-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

6.11.2010

Oil Spill June 11

With each look at oil flow, the numbers get worse

This image from video provided by BP PLC early Friday morning, June 11, 2010 shows oil continuing to pour out at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil AP – This image from video provided by BP PLC early Friday morning, June 11, 2010 shows oil continuing to …
Related Quotes
Symbol Price Change
BP 33.66 +0.88
XOM 61.29 -0.60
^GSPC 1,083.19 -3.65

HOUSTON – With each new look by scientists, the oil spill just keeps looking worse.

New figures for the blown-out well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico show the amount of oil spewing may have been up to twice as much as previously thought, according to scientists consulting with the federal government.

That could mean 42 million gallons to more than 100 million gallons of oil have already fouled the Gulf's fragile waters, affecting people who live, work and play along the coast from Louisiana to Florida — and perhaps beyond.

It is the third — and perhaps not the last — time the U.S. government has had to increase its estimate of how much oil is gushing. Trying to clarify what has been a contentious and confusing issue, officials on Thursday gave a wide variety of estimates.

All the new spill estimates are worse than earlier ones รข€" and far more costly for BP, which has seen its stock sink since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and triggered the spill. Most of Thursday's estimates had more oil flowing in an hour than what officials once said was spilling in an entire day.

"This is a nightmare that keeps getting worse every week," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. "We're finding out more and more information about the extent of the damage. ... Clearly we can't trust BP's estimates of how much oil is coming out."

The spill was flowing at a daily rate that could possibly have been as high as 2.1 million gallons, twice the highest number the federal government had been saying, U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt, who is coordinating estimates, said Thursday. But she said possibly more credible numbers are a bit lower.

And the estimate does not take into account the cutting of the riser pipe on June 3 — which BP said would increase the flow by about 20 percent — and subsequent placement of a cap. No estimates were given for the amount of oil gushing from the well after the cut. Nor are there estimates since a cap was put on the pipe, which already has collected more than 3 million gallons.

The estimates are not nearly complete and different teams have come up with different numbers. A new team from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute came in with even higher estimates, ranging from 1 million gallons a day to 2.1 million gallons. If the high end is true, that means nearly 107 million gallons have spilled since April 20.

Even using other numbers that federal officials and scientists call a more reasonable range would have about 63 million gallons spilling since the rig explosion. If that amount was put in gallon milk jugs, they would line up for nearly 5,500 miles. That's the distance from the spill to London, where BP is headquartered, and then continuing on to Rome.

By comparison, the worst peacetime oil spill, 1979's Ixtoc 1 in Mexico, was about 140 million gallons over 10 months. The Gulf spill hasn't yet reached two months. The Exxon Valdez, the previous worst U.S. oil spill, was just about 11 million gallons, and the new figures mean Deepwater Horizon is producing an Exxon Valdez size spill every five to 13 days.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama consoled relatives of the 11 workers killed in the oil rig explosion, acknowledging their "unimaginable grief" and personally assuring the families he will stand with them.

One man who lost a son asked Obama to support efforts to update federal law limiting the amount of money the families can collect.

"He told us we weren't going to be forgotten," said Keith Jones of Baton Rouge, La. "He just wanted us to know this wasn't going to leave his mind and his heart."

Jones' 28-year-old son, Gordon, was working on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig leased by BP PLC when it exploded and then sank.

Later in the day, the White House released a letter from Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is overseeing the crisis for the government, inviting BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and "any appropriate officials from BP" to meet Wednesday with senior administration officials. Allen said Obama, who has yet to speak with any BP official since the explosion more than seven weeks ago, would participate in a portion of the meeting.

As the crude continues to foul the water, Louisiana leaders are rushing to the defense of the oil-and-gas industry and pleading with Washington to immediately bring back offshore drilling. Though angry at BP over the disaster, state officials warn that the Obama administration's six-month halt to new permits for deep-sea oil drilling has sent Louisiana's most lucrative industry into a death spiral.

They contend that drilling is safe overall and the moratorium is a knee-jerk reaction. They worry that it comes at a time when another major Louisiana industry — fishing — has been brought to a standstill by the Gulf mess.

"Mr. President, you were looking for someone's butt to kick. You're kicking ours," Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph said Thursday.

The oil-and-gas brings in billions of dollars in revenue for Louisiana and accounting for nearly one-third of the nation's domestic crude production, and it took a heavy blow when the government imposed the moratorium.

"It's going to put us out of business," said Glenn LeCompte, owner of a Louisiana catering company that provides food to offshore rigs.

With all sorts of estimates for what's flowing from the BP well — some even smaller than the amount collected by BP in its containment cap — McNutt the most credible range at the moment is between 840,000 gallons and 1.68 million gallons a day. Then she added that it was "maybe a little bit more."

But later Thursday, the Interior Department said scientists who based their calculations on video say the best estimate for oil flow before June 3 was between 1.05 million gallons a day and 1.26 million gallons a day. The department mentioned only a cubic meter per second rate from Woods Hole — not a rate that translated into actual amounts — and those numbers only added to the confusion on just how much oil is gushing out.

Previous estimates had put the range roughly between half a million and a million gallons a day, perhaps higher. At one point, the federal government claimed only 42,000 gallons were spilling a day and then it upped the number to 210,000 gallons.

___

Associated Press writers Tamara Lush, Alan Sayre and Ray Henry in New Orleans, Chris Kahn in New York, Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, Mary Foster in Port Fourchon and Brian Skoloff in Morgan City contributed to this report. Weber reported from Houston, Borenstein from Washington.



Scott's Contracting is your Affordable Experience & Punctual Handy Man for the St Louis Area, Free Green Site Inspections and Estimates for your Small and Large Projects



Politics as usual-The bill is S.J. Res. 26.

Obama's greenhouse gas rules survive Senate vote

WASHINGTON – In a boost for the president on global warming, the Senate on Thursday rejected a challenge to Obama administration rules aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other big polluters.

The defeated resolution would have denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to move ahead with the rules, crafted under the federal Clean Air Act. With President Barack Obama's broader clean energy legislation struggling to gain a foothold in the Senate, the vote took on greater significance as a signal of where lawmakers stand on dealing with climate change.

"If ever there was a vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
The vote was 53-47 to stop the Senate from moving forward on the Republican-led effort to restrain the EPA.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., predicted the vote would "increase momentum to adopt comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year."

But Obama still needs 60 votes to advance his energy agenda, and Democrats don't have them yet. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said the vote made clear that a majority in the Senate back either a delay or an outright ban on "the Obama EPA's job-killing, global warming agenda."

Republicans, and the six Democrats who voted with them to advance the resolution, said Congress, not bureaucrats, should be in charge of writing climate change policy. They said the EPA rules would drive up energy costs and kill jobs.

But Democrats, referring frequently to the Gulf oil spill, said it made no sense to undermine efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.

The effort to block the rules "is an attempt to bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality," said Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.

Obama said the vote was another reminder of the need to pass legislation to reduce the country's reliance on oil. The White House had issued a veto threat this week, saying the resolution would block efforts to cut pollution that could harm people's health and well-being.

"Today the Senate chose to move America forward, towards that clean energy economy — not backward to the same failed policies that have left our nation increasingly dependent on foreign oil," he said.

The EPA crafted standards on greenhouse gas emissions by big polluters after the Supreme Court ruled that those emissions could be considered a danger to human health and thus could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The rules are to go into effect next January.
The poor chances of the anti-EPA measure overcoming a veto and becoming law did not deter fierce debate.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the new regulations a "blatant power grab by the administration and the EPA." With a broad energy bill unlikely to pass this year, "the administration has shifted course and is now trying to get done through the back door what they haven't been able to get done through the front door," he said.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the blocking measure, "a great big gift to big oil" that would "increase pollution, increase our dependence on foreign oil and stall our efforts to create jobs" in clean energy.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that he anticipated the Senate taking up a broader energy bill in the next several weeks "and hopefully we can get something done before Congress adjourns this year."

The sponsor of Thursday's resolution, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of oil-rich Alaska, said her intent was to protect the authority of Congress, not the interests of the oil industry. "It should be up to us to set the policy of this country, not unelected bureaucrats within an agency," she said.

Her Democratic allies used similar arguments. "The regulatory approach is the wrong way to promote renewable energy and clean energy jobs in Arkansas and the rest of the country," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who faces a difficult re-election campaign this summer.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who opposed the resolution, agreed that Congress should not cede its authority to the executive branch but expressed concern the measure would reverse progress made in such areas as vehicle emissions. He said he supported a bill that would suspend EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for two years.

Murkowski, too, said Congress should be working harder to come up with an energy bill. The issue was whether a consensus was possible this year.

"Here's the real rub," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has worked with Democrats on possible energy legislation. "If we stop them (the rules), are we going to do anything?"

"This is going to be the great hypocrisy test," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., cosponsor of a major clean energy proposal. He asked whether those demanding that Congress act first would actually vote for change.

There were other disputes about the consequences of the Murkowski resolution. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and the White House said the resolution would force the EPA to rescind the standards for emissions from future-model cars and light trucks it came up with earlier this year with the Transportation Department. The result, she said, would be a need for the country to consume an extra 455 million barrels of oil.

Murkowski and others countered that Transportation has long been able to set fuel efficiency standards without the help of the EPA.

Jackson also denied the argument of critics that the EPA rules would impose devastating costs on small businesses and farmers, resulting in major job losses. The EPA added a provision that exempts small sources of pollution from the regulations for six years.
___
The bill is S.J. Res. 26.
Online:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov.


--
Scott's Contracting

6.10.2010

More Active Sun Means Nasty Solar Storms Ahead

Solar Storm News

The sun is about to get a lot more active, which could have ill effects on Earth. So to prepare, top sun scientists met Tuesday to discuss the best ways to protect Earth's satellites and other vital systems from the coming solar storms.

Solar storms occur when sunspots on our star erupt and spew out flumes of charged particles that can damage power systems. The sun's activity typically follows an 11-year cycle, and it looks to be coming out of a slump and gearing up for an active period.

"The sun is waking up from a deep slumber, and in the next few years we expect to see much higher levels of solar activity," said Richard Fisher, head of NASA's Heliophysics Division. "At the same time, our technological society has developed an unprecedented sensitivity to solar storms. The intersection of these two issues is what we're getting together to discuss."

Fisher and other experts met at the Space Weather Enterprise Forum, which took place in Washington, D.C., at the National Press Club.

Bad news for gizmos

People of the 21st century rely on high-tech systems for the basics of daily life. But smart power grids, GPS navigation, air travel, financial services and emergency radio communications can all be knocked out by intense solar activity. 

A major solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina, warned the National Academy of Sciences in a 2008 report, "Severe Space Weather Events—Societal and Economic Impacts."

Luckily, much of the damage can be mitigated if managers know a storm is coming. That's why better understanding of solar weather, and the ability to give advance warning, is especially important.

Putting satellites in 'safe mode' and disconnecting transformers can protect electronics from damaging electrical surges.

"Space Weather forecasting is still in its infancy, but we're making rapid progress," said Thomas Bogdan, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colo.

Eyes on the sun
NASA and NOAA work together to manage a fleet of satellites that monitor the sun and help to predict its changes.

A pair of spacecraft called STEREO (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) is stationed on opposite sides of the sun, offering a combined view of 90 percent of the solar surface. In addition, SDO (the Solar Dynamics Observatory), which just launched in February 2010, is able to photograph solar active regions with unprecedented spectral, temporal and spatial resolution. Also, an old satellite called the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), which launched in 1997, is still chugging along monitoring winds coming off the sun. And there are dozens more dedicated to solar science.

"I believe we're on the threshold of a new era in which space weather can be as influential in our daily lives as ordinary terrestrial weather." Fisher said. "We take this very seriously indeed."  SPACE.com Staff SPACE.com Space.com Staff space.com

SPACE.com offers rich and compelling content about space science, travel and exploration as well as astronomy, technology, business news and more. The site boasts a variety of popular features including our space image of the day and other space pictures,space videos,


BP Oil Spill Film Footage June 10



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

BP's Falling Stock Prices

BP shares fall on oil spill fallout fears

A BP logo is seen at a petrol station in Birmingham, England, Thursday, June 10, 2010. Shares in BP PLC are falling sharply at the start of trading in AP – A BP logo is seen at a petrol station in Birmingham, England, Thursday, June 10, 2010. Shares in BP PLC …
Related Quotes
Symbol Price Change
BP 32.54 +3.34
^GSPC 1,080.41 +24.72
^IXIC 2,203.87 +45.02

LONDON – BP shares fell Thursday in London as U.S. politicians pressed the British oil company to halt its dividend payments and fork out greater compensation for American workers and companies devastated by the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

But markets were also beginning to heed warnings from analysts who said Wednesday's 15.8 percent sell-off of BP shares in New York was an overreaction.

BP shares dropped as much as 11 percent to a 13-year low at the open in London, then recovered some ground by early afternoon, trading 6.1 percent lower at 367.8 pence ($5.39). In New York, the stock opened 9.8 percent higher at $32.05.

BP has lost around half its market value since the spill began with an April 20 rig explosion in the Gulf.

The company has found itself caught in a trans-Atlantic squeeze between an angry U.S. administration and unhappy shareholders — some 18 million Britons hold shares or pension funds in the company.

Prime Minister David Cameron's office said the British leader would discuss the issue with President Barack Obama on a scheduled telephone call over the weekend.

"I understand the U.S. government's frustration because it is a catastrophe for the environment," Cameron said Thursday while on a visit to Afghanistan.

Investors are fretting about the rising costs facing BP after Obama suggested it should also pay unemployment benefits to thousands of oil workers laid off during a moratorium on deep-sea drilling triggered by the spill.

BP tried to reassure investors before the London Stock Exchange opened, saying it was in a strong financial position and it saw no reason to justify the U.S. sell-off, and many analysts agree that the company can withstand the crisis.

But most market experts also acknowledge that the political rhetoric surrounding the accident is outweighing financial fundamentals.

"We don't believe BP has a funding issue, but given the overwhelmingly hostile nature of the U.S. government the company may decide to suspend payments until the wells are capped and the clean-up sufficiently advanced to convince the U.S. that it can afford all the costs as well as pay dividends," said Evolution Securities analyst Richard Griffith. "Unilateral action against BP over its U.S. operations, be it unreasonable or illegal, hangs over BP."

Robert Talbut, the chief investment officer at Royal London Asset Management, a shareholder in BP, said "there is a lot of very irrational and short-term selling going on." But he added that talk of a potential sale of assets or takeover bid — PetroChina Ltd. has been suggested by some as a potential suitor — was not surprising.

"I can understand exactly why someone else would want to buy the BP assets because I think they are grossly undervalued at the moment," he said. "As a shareholder, it's not something I would welcome."

The politics of the spill crossed the Atlantic, with London Mayor Boris Johnson expressing concern Thursday about the "anti-British rhetoric that seems to be permeating from America."

Johnson said BP was paying a "very, very heavy price" for an accident.

"I would like to see a bit of cool heads rather than endlessly buck-passing and name-calling," Johnson told BBC Radio. "When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP, it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the airwaves."

The influential Financial Times newspaper ran a banner front-page headline "UK alarm over attack on BP."

Cutting the dividend would have a big impact in Britain, where the company accounts for about an eighth of dividend payments from companies in that country's blue-chip stock index, providing crucial income for retirees. In addition, about 40 percent of BP's shareholders are based in the U.S.

BP, which earned more than $16 billion last year, said Thursday the cost of the clean-up and containment efforts had now hit $1.43 billion.

Speaking to investors last week, CEO Tony Hayward wouldn't estimate the total bill, though he told analysts that minority partners in the rig would be expected to pay as well.

BP stressed on Thursday that it had "significant capacity and flexibility" to deal with ongoing costs, underlining its additional cash flow, strong debt to equity ratio and proven reserves.

The company reminded investors that it had indicated in March — before the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig — that its cash inflows and outflows were balanced at an oil price of around $60 per barrel.

It said its gearing was currently below the bottom of its targeted range and its asset base was "strong and valuable." The company had more than 18 million barrels of proven reserves and 63 billion barrels of resources at the end of 2009.

Killik & Co. analyst Jonathan Jackson said the shares would remain very volatile until there was a clearer idea of the potential cost but he remained positive on the stock.

"Despite the high risk involved in adding to holdings in the short term and the possibility of a temporary suspension of the dividend, we would continue to do so," he said.

___

AP Reporter Robert Barr contributed to this story.



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

BP Oil Spill & Pres Obamam

Obama Pivots on Gulf Disaster From Cleanup to Policy Action

On June 2, a day before BP announced it had sheared through a leaking pipe at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, one of the very few steps forward in the company's 44-day campaign to staunch the worst oil disaster in American history, President Barack Obama finally stopped serving as the cleanup chief and became the commander in chief.

During a speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Obama pressed the nation to join him in viewing the catastrophe as a call to arms to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that would begin to limit the need to drill such deep and dangerous wells.

"If we refuse to take into account the full costs of our fossil fuel addiction - if we don't factor in the environmental costs and the national security costs and the true economic costs - we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future," the president said. "The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate - a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans - that would achieve the same goal.

"And, Pittsburgh, I want you to know, the votes may not be there right now," Obama added, "but I intend to find them in the coming months. I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can. I will work with anyone to get this done - and we will get it done. The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century. We are not going to move backwards. We are going to move forward."

Direct, Emphatic, Needed
The president's remarks, the most direct and emphatic links he's yet drawn between the BP Gulf disaster and the need for comprehensive legislation, seem plainly directed at opening a new narrative for national action in the Gulf disaster.

In response to demands that Obama "do something," the president appears to be pivoting from treating the disaster as an exercise in environmental restoration. He is now calling for potentially momentous changes in attitudes and policy at a time of intense domestic interest about oil, the economy, and the environment.

"An America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren," the president said at Carnegie Mellon. "We consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. So without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month - including countries in dangerous and unstable regions. In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk."

Cheered By Advocates
Climate and energy advocates this week responded to Obama's new urgency with proposals intended to move considerably farther in reducing fossil fuel consumption and climate change emissions than has been proposed in either the House bill passed almost a year ago, or the Senate bill introduced on May 12.

"The President's speech in Pittsburgh yesterday was the lead story in today's Washington Post," said Dan Lashof, the director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's Climate Center.  "And for good reason. Using the Gulf oil disaster as proof that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, President Obama made his strongest case yet for enacting comprehensive energy reform that includes limits on carbon pollution. And he committed to round up the votes in the Senate to 'get this done.'"

John Podesta and Daniel Weiss of the Center For American Progress this week proposed a nine-step action agenda to change the rules of the game for oil development and use. Their proposal includes stepping up the administration's new fuel economy regulations,  as well as electric vehicle production programs contained in last year stimulus bill to reduce oil consumption by 7 million barrels a day by 2030. That would mean cutting oil use by 37 percent from current rates of consumption. The CAP plan also calls for levying a fee on imported oil to direct new revenues to modern public transit, and to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for oil and other fossil fuel development, a goal embraced last year by leaders of the G20 group of nations.

"The horrible BP oil disaster has reminded Americans that we must reduce our oil use," Podesta and Weiss wrote. "We share the view that this presents an unprecedented opportunity to take bold action to achieve this goal."

More Than What's Been Done By White House So Far
The president's speech also attracted fresh attention to the National Oil Savings Plan proposed by Brendan Bell, who directs the climate change program for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Bell's proposal, which was distributed in Washington on May 21, projects reducing oil consumption 7.4 million barrel per day by 2030 by enacting new law and regulations that invest in modernizing and expanding  public transit, accelerating energy efficiency programs for buildings, expanding biofuels production, and going further than the administration already has in raising fuel mileage standards for light and heavy vehicles.

Obama introduced the new direction in energy and climate strategy last week when he met with Senate Republicans and, according to a White House statement, told them "that the gulf oil disaster should heighten our sense of urgency to hasten the development of new, clean energy sources that will promote energy independence and good-paying American jobs. And he asked that they work with him on the promising proposals currently before Congress."

The president also toured Solyndra's solar thin-film manufacturing plant in Fremont, California and noted that even as "we are dealing with this immediate crisis, we've got to remember that the risks our current dependence on oil holds for our environment and our coastal communities is not the only cost involved in our dependence on these fossil fuels.  Around the world, from China to Germany, our competitors are waging a historic effort to lead in developing new energy technologies."

More Steps
White House advisors and aides on Capitol Hill said the president's fresh focus on policy and not soley on oil pollution has produced new momentum for a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year. Advocates said that to really make a difference in fossil fuel consumption and emissions reductions, the bill would need to incorporate the energy-saving ideas proposed by the Center for American Progress and the Union of Concerned Scientists, and add several more including:

  1. A national renewable energy standard, similar to those established by more than 30 states, to require utilities to generate a portion their power with wind, solar, geothermal, and other cleaner alternative energy sources.
  2. A cap on carbon that produces at least 80 percent reductions in emissions by 2050. The Senate measure proposed by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman sets a goal of reducing emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, which is generally viewed as a decent start.
  3. A provision that provides substantial funds for developing nations to reduce carbon emissions, preserve forests, and make the transition to a clean energy economy. The Kerry-Lieberman proposal on international climate finance calls for a roughly $500 million a year investment by 2019, which is seen as too little and too late.

President Obama is scheduled to return to the Gulf coast on Friday, his third visit to the disaster zone in 5 weeks.

-- Keith Schneider



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

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

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

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

1 Hack To Eliminate Your A/C Power Bill This Summer!