National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Report
Advisory panel expected to put gas tax increase plan before House committeeAlex Kaplun, E&E Daily reporter
A House panel is poised to open a debate this week into increasing the federal gas tax as a means for funneling additional dollars toward bridge repairs, highway construction and other transportation projects.
The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing Thursday to examine a report from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which is expected to outline a series of recommendations for improving the country’s transportation infrastructure.
The report will not be formally released until tomorrow morning but reports late last week indicate that the majority of the 12-member panel will endorse raising the gas tax to pay for a wide range of transportation initiatives. The size of the proposed increase to the 18.4 cent per gallon tax remains unclear and could range from as little as a dime or as much as a quarter per gallon.
Three members of the panel – including Transportation Secretary Mary Peters – are expected to oppose the increase. The Bush administration has consistently opposed any boost to the gas tax, arguing that it is an inefficient way to pay for future transportation projects.
Still, several key lawmakers in the last couple years have said that Congress should explore increasing the tax to inject extra dollars into federal transportation funds that are failing to keep up with the nation’s needs. But the idea has yet to gain any significant traction on Capitol Hill.
In the wake of last summer’s Minnesota bridge collapse, T&I Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) proposed a temporary five-cent gas tax increase to repair and replace bridges across the United States. The increase would sunset after three years and raise roughly $25 billion over that period.
Oberstar’s plan never made it out of committee before the end of the last session of Congress. It remains to be seen whether he will try to revive a similar plan this year.
But one influential Republican has already come out against any proposal to increase the gas tax, saying that it would place an extra burden on consumers without substantially increasing federal transportation dollars.
“This is a disappointment and probably even a big waste of tax dollars. A special commission came up with an old, cold, bad idea,” said Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “Raising the gas tax puts the brunt of the long-term trust fund expenses on automobile drivers, when diesel trucks and other heavy vehicles also use the highways.”
Administration Perspectives on United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali
The House begins a new round of global warming hearings this year.
Witness- James Connaughton, chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality
CLIMATE: Key Republican deals blow to House Dems’ emissions plans (01/17/2008)Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire senior reporter
The top Republican on a key House subcommittee signaled today he won’t support a global warming bill that puts mandatory limits on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
“While I feel strongly that addressing climate change is certainly important, I believe we must address this through a global, voluntary framework that focuses on innovations in technology rather than a pure government mandate,” said Michigan’s Fred Upton, the new ranking member of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee.
Upton replaced former House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois this year as the senior Republican on the panel that is tasked with writing climate legislation. During last year’s global warming debate, Hastert’s efforts and comments raised some Democrats’ hopes that he would support a bipartisan agreement on curbing U.S. emissions.
But Hastert resigned from Congress late last year, leaving an opening for Upton, an 11-term lawmaker from Michigan’s southwestern corner.
In his opening statement at the subcommittee’s first hearing this year, Upton poured cold water on the prospect that Democrats will get help from the top of the Republican roster.
“At the end of the day, we’ll need to demonstrate that the price paid in both jobs and dollars equates to some tangible environmental benefits to the American people,” Upton said. “In my view, spending trillions of dollars and losing a countless number of jobs, to maybe alter temperatures by a tenth of a degree, while China and India continue to spew emissions is not the option that we’re looking for.”
Democratic leaders of the House subcommittee and full committee did not outline a specific schedule for crafting a climate bill. But they did promise they would make an effort early this year to write and pass legislation establishing a cap-and-trade program that limits U.S. emissions.
In his own opening statement, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) affirmed his goal of getting GOP backing as he led the writing of a climate bill.
“This will require bipartisan cooperation, and I hope that my friends on the other side will come to the task with an open mind,” Dingell said.
While committee leaders are seeking bipartisanship agreement on the controversial bill, it wouldn’t necessarily be required to pass the measure out of the full Energy and Commerce panel where Democrats have a five-seat majority.
In an interview, Dingell said he didn’t want to comment on Upton’s remarks at the start of the hearing.
Upton wasn’t the only Republicans on the House panel who raised concerns about a cap-and-trade bill. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the full committee’s ranking member, questioned the underlying science linking humans’ emissions to climate change. CEQ chief testifies
Also during the hearing, Dingell nudged President Bush’s top environmental adviser, Jim Connaughton, who submitted a one-page opening statement for the hearing, plus a month-old slide show and past statements by President Bush.
Passing a climate bill “will require as well the active engagement of the administration, which remains to be seen,” Dingell said. “Judging from the rather thin testimony presented to the subcommittee by our witness today, however, I am less than optimistic.”
Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told lawmakers his brief written remarks shouldn’t leave the impression the administration was making light of the climate issue.
He testified the U.N. agreement reached last month in Bali – which commits developed and developing nations to reaching a deal by 2009 that succeeds the Kyoto Protocol – is now Bush administration climate policy.
On Thin Ice: The Future of the Polar Bear 3
Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will question members of the Bush Administration regarding the delay of a decision to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act until after a controversial lease sale for oil drilling off of Alaska. The hearing will also feature experts on wildlife protection and oil drilling.
Earlier this week, the Interior Department announced it would miss the statutory deadline to reach a decision on listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), saying it would take up to a month more to reach the decision. That would put the listing decision one day after the sale of oil drilling rights in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, scheduled for February 6th. The Chukchi Sea is a sensitive polar bear habitat.
In the most thorough study to date, the Interior Department determined that under current trends, disappearing sea ice would result in a two-thirds drop in the world population of polar bears resulting in the disappearance of polar bears from Alaska by 2050.
PANEL I- Mr. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
- Mr. Randall Luthi, Director, Minerals Management Service
- Dr. Steven Amstrup, Polar Bear Team Leader, U.S. Geological Survey
- Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife
- Ms. Deborah Williams, President, Alaska Conservation Solutions
- Ms. Kassie Siegel, Director, Climate, Air and Energy Program, Center for Biological Diversity
10:22 am Sensenbrenner What’s the beef?
10:22 am Inslee The idea that the science isn’t clear on what’s happening in the Arctic is bizarre. The ice is gone. I want to ask a question about oil spills.
Luthi I don’t think we would be doing our jobs if we didn’t consider the possibility of a spill. The history has been different. The companies especially in north Alaska have been responsible.
Inslee If I told you there was a 33-51% chance of being run over a bus I think that would be significant. Your statement said there would be a 33-51% chance of a 1000 barrel oil spill.
Luthi Before the ESA kicks in, or if it does, we have worked with FWS very carefully.
Inslee I believe you are acting in willful ignorance of known science. I believe it is negligent in the extreme. You moved before the ESA determination was made. I find that totally disrespectful of the law.
Luthi What would be different would be one more layer of consultation under the ESA. The protections under the Marine Mammals Act are in many ways more strict.
10:29 Walden Do you have other endangered species listed where there is drilling?
Luthi The eiders, and a whale species I believe.
Walden Have you seen threats to these species or loss of life?
Luthi We have seen no blowouts, very small spills. To my knowledge there has not been a take or harassment of endangered species.
10:34 Larson Doesn’t Rep. Markey’s legislation make sense?
Hall Quite frankly, if I hadn’t made the decision to give ourselves more time it would have worked that way anyway. I’m never comfortable telling people what kind of laws they should pass.
Larson Given the record low summer sea ice this year what are you doing to understand the impact on polar bears?
Amstrup The work that we’ve done suggest that the changes in the sea ice have already negatively impacted the polar bears.
10:44 Hall The burden is on us and the science to determine a direct linkage between the take and the endangerment of the species. The science as it is today, even the IPCC information, would not allow us to segment out this particular set of emissions.
10:46 Cleaver Are you familiar with the USS Arizona? Went down in Pearl Harbor. Have you ever gone there to see the ship on the bottom? Each day when people go over it, the number one tourist attraction in Hawaii, oil is still bubbling up. Sixty years later. I watched it last week and realize the lasting impact of oil spills and what it does to the environment. I’m also wondering, do you think the FWS is strictly dealing with fish and wildlife, or does it get into ideological issues? Is it ideological or scientific or is it a mix of two?
Hall Over my 29 years with the FWS I can speak with some confidence that our employees try to be professional and responsible. As far as being ideological I believe that the vast majority of employees and myself believe we should be advocates for truth.
Cleaver So the polar bears, the habitat has been damaged.
Hall We’ve certainly lost 20%. We know the habitat is leaving us.
Cleaver So what’s the problem?
Hall It’s not just making a decision that’s important. It’s making it clear, and why. When I release a document with my signature.
Cleaver How much more habitat do we need to lose for this to be clear?
Hall We need to do something about climate change starting yesterday. We need to control greenhouse gases.
10:53 Amstrup The declines in sea ice predicted haven’t been as fast as what has actually occured.
Rep. Hall Can we quantify that?
Amstrup Yes.
Rep. Hall My constituents are coming out in overflow crowds to find out what they can do about global warming. We just passed a new energy bill to do some things. There are regional cap-and-trade systems being set up. Your statement that “no matter we do we will rely primarily on coal, oil, and natural gas.”
Luthi That comes from the Energy Information Agency. That’s what they tell us.
Rep. Hall You can draw a graph that project different outcomes depending on different policies we adopt. Do we spend billions of dollars getting oil from unfriendly and dangerous places or do we invest in new technologies?
You’re talking about a potential of $100 billion from a $500 million lease.
Luthi The MMS takes very seriously its responsibility to get fair market value.
11:02 Markey What would be the effect of an oil spill be on polar bears?
Amstrup It would depend on the oil spill, but the effect of oil on polar bears in the wild is to kill them.
Markey Would you object if Sec. Kempthorne decided to allow Mr. Hall to make his decision before you were allowed to make the Chukchi sale?
Luthi He is my boss.
Markey We have political players confronting a scientific decision and the chief decisionmaker is Sec. Kempthorne. All he has to do is say, let’s use common sense, and recognize that extinction is forever, and make that decision before we send the oil and gas companies out. Mr. Kempthorne is to blame. In the end, man can adapt but the bear cannot. When the ice is gone, man cheers for new drilling opportunities, but the bear starves and dies.
11:07 Inslee This could result in a suicide squeeze for the polar bear. If the leases are made before the designation, you cannot terminate the leases legally, can you?
Luthi We cannot terminate the leases, no.
Inslee I can’t believe an agency would issue this document saying there’s a 33-51% chance of a major oil spill not taking into account existing technology.
Hall We update the statistics based on new technology. The data reflects the past history. We used the best available information at the time.
Second Panel
11:18 Siegel There is still time to save the polar bear. A first step is to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. We need to also immediately reduce greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide, but also methane and black carbon.
11:21 Williams We must delay the Chukchi lease sale. We must provide funding for polar bear study. We must reduce greenhouse gases. Congress would never make a decision without this kind of information. It is the worst kind of irresponsible.
11:29 Clark There are numerous factors that support listing polar bears under the ESA. Number one is the unequivocal loss of sea ice due to global warming. It would fly in the face of the precautionary principles of the ESA for the Interior to take advantage of its own delay in the listing to develop gas and oil drilling.
At the Auto Show: Dingell Supports EPA's Denial of California Waiver
In a Detroit News piece entitled Dingell tours show; says state-by-state emissions rules would doom carmakers, David Shepardson writes that Dingell fully supported last month’s decision by the EPA to deny the California waiver to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.
Dingell, D-Dearborn, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said if California got the waiver it could impose conflicting federal and state standards. The California standards could be make automobile production “so expensive that people won’t be able to buy and second of all get so difficult that the companies won’t be able to produce anyhow.”Dingell said the California system could lead to 50 different standards. He said the EPA decision “makes good sense.”
As has been previously discussed on Hill Heat, the specter of 50 different standards is simply false. Under the Clean Air Act only California has the authority to get waivers from national standards. Other states can then follow California or the federal standards. At most there can be two different standards.
Dingell plans to introduce a climate change bill in his committee “as fast as we can” but wants to exclude the auto industry, arguing that the CAFE standards in the 2007 energy bill are sufficient regulation: “We’ve had everybody else get practically a free ride and auto industry has to come up with a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency,” Dingell said. “We’re going to try to see that the pain is shared equally all around.”
Update: Dingell has issued a clarification of his remarks, stating that he considers CAFE standards to be a “carbon constraint” and that the CAFE standard increase “tightens the cap on automobiles by 40 percent by 2020.” Any carbon cap would entail “further reductions” that would be have to matched by “comparable contributions” by other industries.
Shepardson also reports on an interview with Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s office of transportation and air quality. She didn’t expect the agency to issue a formal written denial “until next month at the earliest.” The EPA may be trying to argue that its the EPA press release announcing the denial isn’t actually grounds for a suit to overturn the decision. She also said that the EPA “completed its draft of its own new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” but didn’t provide details.
Krupp said he that he and Dingell don’t agree on all issues, but do on the need for a broader climate change.“He may be the only one that can get a climate change bill,” Krupp said, noting Dingell’s experience in moving large pieces of environmental legislation.
Krupp said he liked the increase in advanced technology vehicles especially in hybrids in broader vehicle lineups. “The fact that the Big Three makers as well as Toyota and others are making these higher mileage options available in everyday cars is terrific,” Krupp said.
Asked about the fact that hybrids still account for just 2 percent of U.S. sales, Krupp noted the growth rate year over year. “I suppose people said initially that very few people were buying Macintosh Apple computers,” Krupp said. “When gasoline prices are $3.50 a gallon, I think you will see growing interest in these options.”
Krupp said there’s “going to be a need for a shared burden” among automakers, oil companies and utilities. They all will have to “belly up to the bar,” Krupp said.
Vision of a Green DC
Bottom segment: Anacostia. Middle: overall design and layout for the city. Top: new eco-friendly features in any representative neighborhood with the following color key: orange for high-density building, blue for rainwater collection, green for energy infrastructure, yellow for expanded Metro. The vertical red tubes represent geothermal wells.
Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners LLP won yesterday’s City of the Future design challenge to imagine what Washington would look like in the year 2108. The winning team went green, envisioning a self-sustaining city with soaring towers built on the sites of former forts that once defended Washington, transforming them into centers for wind and solar energy production, hydroponic farming and defensive security systems. In this environmentally friendly city, cars have no place. Metro has been drastically expanded. The diagonal streets designed long ago by Pierre L’Enfant have been turned into pedestrian-friendly green belts, or the “lungs of the city,” as described by Hanny Hassan, partner at BBB. Above-ground public transportation runs on the square street grid of the city.
Climate Change: Science and Solutions
The National Council for Science and the Environment invites you to participate in the 8th National Conference on Science, Policy, and the Environment to develop and advance science-based solutions to climate change.
Join us in the dialogue with leading scientists, policy makers, industry leaders, educators, and other solutions-oriented innovators to develop comprehensive strategies for protecting people and the planet against the threat of climate change.
The three-day conference will be held January 16-18, 2008, at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC. An interactive agenda features skill-building workshops, targeted breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and symposia to provide participants with an expansive understanding of climate change solutions—and how we can achieve them.
Agenda
Wednesday January 16, 2008
8:00 am Registration
9:30 am – 12:00 pm Pre-conference Skill-building Workshops (registration required)
~ 20 Workshops led by partners grouped under the following themes:- Campus-based/ University Inititiatives
- Government and Policy Solutions
- Community Initiatives
- Climate Change Education: Formal and Informal
- Monitoring and Assessment Tools
- Communicating Climate Change
12:00 pm Showcase of Solutions– Exhibition and Scientific Poster presentations open
1:00 pm Keynote Address: Climate Change: Science to Solutions – What do we know? How do we act in time and in appropriate scale?
2:00 pm Plenary Presentation: Summarizing Global Change Science and the Likely Implications of Global Climate Change.
Moderator and IPCC Overview: Mohan Munasinghe, Vice Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Chairman, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND)- The Atmosphere and the Cryosphere- Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, The Climate Institute
- Biodiversity and Ecological Impacts – Tom Lovejoy, President, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment
- Human (Health and Well Being) Impacts- Sarah James, Alaskan Gwitch’in Steering Committee and Goldman Environmental prize-winner
- National Security Impacts- Sherri Goodman, General Counsel, The CNA Corporation
3:30 pm Plenary Presentation: Tackling Global Change: Key Social and Ecological Issues for Mitigation and Adaptation
Moderator: Arden Bement, Director, National Science Foundation
- Forest Management Response to Climate Change – Abigail Kimbell, Chief, US Forest Service
- Oceans – Carbon Sink or Sinking Ecosystems – Margaret Leinen, Chief Scientific Officer, Climos
- Ecosystem and Health Challenges – Mary C. Pearl, President, Wildlife Trust
- People- The Solution- Thomas Dietz, Director of the Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University
4:30 pm Plenary Roundtable: Tackling Global Change: Key Energy and Technology Issues for Stabilization
Moderator: Mark Myers , Director, US Geological Survey- Global Energy and Technology Strategy- Jae Edmonds, Laboratory Fellow and Chief Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
- Healthy Solutions for a Low Carbon Economy- Paul Epstein, Associate Director, Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School
- Role of Technology in Mitigating Global Climate Change- Frank Princiotta, Director, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, US EPA ORD
- A Post Bali Framework for Climate Technology Innovation- Lewis Milford, President, Clean Energy Group
- Commentary on Energy and Technological Challenges- David Rodgers, Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Energy
5:30 – 6:30 pm Reception: Showcase of Solutions– Exhibition and Scientific Poster presentations
6:30 – 8:00 pm Perspectives of the Next Generation of Climate Change Leaders
Moderator: Philippe Cousteau, Co-Founder, EarthEcho
Opening remarks by Douglas Cohen, US Partnership, National Youth Initiatives and Session Co-Organizer
- The Envirolution: Alex Gamboa, Timothy Polmateer, Antuan Cannon
- Scott Beall, DoRight Enterprises
- Jessy Tolkan, Energy Action Coalition
Thursday, January 17, 2008
8:00 am Registration and Continental Breakfast
9:00 am Keynote Address: Climate Change: Science to Solutions – The Case for Business Leadership
James E. Rogers, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy Corporation
10:00 am Plenary Roundtable: Solutions: Engaging Communities Large and Small
Moderator: Peter Senge, Founding Chairperson, Society for Organizational Learning- Energizing the Faithful – Rev. Richard Cizek, Vice-President, National Association of Evangelicals
- Engaging the Campuses – Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University
- Engaging the Populace – Bill McKibben, Author, Scholar-in-residence in Environmental Studies at Middlebury College
- Bringing Together Jobs, Justice, Environment and Community- Jerome Ringo, President, Apollo Alliance
11:00 am Plenary Roundtable: Solutions: Science and Policy on a Global Scale
Moderator and Opening Remarks: Global Leadership for Climate Action – Report from Bali – Mohamed El-Ashry, Senior Fellow, The UN Foundation and Former CEO and Chair, Global Environment Facility- Post-Kyoto International Agreements – Amb. Richard Benedick, President, National Council for Science and the Environment
- IPCC: Future Role beyond the 4th Assessment- Stephen Schneider, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University
- Global Energy Assessment- Bob Corell, Global Change Director, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment
- European or Chinese perspective TBD
1:30 – 5:00 pm Breakout Sessions: Developing a Blueprint for the Low Carbon Economy (concurrent)
~40 Sessions grouped under the following themes:- Strategies for Stabilization, Minimization, Mitigation and Adaptation
- Stabilization/Mitigation
- End-use Technologies
- Economics and Policy
- Population and Consumption
- Adaptation
- Stabilization/Mitigation
- Guiding and Fostering Multi-disciplinary Research
- Expanding Understanding: Information, Education and Communication
- Communicating Science to Decisionmakers and the Public
- Managing Global Change Science Information
- Integrating Global Change into Education at All Levels and Across the Curriculum
5:30 pm Lifetime Achievement Award
6:00 pm 8th John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture on Science and the Environment
“Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge” given by
John P. Holdren, President and Director, The Woods Hole Research Center
7:00 pm Reception
Friday, January 18, 2008
8:00 am Continental Breakfast
8:45 am American Perspective on Climate Change – Jon Krosnick, Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology, Stanford University
9:00 am Plenary Roundtable
Developing Political Solutions to Climate Change (discussion with political leaders from Administration, Congress, state, local and other national governments)
Moderator: Ray Suarez , Senior Correspondent, The News Hour
10:30 am Symposia – Concurrent
- Beyond Kyoto – Elements of a 20202 International Agreement– Moderator: Mohamed El-Ashry, Senior Fellow, The UN Foundation and Former CEO and Chair, Global Environment Facility; Dilip Ahuja, National Institute of Advanced Studies; Scott Barrett, Professor and Director, International Policy Program, Johns Hopkins University
- Climate Change and International Development – Moderator: Mohan Munasinghe, Vice Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Chairman, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND); Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland; Adrian Vazquez, Commission for Environmental Cooperation; Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences
- Role of Philanthropic Foundations: Promoting Strategic Initiatives on Climate Change – Moderator: Sharon Alpert, Program Officer of the Environmental Program, Surdna Foundation ; Andrew Bowman, Director of the Climate Change Initiative, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; Kathleen Welch, Deputy Director of the Environmental Program, the Pew Charitable Trusts; Eric Heitz, President, the Energy Foundation; Elizabeth Chadri, Program Officer for Conservation and Sustainable Development, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- Business and Finance: Opportunities and Challenges from Climate Change – Moderator: Jeffrey Leonard , CEO, Global Environment Fund; Bruce Schlein, Vice President Environmental Affairs, Citi; Mindy Lubber, President, CERES; Bruce Mundiel, Swiss Re; Mark Tercek, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs’ Center for Environmental Markets
- Forging Alliances Between Business and Society – US Climate Action Partnership; Tim Mealey, Senior Partner, Meridian Institute; DuPont; Exelon Corporation; Environmental Defense; The Nature Conservancy; Pew Center on Global Climate Change; Shell
- Legislative Agenda for Addressing the Carbon Problem –L. Jeremy Richardson, 2007-2008 AAAS Roger Revelle Fellow in Global Stewardship; Margaret Turnbull , Space Telescope Science Institute; Ken Colburn, Center for Climate Strategies; Lexi Shultz, Representative for Climate Policy, the Union of Concerned Scientists
- Engaging State and Local Government: Developing and Implementing Climate Action Plans- Dan Kammen, University of California- Berkeley
- Climate Scientists and Decisionmakers: the Communication Interface – Moderator:Rebecca J. Romsdahl, Department of Earth Systems Science and Policy, University of North Dakota;Stacy Rosenberg, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics & Environmental Studies, SUNY Potsdam; Deborah Cowman, Assistant Research Scientist, Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy, Texas A&M University; Chris Pyke, Constructive Technologies Group, Inc.; Kit Batten, Director of Environmental Policy, Center for American Progress; David Bookbinder, Senior Attorney, Sierra Club; Roger Pulwarty, National Drought Information System, NOAA, Boulder, CO
- Communicating Climate Science to the Public Through the Media – Moderator: Deborah Potter, NewsLab; David Malakoff, Editor/Correspondent, NPR Science Desk; Stephen Schneider, Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University; Joe Witte, Meteorologist, WJLA-TV; Doyle Rice, USA Today Weather Editor; Sara Espinoza, National Environmental Education Foundation
- Science for Carbon Management – Eric Sundquist, Research Geologist, US Geological Society
12:30 pm Buffet Lunch (with youth mentoring tables)
2:00 pm Presidential Candidates Forum: What Will the Next President do to Manage Climate Change?
Each Candidate is invited to attend or send a representative. Opening statements and moderated discussion.
Moderator: Vijay Vaitheeswaran , Global Correspondent, The Economist, using information from the Presidential Climate Action Plan led by former Senator Gary Hart and from other sources
Around the Web: DNI, Biofuels, China, Coal Corruption
No, no, no, not at all. Terrorism can kill a lot of people, but it can’t fundamentally challenge the ability of the nation to exist. Fascism could have done that. Communism could have. I think our issue going forward is more engagement with the world in terms of keeping it on a reasonable path, so another ism doesn’t come along and drive it to one extreme or another.And we have to some balance in terms of equitable distribution of wealth, containment of contagious disease, access to energy supplies, and development of free markets. There are national security ramifications to global warming.
Biofuels Technology Review has an extensive piece on the Price of Biofuels, covering the ramifications of America’s heavy investment in corn ethanol and the uncertain future of cellulosic ethanol. The New York Times reports Europe May Ban Imports of Some Biofuel Crops as it recognizes the drastic environmental harm and negative global-warming consequences of replacing rainforest with palm-oil plantations.
China In Dealing with the Dragon, Paul Krugman argues that China should be the U.S.’s primary foreign policy concern, in large part because of climate change, “which will eventually be recognized as the most crucial problem facing America and the world — maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.”
Coal Heather Moyer at Sierra Club’s Clean Energy Watch points to another New York Times piece that reports:A justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court and a powerful coal-company executive met in Monte Carlo in the summer of 2006, sharing several meals even as the executive’s companies were appealing a $50 million jury verdict against them to the court.
Biofuels, At What Cost?
Energy: A Conversation About Our National Addiction BIOFUELS, AT WHAT COST? with Glenn Prickett of Conservation International
Co Sponsored by: DoD, DoE, USDA, EPA, DoT, DHS, DoI, FERC, Commerce, State, Labor, NASA, NSF and DNI on behalf of the entire Intelligence Community
January 14, 2008 5:30-6:15 PM Reception 6:15-8:30 PM Presentation & Discussion
Doubletree Hotel 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA
Biofuel subsidies continue to change at a very fast rate and do little to constrain the enormous environmental issues that arise when so much land and water are used to produce fuel. Glenn Prickett, Senior Vice President for Business and U.S. Government Relations at Conservation International, will address these issues and more at our first seminar of the new year. Join the Conversation.
Please RSVP to Sarah Minczeski, [email protected].
- THERE IS NO REGISTRATION FEE
- Registration is not mandatory but STRONGLY encouraged
- Refreshments: A vegetarian friendly buffet is available for $10.
- Transportation. The Pentagon City Metro on the blue/yellow line is just 3 blocks from the hotel.
- Parking: Street parking is limited. Hotel parking with validation costs $8.
Waxman Presses EPA on California Waiver
California Democrat and House Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman has turned up the heat in his investigation into EPA’s denial of the California waiver request to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gases, calling for depositions of numerous EPA officials and criticizing the delay in document production. He expects a mutual schedule for production and interviews to be worked out by January 16. Waxman noted that althought EPA counsel had accompanied officials in previous interviews, because EPA administrator Stephen Johnson’s “own conduct is being examined, this accommodation would not be appropriate.”
When he opened the investigation in December, Waxman set deadlines of January 10th, 17th, and 23rd for various EPA offices to deliver responsive documents.
The EPA’s associate administrator Christopher Bliley sent a letter on January 4 saying the EPA would try to deliver documents by January 11, a day after Waxman had requested. On the 11th he wrote that the first documents might be ready by January 18.
Waxman’s full response is after the jump.
Dear Administrator Johnson:On December 20, 2007, I wrote to request that you provide the Committee with documents relating to your decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I requested that the documents be produced on a rolling schedule, starting on January 10 with responsive documents from your immediate office. On January 4 and January 11, 2008, your staff responded to my letter, but did not provide any documents. I appreciate the efforts EPA is taking to collect responsive documents, but I am concerned about the failure of the agency to meet the Committee’s January l0 deadline. I am also concerned that no schedules for document production are proposed in your letters.
In an effort to accommodate the agency without unduly delaying the Committee’s investigation, I ask that your staff work with Committee staff to establish by the close of business on January l6 mutually agreeable deadlines for producing documents to the Committee.
The Committee will also be conducting transcribed interviews or depositions of agency staff who may have knowledge of the agency’s deliberations. As a first step in this process, I request that a schedule be established by the close of business on January l6 for the interview or deposition of the following officials:
- Robert Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
- Jason Burnett, Associate Deputy Administrator, Office of the Administrator
- Margo Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality
- Karl Simon, Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality
- Brian Mclean, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs
- Dina Kruger, Director, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs
- Rob Brenner, Director, Office of Program Analysis and Review
In prior investigations, the Committee has allowed counsel representing the agency to be present during transcribed interviews. In this case, since your own conduct is being examined, this accommodation would not be appropriate, although counsel employed by the agency may participate if they certify that their presence is as counsel for the witness.
If you have any Questions concerning this request, please have your staff contact Greg Dotson of the Committee staff at (202)225-4407.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Boxer Threatens EPA Subpoena; State Previews Legal Arguments
(Cross-posted from Warming Law)
Anticipation has been high that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would use her platform running the Senate Environment and Public Works Commitee to pressure the EPA regarding its denial of California’s waiver application, and a committee field hearing yesterday did not disappoint. Responding to Administrator Stephen Johnson’s no-show and failure to provide documentation of how he reached his decision, Boxer threatened to use the committee’s subpoena power and generally pledged to step up congressional pressure:“This outrageous decision . . . is completely contrary to the law and science,” Boxer said in a briefing with state officials at Los Angeles City Hall. She held up an empty cardboard box as a symbol of the Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal so far to provide the hefty technical and legal backup that normally accompanies air pollution waiver decisions and are usually published in the Federal Register.[...]
Johnson is scheduled to testify before the Senate committee in Washington on Jan. 24. An EPA spokesman said, “The official decision documents are being prepared, and they will be released soon.”
California Attorney General Jerry Brown praised Boxer’s subpoena threat, at one point calling Johnson a “stooge in a really pathetic drama that hopefully will not play out much longer.” Brown used his written testimony to document the state’s legal case against the waiver decision, and specifically honed in on EPA’s central assertion that the waiver request did not meet “compelling and extraordinary” conditions due to global warming’s wide-ranging impact.
In addition to reiterating this logic’s departure from the text of the law and the Supreme Court’s rejection of a similar argument in Mass. v. EPA, various testimony directly cited the way in which past waiver decisions have interpreted the law. Former Assembleywoman Fran Pavley—who authored the clean cars law—pointed to a 1984 waiver determination by then-EPA-Administrator William Ruckelshaus deeming that California’s plight need not be “unique” in order to be "compelling and extraordinary." Brown, meanwhile, cited a 1975 waiver determination’s assessment of the Clean Air Act, which noted that:[I]n the light of their unusually detailed and explicit legislative history. . .Congress meant to ensure by the language it adopted that the Federal government would not second-guess the wisdom of state policy here. . . . Sponsors of the language eventually adopted referred repeatedly to their intent to make sure that no “Federal bureaucrat” would be able to tell the people of California what auto emission standards were good for them, as long as they were stricter than Federal standards.
Forthcoming in Geophysical Research Letters, research by engineering professor Mark Jakobson finds a direct causal link between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased morbidity from air pollution.In other words: CO2 makes traditional air pollution – ozone, particulates, carcinogens – more deadly. It follows that states with the worst air pollution have more to fear from climate change.