President Obama Releases Climate Action Plan

Jun 25: President Obama delivered a speech at Georgetown University today outlining his Climate Action Plan. He also released the Plan and issued a Presidential Memorandum on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards (see links below).

 

The President's Plan begins by stating, "While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged. Through steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our children's health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment. Outlining the progress that has been made to date, the President's Climate Action Plan says:

While this progress is encouraging, climate change is no longer a distant threat – we are already feeling its impacts across the country and the world. Last year was the warmest year ever in the contiguous United States and about one-third of all Americans experienced 10 days or more of 100-degree heat. The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse. And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically.

These changes come with far-reaching consequences and real economic costs. Last year alone, there were 11 different weather and climate disaster events with estimated losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. Taken together, these 11 events resulted in over $110 billion in estimated damages, which would make it the second-costliest year on record.

 

In short, America stands at a critical juncture. Today, President Obama is putting forward a broad-based plan to cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change and affects public health. Cutting carbon pollution will help spark business innovation to modernize our power plants, resulting in cleaner forms of American-made energy that will create good jobs and cut our dependence on foreign oil. Combined with the Administration's other actions to increase the efficiency of our cars and household appliances, the President's plan will reduce the amount of energy consumed by American families, cutting down on their gas and utility bills. The plan, which consists of a wide variety of executive actions, has three key pillars:

 

1) Cut Carbon Pollution in America: In 2012, U.S. carbon emissions fell to the lowest level in two decades even as the economy continued to grow. To build on this progress, the Obama Administration is putting in place tough new rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic -- so we protect the health of our children and move our economy toward American-made clean energy sources that will create good jobs and lower home energy bills.

2) Prepare the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change: Even as we take new steps to reduce carbon pollution, we must also prepare for the impacts of a changing climate that are already being felt across the country. Moving forward, the Obama Administration will help state and local governments strengthen our roads, bridges, and shorelines so we can better protect people's homes, businesses and way of life from severe weather.

3) Lead International Efforts to Combat Global Climate Change and Prepare for its Impacts: Just as no country is immune from the impacts of climate change, no country can
meet this challenge alone. That is why it is imperative for the United States to couple action at home with leadership internationally. America must help forge a truly global solution to this global challenge by galvanizing international action to significantly reduce emissions (particularly among the major emitting countries), prepare for climate impacts, and drive progress through the international negotiations.

    At the top of the President's agenda is "Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants." The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the U.S. EPA to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. In developing the standards, the President has asked EPA to "build on state
leadership, provide flexibility, and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies including many actions in this plan."

 

    The Administration is announcing a number of new efforts leading to: Accelerating Clean Energy Permitting; and Expanding and Modernizing the Electric Grid. Additionally, by: Unlocking Long-Term Investment in Clean Energy Innovation; Increasing Fuel Economy Standards; Developing and Deploying Advanced Transportation Technologies; Establishing a New Goal for Energy Efficiency Standards; Reducing Barriers to Investment in Energy Efficiency; Expanding the President's Better Buildings Challenge; Reducing Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions such as Hydrofluorocarbons and Methane; and Preserving the Role of Forests in Mitigating Climate Change.

 

    The Plan calls for the Federal government to be a leader in clean energy and energy efficiency. Under the Obama Administration, federal agencies have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent. The Plan calls for establishing a new goal: The Federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 -- more than double the current goal of 7.5 percent. In addition, the Federal government will continue to pursue greater energy efficiency that reduces greenhouse gas
emissions and saves taxpayer dollars.

 

    To prepare the country for the inevitable impacts of climate change the Plan calls for: Directing Agencies to Support Climate-Resilient Investment; Establishing a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness; Supporting Communities as they Prepare for Climate Impacts; Boosting the Resilience of Buildings and Infrastructure; Rebuilding and Learning from Hurricane Sandy; Identifying Vulnerabilities of Key Sectors to Climate Change; Promoting Resilience in the Health Sector; Promoting Insurance Leadership for Climate Safety; Conserving Land and Water Resources; Maintaining Agricultural Sustainability; Managing Drought; Reducing Wildfire Risks; Preparing for Future Floods; and Using Sound Science to Manage Climate Impacts.

 

    On the international front, the Plan indicates that major international initiatives focused on spurring concrete action, including bilateral initiatives with China, India, and other major emitting countries will be continued and undertaken. The Plan proposes that the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (17 countries with 75% of GHG emissions) build on these efforts by launching a major initiative this year focused on further accelerating efficiency gains in the buildings sector; Intensifying bilateral climate cooperation with China, India and Brazil; Combating Short-Lived Climate Pollutant like methane, black carbon, and many HFCs; Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; Expanding Clean Energy Use and Cut Energy Waste; Negotiating Global Free Trade in Environmental Goods and Services; Phasing Out Subsidies that Encourage Wasteful Consumption of Fossil Fuels; Strengthening Global Resilience to Climate Change; Mobilizing Climate Finance; and Leading Efforts to Address Climate Change through International Negotiations.

 

    Access a link to the President's speech on his climate action plan which should be posted soon (click here). Access a video of the President's speech (click here). Access the complete 21-page Climate Action Plan (click here). Access the Presidential Memo on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards (click here). Access a fact sheet from the White House (click here). Access a visual presentation of the President's Plan (click here). Access the White House climate change website for additional information (click here). [#Climate]

---

 

Some Initial Reaction To The President's Climate Plan - Jul 25: The following is some of the initial reaction to President Obama's Climate Change Action Plan:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, "At a time when millions of Americans remain out of work and the cost of groceries, gas, and health care continues to rise, it is astonishing that President Obama is unilaterally imposing new regulations that will cost jobs and increase energy prices. The president has always been hostile to affordable sources of American energy that power most of our economy, but this program – which amounts to a National Energy Tax – only escalates his attack.  The president's advisor calls it a 'War on Coal,' but it's even more than that. These policies, rejected even by the last Democratic-controlled Congress, will shutter power plants, destroy good-paying American jobs, and raise electricity bills for families that can scarcely afford it. The last thing our economy needs right now is another layer of government red tape that will make it harder to grow businesses and hire more workers.  America needs more affordable energy options, not fewer.  That's why House Republicans are committed to a true all-of-the-above energy approach that will lower energy prices and create good American jobs.  And it's why we continue to call on the president to approve the Keystone pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs that will come along with it."

 

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, "In advance of the President's big speech today, I read this morning that one of the White House's climate advisors finally admitted something most of us have long suspected anyway. He said 'a War on Coal is exactly what's needed' in this country. Exactly what's needed -- that's really what he said. It's an astonishing bit of honesty from someone that close to the White House. But it really encapsulates the attitude this Administration holds in regard to states like mine, where coal is such an important part of the economic well-being of so many middle-class families. And it captures the attitude it holds in regard to middle-class Americans across the country, where affordable energy is critical to the operation of so many companies and small businesses -- and to those businesses' ability to hire Americans and help build a ladder to the middle class for their families. Declaring a 'War on Coal' is tantamount to declaring a war on jobs. It's tantamount to kicking the ladder out from beneath the feet of many Americans struggling in today's economy. And I will be raising this issue with the President at the White House today. . ."

 

House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA), Co-Chair of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change said, "The President is absolutely right to act now. We have a moral imperative to protect the environment for our children and future generations. We are at a crossroads.  Every year we delay, the impacts will worsen and the costs will rise.  But if we act now, we can lead the world in developing the clean energy technologies of the future." Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the other Co-Chair of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change said, "For too long, the barricade of special interests in Washington has stopped Congress from acting against carbon pollution. President Obama knows that we can't wait to address this issue. We're already paying the costs of climate change.  Our oceans are warmer, more acidic, and rising; our seasons are shifting; and the dice are loaded for more frequent and more severe extreme weather events.  I applaud President Obama for taking action today to protect the planet for future generations."

 

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): "The president nailed it: this can't wait. We will cut this carbon pollution today so our children don't inherit climate chaos tomorrow. We owe that to future generations, and we owe it to ourselves. That's the single most important thing we can do, as a nation, to confront this widening scourge. Climate change is the central environmental crisis of our time. It is taking a grievous and growing toll on our country, threatening our people and imperiling our future. The president promised to do something about it. Today he turned that promise into action."

 

Bill Snape, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) senior counsel, reiterated CBD's call to halt Keystone XL immediately and establish a national pollution cap for carbon dioxide. He said, "We're happy to see the President finally addressing climate change but the plain truth is that what he's proposing isn't big enough, and doesn't move fast enough, to match the terrifying magnitude of the climate crisis. The president, like all of us, needs to be able to look across the dinner table at his children and know he's doing all he can to ensure they inherit a planet that's healthy and livable. This plan is a small step in the right direction but certainly begs for something bigger and bolder. Strong rhetoric and politically comfortable half-measures won't achieve what scientists tell us must be done to address the climate problem. The White House can't punt on hard climate questions, from the carbon cap to Keystone XL, Arctic drilling and fracking on public lands. It's time for strong action and strong leadership."

 

American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Jack Gerard said, "The President recognizes the important role natural gas has played in reducing CO2 levels to near 20 year lows, thanks to private investments in energy exploration, production and refining. Those investments in America's energy potential have led us to the point of being the world's largest producer of natural gas, and flipped plans to import LNG into plans to export it. But by recycling his plans to raise taxes on U.S. oil and natural gas companies, President Obama runs the risk of unwinding the significant environmental benefits from natural gas, threatens our economic recovery and dampens our ability to create millions of jobs for Americans. Ironically, the President's plan to raise taxes by eliminating cost recovery for U.S. oil and natural gas companies would jeopardize his own climate goals by making some of those investments uneconomic. After a handful of years, we would see less domestic energy production -- particularly of natural gas -- more imports, fewer new jobs, and, eventually, depressed tax, royalty and other revenues to governments at all levels."

 

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons said, "President Obama today revealed his most ambitious regulatory agenda yet, one that would remake the entire U.S. economy. During the campaign, the President regularly touted increasing manufacturing jobs, and he rightly recognized that a strong and vibrant manufacturing sector is key to robust and sustained economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, under his watch, he seems intent on taking actions that would put manufacturing in the United States out of business. The President's plan puts our country on a path toward the elimination of fossil fuels from our energy mix that is wholly inconsistent with his promotion of an 'all-of-the-above' energy plan just a few months ago. . ." 

 

Eileen Claussen, President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) said, "President Obama is laying out a credible, comprehensive strategy to use the tools at his disposal to strengthen the U.S. response to climate change. His plan recognizes that the costs of climate change are real and rising, and that to minimize them we must both cut our carbon output and strengthen our climate resilience. Putting these critical issues before the American public is itself a step forward. But it will require continued presidential leadership to translate the plan's good intentions into concrete policy. The most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is for Congress to enact an economy-wide price on carbon. As long as Congress is unwilling to act, the president is right to use his powers under the Clean Air Act to curb emissions from power plants, by far the largest unregulated source of U.S. carbon emissions. Many companies are prepared to work with the administration on pragmatic approaches that cut emissions while keeping U.S. electricity affordable and reliable. Companies want regulatory certainty and know that continued inaction exposes them to increasing climate risks. In crafting the power plant rules, EPA should consult widely with utilities and with the states, which ultimately must implement them. We strongly encourage EPA to devise a flexible strategy that allows a variety of state-level policies, including market-based approaches, and allows utilities to cut emissions at the lowest possible cost. . ."

    Access a release from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access a lengthy statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access a release from the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from C2ES (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Report & Legislation On Climate Change Adaptation Efforts

Jun 21: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Climate Change: Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at Key Natural Resource Management Agencies (GAO-13-253, May 31, 2013). The report was requested by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Chairman Committee on Finance and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight on the Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW).

 

    In background information, GAO indicates that climate change poses a variety of threats to Federally managed natural resources, such as forests and wildlife, including possibly more frequent and severe droughts and wildfires. Adaptation -- adjustments in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment that exploits beneficial opportunities or moderates negative effects -- can be used to help manage the risks to vulnerable natural resources. GAO was asked to review Federal agencies' efforts to incorporate climate change adaptation into their natural resource planning and management since GAO last reported on this issue in 2007.

    The report examines: (1) steps key Federal natural resource management agencies -- Forest Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management -- have taken since 2007 to address adaptation; and (2) how these agencies have collaborated at the national level on adaptation since 2007. GAO analyzed the agencies' climate change adaptation guidance and planning documents and interviewed agency officials. GAO also visited one field location for each agency, selected using a "non-probability approach, so the results are not generalizable to all of the agencies' field locations."

    GAO found that since 2007, the Forest Service, NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service have taken steps to establish strategic directions for addressing climate change adaptation. For example, the Forest Service developed a strategic framework document that established climate change adaptation as a central agency priority and another document, known as "the roadmap," which identified actions that national forest managers were taking or could take to implement the direction outlined in the framework, including re-vegetating ecosystems that had been affected by fire with plant species that are better adapted to current and future climates. These four agencies have also developed guidance, training, and other tools for managers to use in adapting to climate change. For example, the National Park Service is developing guidance for park-based climate change adaptation plans that includes steps such as identifying conservation targets and conducting vulnerability assessments. The Bureau of Land Management has not established a strategic direction for addressing climate change impacts but is planning to develop a high-level climate change adaptation strategy by the end of the summer 2013. In addition, GAO visited one field location within each agency and found that managers at four of the five locations have taken steps to address climate change adaptation. For example:

• Chugach National Forest managers have begun an assessment of the vulnerability to climate change of key resources to help set priorities and identify adaptation actions. For example, the vulnerability assessment will include information on how changes in climate are likely to affect snow cover and salmon populations, as well as an analysis of how these projected changes may affect residents in the region who rely on snow-based tourism and salmon for their livelihoods.
• Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary managers are beginning to assess whether parts of their management plan should be revised to address climate change adaptation and have taken actions to protect marine resources, such as coral reefs, from climate change impacts. For example, the sanctuary is collaborating with local stakeholders to develop systems and techniques to grow coral and other reef species for replanting in depleted reef systems.
• However, GAO indicated that managers at the Bureau of Land Management's Kingman Resource Area, which manages its lands for livestock grazing and other uses, have not taken steps to address climate change adaptation and are awaiting agency direction.

    The Federal natural resource management agencies GAO reviewed are collaborating on climate change adaptation. For example, agencies are collaborating through landscape conservation cooperatives, comprising public and private organizations working to define shared goals and provide science for conservation planning, among other things. In addition, agencies have collaborated in developing national strategies for addressing climate change adaptation in the federal government. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and others collaborated on a strategy, released in March 2013, for addressing climate change adaptation in managing fish, wildlife, and plants.

    As Senators Baucus and Whitehouse released the GAO report, they also introduced legislation to provide local communities with better tools to prepare for extreme weather and require Federal agencies to work more efficiently by implementing a single coordinated strategy for protecting, restoring, and conserving the natural resources that American tourism and recreation jobs and local economies depend on. The bill, the Safeguarding America's Future and the Environment (SAFE) Act (S.1202), comes on the heels of GAO report that notes, "recreation and tourism generate billions of dollars for regional economies through activities such as fishing, hunting, skiing, hiking, and diving and some of these economic benefits could be reduced or lost as a result of the impacts from climate change."  The report highlights the need for additional tools provided in Baucus' and Whitehouse' SAFE Act, including grant funding for local communities and "a central clearinghouse for climate science, so communities and agencies don't have to reinvent the wheel and have access to a single source for good science."

    Sen. Baucus said, "Outdoor heritage is part of who we are in Montana, and taking smart steps to protect our outdoor way of life from increased wildfires, prolonged drought and reduced snowpack is just plain commonsense. Outdoor recreation supports 64,000 Montana jobs each year, one in five Montana jobs is tied to agriculture, and our timber industry is critical to western communities – every single one of those jobs depends on maintaining our healthy wide open spaces, forests and waterways. This bill gives local communities the tools they need to protect Montana's outdoor jobs and streamlines federal bureaucracy to make sure we have a smart, coordinated plan in place moving forward."

    Sen. Whitehouse said, "America's natural resources are the pride of our country and we should be actively protecting them in the face of a changing climate. Rhode Island is already seeing warmer waters in Narragansett Bay, more severe coastal storms, and beach erosion worsened by rising sea levels. This bill will help Rhode Island and other states by requiring the federal government to wake up to the consequences of climate change and take action to protect vulnerable and valuable resources."

    The SAFE Act would specifically require federal agencies that manage natural resources to adopt climate change adaptation plans that are consistent with the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, released by the Administration this year.  This coordinated approach will reduce costs by preventing redundancies and by directing investment toward the most effective resiliency measures.

Natural resource management options can include promoting resistance, encouraging resilience and even facilitating transformation of one ecosystem to another.  Yet managers are often constrained by their agency's mission, laws and regulations. The SAFE Act seeks to put all climate adaptation tools and approaches, including state, local, and stakeholder participation on the table by making it a requirement of the federal agencies.

    Access the complete 74-page report (click here). Access a release from Sens. Baucus and Whitehouse (click here). Access legislative details for S.1202 (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House Farm Bill Voted Down 234 - 195

Jun 20: Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) failed to secure enough votes to pass the House version of the 2013 Farm Bill. The bill -- H.R.1947, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act -- failed on a vote of 195 - 234; with 174 Republican and 24 Democrats voting for the measure; and 62 Republicans and 172 Democrats voting against it. On Jun 10, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill -- S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 ) -- by a wide bipartisan margin, 66-27 [See WIMS 6/11/13]. 

 

    House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) issued a brief statement saying, "On this day, on this vote, the House worked its will.  I'm obviously disappointed, but the reforms in H.R.1947 -- $40 billion in deficit reduction, elimination of direct payments and the first reforms to SNAP since 1996 -- are so important that we must continue to pursue them.  We are assessing all of our options, but I have no doubt that we will finish our work in the near future and provide the certainty that our farmers, ranchers, and rural constituents need." The Senate Bill included cuts of $24 billion dollars in spending in agriculture programs by eliminating unnecessary direct payment subsidies, consolidating programs to end duplication, and cracking down on food assistance abuse.

 

    House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) commented saying, "The farm bill failed to pass the House today because the House Republicans could not control the extreme right wing of their party. From day one I cautioned my colleagues that to pass a farm bill we would have to work together. Instead, the House adopted a partisan amendment process, playing political games with extreme policies that have no chance of becoming law. This flies in the face of nearly four years of bipartisan work done by the Agriculture Committee. I'll continue to do everything I can to get a farm bill passed but I have a hard time seeing where we go from here."

    Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said in a release, "The House farm bill failed commonsense conservation standards, and it failed to get enough votes to pass. Reasonable measures to protect taxpayers and natural resources must be included a farm bill. The National Wildlife Federation will continue to fight for a farm bill that includes a link between conservation compliance and crop insurance, and a National Sodsaver program." Most significantly, NWF indicated that the House bill would have created a new loophole in a longstanding requirement that farmers who receive taxpayer subsidies refrain from draining wetlands or farming erosion-prone soils without a conservation plan -- because the bill failed to extend these protections to crop insurance premium subsidies, the largest subsidy farmers receive. This could lead to the draining of 1.5 to 3.3 million acres of wetlands and greatly increased soil erosion and nutrient pollution into our lakes, streams, rivers and coastal waters.

 

    NWF said major agricultural groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Corn Growers, along with fiscal groups, including Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union supported closing this damaging loophole. Schweiger said, "It is outrageous that the House Agriculture Committee leaders opposed this wholly reasonable, basic conservation provision to protect the public good."

    Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) issued a statement saying, "The American Farm Bureau Federation is highly disappointed the House did not complete work on the 2013 farm bill. . . It was a balanced bill that would have provided much needed risk management tools and a viable economic safety net for America's farmers and ranchers. We commend House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) for their commitment and hard work in bringing the bill to the floor and working toward its passage. We look forward to working with them as we regroup and move forward. We also appreciate House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for working with the Agriculture Committee leadership to bring the bill to the floor. A completed farm bill is much needed to provide farmers and ranchers certainty for the coming years and to allow the Agriculture Department to plan for an orderly implementation of the bill's provisions."

 

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) released a statement saying, "I'm extremely disappointed that Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership have at the last minute chosen to derail years of bipartisan work on the Farm Bill and related reforms. This bill was far from perfect, but the only way to achieve meaningful reform, such as Congressman Southerland's amendment reforming the food stamp program, was in conference. I strongly supported the Southerland amendment which built on successful welfare reforms that have worked in the past to give states more flexibility and encourage self-sufficiency by increasing workforce participation among those enrolled in the SNAP program. I commend Chairman Frank Lucas and the House Agriculture Committee for their efforts, and am sorry that Democrats shamefully chose politics over progress and meaningful reform."

    Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD.) expressed his opposition to the significant SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) cuts included in the bill in a June 18, Floor statement. He said, "First of all, the farm bill is an important piece of legislation. It sets federal policy in a range of areas that deeply affect the lives of farmers, their communities, and consumers. But it also makes a huge difference in the lives of those who rely on food assistance to avoid hunger, especially children. It's a shame that we could not consider the farm bill on its merits without undermining its credibility with what we clearly believe are not reforms and not the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. . . cutting out assistance for hungry people is neither fraud, nor waste, nor abuse. Well, it may be abuse. . . SNAP as it's called, protects over 46 million Americans who are at risk of going without sufficient food. Nearly half of those are children. Are there some reforms that are needed? Perhaps. And the Senate has made those reforms in a moderate, considered way. The average monthly benefit per participant last year, according to the USDA, was $133.41. I challenge any Member of this House to live on $133.41 for food – $4.45 a day. . ." He said the bill would slash $20.5 billion from the supplemental nutrition program and put 2 million Americans at risk. Reps. Cantor and Hoyer had a "spirited" exchange following the vote on the bill (see link to video below).

   

Access legislative details for H.R.1947 including amendments and roll call votes (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Lucas (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Peterson (click here). Access background information and summaries of the H.R.1947 (click here). Access the statement from NWF (click here). Access the statement from the AFBF (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Cantor (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Hoyer (click here). Access video of Cantor & Hoyer (click here). Access legislative details for S.954 including amendments and roll call votes (click here). [#Agriculture, #MIAgriculture, #Land, #Water, #Energy]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

$76 Billion Needed To Fix Backlog Of Troubled Bridges

Jun 19: An updated analysis of Federal data released by Transportation for America (T4A) indicates that one in nine of the bridges and overpasses American drivers cross each day is rated in poor enough condition that some could become dangerous or be closed without near-term repair.

    The report -- The Fix We're In For: The State of the Nation's Bridges 2013 -- indicates that nearly 67,000 of the nation's 605,000 bridges are rated "structurally deficient" and are in need of substantial repair or replacement. Nearly 8,000 are both structurally deficient and "fracture critical", meaning they are designed with no redundancy in their key structural components, so that if one fails the bridge could collapse. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that the backlog of troubled bridges would cost $76 billion to eliminate.

    The report ranks states and the District of Columbia in terms of the overall condition of the their bridges, with one having the largest share of deficient bridges, 51 the lowest. Twenty-one states have a higher percentage of deficient bridges than the national average of 11 percent. The five states with the worst bridge conditions have a share over 20 percent: Pennsylvania has the largest share of deteriorating bridges (24.5%), followed by Oklahoma (22.0%), Iowa (21.7%), Rhode Island (21.6%), and South Dakota (20.3%). At the other end of the spectrum, five states have less than 5 percent of their bridges rated structurally deficient: Nevada and Florida lead the rankings with 2.2%, followed by Texas (2.6%), Arizona (3.2%), and Utah (4.3%).

    James Corless, T4A director said, "With the collapse of the I-5 bridge in Washington State last month, coming just six years after an interstate collapse in Minnesota, Americans are acutely aware of the critical need to invest in our bridges as our system shows its age. Today, though, there more deficient bridges in our 100 largest metropolitan areas than there are McDonald's locations nationwide." Put another way, laid end to end, all the deficient bridges would span from Washington, DC to Denver, CO or from Tijuana, Mexico to Seattle -- more than 1500 miles.

    The need is growing rapidly, the report notes. While most bridges are designed to last 50 years before major overhaul or replacement, American bridges average 43 years old. Age is a major factor in bridge conditions. Roughly half of the structurally deficient bridges are 65 or older. Today there are nearly 107,000 bridges 65 or older, and in just 10 years, one in four will be over 65.

    T4A indicates that Congress has repeatedly declared the condition and safety of our bridges to be of national significance. However, the money to fix them is getting harder to come by with declining gas tax revenues and a fiscal squeeze at all levels of government. At the same time, Congress made the prospects for bridges even more uncertain last year by eliminating a dedicated fund for them in its update of the Federal transportation program. The new law also reduces access to funds for 90 percent of structurally deficient bridges, most of which are owned by cash-strapped local governments. Corless said, "Unfortunately, the changes Congress made last year left the health and safety of our bridges to compete with every other priority. When it updates the law again next year, Congress should ensure that we have both adequate funding and accountability for fixing all our bridges, regardless of which level of government owns them."

    T4A said some in Congress have recognized the issues and are moving to address them, among them U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Rep. Rahall said, "Congress simply cannot keep hitting the snooze button when it comes to needed investment in our Nation's bridges or think that these aging structures can be rehabilitated with rhetoric. That is why I am introducing legislation that provides needed federal funding to start to address the startling backlog of structural deficient and functional obsolete bridges."

    The funding uncertainty comes as the rate of bridge repair has slowed dramatically in recent years. Investments from the stimulus and ongoing transportation programs helped reduce the share of deficient bridges from 11.5 percent to 11 percent since T4A's last report. But the overall repair rate has dropped significantly over the last 20 years. From 1992-1996 the number of deficient bridges declined by 17,000. However, from 2008-2012 the number dropped by only 4,966 -- more than three times slower. The report authors suggest several recommendations to ensure that there is both funding for safe and well-maintained bridges and accountability for getting the job done, including:

• Increase investment: Current spending levels are precarious and inadequate. In order to bring our rapidly aging infrastructure up to a state of good repair, Congress should raise new, dedicated revenues for surface transportation programs, including bridge repair.
• Restore funding for the 180,000-plus bridges that lost eligibility under the new federal transportation program: Under MAP-21, all of the money previously set aside for bridge repair was rolled into the new National Highway Performance Program, and only 10 percent of deficient bridges – and 23 percent of all bridges – are eligible. Congress must restore funding access for all previously eligible bridges.
• Prioritize Repair: Congress should require states to set aside a share of their NHPP funds for bridge repair unless the state's bridges are certified as being in a state of good repair.

    Access a release from T4A (click here). Access the report, full data, interactive map and infographic (click here). [#Transport]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

World Bank Scientific Report Warns Of Climate Impacts

Jun 19:  A new scientific report released today (June 19) by the World Bank Group warns of regular food shortages in Sub-Saharan Africa….shifting rain patterns in South Asia leaving some parts under water and others without enough water for power generation, irrigation, or drinking… degradation and loss of reefs in South East Asia resulting in reduced fish stocks and coastal communities and cities more vulnerable to increasingly violent storms… these are but a few of the likely impacts of a possible global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in the next few decades  that threatens to trap millions of people in poverty.

    The report -- Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience -- builds on a World Bank report released late last year [See WIMS 11/19/12], which concluded the world would warm by 4 degrees Celsius (4°C or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century if we did not take concerted action now.  The new report looks at the likely impacts of present day, 2°C and 4°C  warming on agricultural production, water resources, coastal ecosystems and cities across Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and South East Asia.

    World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said, "This new report outlines an alarming scenario for the days and years ahead -- what we could face in our lifetime. The scientists tell us that if the world warms by 2°C -- warming which may be reached in 20 to 30  years --  that will cause widespread food shortages, unprecedented heat-waves, and more intense cyclones. In the near-term, climate change, which is already unfolding, could batter the slums even more and greatly harm the lives and the hopes of individuals and families who have had little hand in raising the Earth's temperature. These changes forecast for the tropics illustrate the level of hardships that will be inflicted on all regions eventually, i[f] we fail to keep warming under control. Urgent action is needed to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also to help countries prepare for a world of dramatic climate and weather extremes."

    The report, prepared for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, reveals how rising global temperatures are increasingly threatening the health and livelihoods of the most vulnerable populations, crucially magnifying problems each region is struggling with today. The report is an analysis of the latest climate science, as a means to better understand the risks of climate change to development. Key findings include:

• In Sub-Saharan Africa, by the 2030s droughts and heat will leave 40 percent of the land now growing maize unable to support that crop, while rising temperatures could cause major loss of savanna grasslands threatening pastoral livelihoods. By the 2050s, depending on the sub-region, the proportion of the population undernourished is projected to increase by 25-90 percent compared to the present.
  
• In South Asia, the potential change in the regularity and impact of the all-important monsoon could precipitate a major crisis in the region.  Events like the devastating Pakistan floods of 2010, which affected more than 20 million people, could become common place.  More extreme droughts in large parts of India could lead to widespread food shortages and hardship.
  
• Across South East Asia, rural livelihoods are faced with mounting pressures as sea levels rise, tropical cyclones increase in intensity, and important marine ecosystem services are lost as warming approaches 4°C.
  
• And across all the regions, the likely movement of impacted communities into urban areas could lead to ever higher numbers of people in informal settlements being exposed to heat waves, flooding, and diseases.

    The report says impacts across its study regions are potentially devastating.  And, if warming goes from 2ºC to 4°C, multiple threats of increasing extreme heat waves, sea–level rise, more severe storms, droughts and floods would have severe negative implications for the poorest and most vulnerable.  It notes, however, that many of the worst consequences could still be avoided by holding warming below 2ºC.

 

    President Kim said, "I do not believe the poor are condemned to the future scientists envision in this report. In fact, I am convinced we can reduce poverty even in a world severely challenged by climate change. We can help cities grow clean and climate resilient, develop climate smart agriculture practices, and find innovative ways to improve both energy efficiency and the performance of renewable energies. We can work with countries to roll back harmful fossil fuel subsidies and help put the policies in place that will eventually lead to a stable price on carbon. We are determined to work with countries to find solutions. But, the science is clear. There can be no substitute for aggressive national mitigation targets, and the burden of emissions reductions lies with a few large economies."

    The report says sea level rise has been occurring more rapidly than previously projected and a rise of as much as 50 cm (19.7") by the 2050s may already be unavoidable as a result of past emissions. In some cases, impacts could be felt much earlier.  For example, without adaptation measures, sea level rise of 15 cm (5.9"), coupled with more intense cyclones, threatens to inundate much of Bangkok by the 2030s.

 

   The burgeoning cities of the developing world are identified as some of the places on the planet most at risk from climate change. Describing urban areas as "new clusters of vulnerability," the report says urban dwellers, particularly the urban poor, face significant vulnerability to climate change. Informal settlements in places like Metro Manila in the Philippines and Kolkata in India concentrate large populations and often lack basic services, such as electricity, sanitation, health, infrastructure, and durable housing. In such areas, people are highly exposed to extreme weather events, such as storms and flooding. Extreme heat is also felt more acutely in cities.

    Partly in response to the findings of the two, Turn Down the Heat reports, the World Bank Group is stepping up its mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk management work, and will increasingly look at all its business through a "climate lens."  Today, the Bank is helping 130 countries take action on climate change. Last year, it doubled its financial lending that contributes to adaptation. Increasingly, the Bank is supporting action on the ground to finance the kind of projects that help the poor grow their way out of poverty, increase their resilience to climate change, and achieve emission reductions.

 

    Access a release from the World Bank (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 254-page report (click here). Access the complete 106-page 2012 report (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Secretary Moniz Testifies On DOE Science & Technology Priorities

Jun 18: The House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Chaired by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) held a hearing to review the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Science & Technology Priorities. DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz was the only witness. In an opening statement, Rep. Smith said, "To many, the Department of Energy (DOE) is typically not regarded as a "science agency." But from its origins with the Manhattan Project to its current programs and mission, science has always served as DOE's foundation. Approximately $8.5 billion, or one-third of the Department's budget, is focused on civilian science and technology activities that fall under this Committee's jurisdiction. . .

 

    "Dr. Moniz's tenure begins at an extraordinary time in our nation's energy history. We are now just a few years into an energy revolution driven by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) that has enabled dramatic increases in oil and natural gas production. The notion of true American energy independence -- long dismissed as unrealistic -- is now attainable, perhaps even by the end of this decade. . . The shale boom has been accompanied by important energy policy debates. These include whether the Federal government should regulate fracking, whether the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built and how best to handle liquefied natural gas exports. . ."

 

    Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said, "I am pleased with the Department's budget request this year. If approved, the Office of Science, ARPA-E, the Office of Electricity, and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would all receive a much-needed boost to advance the development of clean energy technologies that will be vital to our national security, our economy, and our environment in the decades to come. It is worth reminding my colleagues here today that we have seen how government research can pay off when it comes to energy development. DOE-supported research was key to the development of high-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, nuclear reactors developed at federal labs, and the directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing practices that have led to the shale gas boom of today. But we should remember that those achievements required decades of federal investment, the overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear energy. I continue to support research to make today's technologies cleaner and more efficient, but I believe that it is time to level the playing field and introduce real competition to the markets. That is where the priorities set by this budget request come into play."

 

     Secretary Moniz said in part, "The mission of the Department of Energy could not be more urgent or important. From our efforts to find affordable and clean sources of energy, to ensuring the security of our nuclear stockpile, to cleaning up the legacy of the Cold War -- our work, which includes advancing the science that underpins these missions, is essential to our prosperity, environment, and security. Today, I will lay out my vision for how the Department can be best positioned to address these challenges. . . the President advocates an all-of-the-above energy strategy and I am very much in tune with this. . .

 

    "Since President Obama took office, the global energy landscape has undergone a profound change. In the United States, oil and gas production has increased each year, while oil imports have fallen to a 20 year low. At the same time, renewable electricity generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources has doubled; and carbon emissions have fallen to the lowest level in the U.S. in nearly two decades. These changes have important implications for our economy, environment, and national security. Already we are seeing the effects of increased U.S. oil and natural gas production on global energy markets. . .

 

    "The President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget also requests continued support for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), to support high-impact energy related research projects with the potential to transform the energy sector. ARPA-E has invested in roughly 285 high-risk, high-reward research projects that, if successful, could create the foundation for entirely new industries. Seventeen of these projects, which received an initial investment from ARPA-E of approximately $70 million in total, have attracted
over $450 million in publicly-announced private sector follow-on funding. ARPA-E funded companies and research teams have produced a battery that doubled the energy density of any previous design, successfully engineered microbes that use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make fuel for cars, and developed a one megawatt silicon carbide transistor the size of a fingernail. . .

 

    "The risks of global climate change threaten the health, security, and prosperity of future generations. DOE must continue to support a robust R&D portfolio of low-carbon options and key enablers: efficiency, renewables, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration, energy storage, and smart and resilient grids. The President's FY 2014 Budget requests resources to invest in programs that support research, development, and deployment of the energy technologies of the future that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. These investments will help us double American energy productivity by 2030, double renewable electricity generation again by 2020, cut net oil imports in half by the end of the decade, save consumers and businesses money by reducing energy use, and support groundbreaking research and innovation to safely and responsibly leverage every domestic source of energy. . ."

 

    In lengthy testimony he addressed various DOE mission areas including: Energy Technology and Policy; Science; Nuclear Security; Environmental Remediation; Management and Performance; and concluded that DOE, "has significant responsibilities that bear on America's economic, energy, environmental and nuclear security future. I have appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with members of this Committee and with other members of Congress both during my previous tenure at DOE and in the years since. I am committed to working with the Congress in a search for the solutions to the country's energy and nuclear security challenges. As President Obama has said, 'Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy. After years of talking about it, we're finally poised to control our own energy future.' The investments included in the Administration's Energy Department budget request are vital to ensuring America's energy security and securing America's place as the world leader in the clean energy economy."

 

    Access the Republican website for the hearing with links to testimony and video (click here). Access the Democratic website for the hearing with links to testimony and video (click here). [#Energy]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

EPA Report On Land Use, Transportation, & Environmental Quality

Jun 17: U.S. EPA announced a publication -- Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Among Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality -- provides evidence that certain kinds of land use and transportation strategies -- where and how we build our communities -- can reduce the environmental and human health impacts of development. The report indicates, "Although findings might differ on the magnitude of the effects of different practices, the evidence is overwhelming that some types of development yield better environmental results than others."

 

    EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe said, "This report will be useful for communities across the country looking to make smart development decisions. Whether it's housing, transportation, or environmental issues, this report can help communities protect public health and the environment by avoiding harmful development strategies." The publication is important and timely because population growth and demographic changes will substantially alter the way our nation is developed over the next half century and beyond. The report indicates, "Researchers have estimated that as much as two-thirds of the development that will exist in 40 to 45 years does not exist today; meaning that decisions we make about how and where that development occurs could significantly affect our health and the health of the environment."

    The report, the second edition of a popular document published in 2001, summarizes trends in land use, buildings, travel behavior, population growth, and the expansion of developed land. It then discusses the environmental consequences of these trends, such as habitat loss, degradation of water resources and air quality, urban heat islands, greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change, and other health and safety effects. Environmental impacts linked to building and development patterns include:

• At least 850,000 acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds and 50,000 miles of rivers and streams are thought to be impaired by stormwater runoff.
• Although technology has reduced per-car vehicle emissions, an approximate 250-percent increase in vehicle miles travelled since 1970 has offset potential gains.
• Transportation is responsible for 27 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; residential and commercial buildings contribute 18 percent and 17 percent, respectively.

    The report concludes by describing ways to reduce such effects. Strategies include safeguarding sensitive areas; focusing development in built-up areas and around existing transit stations; building compact; mixed-use developments; designing streets that are safe for all users, including walkers and bikers; and using green building techniques. Through the Federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities, EPA, HUD, and DOT coordinate Federal investments in infrastructure, facilities, and services to get better results for communities and use taxpayer money more efficiently.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the complete 148-page report which includes extensive referenced documents and information (click here). Access more information about the report and an upcoming webinar (click here). Access more information about the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (click here).  [#Land/Planning]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Supreme Court Rules On Out-Of-State Diversions Of Water

Jun 13: In the case of Tarrant Regional Water District. v. Herrmann, in the U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 11-889. Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit [See WIMS 9/27/11]. In this important, unanimous opinion for the High Court, involving out-of-state diversions of water, the Justices indicate that, "The Red River Compact, (or Compact), 94 Stat. 3305, allocates water rights among the States within the Red River basin as it winds through Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Petitioner Tarrant Regional Water District (Tarrant), a Texas agency, claims that it is entitled to acquire water under the Compact from within Oklahoma and that therefore the Compact preempts several Oklahoma statutes that restrict out-of-state diversions of water. In the alternative, Tarrant argues that the Oklahoma laws are unconstitutional restrictions on interstate commerce. We hold that Tarrant's claims lack merit.    

    The High Court points out that absent an agreement among the States, disputes over the allocation of water are subject to equitable apportionment by the courts, Arizona v. California, 460 U. S. 605, 609 (1983), which often results in protracted and costly legal proceedings. In 1955, to forestall future disputes over the River and its water, Congress authorized the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas to negotiate a compact to apportion the water of the Red River basin among themselves. The negotiations lasted over 20 years and finally culminated in the signing of the Red River Compact in 1978. Congress approved the Compact in 1980, transforming it into federal law.

    At issue in this case are rights under the Compact to water located in Oklahoma's portion of subbasin 5 of Reach II. Reach II posed the greatest difficulty to the parties' efforts to reach agreement. The problem was that Louisiana, the farthest downstream State, lacks suitable reservoir sites and therefore cannot store water during high flow periods to meet its future needs. The upstream States (Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas), which control the River's flow, were unwilling to release water stored within their own reservoirs for the benefit of any downstream States, like Louisiana. Without any such release, there would be no guaranteed flow of water to Louisiana.

 

    The provisions of the Compact relating to Reach II were crafted to address this problem. Subbasins 1-4 ended in last downstream major damsites controlled by the individual states. Subbasin 5, instead required that water be allowed to flow to Louisiana through the main stem of the River at certain minimum levels, assuring Louisiana an allocation of the River's waters and solving its flow-through problem.

 

    The provision of the Compact central to the present dispute is §5.05(b)(1), which sets the following allocation during times of normal flow: "(1) The Signatory States shall have equal rights to the use of runoff originating in subbasin 5 and undesignated water flowing into subbasin 5, so long as the flow of the Red River at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary is 3,000 cubic feet per second [hereinafter CFS] or more, provided no state is entitled to more than 25 percent of the water in excess of 3,000 [CFS]."

 

    Tarrant proposed to divert the Kiamichi River, at a point located in subbasin 5 of Reach II, before it discharges into the Red River and applied to Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB, the respondent in this case) for a permit. Tarrant knew, however, that Oklahoma would likely deny its permits because various state laws (collectively, the Oklahoma water statutes) effectively prevent out-of-state applicants from taking or diverting water from within Oklahoma's borders.

 

    When Tarrant filed its permit application, it also filed suit against respondents in Federal District Court. Tarrant sought to enjoin enforcement of the Oklahoma water statutes by the OWRB. Tarrant argued that the statutes, and the interpretation of them adopted by Oklahoma's attorney general, were preempted by Federal law and violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce in water.

 

    The District Court granted summary judgment for the OWRB on both of Tarrant's claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. 656 F. 3d 1222, 1250 (2011). The Supreme Court, in its current opinion now affirms the judgment of the Tenth Circuit. The High Court rules, "The Red River Compact does not preempt Oklahoma's water statutes because the Compact creates no cross-border rights in its signatories for these statutes to infringe. Nor do Oklahoma's laws run afoul of the Commerce Clause. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit."

 

    [Note: The decision supports the rights of states to protect their own water rights and could have important ramifications in existing and future water disputes over Great Lakes water use and out-of-state diversions]. In fact, a number of states concerned about protecting their water rights via various compacts, particularly against Commerce Clause claims, filed an amicus brief in support of OWRB. The states included: CO, ID, IN, MI, NV, NM, and UT.

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the Supreme Court docket (click here). Access the merit and amicus briefs, including the one from the states above (click here). Access the complete Tenth Circuit opinion (click here). Access more information and analysis on the opinion from the SCOTUS blog (click here). [#Water, #GLakes]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

RFA Says New Study Should End "Food vs. Fuel" Debate

Jun 12: ABF Economics released a detailed analysis showing no direct correlation between the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and the overall increase in food prices. The ABF Economics study was commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). The study specifically examined "the relationship between the RFS and recent changes in consumer food prices. Specifically the study includes an examination of the relationship between corn prices and consumer food prices; the factors that affect corn prices; the role of the major industry participants in determining consumer food costs; and the relative importance of components such as agricultural commodities and energy on consumer food prices."

    Bob Dinneen, RFA President and CEO said, "Today's ABF Economics analysis provides definitive evidence that ethanol and the RFS are not driving food prices. That canard has been nothing but a distraction propagated by those wanting to continue profiting from government subsidized grain and those seeking to keep us ever dependent on petroleum. This report should end the food vs. fuel debate for good." RFA said in a release that the RFS is a highly effective national energy policy that has revitalized rural communities, created jobs, lowered greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced our carbon footprint. John Urbanchuk, author of the new ABF Economics analysis, found that:

• Ethanol production and the demand for corn to produce ethanol have increased as a result of the RFS mandates. Corn prices also have increased over this period of time but increased demand to produce renewable fuels consistent with the RFS is only one factor behind the increase in corn prices. These factors included a sharp increase in petroleum prices, rapidly expanding global demand for food and agricultural commodities, commodity market speculation, and an expansive U.S. monetary policy.
• A careful examination of food price inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index indicates that retail level food prices have increased at a slower rate since the RFS took effect than during the comparable five years before the RFS.
• The food processing industry accounts for a larger share of consumer food costs than does production agriculture. Moreover, energy prices play a more significant role in costs for food processors than do the prices for any individual agricultural commodity.
• The RFS has contributed to the production of important co-products of the dry mill corn ethanol industry. Specifically, Distillers dried grains have positively contributed to reducing net feed costs for livestock, dairy, and poultry producers. Higher ethanol output resulting from the RFS has led to increased production of DDGS [Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles]. Because DDGS has a positive substitution rate for corn and soybean meal, these higher production levels have increased the total availability of feed for livestock and poultry producers by 21 percent compared to feed use of corn alone.
• The ethanol industry is a major source of captured carbon dioxide, which is used in food processing, refrigeration and packaging to enhance the quality of processed foods and improve profit margins for processors.
• The RFS has not had an adverse impact on consumers' ability to afford a safe and healthy food supply. Although food prices have increased modestly faster than overall inflation in the past several years consumers are not spending a greater share of income on food than was the case before the RFS was implemented.
• The severe recession of 2008-2009 and sluggish recovery in real incomes has played a more significant role than commodity price increases in the decline in red meat and poultry consumption that has taken place since before the RFS was implemented.

    The ABF Exonomics study concludes, "Ethanol production and the demand for corn to produce ethanol have increased as a result of the RFS mandates. Corn prices also have increased over this period of time but increased demand is only one factor behind the increase in corn prices. A careful examination of food price inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index indicates that retail level food prices have increased at a slower rate since the RFS took effect than during the comparable five years before the RFS. The food processing industry accounts for a larger share of consumer food costs than does production agriculture. Moreover, energy prices play a more significant role in costs for food processors than do the prices for any individual agricultural commodity.

    "Higher ethanol output resulting from the RFS has led to increased production of DDGS, a feed ingredient co-product of dry mill corn ethanol production. Because DDGS has a positive substitution rate for corn, these higher production levels have increased the total availability of feed for livestock and poultry producers compared to corn grain. Finally, while it is true that food prices have increased modestly faster than overall inflation in the past several years consumers are not spending a greater share of income on food than was the case before the RFS was implemented."

    The ABF Economics analysis comes on the heels of a recent World Bank study that determined oil prices were the leading cause of increased food prices. The World Bank study states, "most of the price increases are accounted for by crude oil prices (more than 50 percent), followed by stock-to-use ratios and exchange rate movements, which are estimated at about 15 percent each. Crude oil prices mattered most during the recent boom period because they experienced the largest increase." It goes on to examine the highly scrutinized 2008 World Bank report by Don Mitchell, concluding that Mitchell overestimated the effect of biofuels on food prices.

    Dinneen said, "While the ABF Economics report shows that ethanol and the RFS did not drive food prices, the recent World Bank report makes it plain what did ... OIL! High and highly volatile energy prices have caused pain at the pump and groans at the grocery store.  It makes sense, as energy impacts every facet of the food production, transportation, storage and marketing complex. Ethanol and the RFS provide the only rational response to protect our food and fuel dollar." 

    Access a release from RFA (click here). Access the ABF Economics analysis 20-page Executive Summary (click here). Access links to the 5/21/13 World Bank study (click here). [#Energy/RFS, #Energy/Ethanol, #Agriculture]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Mayor Bloomberg Releases $20 Billion NYC Climate Risk Plan

Jun 11: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg presented -- A Stronger, More Resilient New York -- the comprehensive and ambitious report that analyzes the city's climate risks and outlines recommendations to protect neighborhoods and infrastructure from future climate events. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Mayor Bloomberg launched the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) and charged it with recommending steps the City should take to protect against the impacts of climate change. Under the leadership of Seth Pinsky and using the foundation built through the City's comprehensive sustainability agenda, PlaNYC, the Special Initiative produced the 430-page report, with more than 250 specific recommendations to further fortify the city against climate events. The Mayor released the report in an extensive presentation to elected officials, business and community leaders and leading climate experts at the Duggal Greenhouse -- which was damaged during Hurricane Sandy and has since reopened as one of the Brooklyn Navy Yard's 330 businesses. The following are statements from the Mayor and key officials:

"The Mayor said, "Six years ago, PlaNYC sounded the alarm about the dangers our city faces due to the effects of climate change and we've done a lot to attack the causes of climate change and make our city less vulnerable to its possible effects. But Hurricane Sandy made it all too clear that, no matter how far we've come, we still face real, immediate threats. These concrete recommendations for how to confront the risks we face will build a stronger more resilient New York. This plan is incredibly ambitious -- and much of the work will extend far beyond the next 200 days -- but we refused to pass the responsibility for creating a plan onto the next administration. This is urgent work, and it must begin now. . . As bad as Sandy was, future storms could be even worse. In fact, because of rising temperatures and sea levels, even a storm that's not as large as Sandy could – down the road – be even more destructive… We have to look ahead and anticipate any and all future threats, not only from hurricanes but also from droughts, heavy downpours and heat waves -- which may be longer, and more intense, in the years to come."

"Seth Pinsky, Director of the Mayor's Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency said, "A Stronger, More Resilient New York' outlines a comprehensive strategy that will not only help our City's most-affected neighborhoods to rebuild stronger and safer, but will help make our entire City less vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In the 21st Century, it is the cities that confront climate change head-on that will be best positioned to survive and thrive. Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg's vision and leadership, New York City is doing just that, setting our city up, once again, as a model for the rest of the world."

"Marc Ricks, Chief Operating Officer of the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency said, "A Stronger, More Resilient New York' is the result of a massive effort by the Bloomberg Administration with the active involvement of an array of City agencies and expert advisors. We also benefited from a close partnership with State and Federal agencies, and from extensive input from elected officials, community groups, and over a thousand New Yorkers who participated in our public workshops. With this level of collaboration, I am confident that this report represents the very best thinking about how to make New York safer in the years to come."

    According to the release, the total cost of the more than 250 recommendations detailed in the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency report is nearly $20 billion -- a sum that assumes each proposal is implemented along the suggested timeline. The City can rely on $10 billion provided through a combination of City capital funding already allocated and Federal relief, as well as $5 billion from additional, expected Federal relief already appropriated by Congress. The report lists several strategies to cover the remaining $4.5 billion gap, including additional Federal funding and City capital.

    Peter Lehner, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commented saying, "This is an expansive blueprint for fortifying New York against the irrepressible threat of rising sea level. We look forward to studying the details of this comprehensive system of levees, floodgates, seawalls and other protective measures, including his promising proposals on the Bluebelt and dune expansion. This much, though is clear. Climate change is bearing down on the Big Apple big time. It's costing us big money, and those costs will only rise. As the Mayor said, 'This is the defining challenge of our future.' It's time to take action, as a nation, to reduce the carbon pollution that is driving climate chaos and threatening us all. The single most important step we can take is to cut the carbon pollution from our power plants, which account for 40 percent of our national carbon footprint. President Obama has the authority, and the responsibility, to do that, and the time to act is now."

    Adam Freed, Director of the Nature Conservancy's Global Securing Water Program commented saying, "Building on the significant progress of PlaNYC, the SIRR report lays out a bold agenda to redesign and reimagine a resilient New York City for a changing climate. By recognizing the important role of natural infrastructure like dunes, wetlands, mussel and oyster beds, trees and parklands; finding ways to integrate natural and grey infrastructure; and developing large and small-scale science-driven strategies, Mayor Bloomberg is helping secure the promise of a greener, greater, more resilient New York."

    Rachel Cleetus, a climate economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said, "New York City is at the forefront of this work. The city has a team of people working on this issue and has dedicated time and energy to determine what needs to be done to minimize its risks. For example, they have carefully mapped the city's flooding risk using the latest science on sea level rise projections and exposure to storm surge. Scores of smaller municipalities, especially those along coasts dealing with sea level rise and worsening storm surge, are still trying to assess their risks and are struggling to figure out what to do to adapt. . . Some very small towns, with limited tax bases, were walloped by Sandy. Congress should enact a nationwide plan to help all cities adapt, especially those with limited resources. Critical to these adaptation efforts is locally relevant scientific information that would help communities understand their risks and weigh their adaptation options. At the roundtable, just about all the municipalities present voiced a need for this information. Congress should authorize and provide funds for FEMA to update its flood maps to take into account the latest science on sea level rise projections, so communities can plan accordingly. . . "

    Access a lengthy release from the Mayor and overview of the report (click here). Access the 38-page main body of the report (click here). Access links to the complete report including supplementary information and individual chapters (click here). Access a slide presentation of the plan (click here). Access links to more information and a video on the NYC home page (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release and link to more information from the Nature Conservancy (click here). Access a release and link to a report by UCS on why sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals