Hill Heat

Witnesses

• James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator for Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances, United States Environmental Protection Agency
• John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources & Environment, U.S. Government and Accountability Office

Panel 2

• Linda Giudice MD, PhD, Chair, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences Department, University of California, San Francisco
• Annette Gellert, Co-Founder and Chair, WELL Network
• V.M. DeLisi, Fanwood Chemical, Inc., On behalf of the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturers Association
• Laura Plunkett, Ph.D, Integrative Biostrategies, LLC
• Lynn R. Goldman, MD, MPH, Chair, Interdepartmental Program in Applied Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Health, Johns Hopkins University

E&E News:

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will meet tomorrow to discuss changes U.S. EPA made earlier this month to a key chemical database that would allow federal stakeholders, scientists and the public to weigh in early in the chemical risk assessment process.

The agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) provides access to research on chemicals found in the environment and their potential health effects. The risk assessments are used to create public health standards.

Under the new plan, EPA not only would invite other agencies to participate in the risk assessment process earlier but also would hold listening sessions to “allow for broader participation and engagement of interested parties,” according to the agency’s Research and Development Office. EPA also said the changes would result in an even more rigorous scientific peer review of IRIS assessments.

EPW Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the changes would be problematic. “They put politics before science by letting the White House and federal polluters derail EPA’s scientific assessment of toxic chemicals,” she said in a statement.

The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue a report that addresses Boxer’s concerns (Greenwire, April 11).

But some Republicans hope the hearing will give EPA a chance to promote the progress they have made on knowing and understanding the many chemicals that are out in the public sphere.

“The perception is that there are all of these chemicals in commercial use that EPA doesn’t know about,” said a Republican aide to the committee. “We think that’s erroneous. EPA has done a good job in recent years to try to increase what we know about the risks and toxicity [of chemicals]. It’s done a lot through voluntary steps, as well as some statutory ones, so I think it’s important that EPA talk about what they’ve been doing.”

Witnesses:

Panel I

• Rick Schultz, National Borderland Coordinator, Department of the Interior
• Ronald D. Vitiello, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, Office of Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security
• The Honorable Chad Foster, Mayor, City of Eagle Pass, Texas
• Ned Norris Jr., Chairman, Tohono O’odham Nation
• Juliet V. Garcia, Ph.D, President, University of Texas at Brownsville and Southmost College

Panel 2

• The Most Rev. Raymundo J. Pena, Bishop of Brownsville
• Betty Perez, Local private land owner
• Rosemary Jenks, Director, Government Relations, NumbersUSA
• Joan Neuhaus Schaan, Executive Director, Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council

Panel 3

• John McClung, President and CEO, Texas Produce Association
• Ken Merritt, Private Citizen Laura Peterson, Senior Policy Advisor, Taxpayers for Common Sense
• Zack Taylor, Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Retired)

Lecture Hall Science, Engineering and Technology Building (SET-B) University of Texas-Brownsville

E&E News:

Two House subcommittees will be in Texas today to discuss the implications of the Homeland Security Department’s decision to bypass environmental laws and begin construction of 267 miles of fence along the U.S-Mexico border.

The House’s National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee and Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee will hold their joint field hearing at the University of Texas in Brownsville to hear from witnesses about the effect constructing a border fence will have on the environment and communities along the border.

Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced plans to use his authority under REAL ID to dismiss all environmental laws so it can finish building 470 miles of border fence by year’s end.

The waiver would allow the federal government to sidestep the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act and other cultural and environmental laws and regulations.

Officials at the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge in Texas have told Chertoff he would need to invoke his waiver authority to build the fence through the refuge, because the project would conflict with the refuge’s mission to protect important cross-border wildlife migration corridors.

Chertoff has previously invoked environmental exemptions for two other sections of the fence. The most recent waiver is by far the largest to date (Land Letter, April 3).

“The decision to invoke a waiver for fence construction will devastate the region and is an insult to those of us who live near the border,” Parks Subcommittee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said last week. “This administration believes that it is above the laws that protect the environment, health and human safety of border communities.”

Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club have challenged the REAL ID provision in court, and 14 members of Congress, including the chairmen of the Energy & Commerce, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Transportation, Rules, Intelligence, Veterans Affairs and Education and Labor committees, have indicated they wish to file an amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case (E&E Daily, April 8).

The hearing will also touch on Grijalva’s H.R. 2593, to allow DHS to determine the best approach to securing a particular area of the border, ranging from fences to detection technologies such as cameras and sensors to other options, and calls for full public input. It would also fund mitigation initiatives to address environmental impacts. It would also repeal the wavier authority granted to Chertoff under REAL ID.

Are all biofuels equal in terms of their capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to the use of gasoline? If not, what factors determine which biofuels have greater capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? What is the most reliable method of measuring a biofuel’s effectiveness for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? What role does land conversion make in determining the effectiveness of biofuels in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Which biofuels of the future are likely to result in maximal reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? How close are we to that future?

Moderator:

• Dr. Anthony Socci, Senior Science Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Speakers:

• Dr. Joseph E. Fargione, Regional Science Director, The Nature Conservancy, Central US Region, Minneapolis, MN
• Timothy Searchinger, Visiting Scholar and Lecturer in Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton, NJ
• Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy, Professor in the Energy and Resources Group Energy and Resources Group (ERG) , Professor of Public Policy in the Goldman School of Public Policy, Professor of Nuclear Engineering in the Department of Nuclear Engineering, and Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and Founding Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), University of California, Berkeley, CA
• Dr. G. David Tilman, Regents’ Professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Ecology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Program Summary

Biofuels: Threats and Opportunities

• It is possible to make biofuels that reduce carbon emissions, but only if we ensure that they do not lead to additional land clearing.
• When land is cleared for agriculture, carbon that is locked up in the plants and soil is released through burning and decomposition. The carbon is released as carbon dioxide, which is an important greenhouse gas, and causes further global warming.
• Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a “biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the annual greenhouse gas reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.
• Depending on future biofuel production, the effects of this clearing could be significant for climate change: globally, there is almost three times as much carbon locked up in the plants and soils of the Earth as there is in the air and 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions come from land use change.
• Global demand for food is expected to double in the next 50 years and is unlikely to be met entirely from yield increases, thus requiring significant land clearing. If existing cropland is insufficient to meet imminent food demands, then any dedicated biofuel crop production will necessarily create demand for additional cropland to be cleared.
• Several forms of biofuels do not cause land clearing, including biofuels made from algae, from waste biomass, or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials.

Present Generation of Biofuels: Reducing or Enhancing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Previous studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gasses because growing the crops for biofuels sequesters takes carbon out of the air that burning only puts back, while gasoline takes carbon out of the ground and puts it into the air. These analyses have typically not taken into consideration carbon emissions that result from farmers worldwide converting forest or grassland to produce biofuels, or that result from farmers worldwide responding to higher prices and converting forest and grassland into new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Our revised analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions from the land use changes described above, for most biofuels that use productive land, are likely to substantially increase over the next 30 years. Even advanced biofuels from biomass, if produced on good cropland, could have adverse greenhouse gas effects. At the same time, diverting productive land raises crop prices and reduces consumption among the 2.8 billion people who live on less than $2 per day.

Simply avoiding biofuels produced from new land conversion – as proposed by a draft European Union law – does not avoid these global warming emissions because the world’s farmers will replace existing crops or cropland used for biofuels by expanding into other lands. The key to avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and hunger from land use change is to use feedstocks that do not divert the existing productive capacity of land – whether that production stores carbon (as in forest and grassland) or generates food or wood products. Waste products, including municipal and slash forest waste from private lands, agricultural residues and cover crops provide promising opportunities. There may also be opportunities to use highly unproductive grasslands where biomass crops can be grown productively, but those opportunities must be explored carefully.

Biofuels and a Low-Carbon Economy

The low-carbon fuel standard is a concept and legal requirement in California and an expanding number of states that targets the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of energy delivered to the vehicle, or carbon intensity. In January 2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-1-07, which called for a 10-percent reduction in the carbon intensity of his state’s transportation fuels by 2020. A research team in which Dr. Kammen participated developed a technical analysis of low-carbon fuels that could be used to meet that mandate. That analysis employs a life-cycle, “cradle to grave” analysis of different fuel types, taking into consideration the ecological footprint of all activities included in the production, transport, storage, and use of the fuel.

Under a low-carbon fuel standard, fuel providers would track the “global warming intensity” (GWI) of their products and express it as a standardized unit of measure—the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent per amount of fuel delivered to the vehicle (gCO2e/MJ). This value measures vehicle emissions as well as other trade-offs, such as land-use changes that may result from biofuel production. For example, an analysis of ethanol shows that not all biofuels are created equal. While ethanol derived from corn but distilled in a coal-powered refinery is in fact worse on average than gasoline, some cellulosic-based biofuels – largely those with little or no impact on agricultural or pristine lands have the potential for a dramatically lower GWI.

Equipped with detailed measurements that relate directly to the objectives of a low-carbon fuel standard, policy makers are in a position to set standards for a state or nation, and then regulate the value down over time. The standard applies to the mix of fuels sold in a region, so aggressively pursuing cleaner fuels permits some percentage of more traditional, dirtier fuels to remain, a flexibility that can enhance the ability to introduce and enforce a new standard.

The most important conclusions from this analysis are that biofuels can play a role in sustainable energy future, but the opportunities for truly low-carbon biofuels may be far more limited than initially thought. Second, a low-carbon economy requires a holistic approach to energy sources – both clean supply options and demand management – where consistent metrics for actual carbon emissions and impacts are utilized to evaluate options. Third, land-use impacts of biofuel choices have global, not just local, impact, and a wider range of options, including, plug-in hybrid vehicles, dramatically improved land-use practices including sprawl management and curtailment, and greatly increased and improved public transport all have major roles to play.

Biofuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Better Path Forward

The recent controversy over biofuels notwithstanding, the US has the potential to meet the legislated 21 billion gallon biofuel goal with biofuels that, on average, exceed the targeted reduction in greenhouse gas release, but only if feedstocks are produced properly and biofuel facilities meet their energy demands with biomass.

A diversity of alternative feedstocks can offer great GHG benefits. The largest GHG benefits will come from dedicated perennial crops grown with low inputs of fertilizer on degraded lands, and especially from those crops that increase carbon storage in soil (e.g., switchgrass, mixed species prairie, and Miscanthus). These may offer 100% or perhaps greater reductions in GHG relative to gasoline. Agricultural and forestry residues, and dedicated woody crops, including hybrid poplar and traditional pulp-like operations, should achieve 50% GHG reductions.

In contrast, if biofuel production leads to direct or indirect land clearing, the resultant carbon debt can negate for decades or longer any greenhouse gas benefits a biofuel could otherwise provide. Current legislation, which is outcome based, has anticipated this problem by mandating GHG standards for current and next generation biofuels.

Biographies

Dr. Joseph E. Fargione is the Regional Science Director for The Nature Conservancy’s Central US Region. He received his doctorate in Ecology from the University of Minnesota in 2004. Prior to the joining The Nature Conservancy, he held positions as Assistant Research Faculty at the University of New Mexico (Biology Department), Assistant Professor at Purdue University (Departments of Biology and Forestry and Natural Resources), and Research Associate at the University of Minnesota (Departments of Applied Economics and Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior).

His work has focused on the benefits of biodiversity and the causes and consequences of its loss. Most recently, he has studied the effect of increasing demand for biofuels on land use, wildlife, and carbon emissions. He has authored 18 papers published in leading scientific journals, including Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Ecology, and Ecology Letters, and he was a coordinating lead author for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment chapter titled “Biodiversity and the regulation of ecosystem services.” His recent paper in Science, “Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt” was covered in many national media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, NBC Nightly News, and Time Magazine.

Timothy Searchinger is a Visiting Scholar and Lecturer in Public and International Affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. He is also a Transatlantic Fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and a Senior Fellow at the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute. Trained as a lawyer, Dr. Searchinger now works primarily on interdisciplinary environmental issues related to agriculture.

Timothy Searchinger previously worked at the Environmental Defense Fund, where he co-founded the Center for Conservation Incentives, and supervised work on agricultural incentive and wetland protection programs. He was also a deputy General Counsel to Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania and a law clerk to Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He is a graduate, summa cum laude, of Amherst College and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School where he was Senior Editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Timothy Searchinger first proposed the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to USDA and worked closely with state officials to develop programs that have now restored one million acres of riparian buffers and wetlands to protect important rivers and bays. Searchinger received a National Wetlands Protection Award from the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992 for a book about the functions of seasonal wetlands of which he was principal author. His most recent writings focus on the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, and agricultural conservation strategies to clean-up nutrient runoff. He is also presently writing a book on the effects of agriculture on the environment and ways to reduce them.

Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor in the Energy and Resources Group (ERG), in the Goldman School of Public Policy and in the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also the founding Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) and Co-Director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment.

Previously in his career, Dr. Kammen was an Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and also played a key role in developing the interdisciplinary Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program at Princeton as STEP Chair from 1997 – 1999. In July of 1998 Kammen joined ERG as an Associate Professor of Energy and Society.

Dr. Kammen received his undergraduate degree in physics from Cornell University (1984), and his masters and doctorate in physics from Harvard University (1986 & 1988) for work on theoretical solid state physics and computational biophysics. First at Caltech and then as a Lecturer in Physics and in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Dr. Kammen developed a number of projects focused on renewable energy technologies and environmental resource management.

Dr. Kammen’s research interests include: the science, engineering, and policy of renewable energy systems; health and environmental impacts of energy generation and use; rural resource management, including issues of gender and ethnicity; international R&D policy, climate change; and energy forecasting and risk analysis. He is the author of over 200 peer-reviewed journal publications, a book on environmental, technological, and health risks, and numerous reports on renewable energy and development. He has also been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Dr. G. David Tilman is Regents’ Professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Ecology at the University of Minnesota. He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, and has served on editorial boards of nine scholarly journals, including Science. He serves on the Advisory Board for the Max Plank Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany. He has received the Ecological Society of America’s Cooper Award and its MacArthur Award, the Botanical Society of America’s Centennial Award, the Princeton Environmental Prize and was named a J. S. Guggenheim Fellow. He has written two books, edited three books, and published more than 200 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, including more than 30 papers in Science, Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. The Institute for Scientific Information recently designated him as the world’s most highly cited environmental scientist of the decade.

Dr. Tilman’s recent research explores how managed and natural ecosystems can sustainably meet human needs for food, energy and ecosystem services. A long-term focus of his research is on the causes, consequence and conservation of biological diversity, including using biodiversity as a tool for biofuel production and climate stabilization through carbon sequestration. His work on renewable energy examines the full environmental, energetic and economic costs and benefits of alternative biofuels and modes of their production.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) invite you to a briefing that will examine the connection between transportation policy, urban development, land use planning, and the combined role they can play in reducing U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The briefing will address policy options to be considered as a component of any comprehensive GHG reduction strategy.

The briefing will focus, in particular, on trends in the distances and time that Americans spend driving each year due to changing land use patterns, limited alternatives, transportation policies, congestion, highway operations, and other factors. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects automobile and truck use (as measured by vehicle miles traveled or VMT) to increase 48 percent by 2030. Such trends would have major implications for traffic congestion and the capacity of the U.S. transportation system to efficiently move people and freight. Increases in GHG emissions due to these trends, if unaddressed, would outweigh GHG emission reductions expected from higher fuel-economy standards contained in the recently enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L.110-140). Goals to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign sources of oil would be more difficult to achieve under such trends.

ULI’s newly published book Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change surveys the best available research on the link between urban development trends, land use patterns, transportation alternatives, and greenhouse gas emissions, and identifies policy alternatives to promote more compact and energy-efficient development patterns and expand transportation choices including rail, transit, cycling, and walking. Representatives of transportation, real estate development, and local government interests will provide important perspectives on the challenges and feasibility of implementing such policies. Panelists include:

• Reid Ewing, Professor, University of Maryland, National Center for Smart Growth
• Steve Winkelman, Transportation Program Director, Center for Clean Air Policy
• Geoff Anderson, President, Smart Growth America
• John Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
• Chris Zimmerman, Chair, Northern Virginia Transportation Authority; Member, Arlington County Board
• Tom Darden,CEO, Cherokee Investment Partners LLC

The briefing will address key questions such as:

• What transportation and land use policy options would be most effective in reducing GHG emissions?
• What role can and should each level of government play in advancing such policy options?
• What are the trade-offs among policy options in terms of mobility, quality of life, and consumer choice?
• What are the opportunities and barriers to diversifying transportation choices for individuals and businesses?

This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required. Please forward this notice. For more information, contact Jan Mueller, 202-662-1883 or [email protected]

NOTE: Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) will hold a companion briefing with some of the same panelists later the same day on the House side, 2:30-4:00 pm, 2253 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Contact Paul Schmid, 202-225-1880, for more information.

Darren Samuelson of E&E News reports that Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), with assistance from the White House, is working on a legislative alternative to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191). The version of the plan that E&E News acquired included:

• Voluntary goals of 2006-level emissions by 2020 and 1990 levels by 2030
• Tax incentives for advanced coal and nuclear power
• A “backstop” cap-and-trade program

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report outlined the need for industrialized nations to achieve reductions of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, targets the Annex I Kyoto signatories recognized in Bali.

From E&E News:

On the other side of the climate debate, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) is taking the lead in writing his own climate change bill that could come up as an alternative to the Lieberman-Warner measure.

Sources on and off Capitol Hill started circulating details of Voinovich’s proposal last week. An executive summary of the Voinovich plan obtained yesterday by E&E Daily shows a plan heavy on tax incentives for new energy technologies such as “clean coal” and nuclear power, with a cap-and-trade program used as a backstop if the low- and zero-carbon energy sources do not meet certain milestones.

The summary said those milestones would be to reduce U.S. emissions to 2006 levels by 2020 and 1990 levels by 2030. Voinovich spokesman Chris Paulitz said yesterday that the summary was “well outdated,” though he did confirm the senator was working on alternatives.

“He’s trying to figure out a way to make the environment cleaner that doesn’t kill our economy,” Paulitz said. “Right now, there’s not a bill in the Senate that does those two things.”

Voinovich is getting help from the Bush administration on his climate proposal, as well as others. “We’re working with everybody who we can humanly think of,” Paulitz said. Of the White House, he added, “It’d be silly to exclude a branch of government that would play a key role.”

How other nations adapt to the impacts of climate change will affect critical U.S. security, economic, humanitarian, and environmental interests.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, developing countries face water scarcity, severe weather events, declining agricultural productivity, and increased disease. The consequences will undermine international stability and security as migration and refugee crises, conflicts linked to natural resource scarcity, and economic destabilization all increase.

In order to protect vital U.S. interests, and to promote global economic development, many advocates and governments are urging that the United States and other developed countries assist developing countries so they can adapt to the climate challenge. These issues have recently risen to the forefront both in international negotiations and in Congressional legislation.

Oxfam America and the UN Foundation invite you to a roundtable discussion with foreign policy experts, economists, scientists, non-governmental organizations, and Congressional staff to discuss these critical issues.

Presenters

• Nigel Purvis (moderator), Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment & Science and senior U.S. climate change negotiator; Visiting scholar at Resources for the Future and non-resident scholar at The Brookings Institution
• Dr. Saleem Huq, Director of the Climate Change Group, International Institute for Environment and Development; Coordinating Lead Author of the Adaptation and Mitigation chapter in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• Ambassador Angus Friday, Permanent Representative of Grenada to the United Nations; Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States
• Dr. William Cline, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development and the Institute for International Economics
• Dr. Sharon Hrynkow, Associate Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

This event is in cooperation with the office of Congressman Donald Payne.

Please RSVP to Mike Helms at Oxfam America at (202) 471-3050 or [email protected]

or Erica Fabo at the UN Foundation at 202-887-9040.

The Washington Conference will take place over two days. The first day will be an intensive expert workshop focusing on emissions from transport and biofuels use; this reflects concerns over the lack of action to address emissions from transport, rising concerns about expanded use of biofuels and pressure from some to include aviation, marine transport and road transport within cap and trade systems.

Day two will be a larger event designed to inform civil society more broadly about the differences and similarities between action in the EU and US, discuss best practice domestic solutions, demystify key policies such as the EU ETS etc. Discussions will predominantly focus on cap and trade, and the differing perceptions of actors on both sides of the Atlantic.

IEEP will be taking experts from the EU over to Washington for the event. European experts would take part in the workshop on day one, and potentially present ideas and concepts from a European perspective on day two.

If you would like to find out more about the conference please contact Sirini Withana (IEEP) or Melanie Nakagawa (NRDC).

For more information and background papers from previous T-PAGE discussions, visit the T-PAGE project website.

Location: 1616 P Street, NW, 1st Floor Conference Room
Resources for the Future building
Washington, DC 20036

From the Think Progress Wonk Room.

Alberto Gonzales brought disgrace to the Department of Justice as Attorney General, putting loyalty to the President above duty to the country, until the weight of numerous scandals forced his resignation in August 2007. As the New York Times described, he left “a Justice Department that has been tainted by political influence, depleted by the departures of top officials and weakened by sapped morale.”

Now all eyes are turning to Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—set up by President Nixon in 1970 to be an independent watchdog for the health of the environment and the American people. It has become clear that Johnson has subverted that mission, in contravention of science, ethics, and the law. What Gonzales did to Justice, Johnson is doing to the EPA.

On February 27, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) compared Johnson to Gonzales after a shameful performance before Congress. Two days later, unions representing more than 10,000 EPA career staff suspended their relationship with Johnson, citing his “failure to engage in good faith.” Yesterday, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a survey of staff scientists documenting widespread political interference during his tenure.

The most prominent examples of Johnson’s malfeasance are under investigation by Congress – the blatant disregard of the Supreme Court mandate to regulate greenhouse gases and allow states to do so as well, and the overruling of scientific recommendations on smog standards at the behest of President Bush.

However, there are numerous further acts exposed by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that are running below the radar:

• Refusing to enforce the agency’s “Principles of Scientific Integrity” involving fluoride drinking water standards, organophosphate pesticide registration, and control of mercury emissions from power plants.

• The shuttering of EPA’s network of technical libraries without waiting for Congressional approval in 2006 – to be reopened only with documents that undergo a political review.

• The abandonment of proposed rules protecting children and workers from lead paint in 2004 – rectified this March after years of lawsuits.

• Violating the Endangered Species Act in failing to consider the harmful effects of pesticides on Chinook salmon.

The common thread behind all these actions is service to corporate polluters above public health. PEER has also exposed increasing corporate influence on pesticide labelling, scientific research, assessement of the health risks of new chemicals, and even the drafting of rules to allow testing pesticides on children.

In December, EPA staff privately urged Johnson to resign if he denied the California waiver petition to regulate greenhouse gases. Last month, Sierra Club president Carl Pope called for the resignation of Johnson because “he is entirely a creature of the whim of the President, the vice president, and other White House officials.” Three weeks ago, Friends of the Earth followed suit.

Yesterday, Rep. Waxman sent a letter to Johnson about the UCS report, asking him to “be prepared to respond to its findings” in an Oversight Committee hearing in May.

Rep. Markey has replied to the EPA’s refusal to obey a Global Warming Committee subpoena. In his letter, Markey says the committee is willing to keep confidential any documents turned over until June 21. If the EPA does not agree to this accomodation by 6 PM tomorrow, the “Committee is prepared to proceed with all its legal rights,” including “a vote of contempt” for Johnson.

Witnesses

• Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office
• Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
• Henry Derwent CB, President and CEO, International Emissions Trading Association