Hill Heat: Category Science

EPA Climate Career Staff Call Administrator's Actions 'Unprofessional,' 'Unprecedented,' 'Damaging'

The Cunctator — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:37:00 -0500

In a letter addressed to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the presidents of four unions representing career EPA scientists write of their collective dismay at Johnson’s handling of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on greenhouse gas emissions. Johnson criticized his own agency’s work, calling the Clean Air Act “ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.” In addition, letters of comment criticizing the rulemaking draft were 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.

This July 30 letter, published by Publice Employees for Environmental Responsibility, reveals that the EPA staff were not allowed to review these letters of criticism before they were prepended to the ANPR. The union presidents write:

“The way in which you subverted the work of EPA staff in your preamble statement on the merits of the supporting rationale for the ANPRM was as unprecedented as it was stunning to your staff and damaging to EPA’s reputation for sound science and policy.”

They conclude: “We hope that in your final days in office you will try to rectify some of this damage and remove some of the tarnish from your legacy.”

Full text:

It is in the spirit of partnership between EPA workers and managers toward fulfilling the Agency’s mission that we address this letter to you.
We write on behalf of the EPA employees that we represent to express our collective dismay over the way in which the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), “Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act,” was presented for public comment.

The way in which you subverted the work of EPA staff in your preamble statement on the merits of the supporting rationale for the ANPRM was as unprecedented as it was stunning to your staff and damaging to EPA’s reputation for sound science and policy. And the fact that EPA’s experts who worked on this ANPRM were not given the opportunity to read or address the adverse comments of OMB, USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation in advance of the ANPRM publication is troubling and, quite frankly, unprofessional. We believe that EPA’s hardworking, dedicated staff has earned more respect than you are giving. It makes your public and private pronouncements of thanks to EPA staff ring hollow. We would ask you to allow these EPA experts to submit responses to these agency submissions as part of the ANPRM public comment process.

The decision to publish the critiques of other agencies in the name of “transparency” in decision-making is both disingenuous and counterproductive. A far more direct contribution would be made to the credibility and transparency of EPA decision-making if you cooperated with congressional requests for documents and hearings. The professional staff of EPA has nothing to hide. In fact, contrary to your assertions of executive privilege, the free flow of policy recommendations would be aided by opening up all (not just selected) communications to public scrutiny.

Based on the media-covered responses to the ANPRM in the Wall Street Journal 1 and from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s William Kovacs2, EPA is being portrayed as foolish and dictatorial. Your action has lent support to critics like those above and the indicted former Congressman Tom Delay who characterize EPA’s civil servants – who are sworn to duty and charged with helping to protect the environment – as virtual enemies of the United States, an outrage that is unacceptable. We fear your action may make it more difficult for EPA and your successor, whether he or she takes office in January or before, to act decisively to protect the environment and public health. Without the public’s respect and support, EPA’s work to implement the environmental laws of our nation is jeopardized. The silence from your office in the face of such calumny and your failure to come to the Agency’s defense, wounds us far more than the ranting of Delay, Kovacs and the Wall Street Journal.

You were once one of us. We were proud when you were nominated as the first of us to occupy the Administrator’s Office, and we expected great things. Our disappointment is profound. We hope that in your final days in office you will try to rectify some of this damage and remove some of the tarnish from your legacy.

An Update on the Science of Global Warming and its Implications

Wonk Room — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:00:00 -0500

Witnesses

Jason Burnett, Former Associate Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville

10 Boxer The evidence has been overwhelming that global warming poses a serious threat to the American people.

Bond Workers are suffering as jobs go to countries with cheaper energy and weaker environmental laws. I would share the goal that we are going to reduce carbon, we are going to promote energy efficiency. What is the real threat to the people of America? The real threat is higher energy prices and more lost jobs.

Under the W-L bill $6.7 billion would be taken away from workers. Calpers had invested in the high future cost of energy. As long as we keep all the land out of production the price will continue to go up.

Boxer We’ll respond to his misstatement in the record.

10:15 Lautenberg My grandson has asthma.

10:22 Craig yields.

10:22 Cardin We haven’t had an energy policy and we’ve seen the consequences. The L-W bill will allow us to take the necessary steps to deal with global warming. I’ve urged we have a robust provision to have the best science available to achieve the objectives we set out to do. We all know about corn ethanol.

10:26 Klobuchar I met yesterday with a 14-year-old who biked 1500 miles with a petition signed by 1200 kids for greater fuel efficiency. It appears this administration has been living in an evidence-free zone. One of the redacted facts was that climate change would increase wildfires.

10:29 Whitehouse I yield.

10:30 Boxer swears in the witnesses.

10:31 Burnett I recently resigned my position as associate deputy administrator. The scientific information I present is not my opinion. The April 2 Supreme Court decision permanently changed the landscape. Severe heat waves are expected to increase. The science is clear. A Cabinet-level meeting in November reached the agreement greenhouse gases did endanger the public and needed to be regulated. The only way to avoid making a positive endangerment finding was to make any finding at all.

10:37 Trenberth The IPCC is inherently conservative. Climate change is a real problem today. The problem is accelerating. Changes could happen much larger and sooner than the IPCC suggests. The oceans and land ice have a lot of inertia. Long lead times are essential for action to address climate change. Globally the past 7 years are among the eight warmest on record. Sea level rise continues at a rate of a foot a century. In the first six months of 2008, record rains point to the increases of rain that have been observed in association with more water vapor in the atmosphere due to global warming. Longer dry spells are also associated with global warming. The risk of wildfire increases dramatically. In 2007 two Cat 5 hurricanes made landfall for the first time in Central America. Hurricane Bertha has broken records. We should not be misled by short-term climate changes such as La Nina. Our predictions at NCAR are for substantial changes. I believe there is a crisis of inaction in addressing climate change.

10:43 Spencer There’s two issues I’d like to talk about. As a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore administration, I was told what I could or could not say. It seemed entirely appropriate to me to abide by the limits of my superiors. I’d like to present the latest research. There remains considerable uncertainty just how sensitive the climate is to human influence. We have attained the holy grail of climate research—a true measure of climate uncertainty. They have been contaminated by cloud variability. In my written testimony, I show how cloud variations and La Nina-El Nino might explain 70 percent of the warming we’ve measured. These results are not yet published, but I presented them at a seminar. The IPCC process has been guided by desired policy outcomes. I am predicting today that the theory mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will fade away.

10:51 Boxer Spencer has been named by Rush Limbaugh as his official climatologist. I’m going to ask Mr. Burnett a few questions about the waiver. Did Johnson discuss in December his plan to move forward with at least a partial waiver?

10:52 Burnett If the Clean Air Act was not amended by Congress, we would move forward with the waiver.

Boxer Did Johnson indicate that the compelling and extraordinary conditions had been met?

Burnett All three criteria were met.

Boxer Did you prepare Johnson for a meeting with the White House on the waiver?

Burnett Materials from our general counsel indicating the legal vulnerability of denying the waiver was communicated to the administrator in multiple fora.

Burnett Pres. Bush had made it clear of his policy preference for a single standard.

10:57 Craig Climate change conferences are a thriving cottage industry.

Spencer There’s more like me out there.

Craig You gave passing comment on climate change and wildfires. The skies of Idaho were filled with smoke from California. In 1991 forestry scientists met and determined that there were millions of acres of forest that were dead and dying. Because of the tremendous population and fuel buildup and a slight change of temperature we’re seeing those fires. Very little is said by scientists about natural emissions of carbon. I accept warming. Why aren’t scientists dealing more with the vegetative consequences and advocating reduced fuel loads?

Trenberth The major factor recently is the major drought that allowed the lodgepole pines to be infected by the pinebark beetle. In recent times we haven’t had the cold spells that kill the beetles.

Craig You’re right about the bug itself. If you take out those bug kill areas, we’re being denied that.

11:03 Lautenberg Mr. Spencer, since you ascribe the problems with changing climate to natural causes, that we then throw up our hands and wait?

Spencer I’m of the professional opinion that people have some influence. We already spend billions of dollars on alternative energy research.

Lautenberg You told the House Global Warming Committee that ExxonMobil thought regulations would taint the Bush legacy.

Burnett There were those in the administration who wanted to be the ones who took action and those who didn’t want to do anything.

Lautenberg Are we approaching the point of no return?

Trenberth What used to be a 500-year flood is now a 30-year flood.

11:10 Cardin Were you present at the Cabinet-level meeting?

Burnett I worked with other officials to prepare for the meeting.

Cardin How were you apprised of the findings of the meeting?

Burnett I prepared briefing materials and Johnson and Peacock asked us when they returned for us to draft findings that reflected the decisions of the meeting.

Cardin Do you know who was in the meeting?

Burnett I’m familiar with the agencies involved. We had meetings three times a week at the OMB. Administrator Johnson said he took the extra step of checking with the President’s chief of staff office and Joel Kaplan whether that meeting was sufficient to tell the staff a decision had been made.

Cardin What happened?

Burnett The sequence of events was strange. I had checked with my colleagues at EPA that the document was ready to be sent to OMB. I sent it over, and then received a phone call from deputy chief of staff Joel Kaplan asking us not to send the document over.

11:19 Klobuchar

Burnett The regulation we were developing would have raised fuel economy standards.

Klobuchar You went back and forth with OMB on the definition of carbon dioxide molecules.

Burnett I was at almost all of the meetings hosted by OMB. There was interest in defining CO2 from automobiles as different from CO2 from power plants. Jeff Rosen raised that question multiple times. It was sometimes embarassing for me to return to my colleagues to have them explain again that CO2 is a molecule.

Klobuchar What can we expect in the future?

Trenberth Rainfall is up about 7 percent, mainly east of the Rockies. Heavy rains are up 14%, very heavy rains up 21%. The reason is well understood. The warmer air can hold more water vapor.

11:25 Boxer Washington is under a severe weather alert.

Whitehouse Were you at the EPA long enough to get a sense what the routine meetings and conversations were between the administrator and the White House?

Burnett My focus was on air quality policy.

Whitehouse Would you characterize they were routine?

Burnett This was my first vehicle waiver process.

Whitehouse Were there specific meetings on the California waiver?

Burnett Yes.

Whitehouse Did the White House understand that the responsibility for making a decision on the waiver rest with the administrator?

Burnett In the ozone decision the president’s policy was ultimately followed.

Whitehouse Did the White House respond to the notice that you intended to partially grant the waiver?

Burnett The response was clearly made that the White House wanted a single standard inconsistent with the California waiver.

11:32 Sanders Talk about human health and global warming.

Trenberth We see events like Katrina, that our infrastructure isn’t adequate. These things happen from time to time but don’t all happen all at once. Natural variability plays a role. In Europe in 2003, the magnitude of the heatwaves, over 30,000 people died, you cannot account for it natural variability or global warming alone.

Sanders If you see increased drought, people won’t be able to grow food.

Trenberth There are various diseases that flourish in warmer climates. Everyone will be affected one way or another. In Europe and Asia it’s gotten much warmer. In the US, it’s gotten wetter. I personally think the biggest pressure point on society will be water and water resources.

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.

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.

The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act: H.R. 4174

The Cunctator — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:00:00 -0500

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 4174, legislation introduced by Rep. Tom Allen of Maine on November 14, 2007. The Committee will also examine the current status of science on ocean acidification and research and monitoring activities focused on ocean acidification and its potential impacts on marine organisms and marine ecosystems.

Witnesses

Dr. Richard A. Feely, Supervisory Chemical Oceanographer, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Feely will discuss the quantification of oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide and NOAA’s monitoring program; major research issues to be addressed including the relationship between the ocean acidification process and carbon cycling processes in the ocean.
Dr. Joan Kleypas, Scientist, Institute for the Study of Society and Environment, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Dr. Kleypas will discuss the impacts of ocean acidification on marine life and marine ecosystems, particularly on coral reef ecosystems.

Dr. Scott Doney, Senior Scientist, Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Doney will discuss the gaps in our understanding of ocean acidification and the implications of ocean acidification for marine resource management. Dr. Doney will also discuss current interagency efforts and federal programs addressing ocean acidification.

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science of Washington. Dr. Caldeira will discuss the ongoing changes in the global carbon cycle and its relationship to ocean acidification including the research and modeling efforts needed to better understand ocean acidification and to project its impacts and develop strategies for adaptation and mitigation.
Mr. Brad Warren, Director, Productive Oceans Partnership Program, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership provides policy and technical guidance to seafood suppliers and producers. The Productive Oceans Partnership Program was formed to address the issue of ocean acidification. Mr. Warren will discuss the potential impacts of ocean acidification on the world seafood industry and the steps the Partnership is recommending to deal with the problem of ocean acidification.

Background

What is Ocean Acidification?

Ocean acidification is the process by which the pH of seawater is being lowered through the absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased over the past 200 years from a pre-industrial level of about 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in 2005.1 The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would be much higher if not for the absorption of CO2 by the oceans. The oceans have absorbed about 50 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released over the past 200 years due to human activities resulting in chemical reactions that release carbonic acid and lower ocean pH. The Royal Society of London released a report in 2005 of the consequences of ocean acidification and indicated that the increase in acidity could be as high as 30 percent over the last 200 years.2

Impacts of Ocean Acidification While oceanic absorption of CO2 has reduced the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and therefore limited the greenhouse effect, acidification of the oceans may have negative consequences for sea-life that uses calcium carbonate to grow shells and other physical structures. A growing number of studies have demonstrated adverse impacts on marine organisms, including a decreased rate at which reef-building corals produce their skeletons; reduction in the ability of marine algae and free-swimming zooplankton to maintain protective shells and exoskeletons; and reduced survival of larval marine species, including commercial fish and shellfish. As ocean pH decreases, the amount of available calcium carbonate decreases. Many marine organisms require calcium carbonate to produce their shells and exoskeletons. Calcifiying organisms include coral, mollusks, echinoderms and crustaceans.

The U.S. is the third largest seafood consumer in the world – total consumer spending for fish and shellfish is approximately $60 billion per year. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates as much as $30 billion per year and nearly 70,000 jobs. The organisms likely to be impacted by ocean acidity include both commercially important groups (e.g. clams, oyster, crab, shrimp, and lobster) and organisms that serve as primary food sources for other commercially important species. Healthy coral reefs are the foundation of many of these viable fisheries, as

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change.” Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 2, p. 137.

2 The Royal Society 2005, Science Policy Section, “Oceanic acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, www.royalsoc.ac.uk

well as the source of tourism and recreation revenues. Changes to the stability of coastal reefs may reduce the protection they offer to coastal communities against storm surges and hurricanes.

Many fisheries are also under stress from over fishing, pollution, diseases, and changes in water temperature. Changes to the ocean’s chemistry can be so long-lasting that they are basically irreversible once begun. According to the Royal Society of London’s report3, it would take ten thousand years for the oceans’ pH to return to their pre-industrial level. Chemical additives to the ocean to restore pH are unproven and could have many unintended consequences to ocean ecology and climate.

Current Federal Research and Monitoring Programs on Ocean Acidification Although there are projects being funded through several federal agencies and some initial workshops and meetings have been organized to identify key research areas, there is no coordinated plan of research in place with identified funding to ensure that all aspects of ocean acidification are being monitored and explored to provide a comprehensive picture of this phenomenon. H.R. 4174 is intended to provide a statutory structure to ensure ongoing coordination of the relevant agencies to develop a comprehensive federal research, monitoring and assessment program to address the impacts of ocean acidification. A few of the recent activities undertaken by federal agencies are provided below. NSF, NOAA, NASA, and USGS have been working to develop and coordinate individual agency programs on ocean acidification. These efforts also involve the academic research community and international partners. Japan, Korea, Canada and the European Union are also developing research and monitoring efforts to better understand ocean acidification. The agencies produced a workshop report: Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research. NSF supported a workshop convened by Scripps Institution of Oceanography in October 2007 to discuss potential ocean acidification research projects and to identify key gaps in knowledge about ocean acidification and its potential impacts.

Through these efforts the following key research and monitoring needs have been identified: Monitoring of the changing ocean chemistry and biological impacts at selected coastal and open-ocean monitoring stations, including satellite-based monitoring to characterize reef habitats and to detect changes in surface ocean chemistry in response to ocean acidification; Research to understand the species-specific physiological response of marine organisms to ocean acidification and develop environmental and ecological indices that track marine ecosystem responses to ocean acidification; Modeling to predict changes in the ocean carbon cycle as a function of CO2 and climate-induced changes in temperature, ocean circulation, biogeochemistry, ecosystems and terrestrial input; and to determine impacts on biological systems; Technology development and standardization for carbonate chemistry measurements on moorings and autonomous floats; and Analysis of social and economic implications of ocean acidification and development of adaptation strategies to help society cope with and respond to climate-induced changes in marine ecosystems.

3 The Royal Society 2005, Science Policy Section, “Oceanic acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, www.royalsoc.ac.uk

There are several federal monitoring and research projects underway. The National Science Foundation recently awarded a grant through its Biocomplexity in the Environment area to support deployment of the first buoy to monitor ocean acidification in collaboration with scientists at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Washington and scientists at several universities. The buoy was launched in the Gulf of Alaska last year and will measure air-sea exchange of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen gases and it will measure pH of surface seawater. In 2005, NSF and NOAA collaborated on a cruise to collect field data on ocean acidification in the Pacific Ocean from the southern to the northern hemispheres as part of a long-term, cooperative hydrographic study. The results indicated decreases in pH and increases in dissolved inorganic carbon, both indicators of ocean acidification. NSF is also supporting individual extramural academic research projects on ocean acidification topics through several of its directorates and programs. For example, Dr. Victoria Fabry is leading a team to study a species of marine snail to determine how changes in seawater chemistry may impact its ability to extract calcium from seawater to form its shell and other impacts on its physiology.

H.R. 4174: The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act

Section by Section

Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents

Provides the short title of the legislation: The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2007.

Section 2. Findings and Purposes

Designates the purposes of the legislation: to provide for development of an interagency monitoring and research plan; establishment of an ocean acidification program at NOAA; assessment of the impacts of ocean acidification; and research on adaptation strategies.

Section 3. Interagency Committee on Ocean Acidification

Establishes an interagency committee on ocean acidification chaired by NOAA and designates the membership of the committee to include representatives from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the US Geological Survey, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and other Federal agencies. The section directs the committee to oversee the development of a plan to be submitted to Congress to coordinate federal efforts to understand ocean acidification and its potential impacts on marine ecosystems and to develop adaptive strategies to conserve marine organisms and marine ecosystems. Requires a report to Congress within 2 years of enactment and every 3 years thereafter of the progress of research and monitoring activities and recommendations for addressing impacts of ocean acidification.

Section 4. Strategic Research and Implementation Plan

Directs the Committee to develop a strategic research and implementation plan for coordinated federal activities within 18 months of enactment. Establishes criteria and topics to be included in the interagency program and requires the plan to include goals, priorities, and guidelines for coordinated research over a 10-year period. Requires the Committee to consider and utilize other relevant reports and studies in developing the research plan.

Section 5. NOAA Ocean Acidification Program

Directs the Secretary to establish an ocean acidification program within NOAA to implement activities consistent with the strategic research and implementation plan. Requires the program to provide grants through a competitive, merit-based process.

Section 6. Definitions

Defines the terms Committee, Ocean Acidification, Program, and Secretary.

Section 7. Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations that escalate each year beginning in fiscal year 2009 at a funding level of $6 million through fiscal year 2012 when the funding level reaches $30 million. The authorization is permanent at a level of $30 million thereafter. The section also directs the Secretary to distribute sixty percent of the funds to agencies other than NOAA to carry out the purposes of the Act and directs that at least fifty percent of all funds be used for competitive grants.

Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation

Wonk Room — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:00:00 -0500

Representatives from CRS, EIA, EPA, and CBO discuss their economic analyses of Lieberman-Warner (S. 2191) and other emissions-controlling climate legislative proposals.

Witnesses

Brent Yacobucci, Congressional Research Service
Dr. Larry Parker, Congressional Research Service
Dr. Howard Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator, Energy Information Administration
Dr. Brian McLean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Peter Orszag, Congressional Budget Office

10:03 Domenici: The more of these hearings we can do the better off this country will be. We have five cap-and-trade bills in the Senate. Every single day, 11 out of 11 studies have concluded that these bills will result in higher energy costs, lower economic growth. The analyses of L-W don’t agree on much. Addressing global climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. I remain concerned about the dire consequences L-W could have for our nation. The best estimates of our capable minds often prove inaccurate. The EIA projection for oil prices in 2010 was $25. Even the projected environmental impacts of climate change have varied. IPCC’s assessment of sea level rise was reduced from three feet to 27 inches. Very few will have been able to provide input on the manager’s amendment. We’re all working on a bill that will be irrelevant. It is critical to look at what other countries have tried to do.

Assume the president signs L-W. What will we have achieved for the environment? Close to nothing. Without international participation, L-W will have reduced greenhouse gases by 1% by 2050.

China has surpassed us in global warming emissions. Addressing climate change is a great challenge, but not the only challenge we face.

Rather than choosing among cap-and-trade programs, we could look at promoting nuclear power and other tax incentives.

10:16 Bingaman Orzag recently testified before the Finance Committee.

10:17 Yacobucci explains a cap-and-trade system.

10:22 Parker CRS has conducted a review and synthesis of models projecting costs of S. 2191. Long-term cost projections are at best speculative.

10:30 Gruenspecht The projected impacts of L-W are highly sensitive to assumptions about availability of low and no-carbon energy sources and access to international offsets. Costs are roughly three times larger under least favorable assumptions than under most favorable assumptions. 80-90% of emissions reductions are in the electricity production sector. Over 90% of coal, the main emissions source impacted by a cap, goes into electricity production.

10:37 McLean discusses EPA report.

10:43 Orzag Addressing climate change will involve short-term economic costs. Timing is important. An inflexible cap is bad. Giving the permits away is equivalent to auctioning the permits and giving the money to the polluters. Two key factors of a cap-and-trade system include timing flexibility and auction revenue.

10:49 Bingaman A NAM/ACCF study envisions 75% higher allowance costs than the EIA study but economic impact three times higher. Can you explain why?

Gruenspecht The allowance price difference reflect some of the assumptions, like the absence of banking. We were surprised by the size of macroeconomic losses done for NAM. We asked to look at some of their modeling results and met with their contractor. They used EIA’s high-priced oil policy scenario but compared it to the low-price scenario. We think there are some abnormal results in their report.

Bingaman Basically there’s double-counting?

Gruenspecht They’re mixing the impact of two different things.

Bingaman A price ceiling and floor is the best mechanism?

Orzag I don’t want to say best, but yes.

10:55 Barrasso Effect on gas prices?

Gruenspecht If electricity sector can’t reduce emissions, gas price effect can range from $0.40 to $1.00.

Barrasso I want Americans to be aware of the effects on their pocketbook. You talk about uncertainties. The uncertainties are one of magnitude, not direction: how many jobs will be lost. Will a safety valve help?

Parker A safety valve – putting an upper limit on price – is a very effective of limiting economic impact.

Barrasso There’s going to be lower wages and lower returns for retirement plans no matter what you do.

Parker Prices will go up but whether or not bills will go up depends on individual action. We found bills may go down.

Barrasso Nuclear energy.

Gruenspecht Public acceptance is important.

11:07 Sanders What happens if you don’t act?

Orzag I think climate change is among the nation’s and world’s highest long-term risk. There is some danger of catastrophic change. The question is one of timing. It’s like paying an insurance premium.

Sanders We’re paying $10 billion more for Katrina. What will flooding, drought, war cost? That’s really what we’re debating. It’s disaster if we don’t go forward. I believe you’re underestimating efficiency and renewable energy. Of course there going to be economic dislocation.

McLean On the impacts. I think this is an area that concerns us greatly. It’s a very hard area to quantify and monetize. We’re working on that. On energy efficiency and renewables, there’s a lot we can say about that. We show a huge increase in renewable energy.

Corker The bill that came out is not just a cap-and-trade bill. It’s a huge spending bill. It spends every penny in a non-discretionary way. I think the whole issue of allowances because we’re passing out what is like public shares in a public company. I know the romance of this is interesting. There’s a lot underneath this that is going to affect us. Transfering trillions of dollars of wealth. $7.2 trillion, maybe $23 trillion. I think that’s important. I don’t understand why we would be allocating credits out to middlemen.

In essence this bill transfers out hundreds of billions of dollars to states for no reason.

Orzag It is a key insight that much of this money represents a windfall.

Corker It makes absolutely no sense to give allowances to people not involved in emissions. This bill provides for us to provide international credits. What it does do is transfer out, when we have a trade deficit, hundreds of billions of dollars to projects that are often wracked with fraud.

McLean What would states do with money? I’m not defending the amount of money or the policy decision. A lot of efficiency programs are run at the state level.

Corker I hope this is a dry run.

11:24 Salazar What we’re doing is defining a new energy future for America. There’s a lot of learning yet to be had. On the allocation of the auction revenues. Is this the right allocation?

Orzag It depends what your objective is. Low-income households, minimize macroeconomic costs, spur innovation. A more effective approach to cushion macroeconomic costs would be to auction the permits and use that to reduce payroll taxes.

Salazar A lot of people have talked about a Manhattan-style project. Would it be better to put the money into that pot than to lower costs on low-income consumers?

Orzag It’s big, but there is a given size. You can’t do all things for all people at all times. The price signal will do some things. You can auction revenue and explicitly fund R&D. Or allocate permits to entities that do the work, but that would be more opaque.

Gruenspecht There are issues of economic efficiency and fairness.

Salazar We have these great thoughts and great programs. We talk about hybrids and clean-coal technology. This is an opportunity to marry our work to deal with climate change to make our vision a reality.

11:32 Domenici You’re talking about this as if it is another huge Federal Reserve System. You have made it eminently clear. I think people are going to be very quizzical about what we’re doing. I believe is what we really need to do is develop new technology as rapidly as possible to clean up what we need to clean up, and then clean things up.

Murkowski Is it fair?

Parker None of the models will give you the answer reliably what the cost will be. What the models can do is whether we’ve designed the bill to hold the price down. How can they be modified to bring these reductions at the most economic level.

Murkowski Most useful, but for whose end? If I’m opposed to cap-and-trade, I’ll look at NAM’s model. We can use these models as we use statistics to support our particular situation.

Gruenspecht The different studies start from different baselines. They analyze different provisions. CRA gets a large impact from the low-carbon fuel standard. I already had a long discussion with NAM may have wrapped up two different scenarios. It’s technology and technology acceptance.

12:00 Craig I don’t know if I’m willing to risk Idahoans on the environmental or economic models of climate change. We spent years shaping energy legislation. You’re all over the field, as is the country. I’m not quite sure I can remember, have we as a Congress ever tried to micromanage the market. And I think the answer is no, never before. We’re averaging about 1.9 hurricanes in the United States. An average of $5 billion. The impact of this bill is between three to nine hundred hurricanes. We’ve spread the hurricane hit nationwide. It isn’t just Florida and the Gulf Coast and the East Coast. Now the whole country gets hit, from an economic point of view. Old speak, new speak or green speak, I don’t know where we are. But I suspect no speak is the best way for us to go.

12:08 Bingaman Second-order impacts like employment?

Parker Once you move from first-order to second-order impacts you lose even more certainty. You’re making a whole host of assumptions about a quality of life of a generation that doesn’t even now work. My concerns would be increased when talking about employment numbers.

Orzag The main effect will be on the type of jobs, not the number of jobs.

Bingaman There’s no effort to adjust for dynamic effects.

Orzag I tend not to focus on the job numbers that come out of these assessments.

Gruenspecht I too tend to be very skeptical of job numbers.

Corker Right now 52% of auction proceeds go into technology development. A five-person board, not the Congress, decides how this money is spent. Would this distinguished, mind-numbing panel agree that upstream is a direct tax, pretty much?

Orzag In economics, direct and indirect taxes have a specific meaning. But consumers will bear pretty much all of the cost no matter what.

Corker Upstream is easier to monitor. This is in essence a tax. It is in fact a carbon tax. What’s happened is interest groups have gathered around the table and have made what could have been very simple with a carbon tax very complicated. I’d like you to address the efficacy of a carbon tax that increased over time.

Orzag Economic analysis generally suggest that a carbon tax is more efficient. You can make the cap-and-trade similarly efficient by auctioning all the permits and offering significant flexibility in timing.

Corker And we’re allocating about 70% up front.

Orzag At the very start it’s even greater.

Yacobucci You’d still have to decide where that money goes if it’s a tax.

Corker We’re going to be offering an amendment to return all the revenues to consumers. We’re going to be debating on the floor a tax. Two candidates for president advocated a gas-tax holiday. I think we need to be very transparent about this. Citizens need to know we’re driving up the price of petroleum.

Murkowski Is there something we can do to get the technology in place first?

Orzag Pricing carbon will create a strong incentive for technologies to be developed and diffused throughout the economy.

Murkowski And the impact might be higher in certain areas.

McLean A price signal and investment in R&D both have impact. I think we need to do both.

Aviation and the Environment: Emissions

The Cunctator — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:00:00 -0500

Rising Tides, Rising Temperatures: Global Warming Effects on Oceans

The Cunctator — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:30:00 -0500

On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing examining the impact global warming is having on the earth’s oceans and ecosystems. Featuring renowned explorer Sylvia Earle and other ocean experts, the hearing will discuss how carbon dioxide emissions and the effects from global warming are harming the earth’s coral reefs, increasing the acidity and sea-levels of oceans across the globe, and putting fish stocks at risk during an already burgeoning food crisis.

Witnesses

Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence, National Geographic Society
Dr. Vikki Spruill, President and CEO of The Ocean Conservancy
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University
Dr. Joan Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

The Electric Drive Answer: Transportation Technologies & Policies to End Oil Dependence

The Cunctator — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:30:00 -0500

The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA), with support from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, invites you to The Electric Drive Answer: Transportation Technologies & Policies to End Oil Dependence.

During this unique multi-industry panel, EDTA members will detail their latest projects and plans for battery, hybrid, plug-in and fuel cell electric drive vehicles, components and infrastructure. They will also discuss how federal policies can speed the commercialization of clean, efficient electric drive and reduce the role of oil in transportation.

EDTA members from the following companies will participate: Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai Motor Company, Toyota, Southern California Edison, Johnson Controls-Saft Advanced Power Solutions, Electrovaya, EnerDel, Phoenix Motorcars, and Vectrix.

Panelists:

Mike Andrew, Director of Government Affairs and External Communications, HEV Battery Systems Power Solutions, Johnson Controls-Saft Advanced Power Solutions
Edward B. Cohen, Vice President, Government & Industry Relations, Honda North America
Dr. Sankar Das Gupta, CEO, Electrovaya (or another representative)
Daniel J. Elliott, CEO, Phoenix Motorcars
Charles Gassenheimer, Chairman of the Board, Ener1
Nancy Gioia, Director of Sustainable Mobility Technologies and Hybrid Vehicle Programs, Ford Motor Company
Charles Ing, Director, Government Affairs, Toyota
Andrew J. MacGowan, Executive Chairman, CEO, & President, Vectrix
William MacLeod, Senior Manager, Government Affairs, Hyundai Motor Company
Dean Taylor, Technical Specialist, Southern California Edison
Joseph Trahern, Director Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, General Motors

This event is free and open to everyone. Pre-registration is not required. Please forward this notice. For more information please contact EDTA by visiting www.electricdrive.org or by contacting Jennifer Watts at 202-408-0774×306 or jwatts@electricdrive.org.

About EDTA: The Electric Drive Transportation Association is a trade association representing battery, hybrid and fuel cell electric drive technologies and infrastructure. EDTA’s membership includes major automotive and other equipment manufacturers, electric utilities, technology developers, component suppliers, and government agencies.

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Come to DC

The Cunctator — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:00:00 -0500

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to view and ride in a plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) on the Capitol Mall during the Earth Day festivities. Flexible-fuel PHEVs offer a promising opportunity to reduce dependence on imported oil, decrease greenhouse gas and other transportation emissions, revitalize local economies, and lower fuel costs. The single largest contributor to America’s foreign oil dependence is the transportation sector which accounts for two-thirds of US oil consumption. Moreover, the transportation sector is 97 percent dependent on petroleum.

The vehicle, an XH-150, was developed by the Bellevue, Washington-based AFS Trinity Corp. and is a modified 2007 Saturn Vue Greenline SUV that gets up to 150 miles-per-gallon. Its energy storage system combines lithium-ion batteries with ultracapacitors. Adding ultracapacitors allows the vehicle to achieve top speeds and rapid acceleration in electric-only mode equal to a conventional hybrid. For a typical daily commute of 40 miles round trip, the vehicle does not use its internal combustion engine at all. The XH-150 was unveiled in January at Detroit’s North American International Auto Show. Look for the AFS Trinity Truck on the Mall.

A September 2007 Harris National Study found that more than one quarter of vehicle owners would consider purchasing a PHEV for their next vehicle purchase. On January 31, GM’s vice president for global program management, Jonathan Lauckner, said GM plans to build “tens of thousands” Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid electric cars by 2011. A shift to manufacturing flexible-fuel PHEVs could be central to revitalization of the American auto industry by positioning domestic automakers as leaders in this emerging technology. Plug-in hybrids can be recharged in standard electric sockets, then driven 20 to 60 miles without the use of gasoline. This means the commute of millions of Americans could be completed with the use of little, if any, gasoline. Such savings are critical in these tight economic times.

Federal and state support of this technology can accelerate commercial deployment. More than 45 bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that include provisions for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A national campaign to raise awareness of PHEVs has received tremendous response from state and local governments, businesses, utilities, as well as national security, environmental and public interest groups. More than 630 entities have joined the National Plug-In Partners Campaign (spearheaded by Austin Energy), including a number of the nation’s largest cities including Austin, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. In addition, the campaign has now surpassed 8,000 fleet orders, helping to prove to automakers that if they build plug-in vehicles, Americans will buy them.

This event is open to the public. No RSVP is required. For more information, please contact Fred Beck at 202-662-1892 or fbeck@eesi.org.

Location: Capitol Mall between 4th and 14th Streets