Open Architecture Network

It’s an odd strategy for the agency charged with operating California’s primary water supply system to try to shut it down.  But that is exactly where the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is headed.  Let’s hope the state reverses course before it’s too late.

The State Water Project supplies some portion of drinking water to over 23 million people.  It is comprised of a series of reservoirs (such as Oroville on the Feather River), pumping plants (including the massive Banks pumping plant in the south Delta) and conveyance canals (the most notable of which is the California Aqueduct, which transports water from Stockton all the way down to Riverside).  For the last 50 years, the state has grown up around the State Water Project and relies on DWR to competently run it. 

So why is DWR pursuing a reckless legal strategy that, if successful, will shut down the Banks pumping plant and turn the aqueduct into the world’s longest skateboard park?  In August of 2005, the state Senate held a hearing to question why DWR had simply ignored the state’s endangered species law for numerous years and had failed to get a permit for taking (killing) literally hundreds of thousands of state threatened and endangered fish at the Banks pumping plant.  These state-protected fish include our native stocks of salmon, as well as other native fish, whose populations have plummeted in recent years as exports out of the Delta by the State Water Project increased to historically-high levels.  If DWR had obtained a CESA permit, as the law requires, that permit would have included terms to minimize and mitigate those effects, and may very well have avoided the crash of the Delta ecosystem and last-ditch efforts to save it that we are experiencing today.

Yet, after this 2005 hearing, DWR continued to ignore the law, until a group of fishermen successfully sued the agency in state court.  That suit, to nobody’s surprise, led to a ruling that DWR was violating the law and had to come into compliance with the state Endangered Species Act (known as CESA) by obtaining a permit for the State Water Project.  Given DWR’s lengthy history of ignoring the law, the state court judge gave the agency 60 days to get a CESA permit or he would shut down the Banks pumping plant that was continuing to illegally kill thousands of protected fish.  Ultimately, the parties agreed to stay this decision while DWR worked out a plan for complying with CESA with the state’s Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 

While DWR had several years to develop a stand-alone state permit with DFG, it instead chose to base its CESA compliance on two federal endangered species permits:  the 2008 biological opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for threatened delta smelt and the 2009 biological opinion prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service for salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and orcas.  DFG gave its approval, requiring DWR to operate the State Water Project in compliance with those two biological opinions in order to satisfy its state CESA obligations.

But before the ink was dry on DFG’s approval, DWR turned around and filed suit against the two very same biological opinions on which it based its own state law compliance.  DWR now claims that those two biological opinions are unlawful, and recently joined in the efforts of several powerful water agencies to suspend the protections of those biological opinions.  (Technically, DWR filed a “nonopposition” to the emergency requests to enjoin these protections.  This is the lawyerly version of a wink and a nod – essentially asking the judge to grant the relief without having to ask for it yourself.) 

What if DWR succeeds in these efforts?  The minute that a court suspends any of the protections of the existing biological opinions, DWR is once again out of compliance with its state law duties under CESA.  And it is killing state-protected salmon at the Banks pumping plant right now.  Without a valid CESA permit to do so, it is highly likely that the state court judge who previously lost patience with DWR’s failure to comply with CESA will do so again, and order the Banks pumping plant to be shut down.         

The citizens of this state who rely on DWR to competently administer both the State Water Project and state laws should demand better.  Playing Russian roulette with our water supply is not the answer to the crisis in the Delta. 

About ten thousand dollars, according to this AP exposé published yesterday.  That’s how much Alton Mine Development, LLC contributed to Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s campaign just before meeting with him to expedite approval of a controversial coal mine near Bryce Canyon National Park.  In fact, Alton’s check was cashed the very day they met.

It could wind up being quite a sound investment by Alton if cooler heads don’t prevail in Utah.  The permit in question was fast-tracked and approved by the state Board of Mining less than a month after the company’s meeting with the governor. 

So will a little cash smooth the bumpy road that Alton faces as it attempts to tear up land just over the hill from one of America’s premiere national parks?Residents and business owners near the proposed mine site in Panguitch, UT have long opposed the planned Alton mine, citing the effects of noise, highways full of coal trucks, coal dust, and waste on Bryce Canyon and the local tourist industry.  And now, NRDC, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club, and the National Parks Conservation Association are appealing the permit approval.

Unfortunately, if Alton succeeds, its $10,000 will not only grease the wheels for this one mining permit on private land.  The impact of the permit approval could be much larger.  The company also has its eye on adjacent public land, even closer to Bryce Canyon NP.  The Alton mine, if developed, would be the first strip mine in Utah and could well open the door to even more.  But maybe that costs more in Utah?  

It’s not too late for the Utah Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining to reverse the Alton mine permit approval.  If local people and common sense speak any louder than money, they’ll make the right decision.

Coalfield residents and friends from around the country are coming together again this March for the 5th annual Week in Washington to End Mountaintop Removal.  Organized by the good people at the Alliance for Appalachia, this week of action couldn’t come at a more important time for the future of the region.

Participants will team up to meet with Congressional offices about ending mountaintop removal.  Want to be a part of it?  Go to ILoveMountains.org to learn more, register, or, just as important, donate to support this effort.  We’ll see you there, in spirit or in person!

The Chicago Tribune had a chilling reminder about the broad reach of water pollution this week. It seems that toxic chemicals from the metal plating process are getting flushed into the sewers here in Chicago, fortifying our wastewater with even more carcinogenic yumminess.

As Michael Hawthorne’s article details, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) and a range of other associated chemicals are dangerous not only because they have nasty impacts on human health; but also because once they are discharged into streams and lakes, they hang out for a long time. Andrew Wetzler noted in a strong Switchboard post:

Well, PFCs are one of several “persistent organic pollutants” or “POPs”--which also includes chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordanes (CHL), DDT and its metabolites, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)--that don’t readily degrade in the natural environment.  As Hawthorne notes, because POPs are so long lasting, once they are emitted into the air or the water they move around, and a lot of them end up in the Arctic.  They also tend to bioaccumulate.  That is, concentrations of POPs are higher in animals as one moves up the food chain from, for example, fish, to seals, to things that eat seals.  And what eats seals?  Polar bears.

Read his post. There’s ton of scientific literature out there on the impact this stuff, along with Teflon and Scotchguard, is having on the people and creatures to the north.

And from my previous gig, I can tell you it spreads to the south too.

The Chicago example is pretty illustrative here…and highlights some of the many gripes we have about this region’s water infrastructure (have you read about Asian carp or the decontamination issues?). Waste water around here gets flushed into the Chicago River and eventually makes its way through the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico.

In the Gulf, just like up north, it ends up accumulating in the fatty tissue of top predators. In this case, bottlenose dolphins. That’s right, Chicago’s chemical slop poisons Flipper.

Before starting at NRDC, I worked for the Chicago Zoological Society (they run Brookfield Zoo) and had the pleasure of regular interactions with Dr. Randy Wells---a scholar so respected for his knowledge of cetaceans that a children’s book about him was entitled “Dolphin Man.” Through the Society’s Dolphin Research and Conservation Institute, he runs the world’s longest-running study of a wild dolphin population from Sarasota Bay, Florida where he has observed the resident dolphins for 40 years.

Early on in his study, he noticed that first-born dolphin calves in the area have a much higher mortality rate than successive generations. Why? Well, a process called “depuration” moves 80% of those persistent organic pollutants out of momma dolphin’s fatty tissue and into the milk she uses to feed her newborn. Inadvertantly, she is giving the first calf a toxic shotof stuff like DDT, PCBs, and PFCs.  It's not the only factor that reduces that first calf’s chance of survival, but it’s a big part of the mix.

And it’s a real reminder about how broad the impact of our pollution can go.

 

Dolphin photo courtesty of Chicago Zoological Society.

 

 

“The biggest fight I think we’ll see in the next ten years is the fight between people in cities who are trying to transform them into ‘bright green’ cities and those economic interests in the [outer-ring] suburbs who see that as a threat to their livelihoods, and in some cases just despise it on ideological grounds.”

So says “bright green” advocate Alex Steffen, executive editor of WorldChanging, in an interview with Grist’s Jonathan Hiskes.

Steffen believes that mainstream environmentalists’ concentration on stemming global warming through national and international carbon caps has failed and will continue to have little chance of meaningful success but finds hope in other, more localized strategies, including reforming land use.  In an earlier article by Hiskes on Grist, Steffen points to “people working and volunteering in architecture, design, planning, community development, housing, building, local energy, local food, and alternative transportation” as among the more promising agents of change.

In last week’s interview, he elaborates that an array of allied interests – oil companies, highway builders, sprawl developers – is determined to stop smart growth strategies from being implemented and that mainstream green groups should work to help inner-ring suburbs join with cities to strengthen our position in what he sees as a “war” between sprawl and smart urbanism.  While I see these issues in far less divisive ways, and believe sprawl is weakening more and more with every new market trend, there’s no question that Steffen has a point when he says that the ostensibly minority political party has so stymied Congress from doing anything remotely progressive that it is time to look for new ways to move forward.

That doesn’t mean that he thinks reform will be easy.  Steffen is convinced that we cannot find “a vision of the future that will ever feel OK” to the interests supporting sprawl, and that they must be defeated, not convinced:

“But there are so many more winners than losers in this fight that it’s a smart fight to take on. We are becoming an urban planet. We are already an urban country. When you add together cities and inner-ring suburbs and allied small towns, it’s a solid majority of Americans.”

He has another very fair point when he observes that there is a strong strain of thought among many climate advocates that we should accept the sprawl paradigm as a given and try to work with it.  (Just read the oft-cited McKinsey report on climate strategies for strong evidence of that.)  But he also believes that continuing to accept sprawl is a loser for the planet no matter how many bells and whistles you put on it:

“It is very possible to have lives that are just as prosperous, and nicer, that use 5 percent of the fossil fuels and virgin materials we do now. But if we’re living anything like the average McMansion-ite, SUV-driving suburbanites, there’s simply no way that can be powered in a climate-friendly way.”

I think he’s right about that.  And my corollary is that trying to “fix” sprawl by building nicer, more walkable developments in new fringe locations is also a bit of a hoax.  Sprawl is sprawl no matter how you design it.  I think inclusive revitalization and retrofitting existing suburban places is the way to go. 

Where Steffen and I may differ is on the issue of whether we need “war” to continue the progress that I already see all around me.  But I am really glad he is out there provoking: he’s good at it.  Read his interview here.

Thanks to Kim Ranney for pointing me to this story.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment.  For more posts, see his blog's home page. 

 

  “The biggest fight I think we’ll see in the next ten years is the fight between people in cities who are trying to transform them into ‘bright green’ cities and those economic interests in the [outer-ring] suburbs who see... Kaid Benfield http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-kbenfield-contributor.jpg

Don't Dismantle the Clean Air Act As A Tool To Protect Us From Global Warming  

The Clean Air Act has protected Americans from dangerous air pollution for 40 years.  It has saved hundreds of thousands of lives[1] and protected our lakes, forests, and other natural treasures from untold damage.  Now it’s time to rely on this landmark law to help protect us from global warming.  This requires nothing different than what we’ve done for other kinds of pollution:  follow the science, act when pollution endangers our health and welfare, and use available and affordable technology to clean up the largest pollution sources – vehicles, power plants, and big factories.  It’s practical, effective, and affordable.  

Now some members of Congress want to dismantle the Clean Air Act as a tool to protect us from global warming:   

• A “resolution of disapproval” sponsored by Reps. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific finding that global warming pollution is dangerous to our health and welfare, and would prohibit use of the Clean Air Act to protect us from that pollution. (H.J. Res. 66, companion to S.J. Res 26, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).)
• A bill introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) would reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 global warming decision by declaring that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not air pollutants. (H.R. 4396).

Both proposals would harm the health and welfare of millions of Americans by blocking use of the Clean Air Act to reduce global warming pollution.  They would stop long-overdue action to hold the biggest polluters accountable for their global warming pollution and block investments to reduce America's oil dependence and jump-start a vibrant clean energy economy.    

Here are three reasons Congress should reject these Dirty Air Acts.    

Congress should not veto modern science or block action to protect Americans’ health from dangerous air pollution.     

When Congress wrote the Clean Air Act it wisely made science central to decision-making. The law requires that when science identifies new threats to health and the environment, new steps must be taken to protect the public. The Congress that wrote this law expected EPA to act when new dangers arose, without waiting for a later Congress to pass new laws.  

Science has demonstrated that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases harm public health and the environment.

In a landmark 2007 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the plain terms of the Clean Air Act.  The Court held that EPA must take action if the administrator finds, based upon the science, that they are dangerous to public health and welfare.    

 

That’s the “endangerment finding” that Administrator Lisa Jackson made in December, based on a thorough scientific assessment and after reviewing hundreds of thousands of public comments.    

Overturning this scientific finding would be like vetoing the Surgeon-General’s report that smoking causes lung cancer.  Congress should not be denying modern science. And Congress should not dismantle the Clean Air Act as a tool to respond to global warming.   

These bills would wreak havoc in the auto industry by blocking federal clean car standards supported by industry, labor, environmentalists and states.

Last May, President Obama announced an historic agreement on national clean car standards. These consensus standards set under the Clean Air Act will cut vehicles’ carbon pollution by 30 percent, save consumers billions at the gas pump, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help the American auto industry rebuild by making cars and trucks that make sense for the 21st century.  For the first time, the auto companies, labor, states, and environmentalists all have agreed on a path forward for cleaner, more efficient cars.   

The Moran-Blackburn and Pomeroy proposals would wreak havoc for the automobile industry.  Without the endangerment finding and the authority to limit greenhouse gases, EPA could not issue these national clean car standards.  Without those national standards, auto makers would have to meet the state-level standards adopted by California and at least 13 other states.  The national standards are a win-win, providing more emission reductions for the environment and national uniformity for the industry – benefits that would be lost if these bills succeed.  That’s why the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the United Auto Workers support the new auto standards and why they opposed a similar effort to tamper with the Clean Air Act in the Senate last September.  

The Clean Air Act will only require emission controls that are available and affordable and will require them only on big polluters; there will be no impact on hotels, hospitals, and other small sources. 

Lobbyists for power plants and other big carbon polluters are peddling two falsehoods:  that issuing the endangerment finding and the clean car standards will lead to putting new burdens on hotels, hospitals, and homes, and will block construction of big new power plants and industrial projects.  Neither claim is true.   

For decades, the Clean Air Act has required companies that build or expand big power plants and factories to get a construction permit showing that they will use technology that is available and affordable to limit dangerous pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, particulates, and nitrogen oxide.    

When big new pollution sources are built or when big existing ones are expanded, it’s just common sense to make sure that they use available and affordable technology to keep their pollution increase as small as reasonably possible.  That idea has worked for conventional pollutants for decades, and it will work for greenhouse gases too.

So what will the owners of power plants, refineries, or other big facilities actually have to do?     

• First, companies don’t need construction permits to continue using current facilities, even if they run them at higher capacity. 
• Second, if a company wants to expand its facility, it doesn’t need a construction permit unless the facility’s pollution levels are going to go up.  Many factory improvements – de-bottlenecking and efficiency projects, for example – increase output without increasing emissions, and they will be unaffected.
• Third, when a company builds a new plant or an expansion project that will increase emissions, it only has to apply emission control measures that are available and affordable. Just as for other pollutants, if there are no feasible measures to cut carbon emissions, or if they are too costly, the permitting agency need not require them. 

These are reasonable steps to take. Why would we want big new or expanded facilities to pollute more than they have to when affordable means exist to curb their emissions?     

EPA has no intention to put carbon controls on small sources, and the agency is carefully tailoring its regulations to assure that only the biggest carbon pollution sources – those emitting at least 25,000 tons per year – will be covered.  So there will be no impact on schools, homes, hospitals, small businesses, or other small sources.       

* * *    

The Moran-Blackburn and Pomeroy dirty air proposals would deny modern science, wreak havoc in the auto industry, let big carbon polluters off the hook, and leave millions of Americans unprotected from the dangers of global warming.  They would dismantle the protections we have and replace them with nothing.  The sponsors of these bills don’t have a better plan.  Indeed, they have opposed new legislation to limit carbon pollution.  Congress should reject these ill-designed proposals and pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation to complement the practical, effective, and affordable public health protection provided by the Clean Air Act.    

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990,” (Oct. 1997), page 36, Table 9 (http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/1970-1990/chptr1_7.pdf) and Appendix D, Table D-13 (http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/1970-1990/appen_d.pdf).

The Chicago Tribune had a chilling reminder about the broad reach of water pollution this week. It seems that toxic chemicals from the metal plating process are getting flushed into the sewers here in Chicago, fortifying our wastewater with... Josh Mogerman http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-jmogerman-contributor.jpg

Don't Dismantle the Clean Air Act As A Tool To Protect Us From Global Warming   The Clean Air Act has protected Americans from dangerous air pollution for 40 years.  It has saved hundreds of thousands of lives[1] and protected our... David Doniger http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-ddoniger-contributor.jpg

Tomorrow morning, I’ll be joining NYC Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio, NYC Council Transportation Chair James Vacca, Transport Workers Union President John Samuelsen, DC 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts, NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign Senior Attorney Gene Russianoff and large contingent of NYC and NYS elected officials to rally against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s decision to halt service on key subway and bus lines throughout the city.

It’s at 8:30 a.m. at the Broad Street Station (that’s the J, M and Z lines for those without easy access to MTA subway maps).  Hope to see you there.

In December, the MTA announced a wide swath of service cuts that include an end to student transit passes for more than a half-million kids, plus a long list of subway and bus cuts throughout the city.   The MTA estimates that this will save about $100 million.

It doesn’t have to be this hard.   Under last year’s federal stimulus bill, transit systems around the country can use up to 10 percent of their federal capital funds to ease the sharp drops in their operating budgets that are due to the declining economy.   At least six of the nation’s ten largest transit fleets have taken advantage of this opportunity to keep their trains and buses running, including Chicago, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C.

If the MTA followed their lead, it would have the funds to avoid the proposed cuts.

Some say this isn’t a long-term answer and that we need to keep investing in the infrastructure of the system to prepare for future generations of riders—and I agree.  But these are unique times—and workers and students need to get to their jobs and schools now.  That’s why President Obama and Congress agreed that it was necessary to enable transit fleets to use these funds to maintain service and transit-oriented jobs during this economically difficult time.   

Ahhh, but this just came in:  the Daily News reported this afternoon that the MTA is facing a $400 million gap in its finances this year – even after it implements the cuts announced in December.  That’s because planned revenue from a new payroll tax has dropped further than the state’s budget office had predicted.

So this is going to get harder before it gets easier.

If New York's leaders are serious about increasing mobility, reducing congestion, and cutting pollution to create a more environmentally sustainable city, they - and we - need to find ways to preserve - and improve - transit service, not cut it. 

Here are three steps that should be supported:

First, the MTA should take advantage of available stimulus funds to help avoid drastic service cuts this year.

Second, the State and City should pay a fairer share of the costs of moving 585,000 kids with discounted student MetroCards.  

And third, we should all work together towards a new jobs bill in Washington that would provide more federal funds to underwrite transit operation.

 

 

In August 2007, I testified at an EPA hearing in Los Angeles on EPA’s proposal to set a new national limit for ozone, which we here in L.A. think of as smog.  My testimony, the testimony of nearly all the speakers, and the unanimous conclusions of EPA’s own panel of scientific experts were ignored by the Bush Administration which intervened on literally the last day to make the rule more business-friendly – at the cost of public health.  My colleague John Walke blogged about this outrage here.  Not surprisingly, litigation followed.

Obama Administration EPA head Lisa Jackson recently decided, quite correctly, to take another look at the ozone rule.  New public hearings have been set to discuss her proposal to substantially reduce the ozone limit from the bogus Bush Administration number and base it on science instead of politics.

Here is how this is supposed to work.  The Clean Air Act requires that EPA set limits for pollutants like ozone that are “requisite to protect the public health” and that allow for “an adequate margin of safety.”  The limit must protect the health of sensitive groups as well as healthy people. 

As EPA itself recently wrote, “[i]n selecting primary standards that include an adequate margin of safety, the Administrator is seeking not only to prevent pollution levels that have been demonstrated to be harmful but also to prevent lower pollutant levels that may pose an unacceptable risk of harm, even if the risk is not precisely identified as to nature or degree.” 

The bottom line, as I understand it, among the many scientific studies of ozone impacts that EPA has reviewed, is that there are credible studies showing detrimental effects on healthy people at levels of 0.060 parts per million ozone.  EPA’s panel of scientific experts recommended that the limited be set in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million.  The Bush EPA brushed off these studies when it set the limit at 0.075 parts per million in 2008.  But what those studies mean is that a limit set above 0.060 parts per million will not be protective of sensitive populations because it will not even protect healthy people. 

I’m going to testify at the EPA hearing on the new ozone rule on February 4, 2010 in Sacramento and this will be my message to EPA:  any limit over 0.060 parts per million would be illegal as well as unwise.  EPA may disagree, but this time I don’t think that the views of the many people who agree with me will be ignored.

In August 2007, I testified at an EPA hearing in Los Angeles on EPA’s proposal to set a new national limit for ozone, which we here in L.A. think of as smog.  My testimony, the testimony of nearly all the... David Pettit http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-dpettit-contributor.jpg

Tomorrow morning, I’ll be joining NYC Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio, NYC Council Transportation Chair James Vacca, Transport Workers Union President John Samuelsen, DC 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts, NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign Senior Attorney Gene Russianoff and large contingent of NYC... Rich Kassel http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-rkassel-contributor.jpg

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann has been called just about every name in the book by the professional climate science deniers. Their attacks flared up most recently in with the stolen East Anglia emails.

But if you’ve ever spoken to Professor Mann, you would know him to be a very serious person who is deeply committed to scientific integrity, who has had to put up with years of attacks by climate denialists, as he discusses here:

That’s why I’m pleased to see this bulletin today from Kevin Grandia of DeSmog Blog:  Breaking: Penn State inquiry finds no evidence for allegations against Michael Mann.   Kevin reports:

Penn State University has concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims made against climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann surrounding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.

An inquiry panel was set up early this year to look at allegations made by right-wing bloggers and media outlets against Penn State University climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, relating to the contents of emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in London.

On all 4 of the allegations made against Dr. Mann the panel has concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims …

You can read the full text of the Penn State inquiry findings here. That’s about as close to a silver bullet as you are going to find in terms of shooting down the conspiracy theorists who are touting their “climategate” nonsense.  Of course, no one thinks for a moment that the radicalized cadre of professional character assassins are going to be dissuaded by the truth …

After all, our understanding of our affect on the climate is well-established, drawing on many different branches of science and investigation, as our new video makes clear.

Back to Mike Mann - while the Penn State finding is good news, you have to feel sorry for Professor Mann, who has been the victim of an extended vicious and unfounded smear campaign.   Here is what he said about the Penn State inquiry:

"I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.

Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely. Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures.

This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.

I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter – as I have since the beginning of the process."

Nevertheless, I am encouraged by some of the headlines that I am seeing today:

Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated – Kansas City Star. 

Panel Absolves Climate Scientist – New York Times.

US 'climategate' scientist all but cleared of misconduct – New Scientist.

'Climategate' inquiry shows scientist didn't falsify data – Montreal Gazette.

It’s going to be tough to “unring the bell” when it comes to the attack on our best climate scientists.  But this is more than just helping good people like Michael Mann fight back against the “Big Lie” of the worst climate science deniers.   In the end, it’s about making sure that the truth wins out --- that it does not get extinguished by those who would substitute scientific inquiry of others with their own willful and petty ignorance.

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann has been called just about every name in the book by the professional climate science deniers. Their attacks flared up most recently in with the stolen East Anglia emails. But if you’ve ever spoken to... Pete Altman http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-paltman-contributor.jpg

There has been a lot of speculation about energy issues since President Obama made clean energy and climate solutions a central part of his State of the Union Address and his Federal Budget. 

I am glad people are engaging with these issues. After all, the Senate is considering the most important environmental votes of our generation: a clean energy and climate bill that could create nearly 2 million jobs, spur innovation in our economy, cut our dependence on dirty foreign oil, and make our nation more secure.

Still, given the politically charged atmosphere surrounding all major Congressional initiatives right now, it is easy to get confused. Here is my take on a few of the issues circulating in the news these days.

Obama Still Supports Putting a Price on Carbon Pollution

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, President Obama was asked if we should pass an energy bill this year and wait until later to tackle carbon emissions. The president acknowledged that passing a clean energy and climate bill could be tough --a comment that some took as a sign that Obama was backing away from a cap on carbon--but then he made clear that he supports putting a cap on carbon emissions (listen to his comments here).

The next day at the White House, President Obama elaborated on these comments, urging Senate Democrats not to take the easy way out by simply offering tax credits to clean energy companies. He called on them to take the more comprehensive approach:  “The market works best when it responds to price.  And if [energy companies] start seeing that, you know what, dirty energy is a little pricier, clean energy is a little cheaper, they will innovate, and they will think things through in all kinds of innovative ways.”

Key Republican Leader Opposes an Energy-Only Bill

As the questioner in New Hampshire indicated, there has been talk of doing an energy-only bill now and putting off a carbon cap until some time in the future.

President Obama opposes that approaches, but so does Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is leading a bipartisan push for a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. On Wednesday, Graham dismissed the energy-only idea:

It's the 'kick the can down the road' approach. It's putting off to another Congress what really needs to be done comprehensively. I don't think you'll ever have energy independence the way I want until you start dealing with carbon pollution and pricing carbon. The two are interconnected.

Graham went on to say: "If the approach is to try to pass some half-assed energy bill and say that's moving the ball down the road, forget it with me."

There Is No Such Thing as “Clean Coal”

In his State of the Union, President Obama called on the Senate to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill--a bold statement that my colleagues and I were glad to hear. Then the president went on to say that in addition to investing in renewable power and energy efficiency, he wants to see more so-called “clean coal.”

NRDC knows there is no such thing as “clean coal.” Every single step in the coal power cycle is dirty, from the profoundly destructive mountaintop removal mining to the smokestack emissions, which are responsible for 24,000 deaths a year. NRDC has fought for 35 years to block these filthy practices. But the reality is that coal is relatively cheap and abundant, and it generates on average half of all our electricity. Coal will continue to be a part of our energy portfolio for awhile.

The need to reduce global warming emissions is so urgent that we can not wait until we have political support for replacing all coal plants with renewable sources. We must pass a law now that gets up moving down that path, and NRDC believes that a technology known as carbon capture and storage for coal plants should be included in the bill. This is what President Obama was referring to as “clean coal.”  We don’t think that term is appropriate, but the technology really will reduce global warming pollution from power plants.

Massive Subsidies for the Nuclear Industry Are a Mistake

President Obama called for new nuclear power plants in his State of the Union Address, and he included massive subsidies for the industry in his Federal Budget. This was not surprising for two reasons. First, nuclear power always retains a prominent--albeit quiet--place in federal budgets and every single energy bill includes nuclear subsidies. Second, Senate Republicans have made it clear that in order to get bipartisan support for the clean energy and climate bill, nuclear power has to be on the table.

That said, I think nuclear power is far too expensive and problematic to be an effective climate solution, and it is a mistake to increase subsidies for the industry. Energy sources should compete for public dollars based on how well they provide clean, efficient, and affordable power. On that basis, nuclear power has a long way to go: after more than 60 years of federal subsidies, it continues to be a high-cost, subsidy-dependent, radioactive-waste generating, non-renewable energy source.

NRDC will continue fighting for cheaper, cleaner alternatives, and in this fight, we have Wall Street on our side. The federal government has incentivized nuclear power for years, and yet equity firms and utilities have shown little interest in investing in costly plants (see this post on Climate Progress for shocking examples of cost overruns). We don’t think the fundamentals will change any time soon.

We Need to Pass a Clean Energy and Climate Bill Now

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama underscored the importance of passing “a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

The best way to do that is to pass the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act now before the Senate. We know that there will be plenty of energy companies trying to redefine their old fashioned technologies as “clean.” But that’s why we need to keep up the pressure to pass the strongest bill possible, one that will cap emissions and create a foundation for the development of a clean energy economy in the United States.

And we need to let our senators know where we stand – for investment in clean energy, not old technologies. This is a landmark bill and it won’t be easy, which is why we need your help and your senators need to hear from you.

 

There has been a lot of speculation about energy issues since President Obama made clean energy and climate solutions a central part of his State of the Union Address and his Federal Budget.  I am glad people are engaging with... Frances Beinecke http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-fbeinecke-contributor.jpg

Today EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, sign the final regulations to implement the renewable fuel standard as amended in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (a.k.a. RFSII). With the tools that EPA has developed, we can finally start to hold biofuels corporations accountable.

The final rule came out Just before a White House release of a package of efforts intended to speed up the development of advanced biofuels. More on this package later.

The final RFSII rule confirms that there are major differences between different types of biofuels. Some reduce global warming and some pollute more than gasoline and diesel. The RFSII rule builds on a robust, science based process and lays out a clear plan to further refine these tools through an NAS study that EPA has requested.

With EPA’s tools, we can have greater energy independence, create good American jobs, and we don’t have to sacrifice our health, climate or the environment.

The lower cellulosic volumes (6.5 million gallons instead of the original 100 million target set for 2010) and the significant public health and air quality impacts identified in the rule reinforce the urgency of starting to hold the industry accountable and moving beyond the dirty, old corn ethanol that dominate today’s markets. The RFSII is not enough; we need to reform the biofuel tax credits so that tax payers get real clean energy for their money, we need to focus government incentives on American innovation and jobs so we get the first billion gallons of the best biofuels into the market, and ultimately we need to evolve to a Low Carbon Fuel Standard like the one adopted in California.

A. What does the final rule say about indirect land-use?

EPA’s final rule confirms that for some biofuels, emissions from chopping down forests and plowing up wild places—so called “indirect land-use change”—are still the most significant source of emissions. And EPA’s rule holds businesses that cause these emissions accountable.

Through the incorporation of new data, EPA’s central value for emissions from land-use change has actually gone down since the proposed rule, but if the high end of the range is considered several fuels would not qualify for the RFS and would come close to having higher GHG emissions than petroleum fuels.

So the question is not whether this is a significant impact of certain biofuels, but how significant. Building on a peer-review process and extensive stakeholder comments, EPA’s methodology has held up. More data was incorporated into that existing methodology to get more accurate answers and further review including the proposed NAS study will further refine it over time.

Despite the uncertainty, the analysis confirms that advanced biofuels are the path to greater energy independence, better protecting our health and deep GHG reductions. That’s why we need to go build on the RFSII through reforming the biofuel tax credits, focusing incentives on the first billion gallons of the best biofuels, and eventually adopting an LCFS. These measures will move us beyond uncertainty and controversy if they are designed to develop biofuels of indisputable environmental merit.

B. How do EPA’s results compare to CA’s?

EPA and California Air Resource Board analyzed different things, but once you dig into the numbers, EPA’s findings reinforce CARB’s findings. This convergence further confirms the idea that there are good biofuels and bad biofuels, we have the tools to hold the industry accountable, and we need to be focused on getting the good biofuels into the market.

EPA focused on very optimistic assumptions about what biofuels will look like in 2022. CARB asked what biofuels are like today. EPA also had the advantage of almost a year of additional data and findings.

Digging into EPA’s analysis, their findings on the critical issue of emissions from land-use change are very close to California’s even though they used different methods, and CARB’s land use change results are well within the range of values EPA found in its uncertainty analysis for almost all biofuels.

C. Why did EPA’s numbers change so significantly from the NPRM?

EPA’s numbers changed because they got better data. The three most important updates were to the economics of yields, the value of coproducts that are produced along with biofuels, and higher definition satellite data.

The final GHG emissions numbers still make it clear that emissions from indirect land-use change is a hugely important issue that we cannot afford to ignore.

D. What does EPA’s regulatory impact assessment show?

EPA’s impact assessment (see page 6 for a summary table) shows that rushing blindly forward with the RFS threatens our health and water. Achieving the mandated future renewable fuel requirements will increase the risk of premature mortality in portions of the U.S as well as increase water pollution unless we move beyond corn ethanol and take steps to avoid these impacts. The biggest public health impact is from particulate matter emissions associated with the production of biofuels to achieve the mandated future renewable fuel requirements. More ethanol will also mean using more water and polluting more water.

Fortunately, these impacts can be avoided or at least minimized. EPA should implement the anti-backsliding requirements in EISA to address these impacts. These are exactly the sort of unintended consequences that provision was intended to address.

Clamping down on the air pollution from ethanol refineries is a critical first step that EPA can take on its own. Congress should follow up by reforming the biofuel tax credits so that they reward cleaner, greener biofuels and hold the dirty, old refiners accountable. Getting refineries to reduce their air pollution and water consumption is easy technologically; it’s just a matter of providing the right regulations and incentives.

Congress, California and tax payers that are subsiding the biofuels industry should not be swayed by the efforts of the dirty, old corn ethanol to shirk responsibility for threatening our health, destroying the rainforests, and polluting the climate. We can create better jobs, greater energy independence, and protect the climate if we start holding the industry accountable. EPA’s RFSII rule is a good start.

Today EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, sign the final regulations to implement the renewable fuel standard as amended in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (a.k.a. RFSII). With the tools that EPA has developed, we can finally start to... Nathanael Greene http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-ngreene-contributor.jpg

Despite earlier claims that the near-10 GW of US wind installed in 2009 might edge out China in wind capacity additions:

The wind industry installed more than 9,900 megawatts of generating capacity, AWEA said. The association says that is enough to serve more than 2.4 million homes, about as many as there are in Washington state. Bode said that meant the United States should edge China for the lead in wind power installation for 2009. (from E&E news, subscription req'd) 

It looks like China has taken the lead in wind with 12+ GW installed last year

China became the biggest market for new wind turbines last year, as it doubled power capacity from 12 gigawatts to 25 gigawatts.  (from Business Week)

Although, if ~30% of those new turbines sit idle, the US might still be on top in terms of new wind energy delivered (the issues around wind interconnection in China are covered in detail in this excellent post). Of course regardless how you view the 2009 numbers, the phenomenal growth of renewables in China points to a larger trend and its pretty clear where we are headed. However, putting the question of US/China wind growth aside, there's a more fundamental point here.

Despite who is "ahead", the issue is not how many wind turbines or gigawatts a country can install, but how much renewable energy those projects provide to that nation's homes and businesses. Installed capacity is fundamentally the wrong measure for determining the success of a renewables deployment program. Furthermore, by focusing on energy delivered rather than turbines installed, we get at some of the infrastructure and integration challenges of this large scale shift to clean energy which are becoming increasingly urgent. The US must address these bottlenecks in order to realize the promise of a clean energy economy and remain global leaders in emerging energy technology development and manufacturing.

Also, as I've suggested before, the US may soon face its own deterioration of wind project capacity factors if we don't quickly move away from the current investment-based incentives made available in the stimulus, and return a performance-based vehicle like the production tax credit. Time will tell...