Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts

Thursday, December 20, 2007

EPA Snubs States

The EPA (which stands, believe it or not, for "Environmental Protection Agency") has informed seventeen states with global warming legislation more stringent than new national energy legislation that their laws are now moot. Learn more in the New York Times (see excerpt below.)
The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. Mr. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.
The decision immediately provoked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. Officials from the states and numerous environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.
In an evening conference call with reporters, Mr. Johnson defended his agency’s decision.
“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” he said. “I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”
The 17 states — including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The decision, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, was the first time California was refused permission to impose its own pollution rules; the federal government had previously granted the state more than 50 waivers.
The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.
That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.
The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.
California’s proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet.
Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the E.P.A. decision.
“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “We will continue to fight this battle.”
He added, “California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today’s decision and allow Californians to protect our environment.”
Twelve other states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had proposed standards like California’s, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah said they would do the same.
If the waiver had been granted and the 16 other states had adopted the California standard, it would have covered at least half of all vehicles sold in the United States.
Automakers praised the decision. “We commend E.P.A. for protecting a national, 50-state program,” said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency and uncertainty for automakers and consumers.”
Industry analysts and environmental groups said the E.P.A. decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation.
Interfaith Power and Light is a religious response to global warming with chapters in 25 states and Greater Washington, D.C. Find a link to your local chapter at http://www.theregenerationproject.org/State.
Find discounts on energy saving products at http://www.shopipl.org/

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Drive for Greener Cars

"Act for Change" is sponsoring a petition to encourage the EPA to act on the recent Supreme Court ruling and give states the "green light" to put green cars on the road. You can see and sign the petition here.
IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light. Visit us at www.irejn.org.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Clean Water Setback

In a blow to the Clean Water Act, the EPA has changed the requirements for protection of a body of water, according to Time:
The Bush administration made it harder Tuesday for non-permanent streams and nearby wetlands to be protected under the federal Clean Water Act.
The new guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers requires that for such waters to be protected there must be a "significant nexus" shown between the intermittent stream or wetland and a traditional waterway.
And the guidance says a determination will be made on a case-by-case basis, analyzing flow and other issues. Environmentalist argued that would negate the broader regional importance of many such waterways in the aggregate on water bodies downstream.
Assistant EPA Administrator Benjamin Grumbles said the new guidance to regional offices and enforcement officials "sends a clear signal we'll use our regulatory tools" to meet President Bush's promise of no net loss of wetlands.
He said it "maintains ... the Bush administration's strong commitment to wetlands conservation."
Environmentalists said the new rules will put in jeopardy many of the intermittent streams and headwaters that now fall under the Clean Water Act, and result in less protection of wetlands.
"This guidance adds unnecessary and unintended hurdles for agencies and citizens trying to protect our wasters," said Jan Goldman-Carter, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation, and she called it a "retreat from protecting many important headwaters streams and wetlands."

IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light. Visit us at www.irejn.org.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Automakers Fight Emission Controls

Automakers are fighting stricter emissions controls designed to combat climate change proposed in 13 states (including Connecticut), according to the Hartford Courant.
Even if the proposed limits on "greenhouse gas" emissions were applied to every new car in the world - and so far only 13 states, including Vermont and Connecticut, have adopted them and they still need approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - the result would be a tiny fraction of a degree drop in temperature, a leading scientist testifying in favor of the rules conceded.To the auto industry, that means the requirement that it cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2016 "is purely symbolic," said industry lawyer Andrew B. Clubok. "There is no environmental impact benefit to this regulation."But advocates say the reduction of greenhouse gases that cause global warming has to start somewhere. The proposed regulation, promulgated by California in 2004 and adopted by 12 other states since then, "will not solve global warming by itself," Scot L. Kline of the Vermont attorney general's office acknowledged. "But Vermont it trying to do its fair share."
IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light. Visit us at www.irejn.org.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Bush, States Split on Emissions

According to a story in the New York Times, President Bush is satisfied with the progress his administration has made on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while several states have opted to enact their own, stricter standards.
A day after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases, President Bush said he thought that the measures he had taken so far were sufficient.

But the court’s ruling was being welcomed by Congress and the states, which are already using the decision to speed their own efforts to regulate the gases that contribute to global climate change. As a result, Congress and state legislatures are almost certain to be the arenas for far-reaching and bruising lobbying battles.
IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light. Visit us at www.irejn.org.

Monday, April 2, 2007

Supreme Retort

This item, reprinted in its entirety, appeared in Salon:

Finally, a Supreme Court victory for Al Gore
In a blow to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has just ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must
revisit its decision that it lacks the power to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the EPA has offered a "laundry list" of excuses but "no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change."
-- Tim Grieve

IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Light and Power. Visit us at www.irejn.org.

Monday, December 18, 2006

150,000 Homemade Smog Producers

According to estimates by scientists, the number of outdoor home wood boilers has doubled in the US. A total of 150,000 US homes now utilize the boilers to cut their energy bills.

Here is an excerpt from an article in the New York Times,

A report last year by the New York attorney general’s office found that they produce as much particle pollution in an hour as 45 cars or 2 heavy-duty diesel trucks.

While boilers can save money for owners with access to cheap wood, they are far more expensive to operate in suburban areas like Long Island, where a cord of wood can cost $170. A boiler can require more than a dozen cords for the winter. That cost, says Jack Eddington, a Suffolk County legislator who introduced the law restricting the boilers, leads people to resort to burning garbage, old furniture and even Christmas trees — resulting in larger, smellier and potentially more toxic smoke.

Mr. Eddington said he knew of people who collected trash solely for their boilers. “Sometimes that would make the smell worse than the smoke,” he said. “It’s not a cost-saving measure if you follow the manufacturer’s instructions and use only seasoned wood — meaning no sap or anything that could give out a bad toxic emission. The only way you can save money with these things is if you burn anything and everything.”
Use of the boilers is strictly regulated in Connecticut and a few other states and municipalities.
visit us at www.irejn.org

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Suprene Court Hears Climate Change Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case on climate change today. The court heard arguments in a case to determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate emissions of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Rulings aren't expected until next summer. The suit is being brought by 12 states, some cities, and other groups. Read an account of the oral arguments here. Read an analysis in the New York Times here.