International Negotiations Towards A Global Treaty On Mercury

Jul 5: Over 500 representatives from governments and civil society organizations took part in a United Nations-backed meeting in Punta del Este, Uruguay, seeking to negotiate a global treaty that would reduce the use of mercury. The meeting was the fourth of five sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC4). After INC4 there is only one remaining session before the diplomatic conference that will convene in Japan in 2013.

 

    The Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Achim Steiner, said the six-day meeting will help governments work towards a common goal in reducing "the exposure of significant numbers of people across the globe to a highly hazardous substance whose impacts on human health are well known -- and in doing so make a serious contribution to sustainable development and a transition to an inclusive green economy in the wake of Rio+20."

    The meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee covered a wide range of areas, from products and processes that contain mercury, to the supply, trade, storage and waste of the element. UNEP also launched a practical guide at the meeting on methods and techniques to reduce mercury use and non-mercury alternative practices in Artisanal Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASGM). Developed in collaboration with the Artisanal Gold Council and other partners, the guide informs policymakers, miners and civil society about available techniques for reducing and ultimately eliminating mercury use in ASGM.

    With the value of gold having soared amid the recent financial turmoil, small-scale, artisanal gold mining is booming throughout the world. The Artisanal Gold Council estimates that between 12 and 15 million people in over 70 countries are employed in the sector, producing up to 20 percent of the total gold supply. However, the often informal and sometimes illegal status of the sector in many countries has been one of the biggest challenges in addressing the health and environmental issues of the sector. The UNEP guide seeks to also be a useful tool for governments to explain the technical fundamentals that underpin and encourage the formalization of ASGM.

    Steiner said, "[ASGM] is an important economic activity, which can contribute directly to poverty alleviation and regional well-being. The global mercury legal instrument under development gives an important opportunity to ensure that a small-scale activity, such as this one, continues in a safe and sustainable way."

    According to a summary report from International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) reporting service, which provided detailed day-by-day coverage of the meeting, "INC4 fulfilled many delegates' expectations expressed on arrival in Punta del Este. Clear progress was made swiftly on some issues like storage, wastes and contaminated sites, and narrowing options on other issues, such as articles related to information and reporting. Yet on the most crucial issues, compliance, finance and control measures for products and processes, divergent views prevailed, with discussions focusing on laying out the range of positions. Delegates met non-stop during the six-day meeting in both plenary sessions and contact groups. A full reading of the text, and division of work into several contact groups addressing key sections of the treaty, allowed delegates to advance towards a 'cleaner' version of a convention text on some issues, leaving brackets around topics that require political resolution for consideration at the next, and last, session of the INC in January 2013."

    The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of more than 700 health and environmental organizations working in 116 countries for a toxics-free future issued a release indicating they are "deeply concerned that, with current text, the treaty may actually legitimize increased global mercury releases to protect short-term economic interests. The price tag may appear to be 'cheap' but the cost of inaction on mercury pollution will be huge." They indicated that, "Allowing the importation and use of mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) will create new contaminated sites, and more mercury polluted communities and suffering in ASGM countries." Additionally, they said, "The treaty creates no obligation for responsible parties to pay for mercury pollution cleanup or provide compensation for victims. "This lack of action runs contrary to the treaty objective."

    Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a release from UNEP and link to a video and the ASGM guide (click here). Access the INC4 website for complete details on the meeting including meeting documents (click here). Access the IISD Summary Report issued on July 5 (click here). Access the IISD INC4 Meeting Coverage website (click here). Access a release from IPEN (click here). Access the IPEN website for more information (click here). [#Toxics]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Japanese Commission Highly Critical Of Fukushima Accident

Jul 5: Chairman Kiyoshi Kurokawa of The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) released the Commission's final report to Takahiro Yokomichi, the Japanese Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Kenji Hirata, President of the Japanese House of Councillors. The long-awaited report comes at the end of a six-month investigation into the nuclear accident of March 11, 2011.

 

    The Commission, the first of its kind in the history of Japan's constitutional government, received its mandate from the National Diet to investigate the causes of the accident, the causes of the subsequent damage and the effectiveness of the emergency response. The Commission was also charged with investigating Japan's nuclear policies and regulations and to offer recommendations to prevent a similar occurrence. The Commission held over 900 hours of hearings and interviews with over 1100 people. It was able to use the powers of the legislative body to obtain necessary documents and evidence. The Commission acted on behalf of the Japanese people -- independent from any elected member of either House of the Diet, from the restrictions of the government bureaucracy, and from the financial influence of the nuclear power lobby.

 

    A New York Times (NYT) article on the report summarizes saying, "The nuclear accident at Fukushima was a preventable disaster rooted in government-industry collusion. . . The commission challenged some of the main story lines that the government and the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant have put forward to explain what went wrong in the early days of the crisis."

 

    The Commission's charge indicated in part that, "A global perspective should be emphasized, so that the results and conclusions will help to prevent nuclear accidents elsewhere. The investigation's priority should be on human safety, rather than the structural safety of nuclear reactors."

 

    The Commission concludes in part, "In order to prevent future disasters, fundamental reforms must take place. These reforms must cover both the structure of the electric power industry and the structure of the related government and regulatory agencies as well as the operation processes. They must cover both normal and emergency situations. A 'manmade' disaster - The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents. . ."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), issued a release saying, "We know what happened in Japan could happen here in the United States. We are currently experiencing how susceptible the United States is to power outages, floods, and other natural disasters, and our nuclear power plants remain at the top of terrorist target lists. Yet, the majority of NRC Commissioners have consistently voted to reject most of the recommendations of the Near-Term Fukushima Task Force and implement nuclear safety upgrades in a way that acknowledges that they are necessary to ensure the adequate protection of America's nuclear power plants. I call on the Commission to stop the delays and fully implement the recommendations of the Fukushima taskforce to address the vulnerabilities to our nuclear fleet that were revealed by the Fukushima meltdowns."

 

    Rep. Markey indicated in his release that "Four of the Commissioners currently serving at the NRC regrettably have a history of voting against the safety recommendations put forward by technical experts, including its own advisory committees.  Some of these votes have occurred since the Fukushima meltdowns." He included a partial summary of the NRC votes.

   

    Access an announcement from the NAIIC (click here). Access links to the final report and executive summary (click here). Access the NAIIC website in English for more information (click here). Access the NYT article (click here). Access the release from Rep. Markey with links to related information (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Notice: July 4, 2012

Subscribers & Readers Note:

WIMS will not be publishing today,

July 4, 2012. We'll be back on July  5.

Be safe, stay cool, and

enjoy your July 4th holiday.

Final GHG Rule "Common-Sense, Phased-In Approach"

Jul 3: U.S. EPA announced that it will not revise greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting thresholds under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA said its final rule is part a "common-sense, phased-in approach" to GHG permitting under the CAA, announced in 2010 and recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [See WIMS 6/26/12]. This is the third step in EPA's phased-in approach to greenhouse gas permitting under the CAA. The current applicability thresholds, established under Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, went into effect on July 1, 2011. The final rule will become effective 30-days following publication in the Federal Register.

 

    The final rule maintains a focus on the nation's largest emitters that account for nearly 70 percent of the total GHG pollution from stationary sources, while shielding smaller emitters from permitting requirements. EPA is also finalizing a provision that allows companies to set plant-wide emissions limits for GHGs [i.e. plantwide applicability limitations (PALs)], streamlining the permitting process, increasing flexibilities and reducing permitting burdens on state and local authorities and large industrial emitters. 

 

    A PAL is an emissions limit applied sourcewide rather than to specific emissions points. With a PAL, a source can make changes to the facility without triggering PSD permitting requirements as long as emissions do not increase above the limit established by the PAL. This would allow companies to respond rapidly to changing market conditions while protecting the environment. EPA is also revising its regulations to allow a source that emits or has the potential to emit GHGs at levels above 100,000 tpy CO2e but that have emissions of other regulated pollutants at minor source levels to apply for a GHG PAL while still maintaining its minor source status.

    EPA indicated that after consulting with the states and evaluating the phase-in process, it believes that current conditions do not suggest that EPA should lower the permitting thresholds. Therefore, EPA will not include additional, smaller sources in the permitting program at this time. 

    The final rule affirms that new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tons per year (tpy) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) will continue to be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits. Existing facilities that emit 100,000 tpy of CO2e and make changes increasing the GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy of CO2e, must also obtain PSD permits. Facilities that must obtain a PSD permit, to include other regulated pollutants, must also address GHG emission increases of 75,000 tpy or more of CO2e. New and existing sources with GHG emissions above 100,000 tpy CO2e must also obtain operating permits.

    EPA's GHG permitting program follows the same CAA process that states and industry have followed for decades to help ensure that new or modified facilities are meeting requirements to protect air quality and public health from harmful pollutants. As of May 21, 2012, EPA and state permitting authorities have issued 44 PSD permits addressing GHG emissions. These permits have required new facilities, and existing facilities that make major modifications, to implement energy efficiency measures to reduce their GHG emissions.

    The GHG Tailoring Rule will continue to address a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The PSD permitting program protects air quality and allows economic growth by requiring facilities that trigger PSD to limit GHG emissions in a cost effective way. An operating permit lists all of a facility's CAA emissions control requirements and ensures adequate monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. The operating permit program allows an opportunity for public involvement and to improve compliance. 

    Access a release from EPA and link to further information (click here). Access a fact sheet on the latest action (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the Final Rule (click here). [#Climate, #Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House Hearing On GHG Rules & D.C. Circuit Opinion

Jun 29: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), held a hearing with EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy to discuss EPA's greenhouse gas regulations. EPA's McCarthy was the only witness. Rep. Whitfield indicated in a release that the hearing comes on the heels of June 26, ruling by U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. Circuit upholding EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases [See WIMS 6/26/12]. He indicated that "members fear [the decision] will expand EPA's overreach to affect thousands of small businesses" and said, "The end result of the court's ruling is that Obama EPA's backdoor carbon tax remains in effect. So now we have an Obama health care tax and a carbon tax."

 

    Full Committee Chairman, Fred Upton (D-MI) said in an opening statement, "Earlier this week, a federal court upheld key portions of EPA's greenhouse gas regulatory agenda. No question, it was a victory for the Obama EPA. However, it is important to note that federal courts can only decide whether agency rules pass legal muster -- not whether they are a good idea. And the GHG regulatory agenda is proving to be a very bad idea. Policy decisions belong in Congress, and Congress needs to stop the threat to our economic future posed by GHG regulations.

 

    "Something else happened recently that in its own way is bigger news than the court decision. Both Alpha Coal and Arch Coal announced that they are shutting down several mines and that hundreds of miners will lose their jobs – adding to the list of victims in the war on coal that is an integral part of EPA's GHG regulatory agenda. The sad reality is that we are no longer just predicting job losses; we are beginning to see them. . . Overall, the threat to our economy from the GHG regulatory agenda – to jobs, prices, and global competitiveness - is becoming harder to deny."

 

    Full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "I'm sorry to hear the statement about people losing their jobs in the coal industry. I know that is very difficult for those people and their families, but I would respectfully submit that if they're losing their jobs, it's not because of regulation. It's primarily because they're not able to compete in the marketplace where natural gas is cheaper. Today's hearing continues the 18-month Republican attack on the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations, and the science that informs our understanding of the effects of air pollution. . . The most shameful aspect of this anti-environment campaign is the denial of science. There is no way to govern responsibly if you refuse to accept the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and the rest of the scientific community. . ."

 

    "The question we should be asking is not what we can do to stop reasonable regulations, but how we can help the families whose homes are being burned in Colorado Springs and flooded in Saint Petersburg, and how we can help the families who are losing jobs in the coal industry, because that industry is refusing to recognize reality."

 

    McCarthy submitted 16-pages of testimony and said in part, "On June 26, the U.S. Court of Appears for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's endangerment finding, its greenhouse gas emission standards for light duty vehicles and its Tailoring Rule, which, as explained below, establishes a phased approach for applying certain Clean Air Act permitting requirements to stationary sources based on greenhouse gas emissions -- focusing on large sources. The Court confirmed that EPA followed both the science and the law in these actions. In upholding the endangerment finding, the Court stated: "The body of scientific evidence marshaled by EPA in support of the Endangerment Finding is substantial." The court also confirmed that the Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, and that the Act 'unambiguously' requires application of relevant stationary source permitting programs to greenhouse gases Finally, the court ruled that the litigants in the case are not harmed by EPA's Tailoring Rule -- which establishes a phased approach to stationary source permitting for greenhouse gases –and therefore lack standing to challenge it. . ."

 

    She concluded, "Greenhouse gas pollution, through its contribution to global climate change, presents a significant threat to Americans' health and to the environment upon which our economy and security depends. EPA over the past three years has proceeded in a careful and deliberate manner, in keeping with the requirements established by Congress under the Clean Air Act, to begin limiting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from the largest-emitting categories of mobile and stationary sources. The history of the Clean Air Act since 1970 makes clear that clean air and a healthy economy have gone hand in hand. The Act has created market opportunities that have helped to inspire innovation in cleaner technologies – technologies in which the United States has become a global market leader. Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution will require a gradual transition to cleaner energy sources and more efficient energy production and use. This transition is essential to the long-term protection of public health and the environment and, ultimately, offers real and meaningful economic opportunities to American consumers, entrepreneurs, and businesses."

    Access a Republican release on the hearing including some video clips (click here). Access the Republican hearing website with links to opening statements, background and testimony (click here). Access the Democratic hearing website with opening statement, testimony and a webcast of the hearing (click here). Access the complete D.C. Circuit opinion (click here). [#Climate, #Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

"Proposed Final Program" For 5-Year OCS Leasing 2012-2017

Jun 28: Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Tommy Beaudreau announced the release of a proposed final offshore oil and gas leasing program for 2012-2017 which they said "makes all areas with the highest-known resource potential -- including frontier areas in the Alaska Arctic – available for oil and gas leasing in order to further reduce America's dependence on foreign oil."

    According to an announcement, consistent with the President's direction, the Obama administration's Proposed Final U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program makes available areas focused on the most likely recoverable oil and gas resources that the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is estimated to hold. It schedules 15 potential lease sales for the five-year period, including 12 in the Gulf of Mexico and three off the coast of Alaska.

    Secretary Salazar said, "Put simply, this program opens the vast majority of known offshore oil and gas resources for development over the next five years and includes a cautious but forward-looking leasing strategy for the Alaska Arctic. President Obama has made clear his commitment to expanding responsible domestic oil and gas production in America as part of this all-of-the-above energy strategy, and with comprehensive safety standards in place, this plan will help us to continue to grow America's energy economy and further reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while protecting marine, costal and human health."

    The "Proposed Final Program" is designed to account for the distinct needs of the regions across the OCS, and considers a range of factors, including current and developing information about resource potential, the status of resource development and emergency response infrastructure, recognition of regional interest and concerns, and the need for a balanced approach to the use of the Nation's shared natural resources.

    BOEM Director Beaudreau said, "Offshore oil and gas leasing should not be 'one size fits all. For example, the area-wide leasing model that works for the Gulf of Mexico, where there is a long and consistent history of offshore exploration and development, is not suited to the Arctic. Within the Arctic, where significant resource potential exists, there are also substantial environmental challenges, and social and ecological concerns that warrant a different and more targeted approach that will focus leasing to offer the greatest resource potential while minimizing possible conflicts with environmentally sensitive areas and the native Alaskan communities that rely on the ocean for subsistence use."

    The 15 scheduled potential lease sales contained in the plan will occur in six planning areas – the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico, the portion of the Eastern Gulf Of Mexico not currently under Congressional moratorium, and the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet Planning Areas offshore Alaska.

    The release indicates that the Proposed Final Program re-affirms existing protections for Arctic coastal areas by continuing to exclude certain areas from leasing, including a 25-mile buffer area near the coast of the Chukchi, as well as two subsistence whaling areas in the Beaufort near Barrow and Kaktovik, Alaska. The program also identifies an additional exclusion area in the Chukchi, near Barrow, that will not be made available for leasing because of input received from Native Alaskan communities and because the area is known to be of particular importance for subsistence hunting and fishing. With respect to all other areas in the Arctic that are open to oil and gas exploration and development in the Proposed Final Program, BOEM will identify targeted areas to offer in the lease sales based on information the agency will gather about industry interest, resource potential, subsistence hunting and fishing, wildlife, and environmental sensitivities.

    Secretary Salazar said, "We are taking a cautious approach to leasing in the Arctic that accounts for the Arctic's unique environmental resources and the social, cultural and subsistence needs of Native Alaskan communities, and draws from the best available science as well as any new information that we may learn from activity on current leases. When it comes to domestic production, the President has made clear he is committed to producing more oil and natural gas safely and responsibly. The numbers speak for themselves: every year the President has been in office, domestic oil and gas production is up, imports of foreign oil are down, and currently the nation is producing more oil than any time in the last eight years."

    As is mandated by the OCS Lands Act, the Proposed Final Program has been submitted to Congress. The Secretary may implement the Program in 60 days, however no further action is needed prior to its implementation, and BOEM is on track to hold the first sale under the new program later this year. Earlier this month, BOEM held a lease sale for nearly 39 million acres in the Central Gulf of Mexico, which attracted more than $1.7 billion in high bids for more than 2.4 million acres. That follows on a Western Gulf of Mexico lease sale held in December 2011, in which 21 million acres were offered for lease.

    The American Petroleum Institute (API)Group Director of Upstream and Industry Operations Erik Milito described the Interior plan as "a continuation of the administration's discouraging pattern of delay and unnecessary restraint." He said, "Today's proposal will not allow us to realize the full benefits from safe and responsible development of America's oil and natural gas resources, continuing a pattern of delay and unnecessary restraint. For example, this plan pushes back the 2015 Beaufort lease sale, where leasing has already occurred, and makes more areas off limits than it makes available. A sensible long-term strategy would embrace and promote expanded oil and natural gas exploration and development to create new jobs and secure critical energy supplies for future generations. . .

    "We must move past policies that undermine the mission of supplying Americans with the energy they need. While vitally important, the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico areas included in this proposed offshore program are not 'new' areas. We look to the administration and Congress to begin working on a new plan that opens areas in the Eastern Gulf, the Pacific, and the Atlantic, such as offshore Virginia and South Carolina, where we continue to see bipartisan support for new offshore leasing."

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee commented on the plan saying, "The leasing plan released today falls far short of what's needed to get America's faltering economy back on track. It removes nearly 90 percent of the acreage previously available for energy exploration. While it offers the possibility of two lease sales in the Arctic, it substantially delays them and raises the possibility that they might not happen at all. The final plan unilaterally takes millions of acres in the Arctic off the table, in the form of buffer zones and so-called 'study areas.'

 

    "The administration also continues to ignore calls for lease sales off the coast of states such as Virginia and South Carolina, despite strong support from those states. While the administration resists opening any new acreage, nearly every country bordering our waters is showing no such hesitation. Cuba, Mexico, the Bahamas, Canada and Russia are all moving ahead. It's time to roll up our sleeves and put Americans back to work producing the energy we need to be competitive. Hesitation and delay will not right our economy."

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) said the Plan "closes 85 percent of America's offshore areas to energy production." He said, "The Obama Administration has neglected their duty to provide a roadmap for America's offshore energy future by tossing aside a plan to expand production and failing to produce a plan of their own for three and a half years. Today, the Obama Administration has announced a bleak future for American energy production by keeping 85 percent of America's offshore areas under lock and key and refusing to open any new areas to drilling. This plan re-imposes the drilling moratoria lifted in 2008, hurts job creation and keeps new areas of American energy production sidelined. . ."

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee, praised the DOI Plan for offering a "balanced five year oil and gas drilling plan for America's oceans."  He said, "At a time when U.S. oil production is at an 18-year high, this drilling plan is the responsible way to continue to support domestic production, while leaving time to put in place proper safety and environmental protections. While Republicans pass bills in Congress to give away all of our public lands available to drill within just a few short years, the Obama administration knows that an 'oil-above-all' policy serves no one's interests, unless you are an oil company executive. By keeping the East Coast off limits to drilling, this plan also recognizes the widespread opposition to placing oil rigs up and down our Atlantic Coast."

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) issued a statement saying, "The U.S. is home to some of the largest energy reserves in the world, yet today the Obama administration announced it will lock away the vast majority of these resources for another five years. This plan essentially reinstates the offshore drilling ban that was lifted in 2008. The president's plan is a step backwards, opening no new areas for energy leasing and only further delaying domestic production projects. While the president claims to support 'all of the above,' his policies seem more accurately described as advancing 'nothing from below.'"

    Oceana's senior Pacific director, Susan Murray said, "Today's news is a mixed bag. BOEM has taken one step forward by stating a commitment to better science, but it has taken two steps backward by including lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.  It is just common sense -- we should not be proceeding without basic science or demonstrated response capability." Jacqueline Savitz, VP for North America at Oceana said, "Sadly, our government has released yet another plan on how to drill for more oil and gas, without making any effort to develop a plan for the desperately needed transition to clean energy. We have known for a decade that we need to shift from fossil fuels, yet there is still no analysis of how to minimize our reliance on oil and gas. Instead the government keeps promoting risky offshore drilling that jeopardizes the health of the entire Gulf and Arctic regions. Encouraging clean energy investments would create jobs without risking people's lives and livelihoods. Instead, this plan sets us up for another devastating oil spill, which endangers human lives, coastal economies and marine life."

    Access a release from DOI with links to complete and extensive information on the Proposed Final Program (click here). Access the Five Year Program website for more information including alternative and mitigation tracking table and regionally-tailored interactive maps (click here). Access the release from API (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Upton (click here). Access a release from Oceana (click here). [#Energy/OCS)

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House & Senate Strike Tentative Deal On Transportation Bill

Jun 27: House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL) announced that House and Senate conferees are concluding a bicameral, bipartisan agreement on a major transportation bill. Representative Mica said the measure focuses on unprecedented reforms by cutting red tape and consolidating federal transportation programs. On the Senate side, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member, issued a statement on the agreement which they say has been reached on the transportation conference report. They indicate that the agreement provides funding at current levels through the end of fiscal year 2014, which was one of the highly contentious disagreements between House and Senate bills.

    There were substantial differences between the two versions of the reauthorization of the Highway Surface Transportation program that have resulted in a political standstill. The House version, H.R.4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, provided a short-term extension and included highly controversial provisions requiring approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and relaxed standards for the management and reuse of coal ash. The Senate version, S.1813, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), provided a two-year $109 billion surface transportation reauthorization and passed the Senate with 74 votes. The Conference Committee held their first meeting on May 8 [See WIMS 5/09/12]. Funding for the Surface Transportation program which was set to expire on March 31, was extended 90-days to June 30 [See WIMS 3/30/12].

    In the latest developments, Representative Mica said, "This agreement will help strengthen our nation's construction industry and provide stability to highway, bridge and infrastructure projects across the country." He called it a "tentative agreement" that establishes federal highway, transit and highway safety policy and keeps programs at current funding levels through the end of fiscal year 2014. Unlike the last transportation bill, which contained over 6,300 earmarks, he said this bill doesn't include any earmarks. He said the bill also does not increase taxes.

    Rep. Mica continued saying, "This is the jobs bill for the 112th Congress. The unprecedented reforms in this legislation -- cutting red tape, truly making projects 'shovel ready,' shrinking the size of the federal bureaucracy, attracting more private sector participation, and giving states more flexibility to address their critical priorities -- will ensure that we more effectively move forward with major highway and bridge improvements and put Americans back to work. The Highway Trust Fund is going bankrupt, and this paid-for measure provides necessary, real reform that focuses our limited resources on critical infrastructure needs. This legislation is specifically designed to reform and consolidate our transportation programs, streamline the bureaucratic project process, and give states more flexibility to save taxpayers' hard-earned money."

    Senator Boxer said, "I couldn't be more pleased to announce, along with my partner Senator Inhofe, that we have a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a transportation bill which saves and creates millions of jobs. Not only will this reform bill provide a boost to the economy and the construction industry, but it is a big win for the middle class, business, and our environment. This agreement provides stability and flexibility for the nation's transportation planners, invests in America's crumbling roads and bridges, and puts people back to work. I want to thank Senator Inhofe, Rep. John Mica, Rep. Nick Rahall [D-WV], and all the other conferees, and leadership in both the House and Senate for working virtually non-stop to finish this bill."

    Senator Inhofe said, "The agreement struck on the highway conference report is great news for jobs and economic growth in Oklahoma and across the nation. I would like to thank Chairman Boxer for her leadership and the House and Senate conferees for their hard work and for their dedication to getting this bill done. As with any compromise we didn't get everything we wanted, but I believe we truly have a good bill -- one conservatives can be proud to support. Throughout the conference, we strove for solid conservative reforms: we reduced the number of programs by 2/3; eliminated or consolidated those that are duplicative or don't serve a national transportation goal; got rid of numerous bureaucratic hurdles; we were able to slash the lengthy and often duplicative environmental review process from an average of 15 years down to 7; we found ways to increase the role of state and local governments while working to get the federal government out of the way at every opportunity; and we made sure that states were able to spend highway money on their highest priorities rather than being forced to address Washington's priorities. I look forward to Congress passing this bipartisan jobs bill as soon as possible."

    Martin Hayden, vice president for policy and legislation at Earthjustice, issued a statement on the announced deal saying, "Senate Democrats prevailed in getting toxic coal ash and the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline dropped from the final transportation bill. The Senate deserves credit for rightly rejecting plans passed by the House of Representatives that would have put millions of Americans living near coal ash dump sites at risk. . . However, we are very disappointed that the Senate agreed to include a significant weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act, a bedrock environmental law that provides for public information and participation, as it applies to transportation construction projects. Some of these provisions will shut out nearly all stakeholders -- including low-income residents and communities of color, landowners, business owners, and local governments -- from transportation projects affecting the health, economy, and environment of their local communities."

    The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) indicates in a release on the deal that it also includes the RESTORE Act, the legislation that directs BP fines and penalties to go to Gulf Coast restoration. NWF president and CEO Larry Schweiger said, More than two years into the worst oil disaster in America's history, Washington is finally delivering on its promise to make the Gulf whole again. Once BP's fines and penalties have been established, the RESTORE Act will represent one of the most important investments in natural resources in America's history, a critically-needed commitment to Gulf Coast ecosystems and the people who depend on them. All of us now have the responsibility to make sure every dollar is invested in restoring the Gulf's impacted communities and wildlife habitat." NWF also pointed out that the package also includes provisions to reform the National Flood Insurance Program which includes "critical new protections for floodplains and wetlands that provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and the first line of defense against floods and the impacts of a changing climate, while saving taxpayers an estimated $4.7 billion over the next 10 years."

    Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Legislative Director Scott Slesinger issued a statement saying, "Senate Democrats wisely stood up to House Republicans' attempts to use the transportation bill to ram through unrelated, anti-environmental provisions on the Keystone tar sands pipeline and coal ash disposal. But unfortunately, the Senate also agreed to damaging and unnecessary concessions that weaken environmental reviews of highway projects – reducing public oversight and excluding some from review entirely. They also made concessions that cut funding for transportation choices that would reduce traffic, reduce our dependence on oil and improve our health and environment. Given that the House could not even manage to pass a complete bill while the Senate had approved a bipartisan measure, the American people had every reason to expect a better outcome."

 

    Sierra Club Executive Director, Michael Brune said in part, "Unfortunately, House Republican ideologues sabotaged this chance, proving again they are willing to sacrifice millions of jobs to advance their radical agenda. By being willing to walk away from three million American jobs, House Republicans extracted concessions that will keep our transportation system stuck in reverse. By rolling back critical environmental review laws, they'll curtail the public's ability to have a say on highway and bridge projects in their communities. By undermining efforts to make biking and walking safer and keep our roads and bridges in good repair, they've done their best to ensure we remain dependent on oil and a crumbling infrastructure. When you have extremists in Congress willing to derail the country to push their reckless ideology refusing to negotiate with Senate leaders who want to act to save jobs, the results are grim. Now, we're left with a must-pass bill stripped of its potential. One of the few good things you can say about this bill is that it could have been worse." 

    If a majority of House and Senate conferees approve the conference report, both bodies are then expected to take up the measure before the end of the week, prior to the expiration of the current extension of transportation funding on June 30.

    Access the statement from Rep. Mica (click here). Access the statement from Sens. Boxer and Inhofe (click here). Access the 599-page compromise bill (click here). Access the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of the Conference and a 91-page summary (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access links to a number of articles on the transportation deal (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4348 (click here). Access legislative details for S.1813 (click here). [#Transport]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professional

GOP & Industry Groups Say GHG Decision Is "Devastating Blow"

Jun 27: As WIMS reported yesterday the unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in the case of Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. U.S. EPA, and related consolidated cases upholding EPA authority to regulated greenhouse gases (GHG) under the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 6/26/12] was widely applauded by Democratic leaders and environmental organizations. Reactions from Republican leaders and industry groups were not available at press time. The following reactions of Michigan's Representative Fred Upton, Senator Inhofe and the industry coalition involved in the lawsuits were released later in the day.

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) issued a statement in response to the ruling saying, "While some in Washington may claim today's court ruling is a win for the Obama administration, it delivers a devastating blow to the U.S. economy and American consumers. After enduring 40 consecutive months of higher than eight percent unemployment, we cannot afford the EPA's continued expansion of red tape that is slowing economic growth and threatening to entangle millions of small businesses. EPA's rules will impose billions of dollars in compliance and delay costs and represent an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that has the potential to affect virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household. We have a legislative solution that stands up for American workers. The House passed my bill, H.R.910, to stop this power-grab by the Obama administration and block EPA's cap-and-trade agenda that threatens to drive energy prices higher, destroy jobs, and hamstring our economic recovery.

   

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a major critic of the Administration's GHG regulations and climate change science commented the decision saying, "This 'big win' for the Obama EPA is a huge loss for every American, especially those in the heartland states which rely on fossil fuel development and the affordable energy that comes with it. EPA's massive and complicated regulatory barrage will continue to punish job creators and further undermine our economy. This is the true agenda that President Obama is trying to hide under disingenuous reelection rhetoric about an 'all of the above' approach to energy.

    "And what will Americans get in return for this regulatory nightmare? Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that these rules will have no effect on the climate so it will be all pain for no environmental gain. Today's court ruling should be a wake-up call for the United States Senate to do its job and prevent what an author of the Clean Air Act amendments, Representative Dingell, called a 'glorious mess.' Last year 64 Senators went on record as wanting to stop these devastating greenhouse gas regulations from taking effect -- it's time they actually do so."

    "The Obama administration is attempting to regulate greenhouse gases in the absence of legislation. Congress and the American people rejected cap-and-trade legislation, but unelected bureaucrats at the EPA are pushing through harmful regulations that will serve as a massive energy tax on American businesses and families. H.R.910 will reassert Congress' authority to direct public policy and will protect Americans from EPA's overreach."

    National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons released a statement on behalf of the industry coalition on the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit saying, "Today's ruling is a setback for businesses facing damaging regulations from the EPA. The Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate greenhouse gases, and even the EPA said that it could not comply with the statute as written to implement these regulations.

    "The EPA's decision to move forward with these regulations is one of the most costly, complex and burdensome regulations facing manufacturers. These regulations will harm their ability to hire, invest and grow. By moving forward, the EPA is adding to the mounting uncertainty facing manufacturers of all sizes. We will be considering all of our legal options when it comes to halting these devastating regulations. The debate to address climate change should take place in the U.S. Congress and should foster economic growth and job creation, not impose additional burdens on businesses."

    In a release, NAM said it is "reviewing the court's decision and will consider further legal options on appeal. The EPA's greenhouse gas regulations will eventually require new burdensome permitting requirements for more than 6 million stationary sources, including 200,000 manufacturing facilities, 37,000 farms and millions of other sources such as universities, schools, hospitals and even American homes -- impacting every aspect of our economy."

    The members of the coalition include American Frozen Food Institute; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Petroleum Institute; Brick Industry Association; Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.; Corn Refiners Association; Glass Association of North America; Glass Packaging Institute; Independent Petroleum Association of America; Indiana Cast Metals Association; Michigan Manufacturers Association; Mississippi Manufacturers Association; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers; National Oilseed Processors Association; NFIB Small Business Legal Center; North American Die Casting Association; Specialty Steel Industry of North America; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Western States Petroleum Association; West Virginia Manufacturers Association; and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.

    Access the statement from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the NAM release (click here). Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Climate, #Air, #MIAir, #MIClimate, #CADC]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Appeals Court Rules Unanimously In Favor Of EPA GHG Regulations

Jun 26: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. U.S. EPA; American Chemistry Council v. U.S. EPA; and various intervenors including the State of Michigan, et al. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 09-1322, consolidated with a number of cases. On Petitions for Review of Final Actions of the Environmental Protection Agency. And, consolidated with dozens of cases and involving hundreds of attorneys. This is a highly controversial, complicated and critically important decision regarding U.S. EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A unanimous Appeals Court has provided an complete ruling in support of U.S. EPA and Administration.

 

    The Appeals Court outlines the history as follows: Following the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) -- which clarified that greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) -- U.S. EPA promulgated a series of greenhouse gas-related rules. First, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it

determined that greenhouse gases may "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Next, it issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light trucks. Finally, EPA determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits. But because immediate regulation of all such sources would result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring Rules, in which it determined that only the largest stationary sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.

 

    Petitioners, various states and industry groups, challenge all these rules, arguing that they are based on improper constructions of the CAA and are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. The Appeals Court rules, "But for the reasons set forth below, we conclude: (1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither arbitrary nor capricious; (2) EPA's interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and (3) no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the remainder of the petitions."

 

    The Appeals Court explains the organization of the seven part, 82-page decision saying, "This opinion proceeds in several steps. Part II explains why the Endangerment Finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious, while Part III does the same for the Tailpipe Rule. Turning to stationary source regulation, Part IV examines whether any petitioners may timely challenge EPA's longstanding interpretation of the PSD statute. Because we conclude that they may, Part V addresses the merits of their statutory arguments, and explains why EPA's interpretation of the CAA was compelled by the statute. Next, Part VI explains why petitioners lack standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules themselves. Finally, Part VII disposes of several arguments that have nothing to do with the rules under review, and thus are not properly before us."

 

    On the issue of the scientific basis for the endangerment finding, the Appeals Court said in part, "State and Industry Petitioners next challenge the adequacy of the scientific record underlying the Endangerment Finding, objecting to both the type of evidence upon which EPA relied and EPA's decision to make an Endangerment Finding in light of what Industry Petitioners view as significant scientific uncertainty. Neither objection has merit. . . Based on this scientific record, EPA made the linchpin finding: in its judgment, the 'root cause' of the recently observed climate change is 'very likely' the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. . . EPA had before it substantial record evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases 'very likely' caused warming of the climate over the last several decades. . ."

 

    On the subject of the Endangerment Finding being arbitrary and capricious and "just a "subjective conviction" of EPA, the Appeals Court said in part, "EPA relied on a substantial record of empirical data and scientific evidence, making many specific and often quantitative findings regarding the impacts of greenhouse gases on climate change and the effects of climate change on public health and welfare. Its failure to distill this ocean of evidence into a specific number at which greenhouse gases cause "dangerous" climate change is a function of the precautionary thrust of the CAA and the multivariate and sometimes uncertain nature of climate science, not a sign of arbitrary or capricious decision-making."

 

    On the subject of standing, the Appeals Court summarizes the arguments and its ruling as follows: "Petitioners fall far short of these 'irreducible constitutional . . . elements' of standing, id. at 560. Simply put, Petitioners have failed to establish that the Timing and Tailoring Rules caused them 'injury in fact,' much less injury that could be redressed by the Rules' vacatur. Industry Petitioners contend that they are injured because they are subject to regulation of greenhouse gases, Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 14. State Petitioners claim injury because they own some regulated sources and because they now carry a heavier administrative burden. State Pet'rs' Timing & Tailoring Br. 22–23. But as discussed above, see supra Part V, the CAA mandates PSD and Title V coverage for major emitters of greenhouse gases. Thus, Industry Petitioners were regulated and State Petitioners required to issue permits not because of anything EPA did in the Timing and Tailoring Rules, but by

automatic operation of the statute. Given this, neither the Timing nor Tailoring Rules caused the injury Petitioners allege: having to comply with PSD and Title V for greenhouse gases."

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a brief statement saying, "The Appeals Court's decision to unambiguously affirm EPA's clean air efforts to reduce dangerous carbon pollution is a big victory for the health of the American people."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA.), Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, released a statement saying, "Today's ruling is a grand slam for the EPA and the health of the American people, and another strikeout for the fossil fuel special interests trying to block clean energy progress. The DC Appeals Court now joins the Supreme Court in saying that climate science is sound and the EPA has the authority to regulate dangerous heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. Three years ago today, the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate and clean energy bill, and the problems addressed by that legislation remain with us today. With the science affirmed and the authority granted, EPA should continue their important work to address the greatest challenge of our generation in dealing with global warming. At the same time, Congressional Republicans should stop denying the science and start working with Democrats to craft more comprehensive and bipartisan responses to the threat posed by global warming."

 

    Sierra Club issued a release on the decision calling it "a sweeping victory for public health and clean air." Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club said, "Today's decision is a huge victory for American families and everyone concerned about protecting the air we breathe and the health of our children. The role of the Clean Air Act in protecting our families from dangerous carbon pollution and climate disruption should never have been in doubt, and this decision is a big step forward in putting the well-being of Americans before the boundless profits of big polluters. Carbon pollution is dangerous to our planet and our health. The Environmental Protection Agency has the right and the duty to keep our communities healthy and now the path is clear for them to curb this dangerous pollution, which threatens our families and planet. We applaud the court's decision and stand with the EPA as they continue to fight for the health of American families."

 

    Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's ruling by the court confirms that EPA's common sense solutions to address climate pollution are firmly anchored in science and law. This landmark decision will help secure a healthier and more prosperous future for all Americans. Today is a good day for climate progress in America and for the thin layer of atmosphere that sustains life on Earth." EDF's outside legal counsel Sean Donahue, who presented oral arguments to the court in defense of these protections said, "EPA's reasonable steps to reduce climate pollution will benefit our environment, our economy, our health and our national security. Today's court ruling will help our country move forward toward a clean energy future."

 

    [Note: No immediate reaction to the ruling was available from industry or state government participants at press time.]

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). [#Climate, #Air, #MIAir, #MIClimate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

Two Reports On U.S. Atlantic & Pacific Sea Level Rises

Jun 24: Two separate reports, one by the U.S. Geological Survey and the other by the National Academy of Sciences, warn of rising sea levels along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the fact that levels are rising at faster than average rates.

 

    The report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published in Nature Climate Change, indicates that the rates of sea level rise are increasing three-to-four times faster along portions of the U.S. Atlantic Coast than globally. Since about 1990, sea-level rise in the 600-mile stretch of coastal zone from Cape Hatteras, NC to north of Boston, MA -- coined a "hotspot" by scientists -- has increased 2 - 3.7 millimeters per year; the global increase over the same period was 0.6 – 1.0 millimeter per year. Based on data and analyses included in the report, if global temperatures continue to rise, rates of sea level rise in this area are expected to continue increasing.

 

    USGS indicated that the report shows that the sea-level rise hotspot is consistent with the slowing of Atlantic Ocean circulation. Models show this change in circulation may be tied to changes in water temperature, salinity and density in the subpolar north Atlantic. USGS Director Marcia McNutt said, "Many people mistakenly think that the rate of sea level rise is the same everywhere as glaciers and ice caps melt, increasing the volume of ocean water, but other effects can be as large or larger than the so-called 'eustatic' rise. As demonstrated in this study, regional oceanographic contributions must be taken into account in planning for what happens to coastal property."

 

    USGS said that though global sea level has been projected to rise roughly two-to-three feet or more by the end of the 21st century, it will not climb at the same rate at every location. Differences in land movements, strength of ocean currents, water temperatures, and salinity can cause regional and local highs and lows in sea level.

 

    A separate report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC), released on June 22, indicates that the sea level off most of California is expected to rise about one meter over the next century, an amount slightly higher than projected for global sea levels, and will likely increase damage to the State's coast from storm surges and high waves.  Sea levels off Washington, Oregon, and northern California will likely rise less, about 60 centimeters over the same period of time.  However, the report warns that an earthquake magnitude 8 or larger in this region could cause sea level to rise suddenly by an additional meter or more. 

 

    Global sea level rose during the 20th century, and projections suggest it will rise at a higher rate during the 21st century. A warming climate causes sea level to rise primarily by warming the oceans -- which causes the water to expand -- and melting land ice, which transfers water to the ocean. However, as also indicated in the USGS paper, sea-level rise is uneven and varies from place to place. Along the U.S. west coast it depends on the global mean sea-level rise and regional factors, such as ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, melting of modern and ancient ice sheets, and tectonic plate movements. California Executive Order S-13-08 directed State agencies to plan for sea-level rise and coastal impacts and asked the Research Council to establish a committee to assess sea-level rise. Oregon, Washington, and several Federal agencies joined California to sponsor the study.  The report estimates sea-level rise both globally and for those three states for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100.  

 

    The committee that wrote the report projected that global sea level will rise 8 to 23 centimeters by 2030, relative to the 2000 level, 18 to 48 centimeters by 2050, and 50 to 140 centimeters by 2100. The 2100 estimate is substantially higher than the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projection made in 2007 of 18 to 59 centimeters with a possible additional 17 centimeters if rapid changes in ice flow are included. 

 

    The NAS report indicates that extreme events could raise sea level much faster than the rates projected by the committee. For example, they say an earthquake magnitude 8 or greater north of Cape Mendocino, which occurs in this area every several hundred to 1,000 years with the most recent in 1700, could cause parts of the coast to subside immediately and the relative sea level to rise suddenly by a meter or more. 

 

    The report indicates that most of the damage along the west coast is caused by storms, particularly the confluence of large waves, storm surges, and high tides during El Niño events. Significant development along the coast -- such as airports, naval air stations, freeways, sports stadiums, and housing developments -- has been built only a few feet above the highest tides. For example, the San Francisco International Airport could flood with as little as 40 centimeters of sea-level rise, a value that could be reached in several decades. The committee also ran a simulation that suggested sea-level rise could cause the incidence of extreme water heights in the San Francisco Bay area to increase from about 9 hours per decade, to hundreds of hours per decade by 2050, and to several thousand hours per decade by 2100.

 

    Access a release on the USGS report and link to the complete report (click here). Access a release on the NAS report and link to the complete report (click here). [#Climate, #Water]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

Rio+20 Adopts "The Future We Want" Declaration

Jun 22: At the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 20 to 22 June 2012, the Heads of State and Government and high-level representatives, from more than 190 countries issued a 53-page declaration entitled, "The Future We Want.'' So early reactions to the widely publicized meeting are included below from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). A link to the full declaration is provided below.

 

    UCS released comments on what they called the "political declaration" Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at UCS issued a statement saying:

"The political declaration issued by leaders in Rio has no hope of giving the peoples of the world 'the future we want.' Without much stronger action, we are clearly headed for a future we can't live with -- and quicker than most leaders realize.

 

"The message from scientists and other experts is crystal clear: humanity is placing stresses on the Earth's carrying capacity that threaten the health and wellbeing of both current and future generations. The response to this threat from world leaders in Rio is totally inadequate, as many of them would readily admit. Today's declaration is the result of several factors: the focus of most leaders on current short-term economic challenges, the untoward influence of corporate polluters over public policy, and sharp divisions among countries on key issues such as equity and finance.

 

"But Rio also saw numerous initiatives launched and commitments made by countries, companies and other actors. More than 400 companies which comprise the Consumer Goods Forum pledged to achieve zero net deforestation in their supply chains by 2020. While collectively these initiatives are significant and offer some hope, they simply aren't adequate to the scale of the challenges we face.

 

"Fortunately, we have the solutions we need, and they are far more affordable than the impacts we will suffer if we don't implement them.  For example, the cost of electricity from clean renewable sources has dropped significantly in recent years, and there are tremendous opportunities to use energy more efficiently in every sector of our economies. What's in short supply is political will by leaders to rise above pressure from polluters and their own short-term thinking, and do the right thing for the future of all of us. 

 

"Despite the disappointing outcome in Rio, we will continue to press for the actions  to move us onto the sustainable path the people of the world deserve." 

    NRDC President Frances Beinecke commented on the overall summit saying:

"Government negotiators at the Rio+20 Earth Summit did not produce the prescription for the planet that is needed. But you can't save the planet with a document.

"That does not mean Rio+20 was a failure. Some 50,000 people attended and hundreds of thousands more participated virtually to make their voices heard like never before. Countries, communities and companies worldwide announced hundreds of individual commitments to instigate real change - irrespective of any United Nations document.

"It's unequivocally clear now that we can't depend only on the slow wheels of bureaucracy and government negotiators to address the urgent problems our planet faces.

"But it's also clear from what we witnessed in Rio that we can – and must - harness the collective power and will of individuals worldwide to hold our government leaders accountable while simultaneously taking real action on our own to leave a better world for our children.

"Rio+20 showed us what we can and must do. It's just the starting place for real action."

    Access the complete Rio+20 declaration (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access the release from NRDC which includes additional comments from the NRDC delegation (click here). Access the Rio+20 website for complete details (click here). Access more information on Rio+20 (click here). [#Sustain, #Climate, #Energy]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals