G-20 Leaders Still Committed To End Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Nov 12: The White House issued a fact sheet outlining the accomplishments of G-20 Summit as it relates to energy issues. Many observers including the International Energy Agency's (IEA's) were watching closely to see if the G-20 leaders would make good on their promise of a year ago to phase out fossil fuel subsidies [See WIMS 11/10/10]. According to the White House, the Seoul, South Korea Summit of G-20 Leaders re-affirmed their commitment to the groundbreaking decision taken at the Pittsburgh in 2009 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in the medium term. 

 

    According to the summary, the leaders recognized the substantial progress that has already been made in the last 14 months and agreed to monitor their progress over the next year. The White House said, "Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is important because it encourages energy conservation, improves our energy security, helps us meet budget goals and provides a critical down payment on our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A gradual multilateral removal (by 2020) of existing fossil fuel subsidies could result in global greenhouse gas emissions dropping by 10% by 2050 relative to what is otherwise expected.
 
    Leaders also agreed to take concrete steps to make the world's physical oil markets more transparent and to continue to improve the regulation of financial oil derivative markets. The actions are expected to reduce the volatility of oil prices, thereby benefiting both energy producers and consumers.
 
    At Pittsburgh last year, the G-20 leaders committed to rationalize and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term [See WIMS 9/22/09]. The G-20 countries subsequently have:

• Put forward national strategies and timeframes to meet this commitment: G-20 countries have developed individual strategies and timeframes for rationalizing and phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and are now working on identifying the resources needed to implement national strategies.
• Made substantial progress over the last 14 months. A number of countries have already made policy decisions in accordance with the G-20 commitment. In Mexico, the government has begun phasing out motor fuel subsidies while conducting a household-level census of fuel consumption that will allow the government to implement a well-targeted support program to compensate low-income households. In June 2010, India decontrolled gasoline prices and raised the prices for diesel, kerosene, and liquid petroleum gases (LPG). India also announced plans to phase out the remaining diesel subsidy in the medium term. This year, both Russia and China initiated programs raising the price of natural gas paid by their domestic consumers.
• Committed to re-assess progress next year. The International Energy Agency (IEA), World Bank, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) submitted to G-20 Leaders in Seoul a Joint Report updating an earlier analysis to reflect the new phase-out policies implemented this year. The report found that substantial progress had been made, but that the value of fossil fuel consumption subsidies remained over $300 billion in 2009, a heavy burden on government finances that displaces important public investments, worsens balance of payments, leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, and contributes to energy shortages. The G-20 leaders asked the international organizations to update their report and assess progress being made in advance of the G-20 Summit next year as a means of holding themselves accountable to their commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
• President Obama is committed to working with Congress to phase out over $3 billion a year in preferential tax incentives for the coal, oil, and gas industries, consistent with the FY2010 and FY2011 budget proposals.

    G-20 Leaders also took steps to reduce oil price volatility in the future. They asked international organizations to improve reporting on global oil production, consumption, and inventories as a means of increasing market transparency. They also called on regulators to implement International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) recommendations on improving commodity financial market data, market transparency, and regulatory cooperation and take steps needed to combat market manipulation by ensuring that they have the necessary legal framework to detect and take appropriate enforcement action. They said the efforts will help make sure energy markets work well and enhance market integrity.

• Leaders asked the International Energy Forum (IEF), the IEA, and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to identify specific steps that would improve the quality, timeliness, and reliability of the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI).
• The United States, through the Dodd-Frank Act, has implemented important reforms to improve the transparency and oversight of OTC derivative markets, including OTC financial oil products.

    Access a fact sheet from the White House (click here).

GAO On Federal Government's Financial Exposure In BP Spill

Nov 12: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released correspondence entitled, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Preliminary Assessment of Federal Financial Risks and Cost Reimbursement and Notification Policies and Procedures (GAO-11-90R, November 12, 2010). GAO indicates that because the total costs of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are still unknown, the Federal government's financial exposure as a result of the oil spill is also unknown.

 

    GAO notes that the total cost to clean up this massive and potentially unprecedented spill, the damage to the environment, as well as the potential impact to the livelihood and economic status of businesses and individuals in the region will undoubtedly be significant, with "current estimates from BP and Oxford Economics in the tens of billions of dollars." BP has voluntarily established a Trust to be funded incrementally up to $20 billion, has paid other costs outside of the Trust, and has stated that it will continue to pay additional costs. BP's financial condition and its continuing resolve to stand behind its public commitments will be key factors if additional costs need to be paid.

 

    Certain statutory limits on the amount of Federal funds available for response costs and damages are intended to mitigate the exposure. For example, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (OPA) establishes caps on the amount of funds that can be expended on each oil spill. NPFC has billed the Responsible Parties for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill $581 million for response activities performed by nine Federal government agencies and various state government agencies. After the U.S. Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) authorizes reimbursement, the government agencies are paid from the Fund for actual expenditures. BP has paid NPFC $518.4 million as of October 12, 2010. The Fund is at risk of reaching the OPA-established $1 billion per incident cap on total expenditures in the relatively near future. Consequently, unless the statute is amended to exclude amounts reimbursed by Responsible Parties from the cap, the Fund may be unable to pay any OPA compensable claims or other Deepwater Horizon oil spill-related costs above that limit.

 

    GAO indicates that, "Our preliminary assessment of the design of Coast Guard's NPFC's policies and procedures for obtaining reimbursement for Deepwater Horizon oil spill costs found they did not always reflect current practices and were not sufficiently detailed to ensure they could be followed consistently." For example, NPFC's procedures for identifying and notifying Responsible Parties are dated 1996, when the Coast Guard was part of Department of Transportation, and are marked "draft."

 

    The Federal government has been involved in overseeing Responsible Parties' claims processing resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Following the spill, DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and various other Federal agencies have been overseeing the establishment of a claims process and monitoring claims processing activities by BP on behalf of the designated Responsible Parties. Congress may wish to consider amending OPA or enacting new legislation that eliminates the Fund's $1 billion per incident expenditure cap to the extent that it does not take into account reimbursements from Responsible Parties. In this regard, Congress may want to consider setting a Fund cap associated with an incident based upon net expenditures (expenditures less reimbursements).

 

    In order to help establish and maintain effective cost reimbursement policies and procedures for the Fund, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of the U.S. Coast Guard's NPFC to update NPFC's policies and procedures to include: (1) current Fund reimbursement billing practices that reflect both a percentage of federal agencies' obligations as well as expenditures; and, (2) specific procedural guidance on processing DOD requests for reimbursement using Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests (MIPRs).

 

    In order to ensure that all Responsible Parties are properly notified of their responsibilities for an oil spill, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of NPFC to: (1) update NPFC's current policies to reflect current organization and structure and managements' directives; and, (2) update NPFC's current procedures to provide detailed guidance and procedures for identifying and documenting all Responsible Party notifications.

 

    Access the complete 57-page GAO report (click here).

Parties Urge G20 Leaders To Address Fossil Fuel Subsidies

 Subscribers & Readers Note: WIMS will not be publishing tomorrow,
November 11, 2010, in observance of the Federal Veterans Day holiday

 

Nov 9: As world leaders gather in the Republic of Korea for the latest meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) major economies, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Achim Steiner is calling on them to build on their previous pledge to move towards a green and more sustainable recovery from the financial crisis with more concrete action. The G-20 consists of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and also the European Union who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank. The G-20 represents more than 85 percent of the global economy [See WIMS 3/31/09].

   Steiner said in an opinion piece published in the Korean JoongAng Daily newspaper,  "A year ago in London, G20 leaders articulated this vision as building an 'inclusive, sustainable and green recovery.'" Steiner asks the question, "Could this week in Seoul be a watershed in international financial and economic affairs, where the pledge, made at the G-20 in London, toward a green and more sustainable recovery moves from communique to concrete commitment?"

    He said, "An increasing number of banks and pension funds see rising risks to their investments from the loss of ecosystems, such as forests and wetlands, and the multitrillion dollar services they produce. And a rising number now see the disruption to food supplies, supply chains and other challenges linked with natural resource losses as a bigger threat than that from international terrorism. This dramatic shift is in part linked with the findings of the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), an assessment requested by the G-8 and developing country environment ministers."

    Steiner continued saying, "In terms of combating climate change and restoring fish stocks, canceling or phasing-down global subsidies totaling up to US$700 billion and over US$27 billion a year respectively would be a good start. . . In Seoul, this vision needs to be evolved toward not only a green recovery, but to inclusive, sustainable green growth underpinned by clean technologies and the economic importance of maintaining nature's multitrillion dollar services."

    On the subject of fossil fuel subsidies, two NGOs -- Oil Change International and Earth Track -- have released the first independent evaluation of the success of the G20 Pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The report, G20 Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Phase Out: A review of current gaps and needed changes to achieve success, reveals large gaps in the reporting of subsidies, and that "no new actions have been taken by G20 nations as a result of their commitment in Pittsburgh to phase out fossil fuel subsidies." In Pittsburgh in September 2009, G20 leaders pledged to "rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption."

    Last September, for example, President Obama said, "I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history. We are making our government's largest ever investment in renewable energy -- an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. . . Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge. . ." [See WIMS 9/22/09].

    Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International said, "Each G20 country has defined 'inefficient fossil fuel subsidy' as they like, reported on what they want, and then listed either no subsidies, or things that they had already said they were doing. There is no accountability, no oversight and review, no actual mechanism to hold these leaders to their words. Some of the analysis coming out of the OECD and IEA is quite helpful, but so far, in the process itself, there's just no action behind the words of the G20."

    At the launch of the latest edition of the International Energy Agency's (IEA's) annual World Energy Outlook (WEO-2010) in London, Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said, "The Copenhagen Accord and the agreement among G20 countries to phase out subsidies are important steps forward. But, these moves still fall a very long way short of what is required to set us on the path to a truly sustainable energy system. The energy world is facing unprecedented uncertainty. The strength of the economic recovery holds the key to how energy markets will evolve over the next few years. But WEO-2010 demonstrates that it is what governments do, and how that action affects technology, the price of energy services and end-user behavior, that will shape the future of energy in the longer term. We need to use energy more efficiently and we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels by adopting technologies that leave a much smaller carbon footprint."

    WEO-2010 indicates that the oil price is set to rise, reflecting the growing insensitivity of both demand and supply to price. In the New Policies Scenario, the average IEA crude oil price rises from just over $60 in 2009 to $113 per barrel (in year-2009 dollars) in 2035. Oil demand continues to grow steadily, reaching about 99 million barrels per day (mb/d) by 2035 — 15 mb/d higher than in 2009. All of the net growth comes from non-OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development] countries, almost half from China alone; demand in the OECD actually falls, by over 6 mb/d. Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of just under 69 mb/d by 2020 while production of natural gas liquids (NGLs) and unconventional oil – notably Canadian oil sands – grows strongly. OPEC countries account for a growing share of global production, with the biggest increases coming from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Production in and exports of oil (and gas) from the Caspian region also grow substantially.

 

    The WEO-2010 report analyzes various alternatives and paints a bleak picture regarding advancement to greener energy and achieving necessary reductions in greenhouse gases [GHG] to avoid dangerous climate change. The report indicates, "The energy trends envisioned in the New Policies Scenario imply that national commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, while expected to have some impact, are collectively inadequate to meet the Copenhagen Accord's overall goal of holding the global temperature increase to below 2°C. Rising demand for fossil fuels would continue to drive up energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions through to 2035, making it all but impossible to achieve the 2°C goal, as the required reductions in emissions after 2020 would be too steep. The New Policy Scenario trends are in line with stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases at over 650 parts per million (ppm) of CO2-equivalent (eq), resulting in a likely temperature rise of more than 3.5°C in the long term.

 

    "In order to have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, the concentration of greenhouse gases would probably need to be stabilized at a level no higher than 450 ppm CO2-eq. The 450 Scenario describes how the energy sector could evolve were this objective to be achieved. It assumes implementation of measures to realize the more ambitious end of target ranges announced under the Copenhagen Accord and more rapid implementation of the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies agreed by the G-20 than assumed in the New Policies Scenario. This action brings about a much faster transformation of the global energy system and a correspondingly faster slowdown in global CO2 emissions. For example, oil demand peaks just before 2020 at 88 mb/d, only 4 mb/d above current levels, and declines to 81 mb/d in 2035. Coal demand peaks before 2020. Demand for gas also reaches a peak before the end of the 2020s. Renewables and nuclear double their current combined share to 38% in 2035. A lack of ambition in the Copenhagen Accord pledges has increased our estimated cost of reaching the 2°C goal by $1 trillion and undoubtedly made it less likely that the goal will actually be achieved. Doing so would require a phenomenal policy push by governments around the world."

 

    In analysis that builds on the IEA's ongoing work for the G-20, WEO-2010 reveals that fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $312 billion in 2009. Tanaka said, "Getting the prices right, by eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies, is the single most effective measure to cut energy demand in countries where they persist, while bringing other immediate economic benefits." According to the IEA these consumption subsidies were down from US $558 billion in 2008 largely because oil prices declined in 2009. Conversely, these oil subsidies are set to climb in 2010 with increasing oil prices.

 

    Bliss Baker, spokesperson for the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA) said, "As we strive to develop alternatives to oil we must recognize that we are not competing on a level playing field. Massive multi-billion dollar oil subsides are a serious obstacle to the development of cleaner greener alternatives. Oil has a huge competitive advantage financed by global taxpayers. Despite the IEA's optimism that there is momentum for reducing subsidies, not one country has eliminated an oil subsidy program since signing on to the pledge in 2009."

 

    Baker cited the Earth Track report indicating that many countries continue to provide direct producer subsidies to oil companies including: Canada provides over US $2 billion per year to oil companies; U.S. producer subsidies reached US  $52 billion in 2009; and European Union provided US $8 billion in subsidies to oil companies in 2009. Baker said, "It is time for the G20 to show leadership and reverse this practice of never ending subsidies to big oil. It is time to move beyond oil to a world with sustainable alternatives to crude oil such as biofuels and other renewable forms of energy."

    Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the complete opinion piece from UNEP's Steiner (click here). Access a release from the NGOs and link to their complete report (click here). Access extensive information and the complete WEO-2010 (click here). Access a release from GRFA (click here). Access the G20 website for more information on the meeting (click here).

Reilly Calls BP Accident "Ghastly: One Bad Call After Another"

Nov 9: The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling established by the President through Executive Order 13543 on May 21, 2010 is currently holding its fifth meeting (November 8-9) in Washington, DC. The Commission and its Chief Counsel Fred Bartlit are conducting the two-day hearing on preliminary findings regarding BP's Macondo well blowout. The primary focus of the hearing will be on the causes of the rig explosion. The meeting follows an October 28, letter from Bartlit, to the Commission report the results of cement testing and drawing several conclusions  indicating that an unstable cement from Halliburton may have been the cause of the BP blowout. Halliburton subsequently announced that it does not believe that the foam cement design used on the Macondo well was the cause of the incident.

    Today (November 9), Co-Chairman William Reilly's issued an opening statement summarizing his feeling on the previous day's hearing and the Commissions investigation thus far. Co-Chairman Bob Graham's was expected to release a statement later today at the completion of the hearing. Co-Chairman Reilly said the presentations and examinations covered in the November 8 session uncovered a suite of bad decisions which he listed as follows: failed cement tests, premature removal of muds underbalancing the well, a negative pressure test that failed but was adjudged a success, apparent inattention, distraction or misreading of a key indicator that gas was rising toward the rig.

    He said, "Our investigative team did not ascribe motive to any of those decisions and reported that they found no evidence that those flawed decisions were made to save money. They didn't rule out cost, just said they weren't prepared to attribute mercenary motives to men who cannot speak for themselves because they are not alive. But the story they told is ghastly: one bad call after another.

    "Whatever else we learned and saw yesterday is emphatically not a culture of safety on that rig. I referred to a culture of complacency and speaking for myself, all these companies we heard from displayed it. And to me the fact that each company is responsible for one or more egregiously bad decision, we're closing in on the answer to the question I posed at the outset of yesterday's hearing, whether the Macondo disaster was a unique event, the result of special challenges and circumstances, or indicates something larger, a systemic problem in the oil and gas industry.

    "BP, Halliburton and Transocean are major respected companies operating throughout the Gulf and the evidence is they are in need of top-to-bottom reform. We are aware of what appeared to be a rush to completion at Macondo, and one must ask whether the drive came from that made people determine they couldn't wait for sound cement, or the right centralizers. We know a safety culture must be led from the top, and permeate a company. The Commission is looking beyond the rig to the months and years before. BP has been notoriously challenged on matters of process safety. Other companies may not be so challenged and today we will hear from two whose reputations for safety and environmental protection are exemplary.

    "They will tell us, I believe, that safety and efficiency reinforce one another, and that their safety cultures have contributed to their profitability. Both companies and their safety/risk management systems have received extensive examination by the Commission's staff in meetings I have attended. They are impressive. Nevertheless, their rigs have been shut down in the Gulf this summer because of the performance of other companies. This has led the Commission to learn from the nuclear industry which has an institute that promotes best practices, reinforces regulations, and polices the laggards. So if yesterday we heard from the laggards, today we hope to learn from the leaders -- companies which learned from their own crises and disasters and rose to become standard setters."

    The Commission issued a summary listing of "Preliminary Conclusions –Technical," along with extensive technical backup information. The summary is as follows: 

• Flow path was exclusively through shoe track and up through casing.
• Cement (potentially contaminated or displaced by other materials) in shoe track and in some portion of annular space failed to isolate hydrocarbons.
• Pre-job laboratory data should have prompted redesign of cement slurry.
• Cement evaluation tools might have identified cementing failure, but most operators would not have run tools at that time. They would have relied on the negative pressure test.
• Negative pressure test repeatedly showed that primary cement job had not isolated hydrocarbons.
• Despite those results, BP and TO personnel treated negative pressure test as a complete success.
• BP's temporary abandonment procedures introduced additional risk.
• Number of simultaneous activities and nature of flow monitoring equipment made kick detection more difficult during riser displacement.
• Nevertheless, kick indications were clear enough that if observed would have allowed the rig crew to have responded earlier.
• Once the rig crew recognized the influx, there were several options that might have prevented or delayed the explosion and/or shut in the well.
• Diverting overboard might have prevented or delayed the explosion. Triggering the EDS prior to the explosion might have shut in the well and limited the impact of any explosion and/or the blowout.
• Technical conclusions regarding BOP should await results of forensic BOP examination and testing.
• No evidence at this time to suggest that there was a conscious decision to sacrifice safety concerns to save money.

    In addition to various agency personnel, the Commission was scheduled to receive testimony from: Dr. E.C. Thomas, Consulting Petrophysicist and Owner, Bayou Petrophysics; Charlie Williams, Chief Scientist, Well Engineering and Production Technology, Shell Energy Resources Inc.; Steve Lewis, Advanced Drilling Technology Implementation Engineer, Seldovia Marine Services; Dr. John Rogers Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Louisiana State University; Darryl Bourgoyne, Director, Louisiana State University Petroleum Engineering Research and Technology; Marvin Odum, President, Shell Oil Company, and Upstream Americas Director, Royal Dutch Shell; and Rex Tillerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ExxonMobil.

 

    On November 8, Representatives Ed Markey(D-MA) and Lois Capps (D-CA) urged Senate Republicans to stop blocking legislation (H.R. 5481) giving subpoena power to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill investigating the BP oil spill from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. The Representatives pointed out that at the hearing to present the preliminary findings of the commission's investigation, Bartlit, expressed his dismay that the commission has not been granted subpoena power by Congress. He said, "Because I don't have subpoena power, I have to look you in the eye and say I'm telling you what people told me. I can't subpoena people and put them under oath. I wish I could. I think it's damned important, but it's the way it goes."

 

    Representative Capps who introduced H.R. 548 which passed the House 420-1 on June 23, said, "It is clear after hearing Mr. Bartlit's testimony that without subpoena power the oil spill commission is operating without all of the tools it needs to conduct a thorough investigation of BP's disaster. It's really astonishing that Senate Republicans have not allowed a bill that passed the House nearly unanimously to even come to the floor for the vote. They need to stop defending Big Oil and allow this bill to come to the floor when Congress returns to Washington next week." Representative Markey said, "Every day that Senate Republicans block subpoena power for the independent commission is another day BP, Halliburton and Transocean can duck and dodge the panel's hardest questions. The commission has already shown its value, and Senate Republicans should stop protecting the companies responsible for the spill by preventing the pursuit of the truth in this disaster."

 

    Access the list of Preliminary Conclusions (click here). Access Co-Chairman Reilly's statement (click here). Access the meeting agenda with links to detailed information and 3D-animations (click here). Access the Oil Spill Commission website for a additional background information (click here). Access a release from Reps. Markey and Capps (click here).

Montreal Protocol Could Deliver Biggest GHG Reductions In History

Nov 5: While most of the world is focused on the UNFCCC climate negotiations leading up to the December meeting in Cancun, the international Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) says the November 8-12, Montreal Protocol meeting in Bangkok will consider three distinct decisions, each of which would produce greater emission reductions than those resulting from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol or any near-term options being considered in the climate talks. These three options are the main subject of a report released by EIA entitled, Maximizing Climate Benefits from Ozone Protection. The 22nd Bangkok Meeting of the Parties (MOP22) will decide whether to begin a phase-out on production and use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, that are used primarily in refrigeration and air-conditioning in favor of climate-friendly alternatives.  

    The Montreal Protocol, of which every nation is a member, will also be considering action to maximize direct transitions from HCFCs, powerful ozone-depleting substances (ODS), to climate-friendly refrigerants rather than HFCs, as well as a program for recovery and destruction of ODS "Banks," the stockpiles of ODS in appliances and storage leaking into the atmosphere that collectively represent over 16 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions. It will also consider a decision on destroying emissions of HFC-23 waste gas not covered by the UN's Clean Development Mechanism. HFC-23 is almost 12,000 times more potent than CO2, and is emitted during the production of HCFC-22.

    Samuel LaBudde, Senior Atmospheric Campaigner with EIA said, "These are the most cost-effective, high-yield opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the world. It's senseless to delay and rely solely on the UNFCCC process when such a significant part of the solution can be implemented immediately and at far less cost through the Montreal Protocol."

    It is estimated that eliminating HFCs, one of the six greenhouse gases (GHG) focused on by the UNFCCC, would prevent 88-140 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions by 2050, or about 3-5 years worth of annual global emissions from fossil fuels. Total cost for an HFC phase-out, which would follow on the Montreal Protocol's historic success in phasing out ozone-depleting substances, is estimated to be between $7-15 billion US (5-11 billion euros) over 30 years, or about 100 times cheaper than the cost of achieving equivalent reductions under the UNFCCC process or through carbon markets.

    EIA Campaigner Fionnuala Walravens said, "Right now the Montreal Protocol is at a crossroads; beyond ensuring its phase-out of HCFCs does not result in the phase-in of climate-damaging HFCs, it is poised to deliver the biggest emissions reductions in history. If the world is serious about global warming, the Montreal Protocol is the place to begin.  Next week's decisions are critical to answering the threat of climate change."

    Access a release from EIA and link to the complete 16-page report (click here). Access the Ozone Secretariat website (click here). Access the MOP22 website for meeting documents and further information (click here). 

Groups Say Obama Has Chance To Protect Polar Bears

Nov 4: A Federal judge ordered the Department of the Interior (DOI) to reconsider its 2008 decision not to provide polar bears the most complete protection possible under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ruling came in response to a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Greenpeace seeking additional protection for the polar bear, which they indicate is under severe threat from global warming.

 

    In response to a petition from the three conservation groups, the Bush administration in 2008 classified the polar bear as "threatened" -- rather than the more protective "endangered" -- under the ESA. The administration also issued a special rule exempting greenhouse gases -- the primary threat to the species -- from regulation under the Act. The groups indicated that such a rule can only be issued for a species listed as threatened, not endangered. The groups sued, arguing that the polar bear should be listed as "endangered," not merely "threatened."  DOI had argued that even though the polar bear will likely be extinct in most of its range by mid-century, it was not endangered because its extinction was not "imminent."

 

    In his ruling issued November 4, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan for the District of Columbia, rejected the Department's argument that the text of the ESA clearly states that extinction must be "imminent" before a species can be listed as "endangered" and ordered the Interior Department to reconsider its definition of "endangered" as it applies to the polar bear. Judge Sullivan ordered the Interior Department to reconsider its decision in light of the ruling and file a response by December 23, 2010, and he set a hearing date of February 23, 2011 to consider that response and the rest of the claims in the listing case.

    Kassie Siegel, director of the CBD's Climate Law Institute and lead author of the 2005 petition to Federally protect the polar bear said, "The judge has put the ball squarely in Obama's court. Whether or not the polar bear receives the protections it is legally entitled to and so desperately needs, is now wholly Obama's decision. We hope that rather than continue to defend the flawed policies of the Bush administration, Obama will do right by the polar bear." Andrew Wetzler, Director of NRDC's Land &Wildlife Program said, "We are convinced that any reasonable definition of 'endangered species' includes the polar bear. Climate change is an oncoming train and the bears are tied to the tracks. If nobody is around to undo the knots, it doesn't matter how fast the train is moving -- they are in trouble."

    Dan Howells, Deputy Campaign Director of Greenpeace, "Protecting the polar bear's home is the same as protecting us all from the dangers of climate change. And the best way to do that is to acknowledge the danger of climate change and act on it. The Obama administration can take a step in this direction by giving the bears the protection they deserve."

    Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the 26-page Memorandum Opinion (click here).

Sen. McConnell Outlines His Definition Of Cooperation & Compromise

Nov 4: In a confrontational and very partisan speech before the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) laid down the gauntlet for cooperation and compromise as far as the U.S. Senate Republicans are concerned. In sharp contrast to President Obama's somewhat conciliatory statement and press briefing yesterday, Senator McConnell set a far different tone. Among other things he said the Democrats' strategy from the start, was to "govern hard-left and use their big majorities to push through the most left-wing agenda possible." He said they forced through their trillion dollar Stimulus; proposed a federal budget that would double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10; and "bailed out automakers that should have been allowed to reorganize or fail."

 

    Senator McConnell said that while some have been critical of his statement that his top priority over the next two years is to deny the  President a second term in office; "the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. . . it would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen. There's just no getting around it."

 

    He said Republicans would have to work in the House to deny funds for implementation of Democratic proposals like health care; use their oversight abilities in Committees to continue educating the public and "keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation." He specifically cited "backdoor efforts" like "a new national energy tax through the EPA now that cap-and-trade is dead. . ." He said oversight "can also make more accountable all the policy czars the administration has installed without any accountability to Congress or the American people."

 

    He said, "We will stop the liberal onslaught"; "freeze and cut discretionary spending"; "ensure Democrats don't raise taxes on anybody"; "oppose future stimulus bills that only stimulate the deficit"; "fight any further job-killing regulations"; "oversee the Executive Branch through smart, aggressive oversight"; "make the case that the Democrats' big-government vision hinders freedom, prosperity, and opportunity."

 

    Senator McConnell defined his vision of cooperation and compromise as follows, ". . .as I see it, the White House has a choice: they can change course, or they can double down on a vision of government that the American people have roundly rejected. If they choose the former, they'll find a partner in Republicans. If they don't, we will have more disagreements ahead. "The formula is simple, really: when the administration agrees with the American people, we will agree with the administration. When it disagrees with the American people, we won't. This has been our posture from the beginning of this administration. And we intend to stick with it. If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction."

 

    Following a meeting with his Cabinet today, President Obama delivered some comments at a short press briefing. He said he wanted to make a few quick remarks to expand on some things he said yesterday [See WIMS 11/3/10, and the link below].  He said in part, "Obviously Tuesday was a big election. I congratulated the Republicans and consoled some of our Democratic friends about the results, and I think it's clear that the voters sent a message, which is they want us to focus on the economy and jobs and moving this country forward.

 

  "I just had a meeting with my Cabinet and key staff to let them know that we have to take that message to heart and make a sincere and consistent effort to try to change how Washington operates. And the folks around this table have done extraordinary work in their agencies. They have cooperated consistently with Congress. I think they are interested in bipartisan ideas.  And so they are going to be integral in helping me to root out waste in government, make our agencies more efficient, and generate more ideas so that we can put the American people back to work.

    "Now, at the same time, obviously what's going to be critically important over the coming months is creating a better working relationship between this White House and the congressional leadership that's coming in, as well as the congressional leadership that carries over from the previous Congress. And so I want everybody to know that I have already called Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to invite them to a meeting here at the White House in the first week of the lame duck on November 18th.  This is going to be a meeting in which I'll want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people's agenda forward.  It's not just going to be a photo op. Hopefully -- it may spill over into dinner.  And the immediate focus is going to be what we need to get done during the lame-duck session. . .

    "And so we can't afford two years of just squabbling. What we need to do is make sure that everybody is pulling together, Democrats and Republicans and independents, folks at the federal level and the state levels, private sector with the public sector, to make sure that America retains it competitiveness, retains its leadership in the world. And that's something that I'm very much looking forward to helping to be a part of." [See link to complete comments from the President below].

 

    The following are major excerpts from Senator McConnell's speech:

 

    "Over the past two years, the American people looked at what was going on in Washington and they became increasingly worried. Not only were Democratic leaders ignoring our nation's ongoing job crisis; their big-government policies and out-of-control spending was causing some to wonder about the future of the American dream itself. Americans worried about the consequences of a $14 trillion debt; about a health care bill that creates 159 new bureaucratic entities, including two massive new entitlement programs; they worried about all the bailouts, and they worried about every other piece of legislation that seemed like it was designed to kill jobs rather than create them.

    "Most of all, they worried that what some have called the Europeanization of America would continue unchecked, and that, as a result, our children and grandchildren could no longer expect to have the same opportunities that we've had. Two days ago, those worries gave way to a new optimism. For the past two years, Democrat lawmakers chose to ignore the American people, so on Tuesday the American people chose new lawmakers. They held their elected representatives to account. And they demonstrated to all of us that Constitutional conservatism is alive and well.

    "This isn't a reason for Republicans to gloat; rather, it's a time for both parties to realize who's really in charge -- the people -- and to be grateful for the opportunity we now have to begin to turn this ship around. Tuesday was a referendum, not a choice. It was a report card on the administration and anyone who supported its agenda, plain and simple. It doesn't take a roomful of political scientists to figure it out. Americans voted for change in the last two elections because of two long and difficult wars and because they hoped a changing of the guard would stabilize the economy and get America moving again. And then the people they elected set about dismantling the free market, handing out political favors at taxpayer expense, expanding government, and creating a more precarious future for our children. In other words, Democrat leaders used the crisis of the moment to advance an agenda Americans didn't ask for and couldn't afford. And then they ignored and dismissed anyone who dared to speak out against it. . .

    "Which raises a practical question: what can Americans expect from Republicans now? Let's start with the big picture. Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office. But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday's election. But we can't plan on it. And it would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen. There's just no getting around it.

    "By their own admission, leaders of the Republican Revolution of 1994 think their greatest mistake was overlooking the power of the veto. They gave the impression they were somehow in charge when they weren't. And after President Clinton vetoed their bills, making it impossible for them to accomplish all their goals, they ended up being viewed as failures, sellouts, or both. Today, Democrats not only have the White House. They have the Senate too. So we have to be realistic about what we can and cannot achieve, while at the same recognizing that realism should never be confused with capitulation. . .

    "Through oversight we'll also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation. Potential backdoor efforts in this area could include imposing a new national energy tax through the EPA now that cap-and-trade is dead, additional health care provisions through HHS, Card Check through the National Labor Relations Board, and some form of immigration change through the use of administrative amnesty and the selective enforcement of our laws. Good oversight can also make more accountable all the policy czars the administration has installed without any accountability to Congress or the American people. . .

    "We will stop the liberal onslaught. We will make the case for repeal of the health spending bill even as we vote to eliminate its worst parts. We will vote to freeze and cut discretionary spending. We will fight to make sure that any spending bill that reaches the Senate floor is amendable, so members can vote for the spending cuts Americans are asking for. We will push to bring up and vote for House passed spending rescission bills. On the economy, we will work hard to ensure Democrats don't raise taxes on anybody, especially in the middle of a recession. We will loudly oppose future stimulus bills that only stimulate the deficit and fight any further job-killing regulations. We will fight tooth and nail on behalf of Americans struggling to find and create jobs.

    "And when it comes to educating the public about the effects of Democrat legislation, we will fulfill our constitutional duty to oversee the Executive Branch through smart, aggressive oversight. We will scrutinize Democrat legislation and force them to defend it. And we will continue to make the case that the Democrats' big-government vision hinders freedom, prosperity, and opportunity — and that while it may benefit some in the short-term, it exposes everyone to calamity down the road.. .

    ". . .whether or not the administration has a mid-course correction, Republicans have a plan for following through on the wishes of the American people. It starts with gratitude and a certain humility for the task we've been handed. It means sticking ever more closely to the conservative principles that got us here. It means learning the lessons of history. And, above all, it means listening to the people who sent us here. If we do all this, we will finish the job."

    Access the full text of Senator McConnell speech (click here). Access a video of Sen. McConnell's speech (click here). Access the full text of the President's comments and press conference Q&A yesterday (click here). Access the full text of the President's comments following today's press briefing (click here).

GOP Takes Control Of House; Senate Dems Retain Control

Nov 3: Big changes will be taking place in the U.S. House of Representatives next year as a result of the Republican sweep to power in yesterday's election. Unofficially, Republican's will have something on the order of a 242-193 majority in the House. One of the first big changes will be in the House Committee makeup and Chairmanships. 

 

    Next year, Representative John Boehner (R-OH) will assume the office of Speaker of the House, replacing the current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Speaker-elect Boehner will be pursuing the House Republicans "A Pledge to America," release on September 23 [See WIMS 9/23/10]. Among other items, the Pledge indicates, "In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent. An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people. An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many. Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose. . ."

 

    Among other items the 48-page Pledge details, Republicans say: "We will fight to increase access to domestic energy sources and oppose attempts to impose a national 'cap and trade' energy tax. . . The constant threat of new taxes and new regulations prevents investors and entrepreneurs from putting capital at risk. These private sector employers must be given the certainty that if they take a risk to expand their company or hire a new employee, Washington won't yank the rug from under their feet. . . Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy. . ."

 

    Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) will likely assume the leadership of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, replacing Chair Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). Representative Barton who previously Chaired the Committee and is currently the Ranking Member, was nearly stripped of his Committee assignments for his widely publicized public apology to BP and his comments about being "ashamed" of the $20 billion oil spill claims fund agreement which the White House negotiated with BP. In comments before the Committee, Barton apologized to BP and called the agreement a "shakedown." [See WIMS 6/18/10].

 

    Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) will likely assume the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment and Energy Subcommittee, currently Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA). On October 20, Representative Upton authored a lengthy op-ed in the Washington Times entitled, "Declaring War on the Regulatory State." [See WIMS 10/20/10]. Rep. Upton said Republicans would terminate what he called the "wasteful" Select Committee on Climate Change, established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and also Chaired by Rep. Markey. He said the Committee "has needlessly spent nearly $8 million in taxpayer money. . . "

 

    Rep. Upton also said the "EPA is working on a regulatory train wreck that includes the following job-killing regulations." He specifically listed: Cooling water intake systems for power plants; Coal ash regulations; Industrial and commercial boilers; and Revised ozone standards. He said, "No significant regulation should take effect until Congress has voted to approve it and the president has had an opportunity to approve or veto congressional action."

 

    Unofficially, other major House Committee changes will likely include: House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, now Chaired by Edolphus "Ed" Towns (D-NY) will go to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA); the House Science & Technology Committee, now Chaired by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) (did not run for reelection) will likely go to Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX); House Transportation &  Infrastructure Committee, now Chaired by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), who was defeated in the election, will likely go to Rep. John Mica (R-FL); and the House Committee on Natural Resources, now Chaired by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) will likely go to Rep. Doc  Hastings (R-WA).

 

    In the U.S. Senate, changes will be less dramatic as Democrats narrowly retain control with 49 Democrats, 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats, and 46 Republicans. Senate races in Arkansas, Alaska and Colorado still undecided in close races. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) retained his Nevada Senate seat in a highly publicized race against his Republican opponent Sharon Angle. In the close race, Senator Reid managed to win 50% of the vote as opposed to Angle's 45%. It is generally assumed that Committee chairmanships will remain the same. Senate floor votes will remain contentious with the ability to achieve cloture votes of 60 even more difficult than before.

 

    In a lengthy statement and news conference on the election results President Obama specifically mentioned energy alternatives and an alternatives to cap-and-trade as probable areas where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground. Specifically he said that cap and trade was a "means to an end" not the only means. He said it was only one way to "skin a cat."

 

    Access the CNN election website for results by the U.S., states, and local districts (click here). Access a link to the President's comments which should be posted soon (click here).

Agencies Say Gulf Seafood Coming To Market Is Safe

Oct 29: Building upon the extensive testing and protocols already in use by federal, state and local officials for the fishing waters of the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have developed and are using a chemical test to detect dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon-BP oil spill in fish, oysters, crab and shrimp. Trace amounts of the chemicals used in dispersants are common, and levels for safety have been previously set. The agencies said using this new test in the Gulf scientists have tested 1,735 tissue samples including more than half of those collected to reopen Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Only a few showed trace amounts of dispersants residue (13 of the 1,735) and they were well below the safety threshold of 100 parts per million for finfish and 500 parts per million for shrimp, crabs and oysters. As such, they do not pose a threat to human health.

    According to a release, experts trained in a rigorous sensory analysis process have been testing Gulf seafood for the presence of contaminants, and every seafood sample from reopened waters has passed sensory testing for contamination with oil and dispersant. Nonetheless, to ensure consumers have total confidence in the safety of seafood being harvested from the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have added this second test for dispersant when considering reopening Gulf waters to fishing. The new test detects dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, known as DOSS, a major component of the dispersants used in the Gulf. DOSS is also approved by FDA for use in various household products and over-the-counter medication at very low levels. The best scientific data to date indicates that DOSS does not build up in fish tissues.

    Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary for commerce and NOAA administrator said,  "The rigorous testing we have done from the very beginning gives us confidence in the safety of seafood being brought to market from the Gulf. This test adds another layer of information, reinforcing our findings to date that seafood from the Gulf remains safe." Margaret Hamburg, Ph.D., FDA commissioner said, "This new test should help strengthen consumer confidence in Gulf seafood. The overwhelming majority of the seafood tested shows no detectable residue, and not one of the samples shows a residue level that would be harmful for humans. There is no question Gulf seafood coming to market is safe from oil or dispersant residue."

    The 1,735 samples tested so far were collected from June to September and cover a wide area of the Gulf. The samples come from open areas in state and Federal waters, and from fishermen who brought fish to the docks at the request of federal seafood analysts. The samples come from a range of species, including grouper, tuna, wahoo, swordfish, gray snapper, butterfish, red drum, croaker, and shrimp, crabs and oysters. Nearly 9,444 square miles, or about 4 percent of the federal waters in the Gulf are still closed to commercial and recreational fishing.

    Previous research provided information about how finfish metabolize DOSS, and at FDA's Dauphin Island, Alabama lab, scientists undertook further exposure experiments on fish, oysters and crab; similar experiments on shrimp were held at NOAA's Galveston, Texas lab. These exposure studies further support that fish, crustaceans and shellfish quickly clear dispersant from their tissues, and provided samples with known concentrations for use as standards for validating the methodology. Samples undergoing chemical analysis are always accompanied by standards with known concentrations of DOSS, to verify the equipment continues to measure the compound accurately.

    Access a release from the agencies (click here).

Another Report & International Moratorium On Climate Geoengineering

Oct 29: The U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) released an additional report on the highly controversial subject of geoengineerig entitled, Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Collaboration. The Chairman's report identifies Federal expertise and capabilities relevant to climate engineering research, and calls for transparency, public engagement, international collaboration and a robust risk assessment framework should research be pursued. The report follows the October 26 release of a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts (GAO-10-903, September 23, 2010) [See WIMS 10/26/10]. Ironically, the Committee's report was also released on the same day that 110 ministers at the COP10 meeting at the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Nagoya, Japan  [See WIMS 10/18/10] were approving a consensus decision to adopt a moratorium on geoengineering.

    Representative Gordon was quick to clarify that, "This report is in no way meant as an endorsement of climate engineering. It is my intent that this report, and all of the Committee's activities on this subject provide a forum for an open and honest public dialogue regarding the science of climate engineering. It gives insight into where existing federal research capacities lie that could be leveraged for these activities -- to  help preclude undesirable activities and to establish key next steps for the management and governance of research, in addition to encouraging continued conversation within the federal government on this important topic." 

    Chairman Gordon indicated the Committee's latest report reviews the results of an 18 month inquiry conducted in cooperation with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. During this inquiry the U.S. Committee held three public hearings on climate engineering (November 5th, 2009, February 4th, 2010, and March 18th, 2010), and staff reviewed expert testimony and conducted informal interviews with leading political and scientific experts within federal agencies.

   Chairman Gordon said, "Climate engineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties and possibilities, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic side effects. I want to be absolutely clear that I am not in favor of deploying climate engineering; making firm commitments and taking real actions to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions should always be the priority. However, if we find ourselves passing an environmental tipping point, we will need to have done research to understand our options. Developing the science will take time, as will developing appropriate governance structures. We've started the conversation in Congress and with the UK House of Parliament; I hope that consideration of appropriate research investments will follow. We need healthy debate, a transparent process, clear action on emission reductions, and sound scientific research to provide a solid foundation for the tough decision-making that climate change will demand in the future."

    According to a release from Chairman Gordon the report:

• Contains background information on the topic of climate engineering and exploratory research activities currently being conducted.
• Summarizes the Science and Technology Committee's public hearings on climate engineering.
• Identifies key research needs.
• Identifies activities, tools and skills present in federal agencies that could be leveraged for climate engineering research and provides recommendations for research priorities within these agencies.  Featured agencies include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
• Explores potential capacities for, and provides recommendations on, how research might be organized at the federal level and what lessons can be learned from past experiences.
• Provides general recommendations about next steps, research priorities and management strategies.

    Recommendations in the report include:

• Policymakers should begin consideration of climate engineering research now to better understand which technologies or methods, if any, represent viable strategies for managing a changing climate and which pose unacceptable environmental or economic  risks.
• There must be an international consensus on climate engineering terminology that will best communicate the strategies, potential risks, and desired effects to the scientific community, policy makers, and the public.
• Any federal climate engineering research program should leverage existing facilities, instruments, skills and partnerships within federal agencies.
• Governments should make public engagement a priority of any climate engineering effort.
• Further collaborative work between national legislatures on topics with international reach, such as climate engineering, should be pursued, and this inquiry between the United States and the United Kingdom should serve as a model for future inter-Committee collaboration.

    On October 19, at the Biological Diversity COP10 meeting, the Canadian-based ETC Group released a 52-page report entitled, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering, which called for an international moratorium on geoengineering saying it was, "a political strategy aimed at letting industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt." [See WIMS 10/27/10]. On October 29, at the conclusion of the 2-week COP10 meeting, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) closed its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group said, "Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus."

    According to information released by ETC Group, the agreed to moratorium language reads in part, "in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until  there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting  in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment . ."

 

    The initial definition of "geo-engineering activities" referenced above includes: "Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insulation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insulation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere."

    Access a release from Rep. Gordon (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 56-page Committee report (click here). Access the Science Committee website on Climate Engineering for extensive background information and hearings (click here). Access a lengthy release from ETC including the full texts of the relevant COP10 decisions on geoengineering (click here). Access a release from ETC Group and link to the press conference webcast (click here). Access the CBD COP 10 website for additional background information, documents and webcasts (click here). Access the complete 70-page GAO report (click here).

Unstable Cement From Halliburton May Be Cause Of BP Blowout

Oct 28: In a letter to the National Commission on the BP Oil Spill, Fred Bartlit, Chief Counsel to the Commission and responsible for investigating the root causes of the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig wrote to report the results of cement testing recently conducted and several conclusions that have been reached based on that testing and documents provided by Halliburton. The bipartisan Commission was established by President Obama by an executive order on May 21, and is led by co-chairs including former two-term Florida Governor and former Senator Bob Graham and former Administrator of U.S. EPA William Reilly [See WIMS 10/7/10].

    Bartlit said, "We have known for some time that the cement used to secure the production casing and isolate the hydrocarbon zone at the bottom of the Macondo well must have failed in some manner. That cement should have prevented hydrocarbons from entering the well. For a variety of technical reasons that we will explain at the upcoming hearing, BP cemented the well with a nitrogen foam cement recommended and supplied by Halliburton."

    Chevron agreed as a public service to test the cement slurry on behalf of the Commission. Chevron employs some of the industry's most respected cement experts, and it maintains a state-of-the art cement testing facility in Houston, Texas. Halliburton agreed that the Chevron lab was highly qualified for this work. Bartlit writes, "Chevron's report states, among other things, that its lab personnel were unable to generate stable foam cement in the laboratory using the materials provided by Halliburton and available design information regarding the slurry used at the Macondo well. Although laboratory foam stability tests cannot replicate field conditions perfectly, these data strongly suggest that the foam cement used at Macondo was unstable. This may have contributed to the blowout."

    Further, Bartlit indicates, ". . .documents provided to us by Halliburton show, among other things, that its personnel conducted at least four foam stability tests relevant to the Macondo cement slurry. The first two tests were conducted in February 2010 using different well design parameters and a slightly different slurry recipe than was finally used. Both tests indicated that this foam slurry design was unstable [emphasis added]. . . on or about April 13, seven days before the blowout. Lab personnel used slightly different lab protocols than they had used in February. Although there are some indications that lab personnel may have conducted this test improperly, it once again indicated that the foam slurry design was unstable [emphasis added]. . .

    "Halliburton personnel began a second April foam stability test shortly after receiving the unfavorable results from the first April test. Halliburton personnel again modified the testing procedure, and this time – for the first time – the data indicated the foam slurry design would be stable [emphasis added].

    Based on the testing and documents, Bartlit's legal team concludes:

• (1) Only one of the four tests discussed above that Halliburton ran on the various slurry designs for the final cement job at the Macondo well indicated that the slurry design would be stable;
• (2) Halliburton may not have had—and BP did not have—the results of that test before the evening of April 19, meaning that the cement job may have been pumped without any lab results indicating that the foam cement slurry would be stable;
• (3) Halliburton and BP both had results in March showing that a very similar foam slurry design to the one actually pumped at the Macondo well would be unstable, but neither acted upon that data; and

• (4) Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should have considered redesigning the foam slurry before pumping it at the Macondo well.

    The team says, "Finally, we want to emphasize that even if our concerns regarding the foam slurry design at Macondo are well founded, the story of the blowout does not turn solely on the quality of the Macondo cement job. Cementing wells is a complex endeavor and industry experts inform us that cementing failures are not uncommon even in the best of circumstances. Because it may be anticipated that a particular cement job may be faulty, the oil industry has developed tests, such as the negative pressure test and cement evaluation logs, to identify cementing failures. It has also developed methods to remedy deficient cement jobs. BP and/or Transocean personnel misinterpreted or chose not to conduct such tests at the Macondo well."

    The Oil Spill Commission and Bartlit have announced they will hold a two-day hearing on November 8-9, on preliminary findings regarding BP's Macondo well blowout. The primary focus of the hearing will be on the causes of the rig explosion. The Commissioners will hear from Chief Counsel Bartlit, representatives from companies involved in the incident, industry executives, technical experts, regulators and others regarding the rig explosion. The hearing will be held at the Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H St. NW, Washington, DC.

    Access the complete letter from Bartlit (click here). Access the complete report from Chevron (click here). Access the Commission website for complete background and documents (click here).

Prison Industries E-waste Recycling Program Gets Failing Grade

Oct 27: The Council of Prison Locals (CPL) of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) responded to a massive October 21 report from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) entitled, A Review of Federal Prison Industries' Electronic-Waste Recycling Program. The main report is 433-pages and includes a 1008-page Appendix. The OIG report found that staff and inmates at several Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, have been exposed to toxic metals including cadmium and lead. The exposure occurred in the electronic waste recycling program run by the Federal Prison Industries -- also known as UNICOR, a government corporation within (BOP). The report concluded that the UNICOR recycling program did not value worker safety and environmental protection.

 

    As of June 2010, UNICOR had 103 factories at 73 prison locations, employing approximately 17,000 inmates or 11 percent of the inmate population. The factories produce a variety of consumer products and services, office furniture and clothing, and industrial products, such as security fencing and vehicle tags. Starting in 1997, UNICOR began to accept computers, monitors, printers, and other types of e-waste for recycling at Federal prisons. UNICOR sold these e-waste items to its customers, sometimes following refurbishment, or disassembled the items into their component parts and sold the parts to recyclers for further processing.

 

    Specifically, the OIG said, "Our investigation found that prior to 2009 UNICOR's management of the e-waste recycling program resulted in numerous violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, regulations, and BOP policies. We concluded that UNICOR's Headquarters staff poorly managed UNICOR's e-waste program prior to 2009.6 UNICOR staff members often failed to perform hazard assessments on new e-waste operations or did so incorrectly, and important health and safety information was not shared with BOP executives and safety staff that could have prevented the violations from occurring. We also found that managers in UNICOR's Recycling Business Group, primarily General Manager Lawrence Novicky and his assistant, Bruce Ginther, concealed warnings about hazards related to toxic metals from UNICOR and BOP staff and from inmates. . . Overall, we found a culture at UNICOR that did not sufficiently value worker safety and environmental protection. We determined that the flawed organization and poor communication between UNICOR and the BOP made compliance difficult to achieve even with the best-intentioned employees. . ."

 

    CPL President Bryan Lowry said, "The inspector general's findings are in line with what we've been saying for years. Our staff members were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic metals, which BOP knew about and allowed to continue. The inspector general must hold BOP and UNICOR managers accountable for their actions and put appropriate safety measures in place to protect our staff." CPL indicated that it has been an advocate of the UNICOR work program, which provides inmates an opportunity to earn money, learn marketable skills, and become productive members of society once their incarceration ends. The program also keeps inmates occupied and out of trouble, which leads to a more safe and secure prison environment.

 

    Several BOP facilities had UNICOR e-waste operations, including the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Elkton, Ohio, where air quality was not monitored and staff and inmates were not provided protective equipment while breaking down computer monitors. AFGE Local 607 Vice President Bill Meek, who represents workers at FCI – Elkton, "The truth about these toxic exposures is finally coming out. Our primary concern has always been the safety of our staff, and we'll continue to fight for that."

 

    OIG summarized its major conclusions and said, "In conclusion, our investigation identified serious deficiencies with UNICOR's e-waste recycling program, especially prior to 2003. In recent years, UNICOR has made substantial progress to improve the safety of its e-waste operations. However, we believe that the success of these efforts in the future could be hindered by lingering, systemic problems such as the lack of technical resources, inadequate oversight, and a Health Services Division at BOP Headquarters that lacks authority to manage the delivery of quality safety services throughout the BOP and UNICOR. We believe our 12 recommendations can help ensure that BOP and UNICOR conduct its operations, including its e-waste recycling program, in compliance with federal regulations and BOP policies, and with the necessary concern for the health and safety of BOP staff and inmates."　　

　Access the OIG report (click here); and Appendix (click here). Access a release from CPL (click here).