA (click here). Access the letter from Representative Waxman (click here). Access a lengthy release and link to additional information from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access PL 110-140 (click here). Access the 12/12/07 57-page CA Federal Court order (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Friday, December 14, 2007
Scaled-Down Energy Bill Passes 86-8; House Will Follow
Subscribers & Readers Note: Beginning Monday, December 17, 2007, and extending through January 1, 2008, we will be on our annual Holiday break. We will resume publication on Wednesday, January 2, 2008. We may issue special updates for significant events during the break.
We wish all of our subscribers & readers the best throughout the Holiday season
and wish you a healthy and prosperous New Year.
Dec 13: After Democrats finally conceded to dropping both the renewable electric standard (RES) and multi-billion tax package on the oil and gas industry; the Senate was finally able to approve the scaled-down version of the comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6) at about 6:25 PM. Seven Republicans and one Democrat, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), ultimately voted against the measure. Six Senators did not vote, including five presidential candidate that were on the campaign trail: Biden (D-DE); Clinton (D-NY); Dodd (D-CT); Hagel (R-NE); McCain (R-AZ); and Obama (D-IL). An attempt earlier in the day to pass a bill that excluded the RES but retained the tax package failed to gain the necessary 60 votes; and failed to pass by one vote -- 59-40 [See WIMS 12/13/07]. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the House will pass the bill next week and send it to the President.
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, predicted earlier when the Senate defeated the first attempt to pass the bill that elimination of the RES and tax package would "save the energy bill from a likely veto by President Bush." Speaker Pelosi immediately issued a release following the Senate vote praising its passage and said, "The vote by the Senate to overwhelmingly pass historic and sweeping energy security legislation is great news for American consumers worried about the price of gas at the pump. It sends a message to world leadersmeeting in Bali that the United States is serious about addressing global warming. And it meets our moral obligation to build a better future for our children."
Speaker Pelosi continued, "This legislation includes an historic increase in fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- the first such action in 32 years. It makes a major commitment to homegrown biofuels, sending our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East. It sets our nation on a new course -- a new direction for energy security. The House will pass this remarkable legislation next week; I am hopeful that President Bush will sign it."
The Speaker also released a brief summary of key provisions, saying the bill would: reduce our dependence on foreign oil; strengthen national security; lower energy costs for consumers; create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and strengthen our economy; and reduce global warming; increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (CAFE); save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump; produce $22 billion in net annual consumer savings in 2020; reduce greenhouse gas emissions equal to taking 28 million cars and trucks off the road; expand American-grown biofuels (Renewable Fuels Standard) to 36 billion gallons in 2022; slash U.S. oil consumption by more than 4 million barrels per day by 2030 (more than twice our daily imports from the Persian Gulf); produce up to 24 percent of the cut in greenhouse gas emissions needed by 2030; save consumers more than $400 billion through new energy efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and buildings through 2030; creates hundreds of thousands of jobs; promotes massive development of biofuels; spurs cutting-edge energy research; prepare workers for 3 million new "green" jobs over the next 10 years; and promote small businesses as renewable energy leaders.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) praised the bill passage which included provisions they wrote to help small businesses increase their energy efficiency and "hold the Bush Administration accountable for failing to help small businesses reduce their dependency on fossil fuels." They said the bill would: require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to implement within 90 days an energy efficiency program that was mandated in the 2005 Energy Policy Act; establish an audit program to increase energy efficiency using Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs); promote financing agreements between small businesses and utility companies to increase energy efficiency; create a telecommuting pilot program at the SBA responsible for educational materials and outreach to small businesses on the benefits of telecommuting; allow small businesses conducting energy efficiency or renewable energy research and development to be given priority consideration in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs; and establish loans for small firms to invest in use of renewable sources of energy in their business.
Many other groups and organizations issued releases on the bills passage. WIMS has included links to a sampling of some of the releases below.
Access the roll-call vote (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Senators Kerry and Snowe (click here). Access a supporting release from Securing America's Future Energy's (SAFE's) Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC, click here); Access a supporting release from Toyota (click here). Access a supporting release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a supporting release from Senator Boxer (D-CA) (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, predicted earlier when the Senate defeated the first attempt to pass the bill that elimination of the RES and tax package would "save the energy bill from a likely veto by President Bush." Speaker Pelosi immediately issued a release following the Senate vote praising its passage and said, "The vote by the Senate to overwhelmingly pass historic and sweeping energy security legislation is great news for American consumers worried about the price of gas at the pump. It sends a message to world leadersmeeting in Bali that the United States is serious about addressing global warming. And it meets our moral obligation to build a better future for our children."
Speaker Pelosi continued, "This legislation includes an historic increase in fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- the first such action in 32 years. It makes a major commitment to homegrown biofuels, sending our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East. It sets our nation on a new course -- a new direction for energy security. The House will pass this remarkable legislation next week; I am hopeful that President Bush will sign it."
The Speaker also released a brief summary of key provisions, saying the bill would: reduce our dependence on foreign oil; strengthen national security; lower energy costs for consumers; create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and strengthen our economy; and reduce global warming; increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (CAFE); save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump; produce $22 billion in net annual consumer savings in 2020; reduce greenhouse gas emissions equal to taking 28 million cars and trucks off the road; expand American-grown biofuels (Renewable Fuels Standard) to 36 billion gallons in 2022; slash U.S. oil consumption by more than 4 million barrels per day by 2030 (more than twice our daily imports from the Persian Gulf); produce up to 24 percent of the cut in greenhouse gas emissions needed by 2030; save consumers more than $400 billion through new energy efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and buildings through 2030; creates hundreds of thousands of jobs; promotes massive development of biofuels; spurs cutting-edge energy research; prepare workers for 3 million new "green" jobs over the next 10 years; and promote small businesses as renewable energy leaders.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) praised the bill passage which included provisions they wrote to help small businesses increase their energy efficiency and "hold the Bush Administration accountable for failing to help small businesses reduce their dependency on fossil fuels." They said the bill would: require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to implement within 90 days an energy efficiency program that was mandated in the 2005 Energy Policy Act; establish an audit program to increase energy efficiency using Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs); promote financing agreements between small businesses and utility companies to increase energy efficiency; create a telecommuting pilot program at the SBA responsible for educational materials and outreach to small businesses on the benefits of telecommuting; allow small businesses conducting energy efficiency or renewable energy research and development to be given priority consideration in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs; and establish loans for small firms to invest in use of renewable sources of energy in their business.
Many other groups and organizations issued releases on the bills passage. WIMS has included links to a sampling of some of the releases below.
Access the roll-call vote (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Senators Kerry and Snowe (click here). Access a supporting release from Securing America's Future Energy's (SAFE's) Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC, click here); Access a supporting release from Toyota (click here). Access a supporting release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a supporting release from Senator Boxer (D-CA) (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Senate Republicans Reject Dems Energy Bill Compromise
Dec 13: On December 12, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a revised energy bill and indicated the Senate would vote on the revised bill on Thursday, December 13. He said the substitute bill addresses Republicans’ concerns "by reluctantly eliminating the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) and modifying the energy tax provisions." The measure was an attempt to compromise on differences expressed following the Senate vote that halted consideration of the House-passed energy bill on December 7 [See WIMS 12/7/07].
Senator Reid said, “Democrats remain committed to passing a bill that lowers gas prices, helps break our addiction to oil, begins to reverse global warming and creates jobs by investing in renewable energy. We are ready to take a first step toward a clean energy revolution in America that ripples throughout the world, and I hope Senators will find the common ground to take that step. Republicans oppose a national standard for utilities to supply clean, renewable electricity that would reduce the cost of our natural gas and electricity bills by as much as $18 billion and create many new jobs.
"We are reluctantly removing that provision, as well as making several changes to the energy tax provisions, in the genuine pursuit of progress. This is an opportunity for Republicans to stand with Americans who are paying more than ever at the pump, instead of with the big oil companies who are raking in record profits. I hope that Republicans will recognize the importance of this legislation to their states and the country, and I am hopeful that we will reach the 60 votes necessary to send this bill to the House and the President before the end of the year.”
On December 13, the Senate voted and the compromise measure failed obtain the 60 votes required in a cloture vote by one vote -- 59-40. Just prior to the defeating vote, Senator Reid again made a plea for support of the compromise and said, "The White House has objected to our provisions requiring the major oil and gas companies to part with $10 billion or $15 billion of the tax breaks that they are scheduled to receive over the next 10 years. But let’s be clear. Our bill eliminates those tax breaks for Big Oil – an industry raking in record profits of half a trillion dollars in the last six years -- so that we can invest more in clean energy. Plus, the tax title will provide money for the Secure Rural Schools program as well as at least one year full funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. As many of my colleagues in the West know, these are important programs for rural counties that have excessive Federal land ownership.
“Democrats and Republicans alike should agree that even without the Renewable Electricity Standard we have an energy bill that will reduce energy costs, begin to break our addiction to oil, and reverse the threat of global warming. This is still an important and historic bill, and I am happy to support it. I ask that all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle hear the call of the American people for lower energy costs, less oil consumption and a cleaner environment -- and send this historic energy bill to the President’s desk. This could be the first step toward an energy revolution that starts in America that ripples throughout the world. I hope Senators will find the common ground to take that first step.”
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, issued a statement on the Senate’s defeating vote and said that it would "save the energy bill from a likely veto by President Bush." Senator Domenici said, “Today’s vote was very close, but the outcome will likely save the energy bill for this year. By rejecting the nearly $22 billion in tax increases added to this bill, the Senate will instead go back to work on a package that contains the right priorities and can be signed into law. I have said all along that an energy bill which included stronger CAFE (fuel economy) standards, a Renewable Fuels Standard, and improvements to our energy efficiency could pass Congress and be signed into law. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to finish our work on the energy bill soon.”
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) issued a statement saying, “Forty senators today blocked energy bill measures that would have closed a $13 billion tax loophole for the oil industry and invested that money in renewable energy. Forty senators lined up behind big oil companies, instead of American families. Oil companies have contributed $8 million to senators over the past four years.”
Access the two statements from Senator Reid (click here); and (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a link to the roll call vote (click here). Access the NWF statement (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Senator Reid said, “Democrats remain committed to passing a bill that lowers gas prices, helps break our addiction to oil, begins to reverse global warming and creates jobs by investing in renewable energy. We are ready to take a first step toward a clean energy revolution in America that ripples throughout the world, and I hope Senators will find the common ground to take that step. Republicans oppose a national standard for utilities to supply clean, renewable electricity that would reduce the cost of our natural gas and electricity bills by as much as $18 billion and create many new jobs.
"We are reluctantly removing that provision, as well as making several changes to the energy tax provisions, in the genuine pursuit of progress. This is an opportunity for Republicans to stand with Americans who are paying more than ever at the pump, instead of with the big oil companies who are raking in record profits. I hope that Republicans will recognize the importance of this legislation to their states and the country, and I am hopeful that we will reach the 60 votes necessary to send this bill to the House and the President before the end of the year.”
On December 13, the Senate voted and the compromise measure failed obtain the 60 votes required in a cloture vote by one vote -- 59-40. Just prior to the defeating vote, Senator Reid again made a plea for support of the compromise and said, "The White House has objected to our provisions requiring the major oil and gas companies to part with $10 billion or $15 billion of the tax breaks that they are scheduled to receive over the next 10 years. But let’s be clear. Our bill eliminates those tax breaks for Big Oil – an industry raking in record profits of half a trillion dollars in the last six years -- so that we can invest more in clean energy. Plus, the tax title will provide money for the Secure Rural Schools program as well as at least one year full funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. As many of my colleagues in the West know, these are important programs for rural counties that have excessive Federal land ownership.
“Democrats and Republicans alike should agree that even without the Renewable Electricity Standard we have an energy bill that will reduce energy costs, begin to break our addiction to oil, and reverse the threat of global warming. This is still an important and historic bill, and I am happy to support it. I ask that all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle hear the call of the American people for lower energy costs, less oil consumption and a cleaner environment -- and send this historic energy bill to the President’s desk. This could be the first step toward an energy revolution that starts in America that ripples throughout the world. I hope Senators will find the common ground to take that first step.”
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, issued a statement on the Senate’s defeating vote and said that it would "save the energy bill from a likely veto by President Bush." Senator Domenici said, “Today’s vote was very close, but the outcome will likely save the energy bill for this year. By rejecting the nearly $22 billion in tax increases added to this bill, the Senate will instead go back to work on a package that contains the right priorities and can be signed into law. I have said all along that an energy bill which included stronger CAFE (fuel economy) standards, a Renewable Fuels Standard, and improvements to our energy efficiency could pass Congress and be signed into law. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to finish our work on the energy bill soon.”
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) issued a statement saying, “Forty senators today blocked energy bill measures that would have closed a $13 billion tax loophole for the oil industry and invested that money in renewable energy. Forty senators lined up behind big oil companies, instead of American families. Oil companies have contributed $8 million to senators over the past four years.”
Access the two statements from Senator Reid (click here); and (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a link to the roll call vote (click here). Access the NWF statement (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
UN Head Says World Is Counting On Bali Breakthrough
Dec 12: The world is counting on a breakthrough at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told delegates at the summit, calling the fight against global warming “the moral challenge of our generation.” In a speech delivered on Wednesday morning in the South-East Asian nation, at the opening of the Conference’s "high-level segment," he said that “what the world expects from Bali -- from all of you -- is an agreement to launch negotiations towards a comprehensive climate change agreement.”
Ban underscored the importance of creating a road map to tackle climate change and a timeline to produce a new agreement by 2009 so that it can enter into force after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. He said, “Let us turn the climate crisis into a climate compact." He told the delegates that they have been given a “clear charge” by the world to produce a breakthrough. He said, “Not only are the eyes of the world upon us -- more important, succeeding generations depend on us. We cannot rob our children of their future.”
Climate change affects those least equipped to cope and those least responsible the hardest, the Secretary-General pointed out. He said, “We have an ethical obligation to right this injustice. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable.” The Secretary-General urged developed countries to continue taking the lead in slashing emissions, while developing nations need incentives to curb their own release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. He said, “Together, we can spur a new era of green economics, an era of truly sustainable development based on clean technology and a low-emission technology. The costs of inaction -- in ecological, human and financial terms -- far exceed the costs of action now. Every UN agency, fund and programme is committed. We are determined to be a part of the answer to climate change.”
According to another UN release, the final details on an innovative fund to help developing countries adapt to climate change were agreed upon by countries attending the Conference, ahead of its high-level portion. The fund is expected to provide $80 million to $300 million annually for adaptation between 2008 and 2012, which is also the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The fund does not rely on voluntary contributions, but rather on a 2 per cent levy on each Certified Emission Reduction credit issued for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in developing countries.
Other issues in Bali that are still unresolved include reducing emissions from deforestation, the implementation of practical adaptation actions and the transfer of clean technologies to developing countries. Countries are also still in discussions over the issue of including emissions reduction targets in a final agreement. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said the proposed 25-40% range of reductions proposed by 2020 is a "range and not a target." He said, "This range does not represent concrete emission reduction targets for industrialized countries and this conference will not produce an agreement on specific targets per country” Instead, he explained, what the Bali meeting aims to achieve, is to set the wheels in motion for launching a process. The European Union has supported the inclusion of the target while the U.S. has opposed it and countries are still discussing the issue.
Access a release on the Secretary General's speech (click here). Access the complete speech (click here). Access a UN release on the Fund and the reduction range (click here). Access the UN Climate Change gateway for links to extensive information (click here). Access a speech from Stavros Dimas Member of the European Commission (click here). Access links to the U.S. Department of State briefings and releases at the Conference (click here). Access the UNFCCC COP13/MOP3 website for additional details (click here). Access a December 11 environmental group briefing on the Conference (click here). [*Climate]
Ban underscored the importance of creating a road map to tackle climate change and a timeline to produce a new agreement by 2009 so that it can enter into force after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. He said, “Let us turn the climate crisis into a climate compact." He told the delegates that they have been given a “clear charge” by the world to produce a breakthrough. He said, “Not only are the eyes of the world upon us -- more important, succeeding generations depend on us. We cannot rob our children of their future.”
Climate change affects those least equipped to cope and those least responsible the hardest, the Secretary-General pointed out. He said, “We have an ethical obligation to right this injustice. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable.” The Secretary-General urged developed countries to continue taking the lead in slashing emissions, while developing nations need incentives to curb their own release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. He said, “Together, we can spur a new era of green economics, an era of truly sustainable development based on clean technology and a low-emission technology. The costs of inaction -- in ecological, human and financial terms -- far exceed the costs of action now. Every UN agency, fund and programme is committed. We are determined to be a part of the answer to climate change.”
According to another UN release, the final details on an innovative fund to help developing countries adapt to climate change were agreed upon by countries attending the Conference, ahead of its high-level portion. The fund is expected to provide $80 million to $300 million annually for adaptation between 2008 and 2012, which is also the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The fund does not rely on voluntary contributions, but rather on a 2 per cent levy on each Certified Emission Reduction credit issued for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in developing countries.
Other issues in Bali that are still unresolved include reducing emissions from deforestation, the implementation of practical adaptation actions and the transfer of clean technologies to developing countries. Countries are also still in discussions over the issue of including emissions reduction targets in a final agreement. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said the proposed 25-40% range of reductions proposed by 2020 is a "range and not a target." He said, "This range does not represent concrete emission reduction targets for industrialized countries and this conference will not produce an agreement on specific targets per country” Instead, he explained, what the Bali meeting aims to achieve, is to set the wheels in motion for launching a process. The European Union has supported the inclusion of the target while the U.S. has opposed it and countries are still discussing the issue.
Access a release on the Secretary General's speech (click here). Access the complete speech (click here). Access a UN release on the Fund and the reduction range (click here). Access the UN Climate Change gateway for links to extensive information (click here). Access a speech from Stavros Dimas Member of the European Commission (click here). Access links to the U.S. Department of State briefings and releases at the Conference (click here). Access the UNFCCC COP13/MOP3 website for additional details (click here). Access a December 11 environmental group briefing on the Conference (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Political Interference With Government Climate Change Science
Dec 10: For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), has been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.
A proposed report, released on December 10, presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. According to an announcement released by the Committee, "The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."
According to the announcement, in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The announcement says, "The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.
"The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with Administration policies. The White House also edited congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change."
The announcement highlights the recent climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, who appeared before the House Oversight Committee a year earlier and says that their testimony was heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. It says there was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. It indicates the White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report. In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate change section of the report. And, despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating an unsupported assertion that millions of American jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified.
The White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino, who said she had not seen the report but heard reports of it, responded saying, "I think that it's inescapable that they issued this report on a day when they knew that the United States would be represented at the Bali conference, where we are currently talking about the next step for a framework after 2012, which is when Kyoto would end... I would submit to you, having worked on these issues for a long time, that it's rehashed rhetoric that has come out of the Democrats beforehand, and we just reject it as being untrue." In response to a question stating, Did the White House ever asked employees at agencies like NOAA to suppress climate change information and science?; Perino said, "Not that I'm aware and I do not believe that is true. "
Access the announcement (click here). Access the 37-page proposed report (click here). Access the White House press briefing that contains the Press Secretary's comments (click here). [*Climate]
A proposed report, released on December 10, presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. According to an announcement released by the Committee, "The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."
According to the announcement, in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The announcement says, "The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.
"The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with Administration policies. The White House also edited congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change."
The announcement highlights the recent climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, who appeared before the House Oversight Committee a year earlier and says that their testimony was heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. It says there was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. It indicates the White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report. In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate change section of the report. And, despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating an unsupported assertion that millions of American jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified.
The White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino, who said she had not seen the report but heard reports of it, responded saying, "I think that it's inescapable that they issued this report on a day when they knew that the United States would be represented at the Bali conference, where we are currently talking about the next step for a framework after 2012, which is when Kyoto would end... I would submit to you, having worked on these issues for a long time, that it's rehashed rhetoric that has come out of the Democrats beforehand, and we just reject it as being untrue." In response to a question stating, Did the White House ever asked employees at agencies like NOAA to suppress climate change information and science?; Perino said, "Not that I'm aware and I do not believe that is true. "
Access the announcement (click here). Access the 37-page proposed report (click here). Access the White House press briefing that contains the Press Secretary's comments (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, December 10, 2007
Power Plant Carbon Capture Will Vastly Increase Water Use
Dec 6: The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has released a 2007 update to its groundbreaking study, Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation Requirements. The updated analysis increases understanding of regional and national water needs and usage in the power industry, and provides input for research and development aimed at water-use reduction.
It is important to understand the difference in the terminology -- withdrawal v. consumption. The water required for thermoelectric plants is "withdrawn" primarily from large volume sources, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and underground aquifers. While both freshwater (approximately 70%) and saline water (approximately 30%) are currently used for thermoelectric generation, the report focuses on freshwater because freshwater sources are becoming increasingly strained. Water "consumption" is used to describe the loss of that water, typically through evaporation into the air.
New in this year's report is a response to heightened concerns over atmospheric carbon dioxide. The report examines the possibility that future policies to combat climate change may result in the addition of carbon capture technologies to many coal-fired power plants by 2030. Since these technologies require additional water, the 2007 report includes case study scenarios that predict how much water may be needed by power plants when carbon capture technology is installed.
NETL notes that water has become a pivotal issue in the Nation since economic development hinges on the availability of freshwater. Public water systems, agriculture, power generation, and other industries all compete for limited regional water supplies. Although the power industry is only responsible for around three percent of the freshwater "consumed" in the United States, it accounts for nearly 40 percent of "withdrawals." Recently, construction of new power plants had to be shelved because water-use permits could not be obtained, and insufficient supplies of water due to extended drought and population growth have resulted in a reduction in plant output in several regions of the country.
The new analysis examines five separate future cases using NETL's Water Use Projections Model and projections for regional electricity demand and capacity from the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2007. Like the 2006 report, the new report predicts freshwater withdrawal and consumption by thermoelectric plants regionally and nationally, by decade, through 2030. Four of the five cases presented in the 2007 report predict that, on a national basis, water withdrawals by the power industry will decrease. On average, water withdrawals by thermoelectric plants are projected to decline more than 3.5 percent. However, water consumption by thermoelectric plants is predicted to grow. By 2030, the average expected increase is 35.7 percent.
On a regional basis, water withdrawal projections for thermoelectric plants range from a 42 percent increase in the Northwest, to a 24 percent decline in the Rocky Mountain and southwest desert region. Freshwater consumption will increase in all regions, showing the largest gains in areas where the population is expected to increase the most - New York: 396 percent, California: 274 percent, and Florida: 250 percent.
According to the report, when carbon capture technologies are added to coal-fired power plants, water withdrawal nationally is projected to increase from 4.1 to 6.0 billion gallons per day, with an average projected increase of water withdrawal of seven percent. Water consumption is expected to rise from 2.2 to 4.3 billion gallons per day. The average increase of water consumption from all cases with carbon capture is 90 percent.
NETL is working to reduce water usage by fossil-fuel-fired power plants through their Innovations for Existing Plants program. The program's goals are to enhance the efficiency and environmental performance of existing coal-fired power plants and to apply novel concepts to advanced power systems. NETL recently joined with Sandia National Laboratories through a memorandum of understanding to advance research, development, demonstration, and, ultimately, the commercialization of technologies to reduce freshwater usage related to thermoelectric power production while minimizing its impact on water quality.
The report indicates, "At the nexus of water and energy lies a wide variety of societal issues, policy and regulatory debate, environmental questions, technological challenges, and economic concerns. Water is emerging as a significant factor in economic development activities. Planning efforts must consider the availability and quality of water resources in a given locality or region to ensure that supplies are available to accommodate existing and future water consumers over the long term. Failure to do so can result in stunted growth, economic flight, inequitable development, and even open conflict. In order for the power industry to be ecologically responsible, technologically ready, and economically stable, advanced research is imperative. Energy-water issues have become increasingly visible in recent years, with a variety of concerns on the mind of industry, regulators, Congress, DOE, and the general public... current trends indicate that demands on the nation’s supplies are growing while the nation’s capacity to store surface-water is increasingly more limited and ground-water is being depleted. Water availability issues are intensified by the fact that population increases are occurring in water-stressed areas..."
Access a release from NETL (click here). Access the 107-page updated report (click here). Access the NETL website on Water-Energy Interface for Power Plant Water Management (click here). [*Energy, *Water, *Climate]
It is important to understand the difference in the terminology -- withdrawal v. consumption. The water required for thermoelectric plants is "withdrawn" primarily from large volume sources, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and underground aquifers. While both freshwater (approximately 70%) and saline water (approximately 30%) are currently used for thermoelectric generation, the report focuses on freshwater because freshwater sources are becoming increasingly strained. Water "consumption" is used to describe the loss of that water, typically through evaporation into the air.
New in this year's report is a response to heightened concerns over atmospheric carbon dioxide. The report examines the possibility that future policies to combat climate change may result in the addition of carbon capture technologies to many coal-fired power plants by 2030. Since these technologies require additional water, the 2007 report includes case study scenarios that predict how much water may be needed by power plants when carbon capture technology is installed.
NETL notes that water has become a pivotal issue in the Nation since economic development hinges on the availability of freshwater. Public water systems, agriculture, power generation, and other industries all compete for limited regional water supplies. Although the power industry is only responsible for around three percent of the freshwater "consumed" in the United States, it accounts for nearly 40 percent of "withdrawals." Recently, construction of new power plants had to be shelved because water-use permits could not be obtained, and insufficient supplies of water due to extended drought and population growth have resulted in a reduction in plant output in several regions of the country.
The new analysis examines five separate future cases using NETL's Water Use Projections Model and projections for regional electricity demand and capacity from the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2007. Like the 2006 report, the new report predicts freshwater withdrawal and consumption by thermoelectric plants regionally and nationally, by decade, through 2030. Four of the five cases presented in the 2007 report predict that, on a national basis, water withdrawals by the power industry will decrease. On average, water withdrawals by thermoelectric plants are projected to decline more than 3.5 percent. However, water consumption by thermoelectric plants is predicted to grow. By 2030, the average expected increase is 35.7 percent.
On a regional basis, water withdrawal projections for thermoelectric plants range from a 42 percent increase in the Northwest, to a 24 percent decline in the Rocky Mountain and southwest desert region. Freshwater consumption will increase in all regions, showing the largest gains in areas where the population is expected to increase the most - New York: 396 percent, California: 274 percent, and Florida: 250 percent.
According to the report, when carbon capture technologies are added to coal-fired power plants, water withdrawal nationally is projected to increase from 4.1 to 6.0 billion gallons per day, with an average projected increase of water withdrawal of seven percent. Water consumption is expected to rise from 2.2 to 4.3 billion gallons per day. The average increase of water consumption from all cases with carbon capture is 90 percent.
NETL is working to reduce water usage by fossil-fuel-fired power plants through their Innovations for Existing Plants program. The program's goals are to enhance the efficiency and environmental performance of existing coal-fired power plants and to apply novel concepts to advanced power systems. NETL recently joined with Sandia National Laboratories through a memorandum of understanding to advance research, development, demonstration, and, ultimately, the commercialization of technologies to reduce freshwater usage related to thermoelectric power production while minimizing its impact on water quality.
The report indicates, "At the nexus of water and energy lies a wide variety of societal issues, policy and regulatory debate, environmental questions, technological challenges, and economic concerns. Water is emerging as a significant factor in economic development activities. Planning efforts must consider the availability and quality of water resources in a given locality or region to ensure that supplies are available to accommodate existing and future water consumers over the long term. Failure to do so can result in stunted growth, economic flight, inequitable development, and even open conflict. In order for the power industry to be ecologically responsible, technologically ready, and economically stable, advanced research is imperative. Energy-water issues have become increasingly visible in recent years, with a variety of concerns on the mind of industry, regulators, Congress, DOE, and the general public... current trends indicate that demands on the nation’s supplies are growing while the nation’s capacity to store surface-water is increasingly more limited and ground-water is being depleted. Water availability issues are intensified by the fact that population increases are occurring in water-stressed areas..."
Access a release from NETL (click here). Access the 107-page updated report (click here). Access the NETL website on Water-Energy Interface for Power Plant Water Management (click here). [*Energy, *Water, *Climate]
Friday, December 07, 2007
Senate Stops Energy Independence And Security Act 53-42
Dec 7: Vowing to work over the weekend on a compromise to resolve differences in the House-passed energy bill, the Senate brought a quick halt to the momentum to pass comprehensive energy legislation -- the Energy Independence and Security Act .
With harsh criticism from Republicans, and threats of a veto from the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 235-181 to pass the comprehensive House-Senate "compromise" energy bill. The bill is a mix of the Senate passed H.R. 6, which passed on June 21 [See WIMS 6/22/07] and H.R. 3221, that passed the House on August 4 [See WIMS 8/4/07]. The compromise bill, which was negotiated without a Conference Committee, temporarily took the form of H.Res.846, and has now become the new version of H.R. 6. In the end, the bill which is being called bipartisan by Democrats received 221 Democratic votes and 14 Republican votes. Seven Democrats voted against the bill along with 174 Republicans. Sixteen members did not vote on the bill -- 11 Republicans and 5 Democrats.
The Senate began its consideration of H.R. 6 bill for final adoption early on December 7, and quickly voted on a cloture motion which was unable to obtain the necessary 60 votes (53-42) and thus has temporarily suspended Senate floor action on the bill. Democrats voting against the cloture vote included: Bayh (D-IN); Byrd (D-WV); and Landrieu (D-LA). Republicans voting for the cloture motion included: Collins (R-ME); Thune (R-SD). Both Independents, Sanders (I-VT) and Lieberman (ID-CT), voted for the cloture motion. Five Republicans did not vote on the measure.
Following passage in the House, Senator Pete Dominici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee issued a statement outlining many Senate Republican issues with the bill. Domenici indicated that he spent weeks negotiating with Democrats in the House and Senate to draft a bipartisan energy bill that contained a Renewable Fuel Standard, strengthened CAFE standards, and provided for energy efficiency improvements. However, he said, "after agreement had been reached on most issues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed out of the deal, and inserted several costly and controversial measures into the energy bill."
Domenici said, "...the Senate will be asked to pass a bill that was drafted behind closed doors by a select few House Democrats. The process by which this bill has been drafted is unprecedented. The Senate should not be forced to accept a bill written by Speaker Pelosi behind closed doors with no input from the Senate. For that reason alone, Senators should oppose this legislation and insist to be heard. I will do everything in my power to defeat this measure so we can get to work on a bipartisan bill that will tackle our problems, not add to them.
"Unlike the agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators, the House bill contains a one-size-fits-all Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which would mandate that 15% of our nation’s electricity supply come from renewable sources. However, many states, particularly those in the Southeast, lack the natural resources to meet the standard. As a result, utilities in those states would be forced to pay billions in fines, leading to higher electricity costs for consumers. Industry estimates put the cost of the House RPS proposal at over $95 billion by 2030.
"The Pelosi energy bill also contains $21 billion in tax increases on domestic oil and natural gas production. Over $13 billion of that total is achieved by repealing provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which make it easier for American companies to compete in the global oil market, which is dominated by Saudi, Russian, and Chinese state-owned companies. By increasing the cost of doing business for American companies, the House energy bill will lead to higher prices at the pump and could result in an increased reliance on foreign oil.
"The House bill also significantly weakens the Renewable Fuels Standard by allowing for the EPA Administrator to completely cancel the mandate after 2016, which will create uncertainty in the market. The House also seeks to punish ethanol because it is transported in trucks, by including transportation and land-usage as factors in the requirement that biofuels have 20% lower greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum it displaces."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the floor in support for the Energy Independence and Security Act just prior to final passage and said "...this is a very important day for our country." She said, “This vote on this legislation will be a shot heard ‘round the world for energy independence for America." She thanked may Representatives who contributed to the passage with a special thanks to Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who was largely responsible for the deal struck on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
She said, “This is about our national security, it’s about jobs and the economic security of our country, it’s about the environment, therefore it’s a health issue, and it’s a moral issue. That’s why we have scientists and evangelicals. We have business and labor. We have the environmental community all strongly supporting this legislation." She indicated that over 20 generals have signed a letter saying that "we have to move in this direction in terms of reversing global warming."
She said that consumers will save $700 to $1,000 as a result of this bill per year resulting in $22 billion by 2020. She said, “It’s an historic day because it’s been so long since we have come to a place where we are, as has been said, over 30 years since we have addressed this issue in this substantial way in the Congress of the United States. The point of this is, ‘Are we about the past or are we about the future?’ I hope that we can have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. We were able to accomplish in this 12-month period, as Mr. Emanuel said, what was not done in 32 years in the Congress of United States."
In her previous letter to Allan Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, responding to White House concerns about the bill [See WIMS 12/6/07], Pelosi had indicated the legislation contains an ambitious national renewable fuel standard that will significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil; it reforms and strengthens the CAFE fuel economy standard for cars and trucks, setting a tight goal of 35 miles per gallon as a fleetwide average by 2020; and increase domestic energy production by promoting homegrown renewable fuels and domestic renewable energy. She said specifically the legislation would not: affect our relations with other countries; not impose price controls; and not significantly expand the application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. She said it includes provisions to "pay for our investments in domestic renewable energy resources by closing tax loopholes given to large oil and gas companies at a time that they are reporting record profits." And, the legislation contains a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) which requires states to derive a percentage of their energy from renewable sources.
With a much different point of view, Republican's were harshly critical of the bill and called the "bipartisan" claims a mystery. Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said, “The bill before us is a change. It may be historic but it is not positive. We are moving from a market-based energy policy, which has served this economy well for over 150 years to a government-mandated energy policy mandating 36 billion gallons of biofuels which don’t exist and probably won’t exist.
“We are mandating that 15 percent of all investor-owned utilities be generated by renewable means where in some states that is physically impossible. We are mandating that we improve automobile fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by a date certain, which while technically feasible, is going to be very expensive and probably raise the average price of an automobile several thousands of dollars. We are mandating all of these things in the interests of energy security, which is a noble goal but I think we would be better off developing the domestic resources of our great land, just like it says up there in the quote from Daniel Webster, instead of engaging in government mandates which will raise costs and probably not increase supply.”
Following the failed cloture vote, Senator Dominici issued a second release saying, "Now that we’ve rejected this one-sided bill, I hope that the Senate can now go back to the agreement that we originally reached with the House. Much of the hard work has already been done. An energy bill that contains a CAFE compromise, a strong Renewable Fuels Standard, and energy efficiency improvements is the right approach, and I’m willing to go back to work on such a bill right away.”
Access a release and the letter from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access legislative details for H.Res.846 (click here). Access links to the full text of House Report 110-474 (click here). Access the summary of House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 6 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access the House roll call vote on the final passage (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a second release from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the Senate roll call vote on cloture (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
With harsh criticism from Republicans, and threats of a veto from the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 235-181 to pass the comprehensive House-Senate "compromise" energy bill. The bill is a mix of the Senate passed H.R. 6, which passed on June 21 [See WIMS 6/22/07] and H.R. 3221, that passed the House on August 4 [See WIMS 8/4/07]. The compromise bill, which was negotiated without a Conference Committee, temporarily took the form of H.Res.846, and has now become the new version of H.R. 6. In the end, the bill which is being called bipartisan by Democrats received 221 Democratic votes and 14 Republican votes. Seven Democrats voted against the bill along with 174 Republicans. Sixteen members did not vote on the bill -- 11 Republicans and 5 Democrats.
The Senate began its consideration of H.R. 6 bill for final adoption early on December 7, and quickly voted on a cloture motion which was unable to obtain the necessary 60 votes (53-42) and thus has temporarily suspended Senate floor action on the bill. Democrats voting against the cloture vote included: Bayh (D-IN); Byrd (D-WV); and Landrieu (D-LA). Republicans voting for the cloture motion included: Collins (R-ME); Thune (R-SD). Both Independents, Sanders (I-VT) and Lieberman (ID-CT), voted for the cloture motion. Five Republicans did not vote on the measure.
Following passage in the House, Senator Pete Dominici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee issued a statement outlining many Senate Republican issues with the bill. Domenici indicated that he spent weeks negotiating with Democrats in the House and Senate to draft a bipartisan energy bill that contained a Renewable Fuel Standard, strengthened CAFE standards, and provided for energy efficiency improvements. However, he said, "after agreement had been reached on most issues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed out of the deal, and inserted several costly and controversial measures into the energy bill."
Domenici said, "...the Senate will be asked to pass a bill that was drafted behind closed doors by a select few House Democrats. The process by which this bill has been drafted is unprecedented. The Senate should not be forced to accept a bill written by Speaker Pelosi behind closed doors with no input from the Senate. For that reason alone, Senators should oppose this legislation and insist to be heard. I will do everything in my power to defeat this measure so we can get to work on a bipartisan bill that will tackle our problems, not add to them.
"Unlike the agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators, the House bill contains a one-size-fits-all Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which would mandate that 15% of our nation’s electricity supply come from renewable sources. However, many states, particularly those in the Southeast, lack the natural resources to meet the standard. As a result, utilities in those states would be forced to pay billions in fines, leading to higher electricity costs for consumers. Industry estimates put the cost of the House RPS proposal at over $95 billion by 2030.
"The Pelosi energy bill also contains $21 billion in tax increases on domestic oil and natural gas production. Over $13 billion of that total is achieved by repealing provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which make it easier for American companies to compete in the global oil market, which is dominated by Saudi, Russian, and Chinese state-owned companies. By increasing the cost of doing business for American companies, the House energy bill will lead to higher prices at the pump and could result in an increased reliance on foreign oil.
"The House bill also significantly weakens the Renewable Fuels Standard by allowing for the EPA Administrator to completely cancel the mandate after 2016, which will create uncertainty in the market. The House also seeks to punish ethanol because it is transported in trucks, by including transportation and land-usage as factors in the requirement that biofuels have 20% lower greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum it displaces."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the floor in support for the Energy Independence and Security Act just prior to final passage and said "...this is a very important day for our country." She said, “This vote on this legislation will be a shot heard ‘round the world for energy independence for America." She thanked may Representatives who contributed to the passage with a special thanks to Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who was largely responsible for the deal struck on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
She said, “This is about our national security, it’s about jobs and the economic security of our country, it’s about the environment, therefore it’s a health issue, and it’s a moral issue. That’s why we have scientists and evangelicals. We have business and labor. We have the environmental community all strongly supporting this legislation." She indicated that over 20 generals have signed a letter saying that "we have to move in this direction in terms of reversing global warming."
She said that consumers will save $700 to $1,000 as a result of this bill per year resulting in $22 billion by 2020. She said, “It’s an historic day because it’s been so long since we have come to a place where we are, as has been said, over 30 years since we have addressed this issue in this substantial way in the Congress of the United States. The point of this is, ‘Are we about the past or are we about the future?’ I hope that we can have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. We were able to accomplish in this 12-month period, as Mr. Emanuel said, what was not done in 32 years in the Congress of United States."
In her previous letter to Allan Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, responding to White House concerns about the bill [See WIMS 12/6/07], Pelosi had indicated the legislation contains an ambitious national renewable fuel standard that will significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil; it reforms and strengthens the CAFE fuel economy standard for cars and trucks, setting a tight goal of 35 miles per gallon as a fleetwide average by 2020; and increase domestic energy production by promoting homegrown renewable fuels and domestic renewable energy. She said specifically the legislation would not: affect our relations with other countries; not impose price controls; and not significantly expand the application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. She said it includes provisions to "pay for our investments in domestic renewable energy resources by closing tax loopholes given to large oil and gas companies at a time that they are reporting record profits." And, the legislation contains a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) which requires states to derive a percentage of their energy from renewable sources.
With a much different point of view, Republican's were harshly critical of the bill and called the "bipartisan" claims a mystery. Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said, “The bill before us is a change. It may be historic but it is not positive. We are moving from a market-based energy policy, which has served this economy well for over 150 years to a government-mandated energy policy mandating 36 billion gallons of biofuels which don’t exist and probably won’t exist.
“We are mandating that 15 percent of all investor-owned utilities be generated by renewable means where in some states that is physically impossible. We are mandating that we improve automobile fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by a date certain, which while technically feasible, is going to be very expensive and probably raise the average price of an automobile several thousands of dollars. We are mandating all of these things in the interests of energy security, which is a noble goal but I think we would be better off developing the domestic resources of our great land, just like it says up there in the quote from Daniel Webster, instead of engaging in government mandates which will raise costs and probably not increase supply.”
Following the failed cloture vote, Senator Dominici issued a second release saying, "Now that we’ve rejected this one-sided bill, I hope that the Senate can now go back to the agreement that we originally reached with the House. Much of the hard work has already been done. An energy bill that contains a CAFE compromise, a strong Renewable Fuels Standard, and energy efficiency improvements is the right approach, and I’m willing to go back to work on such a bill right away.”
Access a release and the letter from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access legislative details for H.Res.846 (click here). Access links to the full text of House Report 110-474 (click here). Access the summary of House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 6 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access the House roll call vote on the final passage (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a second release from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the Senate roll call vote on cloture (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Full Senate EPW Committee Approves Climate Security Act
Dec 5: Following a marathon, nearly 10-hour markup session that extended into the evening hours, the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), approved S. 2191, the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 12/5/07, & 11/2/07]. The final vote on approval was 11-8, with all eight Democrats voting for the bill, two Independents voting for the bill, and one Republican, sponsor Senator Warner voting for the bill. The bill will now be considered before the full Senate.
Chairman Boxer issued a brief statement saying, "The vote of the Environment and Public Works Committee in favor of the Climate Security Act was a historic moment for our country and for my Committee. For me, it was the greatest legislative accomplishment of my political career of thirty years. Finally, America is taking bold steps to avert the catastrophe that awaits our children and grandchildren if we do nothing.
"Our bill has two goals...to fight global warming and to do it in a way that keeps our economy strong. That will be my focus in the coming weeks and months as we move the bill forward to the Senate floor. This bill is the most far reaching global warming bill in the world and I am grateful to Senators Lieberman and Warner for breaching the partisan divide and unleashing a spirit of cooperation that puts the wind at our backs."
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also issued a brief statement indicating, “Today, the Senate took a giant and historic step forward toward reversing a clear and present danger to our planet. By adopting America’s Climate Security Act, the Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a powerful message that will be heard across the country and around the world -- America is now truly in the fight to combat global warming. I would like to thank Senator Boxer for her effective leadership on this legislation and Senator Warner for his dedicated partnership in bringing about this significant victory.
“We still have a challenging effort ahead of us on the Senate floor, but the momentum is clearly in favor of taking action on climate change before the end of the 110th Congress. In the coming months, I believe that you will see a wave of support and pressure to pass this legislation when it comes to the Senate floor next year. The message that came out of this Committee is that there will be no more denying, no more waiting, and no more equivocating when it comes to addressing this threat to the future of our planet.”
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and outspoken opponent of global warming legislation issued a more lengthy statement saying, “For the first time in history, a fatally flawed global warming cap-and-trade bill was passed out of committee. Not only is the entire cap-and-trade approach fatally flawed, but the Lieberman-Warner bill failed to improve today, as Democrat amendments were added. Instead of engaging in substantive debate, the Democrats’ chose to simply reject all serious efforts to mitigate the unintended consequences of this bill and ensure adequate future energy supplies for this nation.
“The rejection of key amendments has guaranteed an enormous floor fight as many major issues were side-stepped. While the vote today was never in question, it did provide an opportunity for Republicans to expose the serious deficiencies of this bill. The full Senate now needs to look at a cost-benefit analysis of this bill. It is simply all economic pain for no climate gain. Numerous analyses have placed the costs at trillions of dollars. Even if you accept the dire claims of man-made global warming, this bill would not have a measurable impact on the climate.
“Within seven years, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35 to 65 percent and will have a huge economic hit on households. These costs are far greater than the McCain-Lieberman bill that was voted down by the Senate two years ago. Additionally, the poor will be the hardest hit as they pay about five times more per month, as a percentage of their monthly expenditures, compared to wealthier Americans. By 2015 this bill is estimated to cost up to 2.3 million jobs, and these lost jobs will go to China, India, and other emerging nations without carbon limits..."
Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the hearing website for a links to the complete webcast and opening statements (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from the National Wildlife Federation supporting (click here). Access a release from the Natural Resources Defense Council supporting (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense supporting (click here). Access a release from the National Association of Manufacturers opposing (click here) [*Climate]
Chairman Boxer issued a brief statement saying, "The vote of the Environment and Public Works Committee in favor of the Climate Security Act was a historic moment for our country and for my Committee. For me, it was the greatest legislative accomplishment of my political career of thirty years. Finally, America is taking bold steps to avert the catastrophe that awaits our children and grandchildren if we do nothing.
"Our bill has two goals...to fight global warming and to do it in a way that keeps our economy strong. That will be my focus in the coming weeks and months as we move the bill forward to the Senate floor. This bill is the most far reaching global warming bill in the world and I am grateful to Senators Lieberman and Warner for breaching the partisan divide and unleashing a spirit of cooperation that puts the wind at our backs."
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also issued a brief statement indicating, “Today, the Senate took a giant and historic step forward toward reversing a clear and present danger to our planet. By adopting America’s Climate Security Act, the Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a powerful message that will be heard across the country and around the world -- America is now truly in the fight to combat global warming. I would like to thank Senator Boxer for her effective leadership on this legislation and Senator Warner for his dedicated partnership in bringing about this significant victory.
“We still have a challenging effort ahead of us on the Senate floor, but the momentum is clearly in favor of taking action on climate change before the end of the 110th Congress. In the coming months, I believe that you will see a wave of support and pressure to pass this legislation when it comes to the Senate floor next year. The message that came out of this Committee is that there will be no more denying, no more waiting, and no more equivocating when it comes to addressing this threat to the future of our planet.”
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and outspoken opponent of global warming legislation issued a more lengthy statement saying, “For the first time in history, a fatally flawed global warming cap-and-trade bill was passed out of committee. Not only is the entire cap-and-trade approach fatally flawed, but the Lieberman-Warner bill failed to improve today, as Democrat amendments were added. Instead of engaging in substantive debate, the Democrats’ chose to simply reject all serious efforts to mitigate the unintended consequences of this bill and ensure adequate future energy supplies for this nation.
“The rejection of key amendments has guaranteed an enormous floor fight as many major issues were side-stepped. While the vote today was never in question, it did provide an opportunity for Republicans to expose the serious deficiencies of this bill. The full Senate now needs to look at a cost-benefit analysis of this bill. It is simply all economic pain for no climate gain. Numerous analyses have placed the costs at trillions of dollars. Even if you accept the dire claims of man-made global warming, this bill would not have a measurable impact on the climate.
“Within seven years, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35 to 65 percent and will have a huge economic hit on households. These costs are far greater than the McCain-Lieberman bill that was voted down by the Senate two years ago. Additionally, the poor will be the hardest hit as they pay about five times more per month, as a percentage of their monthly expenditures, compared to wealthier Americans. By 2015 this bill is estimated to cost up to 2.3 million jobs, and these lost jobs will go to China, India, and other emerging nations without carbon limits..."
Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the hearing website for a links to the complete webcast and opening statements (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from the National Wildlife Federation supporting (click here). Access a release from the Natural Resources Defense Council supporting (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense supporting (click here). Access a release from the National Association of Manufacturers opposing (click here) [*Climate]
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Groups & Governments Petition For Action On Aviation Emissions
Dec 5: A coalition of environmental groups, states and regional governments filed petitions with the U.S. EPA urging the Agency to address the effects of vast amounts of global warming pollution from the world's aircraft fleet. The petitions are the first step in a process that requires the EPA to evaluate the current impacts of aircraft emissions, seek public comment and develop rules to reduce aircraft emissions or explain why it will not act. Earthjustice, the public interest environmental firm, filed the environmental groups' petition on behalf of Friends of the Earth, Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity. Also filing petitions are the States of California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico and the District of Columbia through their Attorneys General, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through its Department of Environmental Protection, the City of New York through its Corporation Counsel, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District through its District Counsel.
According to a release from Earthjustice, aircraft emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide. They currently account for 12 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. transportation sources and three percent of the United States' total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The U.S. is responsible for nearly half of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft. Aircraft also emit nitrogen oxides, known as NOx, which contribute to the formation of ozone, another greenhouse gas (GHG). Emissions of NOx at high altitudes result in greater concentrations of ozone than ground-level emissions. Aircraft also emit water vapor at high altitude that forms condensation trails or "contrails." Contrails are visible cloud lines that form in cold, humid atmospheres and contribute to the warming impacts of aircraft emissions. Moreover, the persistent formation of contrails is associated with increased cirrus cloud cover, which also warms the Earth's surface.
The release indicates that together, these high altitude emissions have a greater global warming impact than if the emissions were released at ground-level. A recent report by the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Protection found that the net effects of ozone, contrail and aviation-induced cloud cover is likely to triple the warming effect of aircraft-emitted CO2 alone. The report concludes that if these estimates are correct and the anticipated growth in aviation realized, aviation may be responsible for between six and ten percent of the human impact on climate by the year 2050.
The petition filed asks EPA to respond within 180 days and initiate a formal process to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all U.S. certified aircraft and all foreign aircraft arriving in or departing from U.S. airports, which the groups say it could do by: Adopting operational measures to minimize fuel use and reduce emissions from aircraft; Requiring the use of lighter, more aerodynamic, and more energy efficient airplanes, as well as the development of even more efficient designs; and Adopting regulatory measures to create incentives for the use of cleaner jet fuels.
Access a release from Earthjustice with links to additional information including key aviation and global warming resources cited in the petition (click here). Access the petition filed by environmental groups (click here). Access a release from California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. and link to the states' petition (click here). [*Climate, *Air]
According to a release from Earthjustice, aircraft emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide. They currently account for 12 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. transportation sources and three percent of the United States' total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The U.S. is responsible for nearly half of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft. Aircraft also emit nitrogen oxides, known as NOx, which contribute to the formation of ozone, another greenhouse gas (GHG). Emissions of NOx at high altitudes result in greater concentrations of ozone than ground-level emissions. Aircraft also emit water vapor at high altitude that forms condensation trails or "contrails." Contrails are visible cloud lines that form in cold, humid atmospheres and contribute to the warming impacts of aircraft emissions. Moreover, the persistent formation of contrails is associated with increased cirrus cloud cover, which also warms the Earth's surface.
The release indicates that together, these high altitude emissions have a greater global warming impact than if the emissions were released at ground-level. A recent report by the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Protection found that the net effects of ozone, contrail and aviation-induced cloud cover is likely to triple the warming effect of aircraft-emitted CO2 alone. The report concludes that if these estimates are correct and the anticipated growth in aviation realized, aviation may be responsible for between six and ten percent of the human impact on climate by the year 2050.
The petition filed asks EPA to respond within 180 days and initiate a formal process to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all U.S. certified aircraft and all foreign aircraft arriving in or departing from U.S. airports, which the groups say it could do by: Adopting operational measures to minimize fuel use and reduce emissions from aircraft; Requiring the use of lighter, more aerodynamic, and more energy efficient airplanes, as well as the development of even more efficient designs; and Adopting regulatory measures to create incentives for the use of cleaner jet fuels.
Access a release from Earthjustice with links to additional information including key aviation and global warming resources cited in the petition (click here). Access the petition filed by environmental groups (click here). Access a release from California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. and link to the states' petition (click here). [*Climate, *Air]
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Environmental Trust Releases "Taking Responsibility" Climate Report
Dec 3: Many individual states release more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than entire groups of developing countries. Forty-two U.S. states individually emit more carbon dioxide than 50 developing countries combined, and three states individually emit more CO2 than 100 developing countries. Taking Responsibility, a new report by the National Environmental Trust (NET), examines the greenhouse gas emissions of U.S. states as compared to developing countries and underscores the moral necessity for the United States to assume global leadership in ongoing efforts to craft a new post-Kyoto global climate treaty. Featuring a state by state profile of GHG emissions, the report also examines individual and collective efforts by U.S. states to reduce GHG emissions.
The report points out that the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), applying the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” specific ed that developed nations should be obligated to make greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions before less-polluting developing nations. Fairness decreed that developed countries -- responsible for the vast majority of historic emissions -- should have the responsibility for developing the technological solutions needed to reduce them.
Developing nations would thus have time to grow their economies, putting them in a better position to more quickly apply the technological solutions devised in the interim. This principle was upheld by the United States Senate, which ratified the 1992 UNFCCC, and has been a cornerstone of subsequent international agreements on climate change. The report says, "Unfortunately, some developed countries have begun arguing that 'differentiated responsibilities' no longer apply due to the rapid emissions increases by developing countries. They contend that binding emissions reduction goals must be undertaken by developed and developing countries alike. This argument may jeopardize efforts to create a framework for a new international agreement to stabilize the climate after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012."
As world leaders begin working on a new treaty for reducing greenhouse gases, the "report aims to provide perspective on who bears first responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also examines commitments made by developed and developing nations, and individual U.S. states, to reduce emissions."
Access a brief announcement of the report (click here). Access the complete 99-page report (click here). [*Climate]
The report points out that the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), applying the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” specific ed that developed nations should be obligated to make greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions before less-polluting developing nations. Fairness decreed that developed countries -- responsible for the vast majority of historic emissions -- should have the responsibility for developing the technological solutions needed to reduce them.
Developing nations would thus have time to grow their economies, putting them in a better position to more quickly apply the technological solutions devised in the interim. This principle was upheld by the United States Senate, which ratified the 1992 UNFCCC, and has been a cornerstone of subsequent international agreements on climate change. The report says, "Unfortunately, some developed countries have begun arguing that 'differentiated responsibilities' no longer apply due to the rapid emissions increases by developing countries. They contend that binding emissions reduction goals must be undertaken by developed and developing countries alike. This argument may jeopardize efforts to create a framework for a new international agreement to stabilize the climate after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012."
As world leaders begin working on a new treaty for reducing greenhouse gases, the "report aims to provide perspective on who bears first responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also examines commitments made by developed and developing nations, and individual U.S. states, to reduce emissions."
Access a brief announcement of the report (click here). Access the complete 99-page report (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
