Hill Heat: Category Policy

Hawaii Representative Crafting 'Environmentally Responsible' Plan That Would Endanger His State

Wonk Room — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:50:00 -0500

It seems that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is crafting a plan that could lead to the inundation of Hawaii’s beaches, the extinction of its species, and the destruction of its water supply. Abercrombie and John Peterson (R-PA) are creating a “working group” to establish a “comprehensive, environmentally responsible energy plan,” whose members will be announced today. The centerpiece of this plan is opening protected coasts to drilling for more oil, as Abercrombie told the Hill:

Simply standing up and saying, you can’t drill your way out of this doesn’t work. The people are standing up and saying, “Yes, we can.”

The unique beaches, coral reefs, and oceanic ecosystems of Hawaii won’t be directly threatened by expanded offshore drilling, as the ocean that surrounds it doesn’t have fossil reserves. An oil spill or two could get tourists to flee the beaches of California, Florida, and the states of the eastern seaboard in favor of the Aloha State.

But in reality, Abercrombie’s advocacy of increasing fossil fuel production as a climate crisis looms will have deeper repercussions for this necklace of islands than perhaps any other state in the nation. Big Oil wants the world to keep burning fossil fuels at a rate that would increase global temperatures by five to seven times more than we’ve already experienced. Even more modest increases would spell catastrophe for islands like the Hawai’ian chain:

Rising Sea Levels Submerging Islands. In 2006, President Bush declared the 1200-mile chain of Northwestern Hawaiian Islands part of the largest marine sanctuary in the United States. But U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers found that “by 2100 up to 65 percent of some islands would be lost if the sea level rose 18.9 inches (48 centimeters), which is the average IPCC projection.” A 34.6 inch rise “could result in up to 75 percent of NWHI wildlife habitat disappearing.” Whale Skate Island, home to seals, turtles, and seabirds, has already disappeared under the waves. [Endangered Species Research, 2006]
Coral Reefs Dying. “The combined stress of global warming and ocean acidification” due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases is already causing coral bleaching. “Especially in the state of Hawaii, we depend on the reefs for tourism as well as our economy. Also, recreational and commercial fisheries,” said Coral Reef Ecologist Ku’ulei Rodgers to NBC affiliate KHNL. “The coral reefs are the basis for all of the foundations and key species and if we lose the reefs we also will lose the fish and other organisms that are involved.” [KHNL, 7/2007]

Water, Wildlife, Economy Under Threat. In the 2007 legislation to cut Hawaii’s greenhouse gas emissions, the state legislature found, “The potential adverse effects of global warming include a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of businesses and residences and the inundation of Hawaii’s freshwater aquifers, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, extended drought and loss of soil moisture, an increase in the spread of infectious diseases, and an increase in the severity of storms and extreme weather events.” Further, “Climate change will have detrimental effects on some of Hawaii’s largest industries, including tourism, agriculture, recreational, commercial fishing, and forestry.” [H.B. 226, 2007]

It is difficult to encapsulate the threat of global warming to these jewels of biodiversity. Everything from the unique snow-dependent wekiu bug on Mauna Kea to the Hawaiian monk seals are under threat. The destruction of Hawaii’s unique habitat is not just devastating to its wildlife. As the National Wildlife Federation notes, “At Honolulu, Nawiliwili and Hilo, sea level is already rising 6-14 inches per century, and the EPA estimates it is likely to rise another 17-25 inches by 2100. Sand replenishment to protect the coasts from a 20-inch sea level rise could cost $340 million to $6 billion.”

Abercrombie has criticized the Bush administration for its “obstruct, confuse and delay” strategy on global warming. His “drill, drill, drill” advocacy is no better.

In Draft of Greenhouse Gases Regulations, Bush Administration Attacks Clean Air Act

Wonk Room — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:38:00 -0500

From the Wonk Room.

After over a year of battles with the White House and other federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency has published its response to the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which mandated that the agency determine whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to our health and welfare and take action in response. With today’s publication of an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson ignores the threat and attacks the rule of law.

Johnson published his staff’s document – after extensive cuts from the White House – with complaints attached from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy.

In one voice, the other agencies attack the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as “deeply flawed and unsuitable,” “fundamentally ill-suited,” “extraordinarily intrusive and burdensome,” “unilateral and extraordinarily burdensome,” “drastic,” “dramatic,” “excessive,” “extremely expensive,” and “costly and burdensome.” The clear and present threat of global warming is dismissed as a “complex” issue that hinges on “interpretation of statutory terms.”

Sadly, Johnson decided to join them, attacking the immense work done by his staff to address the catastrophic threat of climate change:

I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.

In his press conference announcing the release of today’s decision, Johnson reiterated his opinion that the Clean Air Act is the “wrong tool” for the task, “trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.”

This is yet another case where Johnson is following the example of the likes of disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who made similar statements about the Geneva Conventions’ ban on torture as White House Counsel:

As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.

Similarly, the White House’s arguments in defense of ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s ban on warrantless wiretapping:

Reverting to the outdated FISA statute risks our national security. FISA’s outdated provisions created dangerous intelligence gaps, which is why Congress passed the Protect America Act in the first place.

George W. Bush, Stephen Johnson, and the other officers of the executive branch swore an oath to “faithfully execute” their office and defend the Constitution. They have evidently decided to break that vow, time and again. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bush administration, it’s always the “quaint,” “outdated,” “burdensome,” and “ill-suited” laws that are the problem—never their reckless abandonment of principle and duty.

How Solar Energy Can Help Meet America's Growing Energy Needs

The Cunctator — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:00:00 -0500

The Optical Society (OSA) and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invite you to a briefing to learn how solar energy can play a far greater role in meeting energy needs here in the United States and abroad. Solar power is produced through two main technologies: photovoltaic (PV) cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity, and concentrating solar power (CSP), a utility-scale technology that can be combined with thermal storage to provide electricity even when the sun is not shining.

The United States has the potential to greatly expand the use of this clean and abundant source of energy, while also creating jobs and strengthening energy security. Demonstrating this potential is Germany, whose policies have allowed it to become the world leader in solar energy production in spite of relatively low solar resources (comparable to Alaska’s).

The following experts will discuss current and future technologies, U.S. investments in solar R&D by industry and government, and specific policies that can spur future development and promote the widespread use of solar energy:

Doug Hall, Technology Director, Glass for Photovoltaic Program, Corning Inc.
Chuck Kutscher, Principal Engineer and Manager, Buildings & Thermal Systems Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Scott Clavenna, President & CEO, Greentech Media, Inc.
Fred Sissine, Specialist in Energy Policy, Congressional Research Service
Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association
Carol Werner, EESI and Alex Fong, Optronic Laboratories, Inc., Moderators

This briefing is free and open to the public. Please RSVP to Angela Stark at astark@osa.org or 202.416.1443.

OSA is a scientific professional society uniting more than 70,000 professionals from 134 countries, including Nobel Laureates, members of the National Academies of Science and Engineering, and other scientists, engineers, educators, and manufacturers engaged in the science of light, including solar manufacturing and R&D.

Office of Vice President Censored Testimony on Global Warming Endangerment

Wonk Room — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:30:00 -0500

From the Wonk Room.

Last fall, as the Environmental Protection Agency worked to satisfy its Supreme Court mandate to protect the American public from the threat of greenhouse gases, White House officials took steps to prevent such action. In a letter responding to questions by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, former EPA official Jason K. Burnett implicated the Office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney, as well as the White House Council on Environmental Quality for censoring “any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change” in testimony to Congress.

Although Burnett refused to assist in the efforts, the October testimony of Dr. Julie Geberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was “eviscerated,” with ten pages detailing the specific health threats of global warming – ranging from heat waves to floods – eliminated. After initial denials of White House interference, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino later claimed that the Office of Management and Budget had redacted testimony that contained “broad characterizations about climate change science that didn’t align with the IPCC.”

In fact, Burnett tells Sen. Boxer that the reason for the cuts was to “keep options open” for the EPA to avoid making an endangerment finding for global warming pollution, which would trigger immediate consequences for polluters. He writes:

On December 5th, under the direction of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Burnett emailed a formal endangerment finding to the White House Office of Management and Budget, but received a “phone call from the White House” that asked Burnett “to send a follow-up note saying that the email had been sent in error.” He declined to retract the email, which remained unread. Two weeks later, on December 19, Johnson put an end to EPA’s work on global warming regulations and rejected California’s petition to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.

This May, Burnett resigned from the EPA. In June, President Bush asserted executive privilege to block investigation of his involvement. Boxer has called Burnett to testify before her committee on July 22, in a hearing on “the most recent evidence of the serious danger posed by global warming.” In a statement today, Boxer said:

History will judge this Bush Administration harshly for recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they are supposed to protect.

Read Dr. Gerberding’s unredacted testimony here.

Read Sen. Boxer’s letter to Jason Burnett, and his letter in response.

Climate Change and Security Implications of Electricity Networks Resources

The Cunctator — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:00:00 -0500

Dr. Lawrence Jones, Account Executive for Automation Information System Business Unit, Areva T&D, will discuss smart transmission and distribution technologies for a clean environment and secure electricity infrastructure.

CSIS
4th Floor Conference Room
1800 K Street, NW

Citing Threat Of Global Warming, Georgia Judge Blocks Coal Plant

Wonk Room — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:59:00 -0500

From the Wonk Room.

In a landmark victory in the battle to regulate global warming pollution, a Georgia judge ruled that a proposed coal-fired plant could not be built unless its carbon dioxide emissions are limited, effectively killing the project. The ruling is the first to apply the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts vs. EPA decision to the question of greenhouse gas pollution from power plants. According to GreenLaw, the Georgia environmental organization who filed suit with the Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club in June 2007, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Moore’s decision “goes a long way toward protecting the right of Georgians to breathe clean air.”

The decision overturns an administrative court’s ruling that affirmed the state Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy’s Longleaf plant. In practical terms, Dynegy cannot begin construction of the plant unless it can obtain a valid permit from EPD that complies with the Court’s ruling. The Judge held that EPD must limit the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the plant, a decision that will have far-reaching implications nationwide; this is the first time since the April 2, 2007, Supreme Court decision requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 that a court has applied that standard to CO2 from an industrial source rather than from motor vehicles.

The $2 billion, 1200 megawatt plant – the first proposed in Georgia in over 20 years – was to be built by Dynegy Inc., the Houston-based energy company with several other proposed coal-fired power plants across the country. Dynegy and other fossil fuel polluters have been scrambling to get new plants started in anticipation of future limits on greenhouse gases, before investors and ratepayers recognize the risk.

Last October, the Kansas Department of Health denied air quality permits to a proposed coal plant expansion because of the danger greenhouse gas emissions pose to the climate. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) vetoed repeated attempts by the legislature to override the decision.

In contrast, officials recently appointed by Gov. Timothy Kaine (D-VA) to the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board unanimously granted air quality permits to Dominion Resources for a $1.8 billion coal-fired plant last week.

The court decision unequivocally rules that carbon dioxide must be regulated:

Faced with the ruling in Massachusetts that CO₂ is an “air pollutant” under the Act, Respondents are forced to argue that CO₂ is still not a “pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.” Respondents’ position is untenable. Putting aside the argument that any substance that falls within the statutory definition of “air pollutant” may be “subject to” regulation under the Act, there is no question that CO₂ is “subject to regulation under the Act.”

Appeals Court Rejects Petition to Order EPA to Make Global Warming Endangerment Finding

The Cunctator — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:46:00 -0500

The U.S. District Court of Appeals has unanimously rejected a petition requesting it require the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its long-delayed finding as to whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. The petition had been filed by officials of 18 states exactly a year after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ordered the EPA to issue an endangerment finding.

Since that time, Congressional and journalistic investigations have discovered that Administrator Stephen Johnson, with assistant deputy administrator Jason K. Burnett, worked to obey the Supreme Court decision and completed its work for submission to the White House on December 5, 2007. But the White House refused to accept the work, literally keeping Burnett’s email unopened and ordering him to retract the message. He refused to do so, and has since resigned.

The White House overrode the EPA decision to make the endangerment finding, to grant California a waiver to issue its own greenhouse tailpipe emissions regulations, and to recommend federal standards. Instead, Johnson denied California’s waiver and is expected to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sometime soon with draft emissions standards (he has missed his self-imposed deadline of the end of spring).

Sir Nicholas Stern Warns Congress To Act; Dingell: "How Many People Will Lose Homes And Farms To Flooding?"

The Cunctator — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:23:00 -0500

In yesterday’s House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing on the costs of climate change inaction, economist Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the famous Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, warned the United States Congress that the challenge of reining in greenhouse emissions is critical and doable. Stern advised that there is “a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100.”

Energy Committee chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) noted that global warming will bring more floods like those that have devastated Iowa and other Midwestern states:

I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury. Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.

In contrast, Republican lawmakers emphasized energy costs and the problem of China and India, arguing against federal mandates to limit emissions.

Stern also met with a group of senators, and later spoke at the Center for Global Development, saying:

I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States. At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.

From E&E News:

An appearance by a prominent British economist yesterday once again split the House Energy and Commerce Committee along partisan lines, as lawmakers battled over the potential economic and political consequences of taking action to address global climate change.
The Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee heard from Lord Nicholas Stern—a former World Bank chief economist whose recent projections about the costs of addressing climate change has sparked a wave of headlines and debate.

Stern yesterday also met with senators involved with the cap-and-trade legislation from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States,” Stern said at a speech at the Center for Global Development yesterday. “At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.”

At the House hearing, Stern repeated his call for world economies to spend 1 percent to 2 percent of their gross domestic product to stop greenhouse gases from rising to dangerous levels. Though Stern openly admitted that addressing climate change could have a significant economic impact, he repeatedly emphasized that taking no action would eventually lead to much higher costs.

In particular, Stern said that scientific analysis showed that without some kind of action there was a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100 – a change that would lead to massive changes in human living conditions and major economic costs.

“It radically redraws where species, including humans, are able to live,” Stern said of the potential temperature change. “Changes of this kind can mean very big movements in population.”

Stern projected that the associated costs of inaction could lead to somewhere between 5 percent and 20 percent loss in GDP but said the possibility of such a significant temperature change could be cut substantially by stabilizing C02 emissions.

That message was seemingly embraced yesterday by prominent Democrats, who saw such warnings as a signal that the federal government and private sector must act fairly quickly on efforts to stem the effects of climate change.

“I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury,” said Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.). “Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.”

Dingell also argued that no projection can estimate the price costs of addressing – or not addressing – climate change, but argued that Congress can still take action to substantially reduce the potential associated risks.

“Scientists cannot tell us precisely what will happen at different greenhouse gas levels, such as how many more people will lose homes and farms to flooding,” Dingell said. “Instead, we need to understand that the best they can do is tell us what the risks are – the probabilities that certain physical changes will occur and the costs we will incur to address those changes.”

Several top Republicans, meanwhile, acknowledged that there could be potential economic impacts stemming from global warming but also argued that poorly designed efforts to deal with the issue could have even more severe economic consequences.

“Energy costs have already reached alarming levels – we’re all paying the costs,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. “We can pursue options that won’t make matters worse.”

Upton again urged lawmakers to act on climate change legislation that would avoid federal mandates but instead invest in a slew of incentives for clean coal, nuclear and renewable energy.

Additionally, Republicans questioned some of the conclusions of the Stern analysis, saying that the analysis underestimated the potential cost of mitigation strategies.

China and India question

One issue that surfaced several times is the oft-debated question of whether U.S. action on climate change would prompt other world powers – particularly China and India – toward taking action.

Stern admitted that there continues to be some hostility in those nations toward the idea they should take actions that could potentially slow economic development, though he added that they are somewhat more open to international cooperation in part because they are starting to recognize the potential consequences to their own nations.

“That resentment is still there – it’s a political reality that we all have to recognize,” Stern said. But he added, “They realize that you can’t take action for a world of 9 billion just through the action of the 1 billion in the rich world.

“They recognize very quickly just how vulnerable they are,” he said.

Lauren Morello contributed to this story.

NOAA: Global Warming Has Damaged Our Weather

Wonk Room — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:00 -0500

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

The traditional media rarely discusses extreme weather events in the context of global warming. However, as the Wonk Room Global Boiling series has documented, scientists have been warning us for years that climate change will increase catastrophic weather events like the California wildfires, the East Coast heatwave, and the Midwest floods that have been taking lives and causing billions in damage in recent days.

Today, the federal government has released a report that assembles this knowledge in stark and unequivocal terms. “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate,” by the multi-agency U.S. Climate Change Science Program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the lead, warns that changes in extreme weather are “among the most serious challenges to society” in dealing with global warming. After reporting that heat waves, severe rainfall, and intense hurricanes have been on the rise – all linked to manmade global warming – the authors deliver this warning about the future:

In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.

Unfortunately, some of the cautions in this long-delayed report have come too late for the victims of the Midwest Flood:

Some short-term actions taken to lessen the risk from extreme events can lead to increases in vulnerability to even larger extremes. For example, moderate flood control measures on a river can stimulate development in a now “safe” floodplain, only to see those new structures damaged when a very large flood occurs.

Renewable Energy Payments in the US: Prospects and Perspectives

The Cunctator — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:00:00 -0500

The Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute cordially invite you to a discussion featuring

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)

and

Wilson Rickerson, Rickerson Energy Strategies
Janet Sawin, Worldwatch Institute
Dr. Anthony White, Climate Change Capital

A light lunch will be served.

Please join us for a lunch briefing that explores the potential for renewable energy payment legislation within the US electricity sector. Renewable energy payments (also known as feed-in tariffs in Europe and elsewhere) guarantee smaller renewable energy technologies a connection to the electricity grid, and provide a premium rate to these investors designed to generate a reasonable profit over a long term. Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) will begin the event by introducing his forthcoming bill (The Renewable Energy Jobs and Security Act), which incorporates the renewable energy payment for these industries that enter the US electricity market. The event will give an overview about first experiences with such legislation on the US state level. Also, the briefing will review the experiences of Europe, particularly in Germany, where renewable energy payment legislation has created rapid growth in the renewable energy industries since 1990, causing the nation to become the world’s largest market for photovoltaic systems and wind energy. By the end of 2007, 46 countries and federal states, including 18 of the 27 EU member-states, had introduced renewable energy payment legislation as a major incentive to deploy renewable energy.

Seating is limited. Please RSVP to Amy Sauer at amy@boell.org