When the People Lead….

by Matt DeNoto

There is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that Congress seems well on its way to passing through a cap-and-trade scheme to begin the process of lowering our country’s carbon pollution.

The White House had been pressing for the cap-and-trade program to start with 100% of the pollution permits being auctioned off. This would give companies the financial incentive to begin thinking about ways to cut down on their carbon output now.

But the bill recently unveiled by the House of Representatives details a plan that would call for only 15-20% of the permits to be auctioned off. The large majority of the permits would be given away to the polluters.

That is the bad news. As if the mere numbers weren’t enough of a clue, it should also be taken as a bad sign that energy companies, such as Constellation Energy Group, Inc., are applauding the bill. If the people who should stand to lose the most money are praising the new system, it’s probably not going to be very effective.

I understand the arguments. If we force companies to pay for the right to pollute, those companies will simply pass those costs along to consumers. We, ultimately, will pay for the pollution.

And that’s the whole point. Just like businesses, we regular folk need incentives to clean up our act. Because it is our responsibility. Companies don’t pollute for the fun of it. They do it to create products and services that we, the public, pay them for.

Near the end of March, the Environmental Protection Agency finally announced that it had the authority to regulate Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant. Since then, not much has been done about it because lawmakers have stated that they would prefer to regulate CO2 through new legislation than through EPA regulation.

As I watch the legislative process at ‘work,’ I secretly hope that the Obama Administration is keeping the EPA under the radar to use as a secret weapon, in the event that Congress is unable to pass effective legislation.

In other words, if it turns out that ‘The American Clean Energy and Security Act’ is a lot of hot air that sets up a useless program with no chance of actually effecting real change, I hope the White House isn’t afraid to point out to the world that the legislative angle didn’t get the job done, but luckily the EPA still has the power to regulate the pollutants and it will enforce that power.

It’s depressing to have so little faith in our ‘representatives,’ knowing that nothing matters to them except the perception of their constituents and major contributors. Their habits seem so disconnected from the real world. When Clinton was in office and pushing for fiscal responsibility, Congress abided by the Pay-Go practice, not submitting for new spending without finding somewhere appropriate to cut in order to pay for the new program. When Bush stripped away any sense of idealism, Congress dove in head first, racking up a debt that now chokes us all and still somehow getting shockingly little done.

Now, with a new President actually trying to change things, the Congress seems incapable of making strong choices, bold decisions. In sports, it is sometimes said that the best offense is a good defense. In politics, it seems, there is only defense.

two things about the ocean

So first, comes a report that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate, the acidification of the ocean is a certainty and a “planet changer“.  One reason is because the coral life is expected to die off within the half century.

The ocean absorbs about 1/4 of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activities each year, which tempers the effect of this greenhouse gas on our climate. Carbonic acid is formed when the CO2 is dissolved in the seawater, which lowers the pH (increases the acidity). An acidic ocean reduces the rate at which corals can produce their skeletons and at which other marine organisms can build their shells. And so many other marine organisms are affected by anything that takes a toll on the corals. It’s estimated that the global economy based on coral (and other related marine life) is about $16 trillion per year.

On the heels of that report, comes this report where the EPA is looking into the idea that ocean acidification is a violation of the Clean Water Act.

 

The United States Environmental Protection Agencyannounced steps to protect U.S. waters from the threat of ocean acidification under the Clean Water Act. Today, EPA issued a notice of data availability to be published in the Federal Register that calls for information and data on ocean acidification that the agency will use to evaluate water-quality criteria under the Clean Water Act.

The notice responded to a formal petition and threatened litigation from the Center for Biological Diversity that sought to compel the agency to impose stricter pH criteria for ocean water quality and publish guidance to help states protect American waters from ocean acidification. EPA’s notice marks the first time that the Clean Water Act will be invoked by the agency to address ocean acidification.

“Ocean acidification is likely the greatest threat to the health of our oceans and is occurring at a frightening rate,” said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s oceans program. “The federal government has finally acknowledged that ocean acidification is a threat; now it must take the next step and fully implement the Clean Water Act to protect our nation’s waters from ”the other CO2 problem.”

 

All I want to say about this is that this is BIG, HUGE news.  Can you imagine if they find it is in violation and the limitations and restirictions that will then be enforced by everyone from big corporations to the US Navy.  

I like this Lisa Jackson….

in the news, 2.25

 

some news from around the world for today, 2.25.09

E.P.A. Is Told to Reconsider Its Standards on Pollutants, via the New York Times

Bush administration standards for pollutants like soot are “contrary to law and unsupported by adequately reasoned decisionmaking,” a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its standards for the pollutants, fine particulates, which are linked to premature death from lung cancer and heart disease and to other health problems including asthma.

Michael Pollan Fixes Dinner, via Mother Jones

MJ: The food activism community is criticized as being elitist, blind to the issues of cost. How do we democratize better quality?

MP: It is the important question. One of the problems is that the government supports unhealthy food and does very little to support healthy food. I mean, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup. We subsidize hydrogenated corn oil. We do not subsidize organic food. We subsidize four crops that are the building blocks of fast food. And you also have to work on access. We have food deserts in our cities. We know that the distance you live from a supplier of fresh produce is one of the best predictors of your health. And in the inner city, people don’t have grocery stores. So we have to figure out a way of getting supermarkets and farmers markets into the inner cities.

West blamed for rapid increase in China’s CO2, via the Guardian

The full extent of the west’s responsibility for Chinese emissions of greenhouse gases has been revealed by a new study. The report shows that half of the recent rise in China’s carbon dioxide pollution is caused by the manufacturing of goods for other countries – particularly developed nations such as the UK.

Last year, China officially overtook the US as the world’s biggest CO2 emitter. But the new research shows that about a third of all Chinese carbon emissions are the result of producing goods for export.

mercury rising

New data shows that mercury is present in high fructose corn syrup, which is the sweetener used for almost all of the products on the shelves of your neighborhood mega-mart.  The study was released through Environmental Health.

Mercury has been linked to learning disabilities in children and heart disease in adults. It is thought that the mercury is entering the sugary substitute during processing, thinking that it comes from the hydrochloric acid that is used to manufacture the product.  The toxin was detected in just under 50% of the total samples taken.

It is believed that, on average, Americans consume 12 teaspoons of HFCS, daily.  Although, it is expected that children ingest more than adults. 

There is no established safe dose for elemental mercury, the type discovered in corn syrup. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average-sized woman should limit her exposure to 5.5 micrograms a day of methylmercury, the kind found in fish. If that same woman regularly ate corn syrup contaminated at the highest level detected in the study—0.57 micrograms per gram—the researchers estimated that she could end up consuming an amount of mercury that is five times higher than the EPA’s safe dose.

Given that HFCS is found in a very high percentage of products, it is safe to assume that we will be exposed to mercury, which was once thought to only be transferred through fish.  Now, it seems that anything we eat will do more harm than good.

epa overhaul

On the heels of Lisa Jackson’s approval as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Government Accountability Office has released a report saying that the EPA is flawed in its ability to assess toxic chemicals, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.

The report has concluded that the EPA lacks even the “basic information to say whether chemicals pose substantial health risks to the public. It says actions are needed to streamline and increase the transparency of the EPA’s registry of chemicals. And it calls for measures to enhance the agency’s ability to obtain health and safety information from the chemical industry.”

Stating that the EPA needs to be timely in determining health risks to the public but their system “is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because the EPA has been unable to keep its existing assessments current or to complete assessments of important chemicals of concern.” In the last year they completed 8 assessments with 70 uncompleted still pending. That is not fast enough for health and safety.

Strengthening the EPA has been recommended as a top priority for the Obama Administration.

detroit beware

Very quickly after taking office, many expect Barack Obama to hand down legislation that allows California to enforce their own greenhouse gas standards on automobiles, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Essentially, this would force any car company wanting to sell in these states to meet emissions requirements that they cannot meet right now.  

This has been at issue since 2002 when California decided to enact its own emissions laws. However, siding with the auto manufacturers, the EPA under the Bush Administration would not honor California’s new limits.  As a result, California sued the EPA and it has since been at a stand still.

The United States car companies will continue to fight this by saying that in order to meet demands car prices will have to increase.  Of course, foreign companies have been able to meet the standards for years, putting out domestic cars to shame. Unfortunately for carmakers, the industry’s top defender in Congress, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), lost his chairmanship of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee to Henry Waxman, a California Democrat known for an environment-first platform. 

Part of the problem, as well, is that the emissions standards will have a more difficult time being met with larger cars, forcing the companies to focus on smaller cars, which we know Detroit does not want to do.

Obama’s Dream Green Team

 

Today, at 12p EST, the United States of America welcomed our 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama.  While it is expected that he will assist this country out of its vast inadequacies created by the Bush Administration, the one great hope, is the ‘green’ hope.  Many have talked in the weeks past of the Dream Green Team. But, we felt that on this day, it bears reminding who is on this team and welcoming them in their leadership roles of combating climate change.

 

Dr. Steven Chu – Department of Energy

Nobel Prize winning physicist.  He has a sophisticated grasp of the complexities of global warming and a strong belief that it needs to be fought agressively.  He has long been an advocate to alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuel is necessary for our long term survival.

Lisa Jackson – Environmental Protection Agency

She comes from the post of serving as the New Jersey head of the  Department of Environmental Protection.  She has been a staunch defender of the environment in her state, setting policy on clean water, clean air, and land preservation.  During her confirmation hearings, many heard music when she said, “Science will be the backbone of what the EPA does.”

 

Jane Lubchenco – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Dr. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist and Professor of Zoology at Oregon State University.  Her expertise includes ocean ecosystems and the human/environment nexus: biodiversity, climate change, sustainability science, ecosystem services, marine reserves, coastal marine ecosystems, the state of the oceans and of the planet.

 

Carol Browner – Asst. to the President for Energy and Climate Change

She was the head of the EPA under President Clinton.  She believes that global warming is the greatest challenge we have ever faced.  She will act as a coordinator for environmental, energy, climate, transport and related matters for the federal government.

 

Nancy Sutley – White House Council on Environmental Quality

She is currently serving as the Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment of Los Angeles.  She brings with her more than a decade in senior environmental, energy and water policy-making positions in California. She also has experience dealing with budget and legislative matters at the state and federal level.

 

Dr. John Holdren – White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dr. Holdren is a professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.  His work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy. 

bpa: investigated and reported

In this incredible piece from Fast Company Magazine, BPA is summarized: it’s history and why the government doesn’t want to claim it’s dangerous. Making about $6 billion per year for chemical companies, you can see why there is a strong desire to keep it legal.

The article is long, about eight pages, so as always below are some excerpts.  But in all seriousness, this is an amazing write-up.  Please give David Case (the author) the visibility it deserves.  

Along side a wonderful history lesson, there is also some interesting information about the “independent research” performed by the chemical companies.  Including the hiring of Sciences, an independent lab, that has, in the past, done some deceitful things to help out other harmful industries, like tobacco.  It should be noted that Sciences was started by a woman that also helped start the EPA.

-How could our nation’s health watchdogs reach such divergent conclusions? Are we being unnecessarily scared by the NTP? Or could the FDA be sugarcoating things? What exactly is going on?  We went on a journey to find out. What we learned was shocking. To some degree, the BPA controversy is a story about a scientific dispute. But even more, it’s about a battle to protect a multibillion-dollar market from regulation. In the United States, industrial chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise. As a result, the vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals registered to be used in products have never undergone a government safety review. Companies are left largely to police themselves.

-Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted — 14 in all — has found no such effects .  It is the industry-funded studies that have held sway among regulators. This is thanks largely to a small group of “product defense” consultants — also funded by the chemical industry — who have worked to sow doubt about negative effects of BPA by using a playbook that borrows from the wars over tobacco, asbestos, and other public-health controversies.

-But Fast Company has learned that Sciences’ conflicts of interest went even deeper. The firm had passed its verdict on BPA, under oath, even before it began the government review. In 2003, Sciences provided expert testimony for the defense in a lawsuit over BPA. On an archived page of the firm’s Web site, the company bragged that, for a private client, it had acted as an expert witness “challenging the validity” of the science on BPA’s health risks. “The case was decided in favor of the defendants,” the site said. (Anderson, who sold Sciences for $5.1 million in 2001 and left for rival Exponent in 2006, confirmed by email that the testimony happened but declined to provide details. Herman Gibb, who took over as president of Sciences, says the staff working on the CERHR contract was not aware of the testimony.)

The NIH terminated the Sciences contract in April 2007, and the firm is now down to four employees. The Environmental Working Group has since reported that Sciences had client relationships with the makers of nearly every chemical it reviewed under the CERHR contract.

** photos by Nigel Cox, taken from Fast Company article

last minute gift

In a last minute gift to chemical manufacturers, the Bush Administration issued a controversial health advisory on drinking water contaminated with a toxic chemical released when making Teflon and other non-stick coatings.

The EPA is “advising people to reduce consumption of water containing more than 0.4 parts per billion of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA — a level critics say is not strict enough. Studies have shown the chemical, which is linked to cancer, liver damage and birth defects, has built up in human blood throughout the world.”

Many had felt that the acceptable limit had to be reduced down to 0.2 parts per billion, which is why many are saying this is another win for companies such as DuPont, who makes the chemical.  It should be noted that Obama’s pick to head the EPA, reduced the acceptable level to 0.04 ppb in her state of New Jersey, ten times lower than the Federal limits.

PFOA and related chemicals concern other scientists and regulators because the compounds don’t break down and they stay in human blood for at least four years. They have also shown up in foods such as apples, bread, beans and ground beef.  More than likely due to a transfer from the contaminated water.

More information is available through the Chicago Tribune.

another midnight regulation passed

 

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule yesterday that will make it easier for industrial plants, refineries and paper mills to expand operations without applying for new pollution permits under the Clean Air Act, according to the Washington Post.

This is another rule under the seemingly endless list of rules the Bush is trying to get passed in the last few days in office.  This would affect approximately 3,500 facilities nationwide, and will make it easier for them to expand without regard for the increase in pollution.

The EPA says that they felt that any expansion that will be done will have a negligible affect on air quality.  Everyone else seems to whole heartedly disagree.

Next Page »