I had an intimate chat today with Sen. John Kerry in Chicago

Well, I guess I should mention there were about 25 other people from the environmental community at the meeting this morning. Kerry had come to talk about what we can do to help pass a good climate bill in Washington -- and prevent a bad one that would strip the EPA of power to regulate greenhouse gases.

The senator, who but for Ohio would have been president, and has become the leader on climate change, was in town to pitch Alexi Giannoulias, Democrat for Senate, as a friend to the environment and a much-needed vote to keep the Dems in charge of at least one chamber on Capitol Hill.

Kerry is clearly passionate about the need for a strong climate law and just as clearly distressed by the mood of the country and the lack of interest in doing something about "pollution," as he calls it. The Republicans branded "cap and trade" as "cap and tax" and destroyed all chances for the only effective way to bring in revenue to help companies and consumers cope with the change, and provide money for R&D to move the country forward.

It's so obvious, he said, that a strong climate bill would have multiple benefits -- creating jobs, preventing more and worse droughts and floods, improving health, preserving national security and reducing dependence on foreign oil. But a carbon tax won't do the job, he said. "It would have to be a big tax to influence behavior, and it has no target (to reduce CO2)." Utilities would likely just "write it into the cost of doing business."

On clean energy jobs, he said, we're falling behind many other countries. "We're on the margins. We're not doing nearly what we could be doing." While China is giving state subsidies to renewable energy "we're not even doing all we legally could," with incentives and grants.

And we're not going to catch up with "a bunch of Neanderthal flat-earthers" in the Congress.

"We're in a very strange place right now, and we've got to break out of it."

He expects an energy bill of some kind, but says it will be greatly watered down to perhaps a renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency provision. "They'll cherry-pick the easy things," he said, and avoid the hard ones.

He gave a bill by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) to delay for two years the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases a good chance of passing. "I'm more than worried," he said. "It's going to be a very, very tough fight," one he said he would lead.

With so much money on the other side -- made worse by the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling (which he called unbelievably dangerous) -- the only way to get decent climate legislation is for the people to "rekindle the grassroots bite" that in the '70s helped pass the Clean Air Act, the establishment of the EPA and so many other environmental steps forward. "In the '70s we did teach-ins, and organized around them." Individual letters and phone calls are needed to counter the pressure on senators from the other side, he said. "Pre-printed cards have far less impact."

In the next two weeks, Kerry urged, environmentalists must work hard to get out the vote for candidates who will be on their side. Giannoulias put in an appearance at the end and the two men embraced -- both very tall, one distinguished-looking with a mop of thick gray hair, the other a fresh-faced hopeful in his 30s. They both said they hoped to serve together in the Senate.

Is your state for or against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act?

States have split pretty evenly on one side or the other of a suit to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Seventeen states are suing to stop the EPA. Another 18 plus New York City are intervening on behalf of the agency. Friday, March 19, was the last day states could become part of the suit, consolidated by the court into Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v EPA.

Alabama, Texas and Virginia filed suits against EPA last month. Now Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have joined in, along with 22 industry associations.

On the other side, backing EPA, are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They are joined by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Southern Environmental Law Center .

The petitioners are asking for a review of the EPA’s “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases harm people’s health and welfare. The finding will result in regulations now being finalized.

The U.S. Supreme Court found in 2007 that the EPA has authority to make such a finding and regulate GHG. This suit is before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

(Sources: Greenwire)

EPA backs down on rules for large power-plant GHG emissions -- under pressure from Congress

(Photo of Utah coal-fired power plant from Flickr and photographer Arbyreed )


Reactinging to pressure from some members of Congress, the EPA has backpedaled on its plan to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from large power plants and factories under the Clean Air Act this year.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that in order to allow time for Congress to pass a climate bill she would:
• Not require permitting in 2010 for large sources of greenhouse gases.
• Raise the limit for permitting next year to those emitting more than 75,000 tons, not the 25,000 planned. That amount might be lowered to 50,000 tons in 2012.
• Give small sources of emissions a reprieve until 2016.

The EPA and Department of Transportation would, however, proceed with plans to issue rules next month for autos and light trucks, to reach the Obama Administration’s goal of 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Why the change?
Easing the plans for restricting emissions from large coal-powered plants and other industrial sources came in response to a series of threats to the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG.

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has prepared a resolution to veto the “endangerment” finding that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, a finding that followed a Supreme Court decision. Murkowski has 41 co-sponsors, including Dems Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) Murkowski needs 51 votes to pass the resolution and apparently doesn’t have them or would have introduced it by now. A companion resolution in the House, would be spearheaded by two Democrats, Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Collin Peterson (Minn.)

• Coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced a bill to delay EPA regulation of large power plants for two years. There is no indication, however, that Senate leadership will bring it up for hearing. W. Va. Reps. Nick Rahall and Alan Molihan, both Dems, as well as Rick Boucher (D-Va.), have a similar bill in the House but there’s no sign that is going anywhere either. But Rockefeller’s bill may have done its job to get concessions from the EPA and head off Murkowski’s more dangerous resolution.

Rockefeller’s bill would not challenge the EPA’s right to consider climate change under the Clean Air Act, as Murkowski’s resolution would. It would just postpone it for stationary sources (not vehicles).

Who’s lining up with whom
Murkowski’s supporters include the National Automobile Dealers Assn. and the American Public Power Assn.

She, by the way, has collected $800,000 in gas, oil and utility contributions, according to climateprogress.org.

Among those opposing her resolution are the American Lung Assn. and 12 public health organizations, including the American Pediatrics Assn., as well as 569 scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The head of construction trades for the AFL-CIO has written the White House and asked it to reconsider taking such strong action quickly against stationary sources because it would hurt jobs.

Lawsuit
Alabama and Texas have filed suit to stop the EPA. But 16 other states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, have asked to intervene on behalf of the EPA. Among them are some you might not expect – Arizona and Iowa.

EPA’s Jackson told Congress she, like the president, would like to see Congress pass climate legislation as a better way to curb greenhouse gases. The House climate bill passed in June blocked EPA regulation, while the Senate bill that came out of the Environment Committee did not.

Now 13 Senators, led by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as well and the bi-partisan trio crafting a new Senate bill (Kerry, Lieberman and Graham), asking them not to take away the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG from coal plants under the Clean Air Act.


(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, ClimateWire, E&ENewsPM, climateprogress.org)

Obama needs credit for environmental successes

(Photo of Obama from Flickr and jmtimages)

Despite the failure so far to pass a climate bill in the Senate, or to help forge a final international agreement in Copenhagen, the Obama Administration has, without much fanfare, quietly reversed destructive Bush environmental policy and ramped up green jobs development as it sets a course for a cleaner energy future.

Carl Pope, outgoing executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Mercury News, “This is by far the best first year on the environment of any president in history.” In just one year, he said, the president reversed most of Bush’s anti-environment actions over eight years.

The League of Conservation Voters gave him a B+ for is first year.

Among the accomplishments::

Reversing Bush policies
Fuel efficiency: Instead of fighting California’s request to the EPA to let the state restrict tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (something many other states wanted too), Obama’s EPA granted permission and then the president announced new federal rules increasing fuel efficiency 40%, from the current average of 25 mph to 35 mph in 2016.

Regulating GHG: Bush avoided taking action on the Supreme Court decision giving the EPA power to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. This EPA is now finalizing a Big Polluter Rule, under which is would be able to restrict emissions from sources emitting more than 25,000 tons per year.

Oil and gas drilling: This Administration blocked Bush’s rule to open the California coast and 77 sites near Arches and Canyonlands national parks to drilling. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar also announced major reforms for oil and gas leasing on public lands.

Bisphenol: The Food & Drug Administration said bisphenol-A in plastics poses a significant danger to babies and young children.

Ozone: The EPA announced new health-based ozone standards.

Yellowstone: The Administration negated a Bush rule allowing more snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

Funding clean tech through ARRA
Green technologies will get a strong shot in the arm from stimulus funds, with an estimated $80 billion targeted for everything from weatherization and other efficiency measures to public transit and high speed trains to hybrid and electric cars to electrical grid improvements and renewable sources like wind and solar. Only $5B of that money has been released to date, with another $26B committed. The DOE says the delay was needed to establish rules about how the funds could be spent.

Obama is emphasizing the importance of creating jobs for the energies of the future, but the results will also to cut GHG emissions.

Additional actions
In the first year, the Administration also:
• Said it would catalog GHG emissions from large sources.
• Ordered that 500,000 federal buildings and 600,000 federal vehicles cut GHG emissions.
• Began developing standards for more efficient appliances.
• Required federal agencies to consider climate change in environmental reviews.
• Broadened guidelines for mass transit projects to receive federal funds.
• Signed into law a bill to create 2 million acres of new wilderness that bans logging, mining and new roads in federal forests and deserts in 9 states, including Joshua Tree and Sequoia national parks.

The president doesn’t get a lot of credit for all this – and more – because things were so bad in the Bush years, and the news focus has been on the economy and health care. But we are slowly moving forward despite Congress and the big lobbies. That’s why it is so important to defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Tell your senators to vote no.

(Sources: Sierra Club, mercurynews.com, Center for American Progress, White House blog)

Testifying to the EPA on its Big Polluters rule

(Stop CO2 stickers passed out by the Sierra Club at the EPA hearing)

Today there was an opportunity to testify at one of two EPA hearings nationwide about a proposed rule to regulate global warming emissions from the largest (25,000 tons/year) coal-fired plants and smokestack industries. Together these big plants emit more than half the greenhouse gases in the U.S. The EPA proposes to regulate them under the Clean Air Act, based on a Supreme Court decision, by requiring the "best available technology" for new plants or those making major changes or expansions.

I was among those who testified. Here is what I said:

"My name is Cynthia Linton. I am a teacher at Northwestern University and a grandmother. In 2050 I will be gone, but my grandchildren will be very much alive, and I worry they will have to deal with climate catastrophes because we haven’t taken action to cut greenhouse gases by 80% as scientists say we must.

I wholeheartedly support the Big Polluters rule and commend the EPA for doing what it was set up to do -- protect the environment. Some people forget what EPA stands for.

Large coal-fired electric plants and smokestack industries produce more than half the global warming pollution in the United States. So it makes great sense to focus on these sources of greenhouse gas emissions as a giant step toward solving the problem.

Britain recently banned new coal-powered plants that didn’t have technology to capture and store carbon dioxide. The law went into effect immediately. Not in 2013, not in 2017. But now.

We should use the Clean Air Act to begin cracking down on plants that are polluting the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases and prevent the building of new ones that worsen the problem. The rule calls for the best available technology for new plants and those making big changes. That could include using cleaner energy, becoming much more efficient, buying new equipment or, as a last resort, closing down outdated and filthy plants.

While a cap-and-trade bill languishes in the Senate and an international treaty is delayed, the EPA must take this significant step to ensure that the Earth and the people on it are safe in the future."


There was a tremendous turnout at the Rosemont Convention Center, where two long days of testimony had all slots filled days ahead of time. There were scientists, health advocates, professors, environmentalists and many other concerned citizens from throughout the Midwest. They included a professor who teaches a very popular global warming class at the U. of Chicago and has written several books, a scientist who does climate research in Antarctica and a young woman who said she was there because she is 22 and this is going to affect her future. Virtually all supported the rule.

Of course, the other national hearing was in Alexandria, Va., and likely attracted many lobbyists for big coal, big oil and industry.

Experts at a panel discussion hosted by the Sierra Club at the lunch break agreed the rule is a good first step and hopefully will be followed by regulation of existing plants. As one panelist said, "If there was no more coal, we'd find another way." They agreed that clean, renewable energy and efficiency were the way to go. They also agree Congress needs to pass a climate bill.

New renewable tax-credit bill in House

Congressional Round-up: The House last week introduced a bill to extend production tax credits, funded in part by the repeal of oil tax benefits. The credits are due to expire at the end of the year, causing uncertainty for renewable energy industries. This bill is very similar to the one passed last summer by the House, but stifled in the Senate by 1 vote. It’s questionable whether the bill could pass the Senate in its current form. It includes:
• Extension of credits for wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric, landfill gas and trash combustion facilities through 2011, with a cap of 35% of the cost after 2009,
• Extension of solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credits for eight years,
• An end to deduction eligibility for the 5 larges oil companies,
• A 6% cap on benefits for smaller oil companies,
• A new credit for plug-in hybrid cars,
• Extension of tax credits for domestically produced cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel,
• A request that the National Academy of Sciences analyze current science on the production of biofuels and the domestic impact of a dramatic increase.

Proposal would allow power plants near national parks
Rep. Henry Waxman, (D-Calif.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, has urged the EPA to reject a proposal that would make it easier to build power plants near national parks. Waxman told EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson the proposed change in the New Source Review rules would violate the Clean Air Act. He said EPA technical experts acknowledged the change would allow “significant degradation” of the air in parks and national wilderness areas. He gave Johnson until March 5 to say why he ignored the advice of his staff. (Source: E&E News PM)

e-mailbag: Bob R. of Chicago writes, “Despite his admitted support and even sponsorship of environmental legislation, [John] McCain has too many constraints related to his conservative perception of reality to lead the nation effectively against the onslaught of global warming.”