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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Mayor Bloomberg Releases $20 Billion NYC Climate Risk Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Senate Votes To Approve Farm Bill (S.954) 66-27

Jun 10: The U.S. Senate passed Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow's (D-MI) 2013 Farm Bill -- S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 ) -- by a wide bipartisan margin, 66-27. Senator Stabenow indicated in a release that the bipartisan proposal which was supported by 16 Republicans, is one of the most significant reforms in decades. Two Democrats, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) and Jack Reed (RI) were the only Democrats who voted against the bill.

    The bill cuts $24 billion dollars in spending in agriculture programs by eliminating unnecessary direct payment subsidies, consolidating programs to end duplication, and cracking down on food assistance abuse. Sen. Stabenow said, "Reforming agriculture programs will save taxpayers billions of dollars while helping Michigan farmers, ranchers and small businesses create jobs. Because we worked across party lines to streamline programs, we were able to save tax dollars while investing in initiatives that help boost exports, help family farmers sell locally and spur innovations in new bio-manufacturing and bio-energy industries. Congress needs to work across the aisle to help spur job creation and reduce the deficit. I'm proud that the Senate was able to accomplish that with this Farm Bill."

    Stabenow was joined by Ranking Agriculture Committee Thad Cochran (R-MS) in introducing the bipartisan Farm Bill. A Farm Bill sets the nation's agriculture policy and must be passed every five years. If a new Farm Bill is not passed by September 30, the U.S. reverts back to 1940s agriculture policy, an antiquated patchwork of costly subsidies and other badly outdated programs. Just prior to the vote, Sen. Cochran said, "The Senate debate on the Farm Bill has included votes on a number of amendments over the last two weeks.  American agriculture producers deserve the certainty that comes with a strong five-year farm bill.  I'm pleased that we've come up with a bill that will meet that need. This legislation will provide farmers in all regions of the country with a robust and workable safety net, while also reducing by $24 billion dollars the cost of the programs authorized by current law. This Farm Bill will also encourage and reward protection of water, soil and forestry resources. This bill also authorizes and improves federal nutrition programs administered by the Department of Agriculture.  It contains reforms to the nutrition title to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse."

     U.S. House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) commented on the Senate approval saying, "Today's Senate vote brings us one step closer to having a new, five-year farm bill in place this year. Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran did an excellent job and I applaud their leadership. This process has gone on far too long but with the strong bipartisan support in the Senate, I'm optimistic the House will be able to consider our farm bill next week. It's going to be difficult but if everything stays on track, I believe it's possible to get a bill to the President before the August recess, finally providing some certainty for our farmers, ranchers and consumers."

    The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) commended the Senate for quickly moving forward to complete work on the bipartisan 2013 farm bill. AFBF President Bob Stallman said, "We appreciate the Senate's decision to protect and strengthen the federal crop insurance program and not reduce its funding, as well as the approval of a commodity program that provides farmers varied safety net options. This approach to farm policy will encourage farmers to follow market signals rather than basing planting decisions on anticipation of government farm benefits. Most importantly, the program will be viable because the Senate stood firm on a budget savings level of $24 billion. We now look forward to working with the House as it moves forward with its farm bill legislation. Timely completion of the farm bill will help provide farmers and ranchers certainty for the coming year and allow the Agriculture Department to plan for an orderly implementation of the bill's provisions."

    Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) said in part, "It has been a long process, but a very worthwhile one. After much thoughtful dialogue, the Senate passed a Farm Bill that is forward-looking and positive for America's renewable fuels industry. We believe the House, like the Senate, will also recognize the job-creating, value-added economic engine that the ethanol industry has become. In 2012, the ethanol producers across this country supported over 300,000 jobs. It is important to note the inclusion of programs like the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, and the Biorefinery Assistance Program. These programs signal Congress' desire to see more world-class innovation and deployment of ethanol and other renewable fuels into the marketplace. . . "

    A release from Senator Stabenow highlights that the Senate Farm Bill represents the most significant reform of American agriculture policy in decades. With the approved bill, the era of direct payments is over. Instead of subsidies that pay out every year even in good times, the bill creates risk management tools that support farmers when they are negatively impacted by weather disaster or market events beyond their control. By ending unnecessary subsidies, consolidating programs (eliminating over 100 programs and authorizations in all) and cracking down on abuse, the bill reduces the deficit by$24 billion -- over double the amount the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission ($10 billion) and Gang of Six ($11 billion) recommended in total agriculture cuts.

    The Senate's 2013 Farm Bill strengthens top priorities that help farmers, ranchers and small business owners create jobs. The current Farm Bill expires September 30th. A new Farm Bill must be passed this year to provide farmers the certainty they need to keep driving our economic recovery. Sixteen million jobs hang in the balance. Last year's similar Senate Farm Bill also passed the Senate with a wide bipartisan vote, 64-35. The Farm Bill is broadly supported by Democrats and Republicans across the country for its major reforms, common sense deficit reduction and strengthened job creation initiatives. The bill:

• Eliminates direct payments. Farmers will no longer receive payments when prices are rising and support is not needed. Ending these subsidies and creating responsible risk management is a major shift in American farm policy
• Caps remaining risk management support at $50,000 per person
• Ends Farm Payments to Non-Farmers. This bill closes the "management loophole," through which people who were not actually farming-in many cases not even setting foot on the farm-were designated as farm "managers" so they could receive farm payments
• Strengthens crop insurance and expands access so farmers are not wiped out by bad weather
• Includes disaster relief for producers hurt by drought, spring freeze, and other weather disasters
• Reforming farm programs, ending direct payments and implementing market-oriented programs to help farmers manage risk saves $16 billion dollars

    By eliminating duplicative programs, funds are concentrated in the areas in which they will have the greatest impact, reducing the deficit while strengthening top priorities. The Senate Farm Bill eliminates over 100 programs and authorizations under the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction. For example:

• The bill consolidates 23 existing conservation programs into 13 programs-while maintaining existing tools to protect and conserve land, water and wildlife
• The bill includes a landmark agreement making conservation compliance required for crop insurance, keeping crop insurance strong while protecting the natural resources on which farmers rely.
• Streamlining programs provides added flexibility and focuses conservation around four primary functions: working lands conservation, the Conservation Reserve Program, regional partnerships, and easements to help prevent sprawl and protect wetlands
• These reforms save money while still increasing resources for top priorities
• Changes to conservation policies are supported by nearly 650 conservation organizations from all 50 states

    At a time when many out-of-work Americans are in need of food assistance for the first time in their lives, it is more critical than ever that every dollar go to families in need. By closing loopholes, cracking down on abuse and improving program integrity, the Farm Bill reduces the deficit without cutting standard benefits or removing any needy family from the program. The Senate Farm Bill increases accountability in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The bill also increases efficiency and accountability, saving  billions while still strengthening agricultural jobs initiatives through:

• Export opportunities to help farmers find new global markets for their goods
• Help for family farmers to sell locally, increasing support for farmers' markets and spurring the creation of food hubs to connect farmers to schools and other community-based organizations
• Training and access to capital to make it easier for beginning farmers to get off the ground
• Initiatives to help American veterans start agriculture businesses
• Growth in bio-based manufacturing (businesses producing goods in America from raw agricultural products grown in America) to create rural agriculture and urban manufacturing jobs
• Innovation in bio-energy production, supporting non-food based advanced biomass energy production such as cellulosic ethanol and woody biomass power
• Research to promote the commercialization of new agricultural innovations
• Rural development initiatives to help rural communities upgrade infrastructure, extend broadband internet availability and create a better environment for small businesses

    Access a release from Sen. Stabenow (click here). Access a release from Sen. Cochran (click here). Access a release from Rep. Peterson (click here). Access a release from AFBF (click here). Access a release from RFA (click here). Access legislative details for S.954 including amendments and roll call votes (click here). [#Agriculture, #MIAgriculture, #Land, #Water, #Energy]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

President's Agreement With China On Advancing HFCs Control

Jun 8: President Obama and China's President Xi Jinping agreed on an important new step to confront global climate change. For the first time, the United States and China will work together and with other countries to use the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), among other forms of multilateral cooperation. A global phase down of HFCs could potentially reduce some 90 gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2050, equal to roughly two years worth of current global greenhouse gas emissions.

 

    According to a release from the White House, the agreement between the United States and China indicates, "Regarding HFCs, the United States and China agreed to work together and with other countries through multilateral approaches that include using the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs, while continuing to include HFCs within the scope of UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol provisions for accounting and reporting of emissions."

 

    HFCs are potent greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, and industrial applications. While they do not deplete the ozone layer, many are highly potent greenhouse gases. Their use is growing rapidly as replacements for ozone-depleting substances that are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Left unabated, HFC emissions growth could grow to nearly 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, a serious climate mitigation concern.

    The Montreal Protocol was established in 1987 to facilitate a global approach to combat depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Every country in the world is a party to the Protocol, and it has successfully phased out or is in the process of phasing out several key classes of chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons. The transitions out of CFCs and HCFCs provide major ozone layer protection benefits, but the unintended consequence is the rapid current and projected future growth of climate-damaging HFCs.

    For the past four years, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. The amendment would gradually reduce consumption and production and control byproduct emissions of HFCs in all countries, and require reporting in these areas. The amendment includes a financial assistance component for countries that can already access the Protocol's Multilateral Fund, and leaves unchanged the reporting and accounting provisions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol on HFC emissions.

    President Obama commented at a press briefing, following the bilateral meeting at Sunnylands Retreat in Rancho Mirage, CA, ". . . for example, neither country by itself can deal with the challenge of climate change. That's an issue that we'll have to deal with together. China as the largest country, as it continues to develop, will be a larger and larger carbon emitter unless we find new mechanisms for green growth. The United States, we have the largest carbon footprint per capita in the world; we've got to bring down our carbon levels in order to accommodate continued growth. And so that will translate then into opportunities for specific work around green technologies and research and development, and interactions between our scientists so that we can, together, help advance the goal of a sustainable planet, even as we continue to grow and develop."

    In June 2012, EPA release a 23-page document entitled, "Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol." According to the document, "Although safe for the ozone layer, the continued emissions of HFCs -- primarily as alternatives to ODS but also from the continued production of HCFC-22 -- will have an immediate and significant effect on the Earth's climate system. Without further controls, it is predicted that HFC emissions could negate the entire climate benefits achieved under the Montreal Protocol. HFCs are rapidly increasing in the atmosphere. HFC use is forecast to grow, mostly due to increased demand for refrigeration and air conditioning, particularly in Article 5 countries. There is a clear connection to the Montreal Protocol's CFC and HCFC phaseout and the increased use of HFCs. However, it is possible to maintain the climate benefits achieved by the Montreal Protocol by using climate-friendly alternatives and addressing HFC consumption.

 

    "Recognizing the concerns with continued HFC consumption and emissions, the actions taken to date to address them, the need for continued HFC use in the near future for certain applications, and the need for better alternatives, Canada, Mexico and the United States have proposed an amendment to phase down HFC consumption and to reduce byproduct emissions of HFC-23, the HFC with the highest GWP. The proposed Amendment would build on the success of the Montreal Protocol, rely on the strength of its institutions, and realize climate benefits in both the near and long-term."

 

    Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) welcomed the announcement by the Unites States and Chinese Heads of State regarding HFCs. He said, "The signal from [President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping] is important as both a confidence builder and if it paves the way to a universal agreement involving all nations that reflects the science of where all emissions are today and where they need to be by a series of deadlines beginning with 2020. The announcement could signal a new and perhaps transformational chapter in international cooperation on climate change. It is widely recognized that securing a meaningful treaty and keeping an average global temperature rise under 2 degrees C this century will require all hands on deck -- what, however, must not be overlooked or sidelined is the urgency to also tackle the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, as part of negotiations underway under the UN Climate Convention."

 

    Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a release stating, "The agreement with China to address HFCs is a tremendous accomplishment for the President and his diplomatic team, and a big step forward on climate. The United States and China working together to tackle climate change is a major breakthrough.  A global phase-down of HFCs would eliminate more heat-trapping gases by 2050 than the United States emits in an entire decade." According to the release, the four co-chairs of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change -- Rep. Waxman, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) -- wrote President Obama on June 5 to urge him to seek the support of Chinese President Xi Jinping for the U.S. proposal. 

 

    Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) President Fred Krupp issued a statement on the agreement saying, "This is a significant step forward for the two nations that are the largest emitters of greenhouses gases. It's the kind of international cooperation we'll need to drive a comprehensive solution. Climate change will have huge economic costs on both sides of the Pacific, and the solutions to climate change – like leadership on clean energy technologies – offer enormous economic benefits. These two leaders know it is in their national interests to move forward. The two presidents met in California, home of the most ambitious climate law in the United States. They agreed to 'work together and with other countries to use the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons' (HFCs), potent man-made greenhouse gases used in air conditioning and refrigeration. A recent report from the World Resources Institute concluded that, '[e]liminating HFCs represents the biggest opportunity for GHG emissions reductions' other than power plants in the United States. The U.S. and China are the two biggest players in the international climate arena, and the fact that they're talking about cooperation is a pretty big deal. It's only one step forward, but a very positive one."

 

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said, "There are two big reasons to be hopeful about this important agreement between the United States and China. First, this is a significant step in curbing the use of a climate-disrupting pollutant that was only expected to skyrocket. Second, this is a clear sign that when President Obama meets with leaders of the world's largest economies, our climate crisis is at the top of the agenda. If we do not act to confront the climate crisis, our economies, our families, and our future are at risk. The extreme weather that has devastated our nation and our planet in recent months should serve as a wake-up call for our leaders. The fact that this agreement was one of the first things announced following this important meeting between President Obama and President Xi is an indicator they are hearing the ringing alarm."

    Access a release from the White House on the Agreement (click here). Access the comments of the President and President Xi at the press briefing (click here). Access a press briefing by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon on the U.S. - China meeting with mention of the HFC agreement (click here). Access the EPA 2012 document (click here). Access an overview and link to a summary and the full text of the 2013 North American Amendment Proposal to Address HFCs under the Montreal Protocol (click here). Access a release from UNEP (click here). Access a release from Rep. Waxman and link to the letter to the President (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Administration Proposes To End Gray Wolf ESA Protection

Jun 7: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) proposed to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of threatened and endangered species. According to a release, the proposal comes after a comprehensive review confirmed its successful recovery following management actions undertaken by Federal, state and local partners following the wolf's listing under the Endangered Species Act over three decades ago. The Service is also proposing to maintain protection and expand recovery efforts for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in the Southwest, where it remains endangered.

    Under the proposal, state wildlife management agency professionals would resume responsibility for management and protection of gray wolves in states where wolves occur. FWS said, "The proposed rule is based on the best science available and incorporates new information about the gray wolf's current and historical distribution in the contiguous United States and Mexico." It focuses the protection on the Mexican wolf, the only remaining entity that warrants protection under the Act, by designating the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies.

    In the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains, the gray wolf has rebounded from the brink of extinction to exceed population targets by as much as 300 percent. Gray wolf populations in the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct and Western Great Lakes Population Segments were removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 2011 and 2012.

    FWS Director Dan Ashe said, "From the moment a species requires the protection of the Endangered Species Act, our goal is to work with our partners to address the threats it faces and ensure its recovery. An exhaustive review of the latest scientific and taxonomic information shows that we have accomplished that goal with the gray wolf, allowing us to focus our work under the ESA on recovery of the Mexican wolf subspecies in the Southwest."

    The Service will open a 90-day comment period on both proposals seeking additional scientific, commercial and technical information from the public and other interested parties. The comment period will commence upon publication of the proposed rules in the Federal Register. Relevant information received during this comment period will be reviewed and addressed in the Service's final determination on these proposals, which will be made in 2014. The Service must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, within 45 days of the publication in the Federal Register.

    FWS said that the proposal is supported by governors and state wildlife agency leadership in each of the states with current wolf populations, as well as those that will assume responsibility for managing wolves dispersing into their states, such as Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah and North Dakota.

    The Service's comprehensive review determined that the current listing for gray wolf, which was developed 35 years ago, erroneously included large geographical areas outside the species' historical range. In addition, the review found that the current gray wolf listing did not reasonably represent the range of the only remaining of the Mexican wolf population in the Southwest. Gray wolves were extirpated from most of the Lower 48 states by the middle of the 20th century, with the exception of northern Minnesota and Isle Royale in Michigan. Subsequently, wolves from Canada occasionally dispersed south and successfully began recolonizing northwest Montana in 1986. In 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves from southwestern Canada were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

    In 2002 the Northern Rocky Mountain population exceeded the minimum recovery goals of 300 wolves for a third straight year, and they were successfully delisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 2012 and Western Great Lakes in 2011. Today, there are at least 6,100 gray wolves in the contiguous United States, with a current estimate of 1,674 in the Northern Rocky Mountains and 4,432 in the Western Great Lakes.

    The number of Mexican wolves continues to increase within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. During the 2012 annual year-end survey, the Mexican wolf Interagency Field Team counted a minimum of 75 Mexican wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, an increase over the 2011 minimum population count of 58 wolves known to exist in the wild. In addition to listing the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies, the Service proposes to modify existing regulations governing the nonessential experimental population to allow captive raised wolves to be released throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in the Apache and Gila National Forests east central Arizona and west central New Mexico, and to disperse into the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in the areas of Arizona and New Mexico located between I-40 and I-10.

    Noah Greenwald, endangered species director with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "This is like kicking a patient out of the hospital when they're still attached to life support. Wolves cling to a sliver of their historic habitat in the lower 48, and now the Obama administration wants to arbitrarily declare victory and move on. They need to finish the job that Americans expect, not walk away the first chance they get. This proposal is a national disgrace. Our wildlife deserve better." CBD indicated that wolves today occupy just 5 percent of their historic habitat in the continental United States. The proposal means that wolves will never fully reoccupy prime wolf habitat in the southern Rocky Mountains, California and Northeast, and will hinder ongoing recovery in the Pacific Northwest.

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune issued a statement saying, "Wolf recovery has been one of our greatest Endangered Species Act success stories, but stopping now before the population is fully recovered will negate the decades of hard work that have gone into bringing wolves back from the brink of extinction.  Without federal protections this symbol of our wild heritage will slide back into harm's way. We've seen the brutal assault on wolves that followed the loss of federal protections in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. Increasingly hostile anti-wolf policies by states in charge of ensuring wolves' survival don't bode well for the future of this majestic creature. Now is the time that we should be pressing in to finish the job of wolf recovery, not abandoning wolves to the same kinds of destructive forces that endangered them in the first place. We urge the administration to preserve protections for these amazing animals until the success story is complete."

    Access a release from FWS with links to more information on gray and Mexican wolves, supporting comments, including the proposed rules and commenting procedures (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [#Wildlife]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

$384 Billion Needed For Drinking Water Systems Through 2030

Jun 4: U.S. EPA released results of a survey showing that $384 billion in improvements are needed for the nation's drinking water infrastructure through 2030 for systems to continue providing safe drinking water to 297 million Americans. EPA's fifth Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment identifies investments needed over the next 20 years for thousands of miles of pipes and thousands of treatment plants, storage tanks and water distribution systems, which are all vital to public health and the economy. The national total of $384 billion includes the needs of 73,400 water systems across the country, as well as American Indian and Alaska Native Village water systems. 

    EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe said, "A safe and adequate supply of drinking water in our homes, schools and businesses is essential to the health and prosperity of every American. The survey EPA released today shows that the nation's water systems have entered a rehabilitation and replacement era in which much of the existing infrastructure has reached or is approaching the end of its useful life. This is a major issue that must be addressed so that American families continue to have the access they need to clean and healthy water sources."

    The survey, required under the Safe Drinking Water Act to be submitted to Congress every four years by EPA, was developed in consultation with all 50 states and the Navajo Nation. The survey looked at the funding and operational needs of more than 3,000 public drinking water systems across the United States, including those in Tribal communities, through an extensive questionnaire. In many cases, drinking water infrastructure was reported to be 50-100 years old. The assessment shows that improvements are primarily needed in: Distribution and transmission: $247.5 billion to replace or refurbish aging or deteriorating lines; Treatment: $72.5 billion to construct, expand or rehabilitate infrastructure to reduce contamination; Storage: $39.5 billion to construct, rehabilitate or cover finished water storage reservoirs; and Source: $20.5 billion to construct or rehabilitate intake structures, wells and spring collectors

    EPA allocates Drinking Water State Revolving Fund grants to states based on the finding of the assessment. These funds help states to provide low-cost financing to public water systems for infrastructure improvements necessary to protect public health and comply with drinking water regulations. Since its inception in 1997, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund has provided close to $15 billion in grants to all 50 states and Puerto Rico to improve drinking water treatment, transmission and distribution. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program has also provided more than $5.5 billion to protect drinking water in disadvantaged communities.

    According to a release, EPA said it is committed to utilizing the tools provided under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to assist states and to better target resources and technical assistance toward managing the nation's drinking water infrastructure. In addition to Drinking Water State Revolving Fund grants, EPA awarded nearly $15 million in funding in 2012 to provide training and technical assistance to small drinking and wastewater systems -- those serving fewer than 10,000 people -- and to private well owners to improve small system operations and management practices and to promote sustainability. EPA also works with states, municipalities and water utilities to strengthen the resiliency of drinking water systems against the potential impacts of severe weather events and climate change.

    EPA's estimates follow those by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) included in their 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure release in March of this year. ASCE gave the nation's drinking water infrastructure an overall grade of "D." ASCE indicated, "At the dawn of the 21st century, much of our drinking water infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life. There are an estimated 240,000 water main breaks per year in the United States. Assuming every pipe would need to be replaced, the cost over the coming decades could reach more than $1 trillion, according to the American Water Works Association [See WIMS 3/20/13].        

 

    Access a release from EPA and link to more information including the 86-page report and a fact sheet (click here). Access the 2013 ASCE Report Card including grades, state information, videos and interactive charts and links to the apps (click here). [#Drink]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Next Round Of Climate Change Meetings Begin In Bonn

Jun 3: Following the recent milestone announcement that CO2 levels have surpassed the critical 400 PPM benchmark [See WIMS 5/13/13]; and the bombshell disputed research announcement that CFC not CO2 have been driving recent warming trends and global cooling could possibly be in store for the next several decades [See WIMS 5/31/13, & related article below]; governments begin their next round of international climate change talks under the United Nations in Bonn, Germany today. The meeting resumes the second session of the "Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action" (ADP), which is tasked both to complete a universal climate agreement by 2015 that will come into force from 2020, and to find ways to increase the current inadequate level of global ambition to address human-generated climate change before the end of the decade.

    The ADP is resuming its work in parallel with the annual sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These bodies will play an essential role in the effective implementation of the outcomes of the recent UN Climate Change Conferences in Cancún (in 2010), in Durban (in 2011) and in Doha last year. During the first round of talks under the ADP in Bonn, which ended May 3 this year, governments undertook work on the main contours and central elements of the 2015 agreement, and also on a practical and results-oriented approach to raising immediate climate ambition.

    ADP Co-Chairs, Jayant Moreshver Mauskar and Harald Dovland said in a joint statement, "The first meeting this year demonstrated that the negotiation is on track to achieve the agreed milestones and objectives. We have already seen many areas of possible common ground. We hope that at this session, governments will build on these areas by engaging on topics where differences can be bridged and further enlarge common ground." In addition to round table discussions including on possible types of commitments and bottom-up and top-down elements in the new agreement, a special ADP workshop at the June meeting will focus on strengthening adaptation to climate change through the 2015 agreement. A workshop on pre-2020 ambition -- the third of its kind under the ADP -- will focus on energy, including on how to scale up renewable energy, enhance energy efficiency and consider carbon capture and storage.

    At a special interactive event on June 8, the ADP Co-Chairs will hear proposals from observer organizations on the question of how non-State actors can further contribute to collective action on climate change and how the 2015 agreement can catalyze such action by non-State actors. Observers not physically present in the room will be able to participate virtually via webcast from the UNFCCC website and on Twitter.

    UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said, "The negotiations are now in a crucial conceptual phase of the 2015 agreement, and need inputs from all relevant stakeholders. With growing numbers of countries enacting climate legislation, with investment in renewables growing and private sector attention to climate risk increasing, the negotiations can capture the energy and dynamism of all stakeholders, who in turn need to provide clear inputs as to where more ambition is possible, and where international policy guidance from governments can unleash even more action on their part." Figueres also underlined the importance of the SBSTA and SBI meetings to push forward the significant progress already made in creating an international response to climate change and to sustain a positive momentum towards the next annual UN Climate Change meeting in Warsaw, scheduled for November 11-22, 2013.

    She said, "While we negotiate the new universal agreement, we must not forget that governments must deliver on existing agreements related to finance, technology and capacity-building. Because of this, implementation of the agreed support systems must continue with the same urgency and focus as the ADP negotiation. I look forward to seeing success showcased across all key areas of climate action when we meet again in Warsaw."  

    In Bonn, the process of the in-depth review of the adequacy of the 2 degrees Celsius goal agreed by governments will begin. The review is a reality check on the advance of the climate change threat and the possible need to mobilize further action, and is set to conclude by 2015. Other key discussions include talks on institutional arrangements that provide the most vulnerable populations with better protection against loss and damage caused by slow onset events such as rising sea levels; on clarifying ways to measure deforestation; and on avoiding negative consequences of climate action.

    On June 11, at a special event, the International Energy Agency will present its latest World Energy Outlook Special Report "Redrawing the energy-climate map" to delegates, which will lay out important new insights into the future track of global greenhouse gas emissions. A special forum will also be held to create public awareness, increase public participation in climate change decision-making, and build capacity through climate change education and training. Press conferences held during the sessions will be announced on the UNFCCC website. The UNFCCC Executive Secretary is scheduled to give a closing press briefing on June 14.

    Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC Bonn meeting website for links to complete information and details (click here). Access detailed day-by-day coverage and summaries of the meeting from IISD (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC on the 400 ppm milestone (click here). Access a release on the QB-Lu research on CFC v. CO2 (click here). Access THE QB-Lu research paper on CFC v. CO2 (click here). [#Climate]

---

Climate Nexus Debunks Q-B Lu CFC v. CO2 Research - May 31: The nonprofit organization, Climate Science Watch, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate research effectively and with integrity and investigating and diagnosing the use and misuse of climate change research, has posted a guest posting from Climate Nexus indicating that research from Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics, astronomy, biology and chemistry at the University of Waterloo is "not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past."

 

    Q-B Lu's new peer-reviewed paper, published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B last week indicates that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide. Lu said, "Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong. In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming." Lu indicates that, ". . .since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined -- matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere. My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled  since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

 

    The Climate Nexus guest post entitled, "Qing-Bin Lu revives debunked claims about cosmic rays and CFCs," indicates, "This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu's claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years." Climate Nexus indicates "the facts" are:

• This theory has been considered and dismissed before. A 2010 report by the National Academies of Science was commissioned by Congress to examine all the evidence surrounding global warming including the theory that cosmic rays might influence Earth's climate. It concluded that "a plausible physical mechanism… has not been demonstrated" and "cosmic rays are not regarded as an important climate forcing."
• In 2011, a peer-reviewed paper found that Lu's conclusions "are based solely on correlation… do not have a physical basis… and the findings of the IPCC… remain unchallenged."
• In response to Lu's most recent publication, several different scientists interviewed by the Vancouver Sun each said that Lu's conclusions "[go] against 150 years of very fundamental physics."
• Critics point out that Lu's paper fails to make the leap from correlation to causation, one of the most basic and most common scientific failings. This error is simply illustrated in the classic fable of the rooster who believes the sun rises because he crows. Two things may happen at the same time, but this does not mean one causes the other. A "physical mechanism" by which the two events are connected must be known, in order to fully understand causation.
• In contrast, there is strong experimental evidence of the physical mechanism by which CO2 warms the planet, evidence that (as scientists have mentioned already in response to Lu) dates back 150 years.

    Climate Nexus is "a strategic communications group dedicated to highlighting the wide-ranging impacts of climate change and clean energy solutions in the United States. Since its founding in 2011, Climate Nexus has drawn upon established and emerging science to personalize and localize the climate and energy story through work with the media, relevant NGOs and other thought leaders. With backgrounds spanning the fields of environmental science, traditional and digital media, public affairs, corporate sustainability, consulting, environmental policy, and documentary filmmaking, we bring a diverse set of skills to the greater science, technology, public health and environmental communities. And that's a good thing, because we're here to help."

 

    Access guest posting on the Climate Science Watch blog with links to referenced information (click here). Access the Climate Nexus website for additional information (click here). Access a release on the QB-Lu research on CFC v. CO2 (click here). Access THE QB-Lu research paper on CFC v. CO2 (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

CFC Not CO2 Driving Warming; Cooling For 50-70 Years Possible

May 30: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week. A release from University of Waterloo indicates that CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science said, "Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong. In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

    Professor Lu said further, "Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined -- matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere. My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled  since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

    The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures. He said, "It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere. But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays -- energy particles originating in space -- play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

    Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. Professor Lu said, "CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling. After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere." By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere. He said, "The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs -- a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

    Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2 , suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002. The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu's CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Professor Lu said, "We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions. We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."

 

    Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science said, "This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change. This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate." The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2 -warming models.

 

    An article in the Vancouver Sun entitled, "Climate change claims raise eyebrows," indicates that Lu's research has "raised plenty of eyebrows among climate scientists." The article cites several researchers that question Lu's theory. For example, "Atmospheric physicist Kimberly Strong at the University of Toronto said she has not yet had a chance to review Lu's paper, but she takes issue with some of his 'bold claims' in the news release about the study issued by the university. . . She said Lu is 'cherry picking' data when he says the Earth has cooled since 2002. 'The overall trend is upward.'"

 

    Access a release from the University of Waterloo (click here). Access the journal abstract and information on obtaining the complete 38-page paper (click here). Access an article in the Vancouver Sun (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

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

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals