Clean Air Act-Most Important Climate and Energy Vote of Year Tests Senate Direction

Most Important Climate and Energy Vote of Year Tests Senate Direction

by Keith Schneider on 06/08/2010 14:07
Categories: Politics & Legislation, Energy, Climate
Tags: clean air act, endangerment finding, environmental protection agency (epa), sen lisa murkowski

Late last year when Senator Lisa Murkowski announced she would vigorously oppose any effort to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions, environmental leaders in Washington understood the significance of the Alaska Republican's challenge. A loyal ally of fossil fuel developers, Senator Murkowski attracts more campaign financing from the oil and utility industries than all but two other Senate lawmakers, according to federal election records.  

 

The months-long skirnishing between Senator Murkowski and environmental advocates is now in its final hours, with both sides asserting they will prevail. At stake is a vote in the Senate scheduled for Thursday night on a "resolution of disapproval" introduced by Senator Murkowski last January and meant to disrupt the Obama administration's pioneering work to respond to climate change by limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases in the U.S.

 

Though the Murkowski resolution faces an arduous route through a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House, the Thursday vote will be the most important Congressional test yet this year on where the United States is going on climate action and clean energy.

 

The details of what's been happening look like this: Senator Murkowski's resolution, which has 41 co-sponsors, would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's formal scientific finding on December 7, 2009 that carbon dioxide and five other climate-changing pollutants endanger human health and the environment.

 The EPA's "endangerment finding," introduced at the start of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen last year, was saluted by climate activists and government officials around the world. The finding made it legally possible to use the Clean Air Act, the nation's primary air pollution statute, to set and enforce new manufacturing practices and emissions limits that tamed the U.S. contribution to global climate change.

 

Moment of Reckoning For Both Sides
The vote couldn't come at a more opportune moment for climate advocates and the fossil fuel industry and should provide a helpful sorting out of the relative political influence of both sides.

 

The last six months have been a period of dismay for the American climate action community, challenged by the disappointing results in Copenhagen, and fighting back against the furious attack by pundits and lawmakers on the validity of climate science.

 

The last six weeks have been equally dismal for the oil industry, which has attracted new public scrutiny because of the horrendous oil spill in the Gulf, and the equally destructive environmental consequences of mining and processing oil from Alberta, Canada's tar sands.

 

If the resolution passes, an event seen as unlikely by Democratic Senate staffers, it would almost certainly have the effect of putting an even deeper  trench in the already difficult path that comprehensive climate and energy legislation has in the Senate. Conversely, if the resolution fails by a wide margin, that result would likely build new legislative enthusiasm for a climate and energy bill this year.

 

Important players from both sides are making their cases. Americans United for Change today began three days of cable TV advertising  in Washington, D.C., that explicitly link the BP Gulf disaster to the Murkowski resolution and the assertion that at Republicans are "working to gut the bipartisan Clean Air Act and give big oil a bailout."

Senator Murkowski issued a statement this week that accused critics of the resolution of misrepresenting her intentions. "There has been a great deal of misinformation spread about my effort by groups -- almost all of which are based outside of Alaska -- who want to cut the emissions blamed for climate change no matter what the cost," Murkowski said.  Her spokesman, Robert Dillon, said the resolution is not about debating the science behind climate change. Rather, he told the Associated Press, it's about stopping an "out of control" government agency.

Senator Murkowski's conservative supporters contend that using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions is a regulatory overreach by big government. "Every sector of our economy -- transportation, power generation and manufacturing -- would be subjected to EPA's bureaucratic reach," said Tom Borelli director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

 
Endangerment Finding Put to Use
The Obama administration, meanwhile, has moved quickly to put the endangerment finding and its Clean Air Act authority into effect. In April the administration issued trend-setting fuel mileage and emissions standards for light vehicles that the agency said would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and 900 million tons of carbon emissions from 2012 to 2016.

 Last month, President Obama ordered similar mileage and emissions reduction rules for heavy trucks. The administration has also made plain its intention to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions from some 7,000 industrial installations – refineries, utilities, manufacturers, and mining sites – but leave small businesses alone.

U.S. climate and clean energy organizations anticipated Senator Murkowski's challenge and began building support in January to defeat the resolution, which they called the "Dirty Air Act." Among the allies in the campaign were dozens of environmental organizations, labor unions, governors, President Obama, Democratic senators, and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

Newspaper editorialists also weighed in, noting that the BP Gulf Spill has made it more urgent than ever to curtail the myriad hazards of America's addiction to oil. "Murkowski plans to offer a resolution," said the Washington Post on June 7, "making it less likely we move away from fossil fuels, making it less likely we act to prevent a foreseeable catastrophe (in this case, global warming) from occurring, blocking regulators from doing their jobs, and disrupting one of our best opportunities to prevent climate change rather than scramble to respond after its incalculable effects rip through our atmosphere."

In an article on Monday for the Huffington Post, EPA Administrator Jackson said the Murkowski resolution "abdicates the responsibility we have to move the country forward in a way that creates jobs, increases our security by breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and protects the air and water we rely on."

--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Senator Murkowski Thinks Polluters Can Police Themselves

by Frances Beinecke on 06/07/2010 11:32 
Categories: Carbon and De-carbonization, Politics & Legislation, Climate
Tags: climate change, carbon, pollution + regulation, sen murkowski

This Thursday, lawmakers will likely vote on Senator Lisa Murkowski's resolution to undercut the government's authority to regulate global warming pollution.

I find it shocking that Senator Murkowski is moving forward with this resolution now--even as oil continues to flow into the Gulf of Mexico seven weeks after BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout.

Not only could the resolution prolong our oil addiction by delaying America's shift to cleaner energy, but it will also undermine one of the government's most effective tools for holding polluters accountable--the Clean Air Act.

Now is not the time to have faith in polluters' ability to police themselves. 

Yet despite all of BP's broken promises about its safety measures and ability to clean up offshore spills, Senator Murkowski thinks we should trust polluters to handle the problem of global warming too. She doesn't want the EPA to get involved with limiting global warming pollution from power plants, oil refineries, and cars.

Indeed, her resolution would void recent EPA efforts to reduce dangerous pollution, including new standards to cut carbon emissions and improve fuel efficiency for new cars, SUVs, and light trucks--standards that also will save billions of gallons of gasoline.

Murkowski's resolution would knock the EPA rules of the picture, sacrificing a quarter of the fuel savings expected from standards set together with the Transportation Department.  And that means consumers will buy 18.9 billion gallons of gasoline and spend around $56.7 billion at the pump that they wouldn't have to if the EPA retained its authority.

That may be good for the oil industry, but it's' not good for Americans' health or pocketbooks.

Instead of indulging industry's desire to dump carbon pollution into the air without limit, Senators should be working on cleaner, safer solutions.

They should pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that retains the EPA's ability to enforce pollution reductions. This is the most effective way to cut pollution, protect our oceans, and reduce our dependence on oil. 

Link to original post

--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Cozy Financial Relationships Between Environmentalists and Oil and Natural Gas Companies

by Rod Adams on 05/28/2010 05:10   5 comments , 741 views
Categories: Environmental Policy
Tags: climategate, national wildlife federation, environmental groups, industry ties

A friend who has heard me discuss my theories about the relationships between mainstream Environmental groups and fossil fuel extraction and marketing companies sent me a link to an article titled Polluted by profit: Johann Hari on the real Climategate. He included a rather amusing subject line on the email "Red meat for Rod" and addressed it to a small group of people who also have been subjected to my "wild" and somewhat contra-intuitive theories.

The article discusses how some large environmental groups decided to start taking corporate cash with the good intention of using it as a tool to do more effective advocacy for their particular issue. According to Johann Hari, the actual practice has not worked out as initially envisioned, and some organizations have lost disillusioned members as their coffers have swelled with the polluter's contributions.

Yet as we confront the biggest ecological crisis in human history, many of the green organizations meant to be leading the fight are busy shovelling up hard cash from the world's worst polluters – and simultaneously burying science-based environmentalism. In the middle of a swirl of bogus climate scandals trumped up by deniers, here is the real Climategate, waiting to be exposed.

There are some juicy bits of evidence and examples in the article. Here is a sample to whet your appetite before you go and read it for yourself.

Christine MacDonald, an idealistic young environmentalist, discovered how deeply this cash had transformed these institutions when she started to work for CI (Conservation International) in 2006. She told me: "About a week or two after I started, I went to the big planning meeting of all the organisation's media teams, and they started talking about this supposedly great new project they were running with BP. But I had read in the newspaper the day before that the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] had condemned BP for running the most polluting plant in the whole country... But nobody in that meeting, or anywhere else in the organization, wanted to talk about it. It was a taboo. You weren't supposed to ask if BP was really green. They were 'helping' us, and that was it."

One quibble that I have is that Johann Hari attributes the trend of accepting contributions from polluters to Jay Hair of the National Wildlife Federation. My research has revealed decisions by people like Michael McCloskey that predate Hair's tenure with the NWF. McCloskey rose to be the Sierra Club Executive Director before the first Earth Day in 1970 and was an active leader in the organization for more than 40 years. He detailed his actions to place the organization on "firm financial footing" that included accepting corporate donations in his book titled In the Thick of It.

--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Energy News June 10,2010

Editor's Choices

Mixed Outlook for Gas Reactors

By Dan Yurman - The future of high temperature gas-cooled reactors is taking different directions depending on where you look. In Europe a multi-national collaboration is working on plans for a site to build the Allegro Reactor. However, in South Africa the proposed "rescue plan" for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor involves selling off the now unfunded project by auction.   » Continue...

From our sponsors

RWE Innogy, Stadtwerke München and Siemens build offshore wind farm Gwynt y Mor

RWE Innogy and Siemens have entered into a joint venture to build the offshore wind farm Gwynt y Môr (Welsh for "wind in the sea"). RWE Innogy will hold a 60% stake in this joint venture, Stadtwerke München 30% and Siemens 10%. The total investment amounts to more than two billion Euros, including the grid connection to the coast.  » Continue...

Most Important Climate and Energy Vote of the Year Tests Senate Direction

By Keith Schneider - Late last year when Senator Lisa Murkowski announced she would vigorously oppose any effort to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions, environmental leaders in Washington understood the significance of the Alaska Republican's challenge. A loyal ally of fossil fuel developers, Senator Murkowski attracts more campaign financing from the oil and utility industries than all but two other Senate lawmakers, according to federal election records.   » Continue...

Shame on You, Carly Fiorina

By Marc Gunther - And then there's Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, who is running for the U.S. Senate in California, hoping to unseat the incumbent Democrat, Barbara Boxer. She is giving business a bad name, notably with a new TV ad about climate which is unfair, stupid and destructive.  » Continue...

Cozy Financial Relationships Between Environmentalists and Oil and Natural Gas Companies

By Rod Adams - A friend who has heard me discuss my theories about the relationships between mainstream Environmental groups and fossil fuel extraction and marketing companies sent me a link to an article titled Polluted by profit: Johann Hari on the real Climategate. He included a rather amusing subject line on the email "Red meat for Rod" and addressed it to a small group of people who also have been subjected to my "wild" and somewhat contra-intuitive theories.  » Continue...

Winners and Losers from the Gulf Oil Spill

By Geoff Styles - A comment on my recent posting on oil substitution opportunities in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill got me thinking about potential winners and losers from the broad changes that seem likely to ensue from this disaster. Some of these outcomes would depend on new laws and regulations that could alter the basis of competition within the oil and gas industry, between it and other energy sectors, and between specific energy technologies. However, I also wouldn't discount the possibility of enduring changes in our perceptions of the oil industry and of the ways in which we use oil.  » Continue...

BP Station Boycotts: Who Gets Hurt?

By Jane Van Ryan - Anti-oil activists have found an outlet for their frustration over the Gulf oil spill. In several states this week, they are protesting, holding vigils, and calling for boycotts against BP. The demonstrations are likely to be similar to the protest held in Washington last Friday where Public Citizen and seven other activist groups waved signs, chanted and held a mock citizen's arrest of BP CEO Tony Hayward.   » Continue...

--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

US Energy and Use of

What Fuels Our Energy Addiction: Understanding The Sources of Energy and How The U.S. Uses Each By Eric Corey Freed Eric Corey Freed Green Building & Remodeling for Dummies Eric Corey Freed is an architect, lecturer, and writer based in San Francisco, California, with 15 years of experience in green building. He is a practitioner in the tradition of organic architecture, first developed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Eric is founder and principal of organicARCHITECT, part architecture firm, part think tank. In addition to designing award-winning green buildings, the firm publishes its research and produces the annual organicAWARDS to recognize designs that are both innovative and environmentally responsible. During Eric's early years working in his hometown of Philadelphia and in New York City, noted architect and critic Philip Johnson cited Eric as "one of the real brains of his generation." After several years in Santa Fe, New Mexico, working with natural building materials, he moved to San Francisco in 1997 to join the heart of the green building movement.  In 2002, he was Founding Chair of Architecture for the San Francisco Design Museum, the exhibits of which were featured in Metropolis, ARTNews, and Newsweek. In 2005, San Francisco magazine named Eric the city's "Best Green Architect." Eric teaches in the Sustainable Design program he co-developed at the Academy of Art University and the University of California, Berkeley. He is on the boards of Architects, Designers & Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR), Natural World Museum, Green Home Guide, and West Coast Green, as well as the advisory boards of nearly a dozen other organizations. A much sought-after lecturer, Eric speaks extensively around the United States, giving nearly 50 talks a year, and consults directly to large companies seeking to transition into sustainability. His monthly column, Ask the Green Architect, is published by GreenerBuildings and syndicated to dozens of other publications. He is a regular columnist for LUXE Magazine and his work has been featured in Dwell, Natural Home, Newsweek, and Town & Country, among others.   The Energy Efficient Home Energy Hogs Energy Sources Home Energy Efficiency Insulation Lighting Features Daylighting Caulking and Sealing Energy-Efficient Windows Energy Efficient Appliances If you turn on a light switch, somewhere in the world, a generator has to produce that electricity. Utility companies did too good a job of making our use of energy simple and seamless. Most people don't know where this instantaneous energy comes from, or the journey it takes to get to them. The following table breaks down the sources for all our various forms of energy   If it seems a little off balance, that's because it is. We rely heavily on nonrenewable, fossil-fuel-based energy. We suck these fossil fuels out of the ground, and it continues to get harder and harder to find new sources of fossil fuels. In addition, the burning of these fuels causes global warming, pollutes the air and water, and continues to get more expensive. The money spent on finding new sources of oil can be better used to invest in renewable energy. Energy Source Used In Renewable or Nonrenewable? Percent Oil Transportation and manufacturing Nonrenewable 38.1 Natural gas Heating and electricity Nonrenewable 22.9 Coal Electricity Nonrenewable 23.2 Nuclear Electricity Nonrenewable 8.1 Propane Heating Nonrenewable 1.7 Biomass Heating, electricity, and transportation Renewable 2.9 Hydropower Electricity Renewable 2.7 Geothermal Heating and electricity Renewable 0.3 Wind Electricity Renewable 0.1 Solar Light, heating, and electricity Renewable 0.1 Oil  Americans love cars. Cruising down the open highway is woven into American life, like apple pie and baseball. But all this driving comes with a huge price. The gasoline that Americans use to move these cars is part of a 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit. More than 55 percent of the oil Americans use is imported from other countries, many of which are economically and politically unstable. Americans' consumption of oil continuously increases, while the supplies of oil around the world are slowly running out. The pollution from cars and trucks produces more global warming and more air-quality issues. A third of greenhouse gas emissions are from gas burned in automobiles. Natural gas Like coal (see the following section), natural gas is a fossil fuel found in large underground deposits. Because it was created millions of years ago, we can't create more. Although natural gas is clean burning and gives off lower levels of air pollution than coal, gas still has the same issue that all fossil fuels have — what happens when we run out? Coal Coal is a combustible mineral found buried deep in the earth. Because coal is a fossil fuel, formed from the ancient remains of plants and dinosaurs, we can't produce more when we run out.   Unlike some of the other energy sources, the United States actually has an overabundance of coal — enough to last for centuries. In fact, the United States has so much of the stuff that it exports coal to other countries. Coal generates more than half the electricity used in the United States, and is the nation's largest single source of energy. Unfortunately, coal is also the biggest polluter in the United States. It is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and mercury poisoning in U.S. air and water. In addition, coal mining is one of the most destructive things people can do to an area. New technologies are being developed to reduce the pollution from coal production and burning. Sometimes incorrectly referred to as "clean coal," the process crushes the coal into a gas, and uses steam to treat the pollution and gas coming out of the flue. The nonprofit watchdog organization Greenpeace has labeled clean coal technology as "greenwashing" and not solving the real problems associated with coal. Nuclear Think of nuclear energy as a fancy way to boil water. Nuclear energy uses radioactive materials to create steam, and that steam powers a generator, which then makes electricity. Nuclear energy is the second largest source of electricity in the world. It's cheap and doesn't give off any air pollution. Unfortunately, dealing with the radioactive waste created by the creation of nuclear energy is a big problem — no one knows where to put it (or how). Plus, nuclear incidents, like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, rare as they are, raise safety issues Hydropower (dams)   Hydropower comes from building a large dam across a river. To make electricity, the dam is opened and water flows into it, spinning the turbines to generate electricity. Because it uses water, hydroelectric power is considered to be a clean, renewable source of energy. Unfortunately, when the dams are built, low-lying rivers get turned into deep lakes and entire habitats are destroyed.

5 Energy Hogs

The Energy Efficient Home Energy Hogs Energy Sources Home Energy Efficiency Insulation Lighting Features Daylighting Caulking and Sealing Energy-Efficient Windows Energy Efficient Appliances The energy released from the burning of natural resources (to provide heat and power) is a precious commodity. People are all dependent on this energy. Think about the last time there was a power outage at your home and how difficult it was to function. Remember digging through drawers for a flashlight or some candles, unable to use the microwave, or praying that the batteries on your laptop would last a few more minutes? Our entire lives are wrapped around this addiction to energy. Despite all we now know about the importance of reducing energy use, the demand for energy keeps going up. The oil Americans now consume in six weeks would have lasted an entire year in 1950. But it's not just oil. American demand for electricity will rise by 45 percent in the next ten years. In order to keep lights on, rooms comfortable, and hot showers flowing, buildings are the biggest users of energy. The majority of the world's energy goes into keeping our buildings running and comfortable. In reality, most of this energy could be saved with building improvements. Smarter planning, better insulation, and solar panels are all examples of how to reduce the energy use in buildings. So what do we do with all this energy? More than two-thirds of the energy in a building is used for lighting, heating, and cooling:     *    Heating: 34 percent     *    Appliances and lighting: 34 percent     *    Water heating: 13 percent     *    Electric air conditioner: 11 percent     *    Refrigerator: 8 percent Each of these areas is a potential place to conserve energy.  You can see a simple overview of where to save energy in your home in the image below and find more details in our Energy Efficiency Guide.   Scotts Contracting is available for your Home Repairs and Upgrades. email: scottscontracting@gmail.com to schedule a no cost site evaluation.

Green Lighting, ENERGY STAR Advanced Lighting Package

Lighting the Way to a Better World.

What is the ENERGY STAR Advanced Lighting Package (ALP)?

An ENERGY STAR Advanced Lighting Package designation identifies homes equipped with a comprehensive set of ENERGY STAR qualified light fixtures. With an Advanced Lighting Package installed, homebuyers can expect to save energy and money through reduced lighting operating costs — while sacrificing nothing for aesthetics! ENERGY STAR qualified fixtures are available in many designs and fixture-types, giving homeowners a wide range of choices to create just the right look for their home.

The Advanced Lighting Package designation applies to lighting packages, for new home construction, that consist of a minimum of 60% ENERGY STAR qualified hard-wired fixtures and 100% ENERGY STAR qualified ceiling fans where installed.

Benefits of the ENERGY STAR Advanced Lighting Package

• Energy Bill Savings. You can save more than $170 per year in energy costs just by installing ENERGY STAR Advanced Lighting Package. That's because ENERGY STAR qualified lighting uses about 75% less energy than standard models.
• Improved Quality. ENERGY STAR qualified light fixtures meet strict EPA guidelines for energy efficiency and quality, producing warm, long-lasting light without slow starts or annoying flicker or hum. Fixtures that have earned the ENERGY STAR come with a two-year warranty, double the industry standard. Qualified ceiling fans offer a minimum 30-year motor warranty and 2-year component warranties.
• Enhanced Comfort. ENERGY STAR qualified lighting generates about 75% less heat than standard incandescent lighting. This means they are cool to the touch, keep you more comfortable, and help reduce home cooling costs.

  Install ENERGY STAR qualified ceiling fans and light kits, which together are 50% more energy-efficient than conventional fan/light units, and save even more while staying cool. Make sure to adjust the thermostat while using ceiling fans to save additional energy and money on your air conditioning costs.

• Environmental Protection. More than half of the electricity used in American homes is generated by burning coal. Lowering energy use at home helps prevent greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants at the source. If every American home replaced its five most frequently used light fixtures with ENERGY STAR qualified models, together we'd prevent the greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions from nearly 10 million cars.
• Design Flexibility: There are thousands of ENERGY STAR qualified light fixtures to choose from. They are available in many styles and finishes and are suitable for every application in home. The Advanced Lighting Package requirements are designed to promote flexibility in fixture selections throughout the home.

Email Scotty@stlouisrenewabeenergy.com for all your Green Building Needs in St Louis