EPA administrator says he’s not pulling out 4

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 9:10 am
   07 Aug 2008

   I'm depressedThis press release just arrived in my e-mail in-box:
   EPA Denies the RFS Waiver Request
   On August 7, 2008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced that EPA would deny a request submitted by the State of Texas to reduce the nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).
   Working with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, EPA considered more than 15,000 public comments and determined that the RFS is not causing "severe harm" to the economy. This means that the total volume of renewable fuels mandated by law to be blended into the fuel supply will remain at 9 billion gallons in 2008 and 11.1 billion gallons in 2009.
   Jetta Wong, EESI's [Environmental and Energy Study Institute's] Senior Policy Associate for the Sustainable Biomass and Energy Program, said this about EPA's decision, "EESI is glad to see that EPA denied the waiver. It is reassuring that EPA's analysis confirmed what many universities and experts have been staying, which is that the RFS was NOT causing severe harm to the US or the Texas economy."
   The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the RFS program, includes provisions to enable the EPA Administrator to suspend part of the RFS if its implementation would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country. In a letter sent to EPA on April 25, 2008, Governor Rick Perry of Texas requested that the EPA cut the RFS mandate for ethanol production in half [noted above], citing recent economic impacts in Texas.
   I'm speechless. (I'm even surprised at the EEI's glee. I thought they were backing away in their support for biofuels made from crops.)
   Fortunately, another e-mail contained a link to this article, slightly cheering me up:
   Peters announces new approach for US transportation
   A clean and historic break with the past is needed to encourage the future vitality of our country's transportation network, said US Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters, who unveiled the Bush Administration's new plan to refocus, reform and renew the national approach to highway and transit systems in America.
   "Without a doubt, our federal approach to transportation is broken. And no amount of tweaking, adjusting or adding new layers on top will make things better," Peters said. "It is time for a new, a different and a better approach."
   The Secretary said the plan sets a course for reforming the nation's transportation programmes by outlining a renewed federal focus on maintaining and improving the Interstate highway system, instead of diverting funds for wasteful pet projects and for programmes clearly not federal priority areas like restoring lighthouses.
   Addressing urban congestion and giving greater flexibility to state and local leaders to invest in their most needed transit and highway priorities is another key focus of the reform plan, said Peters. Local leaders will have greater freedom and significantly more resources to fund new subways, bus routes or highways as they choose, based on the needs of local commuters instead of the dictates of Washington.
   As part of this focus on congestion, the plan would create a Metropolitan Innovation Fund that rewards cities willing to combine a mix of effective transit investments, dynamic pricing of highways and new traffic technologies, the Secretary said.
   The reform plan also calls for greatly reducing over 102 federal transportation programmes which have proliferated over the last two decades, replacing them with eight comprehensive, intermodal programmes that will help focus instead of dilute investments, and cut the dizzying red-tape forced upon local planners, she said.
   Does anybody know what Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters's views are on biofuels?
   
   These are only my personal opinions.

   Permalink

2. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 9:45 am
   07 Aug 2008

   Johnson stands up... refusesto pull out? The nerve.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

3. 

   archigeek Posted 2:01 am
   08 Aug 2008

   Local leaders..."Local leaders...have greater freedom...to fund...as they choose..." Oh, brother. This sounds more like the "local leaders" will have even more opportunities to defraud taxpayers by planning useless and unneeded projects which have no uses other than to provide the pols with a pretty photo op and connected(he-he$$$) contractors with more busy work. Plus, the idea of more toll roads, while not entirely objctionable, leads me to ask a question: who controls the roads? Will the state hang on to the roadway, or will they hand it over to a contractor?  We've all seen in Iraq(and, actually, most areas of gov't) how well that idea has worked. In addition, considering the burgeoning security/police state/plutocracy, will indivduals be barred from these roads if they somehow run afoul of the Draconian laws which have been enacted(and certainly WILL be enacted in the future)to this date?
   
   The mellotron is your friend.

   Permalink

4. 

   stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:00 am
   08 Aug 2008

   Silence of dedicated scientists is dangerous.....The silence of too many reputable scientists and the shrill voices of many too many ideologues are symptomatic of deeply distressing problems. Reputable scientists in many places are either being subjected to venal pressures and, in some cases, driven out of "politically incorrect" areas of research or else their positions and programs are cut out of the government's budget. The ideologues remain in place.
   By recklessly funding such entities as the Department of Defense for the sake of winning military battles in distant lands, we are losing "the war" against environmental degradation, biodiversity extirpation, and the preservation of Earth as a fit place for human habitation by our children and coming generations.
   How could a single, admittedly not-so-great generation of wrong-headed leading elders have become so terribly misdirected?  These self-proclaimed "masters of the universe" have vanquished moral authority, but not their designated enemies. Perhaps the wanton greed, acquisition of too much power, and idolatry of endless wealth accumulation and economic growth-mania of many too many leaders have something to do with my 'religious' generation's adamant pursuit of so many unfortunate errands perpetrated by a confederacy of fools.
   Steven Earl Salmony
   
   AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
   
   established 2001
   
   http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

   Permalink