It's widely assumed that if Congress fails to pass a clean energy bill, the EPA will step in with regulations on CO2 under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007's Mass. v EPA that it must do so if it finds CO2 to be a dangerous air pollutant -- and sure enough, the agency sent the White House its final endangerment finding Monday. EPA regulations now appear inevitable and unstoppable. But don't be so sure.

The threat of EPA CO2 regs is a thorn in the side of fossil-fueled legislators and one of the few points of leverage green Dems have. It has hovered over congressional climate negotiations, bringing recalcitrant lawmakers to the table. It's generally agreed by both sides that regulatory emission restrictions would be worse for power companies than legislative restrictions; a recent Wall Street Journal story covered several utilities lobbying for legislation on that basis. EPA regs would be "more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution like cap and trade," said Exelon head John Rowe. Some enviros have gone so far as to claim that it would be preferable for the weak legislation in Congress to fail so that tougher EPA regs could take its place. (A dangerously wrong notion, IMO.)

Is it true, though, that EPA regulations are inevitable and unstoppable? It might seem so, given the stark clarity of the Supreme Court's ruling. But never underestimate the plasticity of congressional procedure or the willingness of conservatives to use any means necessary to protect their corporate constituents.

I put the question to a senior Senate legislative aide a while back: Is there really nothing Republicans and conservative Dems can do to stop the EPA? He smiled ruefully and told me to look into what happened to CAFE standards in the mid-'90s. This Congressional briefing paper (PDF) tells the story:

In October 1993, less than one year after taking office, the Clinton administration issued its Climate Change Action Plan, and this included a process that was to be co-chaired by the White House National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Environmental Policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. In April 1994, it published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to develop fuel economy standards for light trucks for model years 1998-2006. Seven months later, Republicans won control of Congress and promptly began to attach "riders" on annual appropriations bills to prevent funding for administration activity to develop or implement new fuel economy rules for light trucks. These riders blocking progress on fuel economy improvements remained in place until President Bush took office.

Could the same thing happen to EPA regs that happened to CAFE regs under Clinton? Well, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has already tried once, back in September. Her amendment was poorly written and she ultimately backed down without forcing a vote on it. But as the aide told me, it would be possible for a more adept legislator to write a more carefully tailored amendment that would block only the stationary-source regulations and leave the (more popular) vehicle regulations untouched. Obviously Republicans don't control Congress now, and unless the most catastrophic predictions play out, won't in 2010 either. But hostility to EPA regulations on power plants cuts across party lines. And remember, what's needed here isn't 60 votes against the EPA regs per se -- just 60 senators who think passing an appropriations bill is more important than standing up for the EPA. The thing about appropriations bills is that they really need to pass or parts of the federal government go unfunded. There's enormous pressure; that's why members of Congress are fond of attaching riders to them.

EPA opponents will have plenty of opportunities to build a coalition, as E&E reports (sub rqd):

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who cosponsored Murkowski's amendment, said there would be "extremely dangerous consequences" if the administration is allowed to "unilaterally" regulate greenhouse gas emissions and that the cost of gasoline, food and manufactured goods would skyrocket. He said the EPA regulations should be delayed until Congress has had a chance for a full and open debate on the issue.

"This issue will be back," Thune vowed. "Senator Murkowski will bring it back; I will bring it back."

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, welcomed the senators' opportunities to air their grievances on the floor.

"I'm glad it was debated and I think Senators Murkowski and Thune were right to bring it up and it got them the chance to make the point," he said, adding that the point "will be made over and over again."

Over and over again, whee! In terms of raw numbers, there are probably more than 60 senators hostile to EPA regs. The question is whether some core number of coal-state Dems can be kept in line in the name of party discipline. You know how Senate Dems love party discipline.

What happens if an appropriations bill with an EPA-blocking rider comes to a vote? The only option for green Dems would be to filibuster. There are certainly legislators who seem willing to do so. In a conversation with National Journal last week, Sen. John Kerry said this:

I'm going to make this as clear as I can: I don't think anybody is going to wind up repealing [EPA CO2 regulations] because there's filibuster-proof capacity to prevent that from happening. ... I'll personally stand on the Senate floor day and night to prevent that from happening, and there are plenty of procedural ways in which to do that. So that's not going to happen. I don't see any scenario in which that does, and there are plenty of people who would stand there with me. This is not a solo effort by any sense of the imagination. As I've said, there is a clear number of votes that would not allow that to happen, assuming we're moving in good faith down the road.

This is tough talk. And there's plenty of precedent for blocking appropriations bills (see this section of Filibuster: obstruction and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate, by Greg Wawro and Eric Schickler). Dems famously filibustered a defense appropriations bill with a rider that would have opened the Arctic Refuge to drilling.

But Kerry's talking about mustering 40 liberal senators to block a much-needed bill on behalf of a policy that both the White House and EPA have spent the last year badmouthing and that most "centrist" senators oppose. That will be tricky political terrain, to say the least.

If there's a sufficiently large bloc of senators motivated to block the EPA, they'll probably find some way to block it. But the point here is not so much to try to predict what might happen. It's just to say that EPA regulations of CO2 are not "inevitable." Nothing in politics is inevitable; nothing's a sure thing; everything's a risk; everything's a fight. Those who would abandon legislation in Congress in favor of EPA regs run at least some risk of consigning the U.S. to years without any restrictions on CO2 emissions.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Sen. Boxer speaking at a CEJAPA rally at the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Photo courtesy The Sierra Club via Flickr At close to 11pm Eastern, Boxer's office has finally released the chairman's mark of the Kerry-Boxer bill. This is the version of the bill that will be debated in hearings next week. Concurrently, the EPA has released its analysis of the economic impacts of the bill (PDF).

These are both crucial documents that will see a lot of discussion in coming weeks. Here's just a few cursory notes.

The main thing to know about the EPA analysis is that it came to roughly the same conclusions as it did about the House bill, ACES. That analysis was broadly positive (see here). Here are the EPA's four main takeaways, which it says remain unchanged between bills:

(1) the cap-and-trade policies outlined in these bills would transform the way the United States produces and uses energy; (2) the average loss in consumption per household will be relatively low, on the order of hundreds of dollars per year in the main policy case; (3) the impacts of climate policy are likely to vary comparatively little across geographic regions; and (4) what we assume about the actions of other countries has much greater implications for the overall impact of the policy than the modeled differences between the two bills. [my highlights]

So, if anyone asks you what the EPA says about the Senate clean energy bill, just say: costs are low, regional variations are small, and global climate negotiations will determine the ultimate cost. And that's without considering the benefits -- which the EPA's analysis explicitly does not.

Since the changes between bills wouldn't have substantial effect on the outcomes, it's safe to assume that most of them are tweaks made either to make programs work better or to satisfy various political constituencies. More the latter, if we're being honest.

Here, from Boxer's office, is a summary of the changes from the House bill (ACES) to the Senate's (CEJAPA):

Key Changes in the Chairman's Mark
The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733)

Specifies Distribution of Emissions Allowances
The Chairman's Mark specifies the distribution of the allowances established under the Pollution Reduction and Investment program. The allocations place emphasis on investments in the following areas:

• Energy Intensive and Trade Exposed industries
• Small local distribution companies (including rural electric co-operatives)
• Transportation grants
• Agriculture and forestry
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
• Advanced energy research
• Credits for early action
• Energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training
• Nuclear worker training

New Provisions To Address Clean Coal Technology

• The Chairman's Mark includes new provisions to stimulate development of commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies
• The bonus allowance program is modified to allow for advanced payments of bonus allowances for early actors with a requirement that funded projects will achieve at least a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
• The Chairman's Mark includes provisions that require coal fired power plants to meet emissions performance standards once sufficient commercial-scale CCS technology has been deployed, while also ensuring timely reductions in global warming pollution from coal plants.

Increased Investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

• The Chairman's Mark increases investments in utility-scale renewable energy generation.
• The 25 percent set-aside for local governments for energy efficiency and conservation block grant continues unchanged.
• The Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program is guaranteed a share of the allocation provided to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
• Allowances are also dedicated to energy efficiency programs, including a specific requirement that states use some of these funds for thermal energy efficiency projects.
• Priority is given to low and moderate-income households and a dedicated portion of the energy efficiency set-aside is reserved for low-income households and for public housing retrofits.
• The Chairman's Mark includes a new program that authorizes the EPA Administrator to provide assistance to owners and operators of buildings in the United States that implement energy efficiency measures that meet Energy Star or other relevant standards.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Increasing Investments in the Transportation Sector

• A new allocation program with increased investments is established specifically to fund transportation projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funds are provided for the “Clean-Tea” planning and performance grants program and for Transit formula grants.
• The Clean Vehicles program is modified to place a stronger emphasis on the domestic manufacturing of advanced technology vehicles, including transit vehicles.

Enhanced Agriculture and Forestry Provisions

• A more robust supplemental agriculture and forestry program is included with allocations throughout the life of the bill. The Supplemental Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Renewable Energy Program is strengthened to ensure measurable reductions in global warming pollution.

Directs Assistance to Rural Communities

• The Chairman's Mark increases allowances for small electric Local Distribution Companies, including Rural Electric Cooperatives, which will benefit rural electric consumers.
• The Chairman's Mark includes a new program to provide grants to states and non-profits to improve air quality by replacing outdated wood stoves.

Promotes Advanced Renewable Fuels

• The definition of biofuels in the Renewable Fuel Standard is clarified to make clear that algae-based and other advanced fuels are included.

Enhances the Role of Tribes

• Tribes are recognized in a number of ways throughout the Chairman's Mark. Tribes receive guaranteed allocations for the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. The Chairman's Mark also enhances the role that Tribes will play in a number of programs in the bill.

Bigger Market Stability Reserve

Greater Assistance for Small and Medium Refineries

• Small business refiners are given additional time to comply with the Pollution Reduction and Investment program. In addition, the domestic fuel production allowance program focuses on small and medium refineries.

We'll have more on the bill, the EPA analysis, and the hearing that will examine them both next week.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Paul Krugman had a post the other day on the "aura of inevitability" and how it finally seems to be working for progressives instead of against them. I think he's on to something.

Summer was brutal for greens. "Cap and tax" attacks were bouncing around the Foxosphere. House Dems were getting killed back home for voting yes on Waxman-Markey. Conventional wisdom said that Pelosi had blundered by forcing them into an unpopular vote for a bill that could never pass the Senate, where health care reform was imperiled and clean energy legislation a forlorn dream.

Since then, however, greens have had one good break after another. And this isn't like 2006, when Al Gore's movie came out and for a while every magazine published a green issue. Those were pop culture events. These latest dramas have taken place inside the hothouse of the Beltway political world, where legislators and political operators take notice.

Good enemies

Start with the dirty energy Keystone Kops, shooting themselves in the foot.

First there was Big Coal's PR arm, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, formerly seen as a lobbying juggernaut that succeeded in putting all of DC in its thrall. Then came the astroturf fraud in August, as Bonner & Assoc. -- working for the coal industry -- got busted sending fake letters from civil rights and women's groups to legislators. ACCCE dropped Bonner like a hot potato, and Bonner blamed ... a temp. Rachel Maddow ripped them a new one. (This story isn't gone, either; a House hearing at which Bonner will testify was recently postponed and will happen later this month. Expect more embarrassing headlines). To boot, ACCCE saw high-profile defections from Duke Energy and Alcoa.

Then there was Faces of Coal, a new astroturf group whose faces turned out to be ... iStockphoto clip art. That one got ripped by Maddow and Stewart.

Then there's the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has bumbled its way into ignominy in record time. First companies began leaving it over its intransigence on clean energy legislation. Then it demanded a "21st Century Scopes Monkey Trial on the science of climate change." Then more companies left. Chamber chief Tom Donahue, oblivious to the changing political winds, bumbled around, at first defiant, then incoherent, then confused, then defensive. Then it emerged that the CoC's membership numbers were wildly inflated -- not 3 million business, but more like 200,000. Then the Yes Men came along and ganked them so successfully with a fake press release and press conference that Reuters got punked, making national headlines and completely eclipsing the launch of the Chamber's goofy PR campaign. Maddow ripped that one too. Then the White House joined in and started pummeling the Chamber, which has spent almost $35 million just in the third quarter of this year lobbying against Obama's initiatives. The Chamber is now in complete disarray, having become, almost overnight, a national symbol of yesterday's news: old, out of touch ideologues in hock to old, out of touch industries.

And finally there are the authors of Superfreakonomics, whose best-seller muddling the science of climate change and advocating for hail-mary policies like geoengineering seems mainly to have served to rouse the progressive intelligentsia to climate science's defense, and to a greater awareness and engagement on the climate issue. I haven't seen this many posts about climate change and climate policy in the progressive mediasphere in ... ever.

Good friends

Meanwhile, there are more and more Faces of Clean Energy, and they ain't clip art.

A huge group of businesses lobbied for legislation on the hill recently. A coalition of religious groups called Day Six is now lobbying for legislation. Operation Free, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, is on a Vets for American Power bus tour -- "mission: secure American with clean energy" -- lobbying for legislation. (For supporting "cap and tax type policies," Penn. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe [R, needless to say] called these vets "traitors" and "Benedict Arnolds." Again: you really couldn't ask for enemies this clueless.) A group of 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations just sent a letter [PDF] to the Senate reaffirming, in blunt terms, the scientific consensus on the nature and urgency of climate change.

This Saturday will mark Climate Action Day, with hundreds of events across the nation and the world. A string of recent polls has shown that Americans of all political stripes, including those in conservative Dem districts and especially young Americans [PDF], want clean energy, support Obama on the issue, and want legislation from this Congress. They aren't falling for the "cap and tax" hysteria.

Remember the Senate clean energy bill that could never pass because it couldn't get bipartisan support? It has bipartisan support now, and Lindsey Graham coming aboard has pushed Murkowski, Byrd, and Voinovich into the maybe column. The road to 60 votes, while far from easy, is clearly visible now.

And that's before the administration has fully engaged. Obama will give a speech at MIT on Friday supporting the legislation. The same day, Lisa Jackson will release the EPA's analysis of the bill. Next week, the Environment and Public Works Committee will begin hearings, and among the first witnesses will be Jackson, DOE's Steven Chu, the Interior's Ken Salazar, Transportation's Ray LaHood, and FERC chair Jon Wellinghoff. This kicks off what's expected to be a full court press from the administration to get the bill done.

---

In short, at least for the moment, greens have the Big Mo. There's a self-reinforcing cycle of positive stories happening. Deniers and delayers are on the defensive.

It feels good! Yes, it's certain to change, and change again, over the course of the long fight in the Senate. But confidence is everything. Greens aren't used to being the ones with muscle and momentum, but now that they've got them the thing to do is get a little swagger. Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing is more powerful in politics than the aura of inevitability.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

LOS ANGELES -- EPA administrator Lisa Jackson unveiled a modest proposal on Wednesday: If a company wants to build a new power plant or refinery, or fix up a smoky old belcher, it will have to use the best available technology to control greenhouse gases.

That's it. Oh, and the Dunkin Donuts of the country will be spared.

Depending on who you ask, the proposed regulation is either a bone-headed move that will land her agency back in court, or a shrewd maneuver to quash industry scare tactics and quell rising panic on Main Street about the potential costs of far-reaching climate legislation.

It's not clear how much the rule would accomplish. At a Wednesday press conference during her stop here at the Governors' Global Climate Summit, Jackson admitted she had no idea how many tons of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases would actually be reduced if the regulation goes into effect. Ditto on how much the regulation could end up costing affected businesses.

But one thing was absolutely clear, she said: The regulation would not affect your local doughnut shop.

"Very soon, we will hear about doomsday scenarios, with EPA regulating everything from cows to the local Dunkin Donuts. But let's be clear. That's not going to happen," said Jackson in her speech at the gathering organized by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). "We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions."

The regulation would only apply to facilities that emit 25,000 tons or more a year, she said. That's about 10,000 major businesses all told, of the millions dotting the American strip mall and manufacturing landscape.

Industry groups were quick to point out that the Clean Air Act says that any pollution source over 250 tons must be regulated, not 25,000 tons.

Former Bush-era EPA official Jeff Holmstead, now with the D.C. law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said the EPA action could face a legal challenge. "Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA's legal justification for today's proposal," he said. "Let's hope it stands up in court, or anyone who wants to build anything in the U.S. will be facing more litigation and delay."

Jackson said the agency's lawyers had studied the issue, and were confident they could proceed.

David Doniger, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's climate change policy center, said he'll be curious to see who actually files a lawsuit saying small businesses should have to face the same regulations as the nation's biggest polluters.

He said courts had ruled that if regulators had limited resources, they could focus just on big polluters. He said Congress could also easily insert a clause in its climate legislation, saying it only applied to major polluters.

"It's a simple fix," he said, ignoring the still formidable task of getting a climate bill through Congress.

Doniger said once new vehicle fuel standards are put in place next March, as already announced by the Obama administration, that would automatically trigger a requirement that other polluters use the best available equipment as well. Jackson's proposal to increase the threshold for regulation to 25,000 tons would ensure only the biggest would be affected.

"It's a very smart move," said Doniger. "It's supposed to quiet the nerves of the mom and pop shops."

The Obama administration is facing "a very delicate balance" between taking steps to curb emissions, and "not scaring the hell out of people," said California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols. "They're trying to not create panic in the streets ... although people may still end up going into freak out mode."

Nichols pointed out that under California's Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, local air districts were already requiring major utilities and other large emitters to use the best equipment available to reduce emissions.

All sides agree that the EPA's announcement is one more sign that the Obama administration is moving forward with steps to regulate greenhouse gases, while hoping that Congress will pass legislation that achieves the same goal.

"Today's proposal is a valiant effort by EPA to fit a square peg into a round hole," said Holmstead. "The Clean Air Act was not designed or intended to regulate carbon dioxide, but the Obama administration has already announced that it plans to start using the Act to regulate carbon dioxide early next year unless Congress passes climate change legislation before then."

Jackson, in her speech, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had made it "crystal clear" that her agency must regulate carbon dioxide if the agency concludes it endangers public health. She said that finding would come very soon.

Two weeks ago, she and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the proposed fuel efficiency standards of 35.5 miles per gallon, calling them "the first ever national action to significantly control vehicle's greenhouse gases."

She also signaled that trains, ships and other transportation sources could face emissions cuts in coming monthst, and said her agency is exploring further mandates for power plants, refineries, cement plants and other major emitters.

"We are not going to continue business as usual while we wait for Congress to act," Jackson said.

--

See also: David Roberts looks at what the EPA regulation does (and does not) contain.

Related Links:

Can perfect markets induce capital investment?

Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?

When will we stop paying the hidden fossil fuel tax?

The EPA made an announcement today that lots of folks seem to be misinterpreting as "proposed regulations on power plants." That's not what they are.

What was announced today is the "tailoring" rule; it establishes that when the EPA regulates stationary sources, it will only regulate those that emit more than 25,000 tons. This is a modification of the threshold now in the Clean Air Act, which is 250 tons. If EPA regulated every source emitting more than 250 tons, it would be a nightmare (churches! schools! marathons!). There's some dispute about whether the EPA is legally allowed to do this; not surprisingly, I hear different things from different sides of the aisle. It is sure to be litigated.

This announcement has been expected for a while, by the way, so it's not quite so epochal as some are making out.

When the new EPA fuel economy regulations go into effect in 2010, that will automatically -- as in, by law -- trigger regulations of stationary sources. Such sources will have to get permits showing that they've used Best Available Control Technology to reduce CO2. BACT has not yet been defined for CO2. That's going to be a huge and incredibly contentious fight. Now, at least, we know when the fight will start.

If you're interested, I wrote a comprehensive rundown on EPA regulation of CO2. It explains what to expect in clear language. Also it has bunnies.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Beltway observers of all stripes owe Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) a debt of gratitude. In 2006, after 20 years in the House of Representatives, he ran for Maryland's newly vacant Senate seat against then-Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. Steele's defeat put him on a trajectory to become chair of the Republican National Committee, where he has provided the political world with an unending stream of malapropisms and unintentional hilarities.

Meanwhile, Cardin -- who boasts close to a perfect 100 score from the League of Conservation Voters -- has become a key player on green issues in the Senate. He was kind enough to answer a few of our questions (transcript at bottom of post):

Sen. Cardin doesn't mention it specifically, but he is one of the original sponsors of CLEAN-TEA (the Clean Low-Emissions Affordable New Transportation Equity Act), which would set aside 10% of the revenue from any cap-and-trade program for green transportation projects. The provision was dropped from the House bill; it needs five more sponsors on the Environment and Public Works Committee to get voted through to the Senate floor. Neither Obama nor Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have come out in support of the provision yet, but they oughtta.

Enviros will be heartened to hear that Cardin is on board with preserving the EPA's Clean Air Act authority over greenhouse gases. Rumor has it Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and other Dems on the Environment and Public Works Committee are pushing to include this in the climate bill.

Finally, Cardin doesn't mention this specifically either, but he is an original sponsor of S. 696, the Appalachia Restoration Act, which would define the word "fill" to prevent mountaintop-removal mining operations from dumping waste and rubble in mountain streams. He was one of the earliest members of Congress to speak out clearly against the barbaric practice of MTR; progress on the issue seems to be picking up steam.

Big thanks to Sen. Cardin for taking the time to answer our questions. With any luck, this won't be the last time.

Here's the transcript:

Introduction: I'm glad to be here today to answer questions from Grist, a great website covering environmental news.

Q: Are there any alternative ways of boosting public transit in the climate bill?

A: The climate bill gives us an excellent opportunity to increase public transportation. It's critically important to reduce greenhouse gases, to use less oil and fuel, and to provide better services to the people of our community, make their lives a lot easier. Now, we're very pleased about the House passing the climate change bill. It's an important bill; it establishes the framework to bring down greenhouse gases. But I must tell you, I think we could do much better on public transportation. And I'm looking forward, in the Senate, to providing more dedicated revenue sources to increase our commitment to improve public transportation in our nation. I think we can really get the job done that will help our communities as far as life is concerned, traffic is concerned, also, save us oil and energy and bring down greenhouse gases.

Q: Is there a push in Congress to preserve the EPA's new-source-review authority?

A: It's a very high priority that we preserve the new authority of EPA to regulate, especially under the Clean Air Act. We want to make sure that those authorities remain. Now, we are concerned about the House bill. The House bill is an important bill, and it moves us forward on global climate change, but we don't think we should take away from EPA's ability to use authority within the Clean Air Act, to make the type of progress necessary to bring down greenhouse gases. Bottom line is, we want it to be a partnership between what Congress will give this administration, the policies that we establish, working with the EPA to make the type of changes necessary to affect climate change in this country.

Q: What's the status of the Appalachian Restoration Act? Is there any appetite in the Senate for addressing mountaintop removal?

A: Mountaintop removal for coal is just devastating. There is no justification for mountaintop mining. The coal industry is important, but getting coal by that technique destroys our rivers. It destroys our environment. It's not fair to the people of that community. Their rivers are being destroyed, and it's just a horrible process. I'm pleased that we have bipartisan support to move legislation. Now, the EPA has already taken some steps. They're carefully reviewing each permit. I give the EPA a great deal of credit for taking that extra time, but they need the authority from Congress that prohibits this type of mining in our country. I do think there is support for it, and I'm hopeful that this Congress will move forward to an act of meaningful help for the EPA, in keeping our rivers clean and helping the environment.

Conclusion: I really want to thank Grist for giving me this opportunity to answer some of your environmental questions. I hope that we can continue this dialogue. Please feel free to go to my website, which is cardin.senate.gov, where we can help you with more information. This is an important subject. It deserves great debate. We appreciate you being part of it.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

EPA chief Lisa Jackson will be in the Windy City on Friday to deliver the keynote address to the Chicago Summit on Sport and Sustainability. A review of the summit's agenda and list of speakers suggests the event will be narrowly tailored to efforts that city is undertaking in its bid for the 2016 Olympics. With that said, there also will be representatives from the National Football League (Philadelphia Eagles) who may speak to the efforts underway in professional sports on achieving sustainable practices.

As I mentioned in my first article, the professional sports industry is just beginning to embrace sustainable business practices. But they are late to the party, as the Olympic movement has been at the forefront of applying environmentally sustainable practices for some time. In fact, you can trace simple sustainability practices back to efforts applied during the 1984 summer games in Los Angeles.

Green and sustainability are already baked into plans for the next two games. The city of Vancouver's promise to host the first sustainable Olympic games ever almost certainly helped the Canadian city's bid for the 2010 winter games (PDF). Not to be out done, London, the site of the 2012 summer Olympics, unveiled its own sustainability plan back in 2007.

It's clear that if you want the Olympics in your city, you had better commit to environmentally sustainable operations. Wouldn't it be interesting if, here in the United States, the same requirements were placed on both college and professional sports programs by the cities they operate in or represent?

But I digress. In Chicago on Friday, Jackson has an opportunity to not only commend the work that is being done by the sports community but also provide some needed industry motivation. It is also a perfect stage for Jackson to point out how existing regulations touch the sport community, and how sports practices will not be unaffected by new regulatory programs (greenhouse gas emissions) that are likely to come into effect in the not too distant future.

So, as the industry itself moves ahead with sustainability programs, and as government regulators set their sights on sports practices, it should come as no surprise if Jackson's "motivation" eventually comes in the form of a Federal Advisory Committee to help guide the sporting industry as it begins the transformation to a sustainable industry.

I look forward to Jackson's speech and will be writing tomorrow on the highlights.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?

The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer

A moment of truth has arrived for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and President Barack Obama, who has promised “unprecedented steps” to rein in the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining that is wrecking havoc across wide swaths of Appalachian mountains, valleys and communities.

Anti-mountaintop removal activists are hoping President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson are about to make good on past promises to crack down on the destructive practice.Courtesy Jesse Jenkins / Energy CollectiveEPA is expected to announce decisions this week on over 100 pending permits for new or expanded coal mining projects utilizing mountaintop removal (MTR), which uses huge amounts of explosives to decapitate mountains and access the coal beneath, dumping the remains of these once-verdant Appalachian peaks directly on top of neighboring valleys and streams.

Mountaintop removal mining has already buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams and destroyed hundreds of square miles of woodlands in one of America's biodiversity hotspots, all while both the U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies have done little to curtail the practice. That's left it to activists to slow these projects down and prevent their irreversible damages.

But if recent news that the EPA is seeking to revoke the permit for the largest mountaintop removal mining project in West Virginia history is any indicator, the agency may finally be earning the "Protection" part of their name.

With a self-imposed, September 8th deadline now expired, the EPA is expected to issue an "initial list" this week identifying pending mountaintop removal projects that pose potential environmental concerns. The projects under EPA review have already been approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), which has primary responsibility for approving surface mining projects. Any projects that EPA decides will have no "significant" environmental impact will sail forward "without further coordination with EPA," according to agency procedures (kindly explained by Coal Tattoo's Ken Ward Jr. here).

Projects posing an environmental risk - and any sane person is hard pressed to explain how blowing up a mountain has no environmental impact - will instead show up on a list sent to the Corps, triggering a process of further review and ultimately - if EPA does it's job right - the rejection of some if not all of these proposed mountaintop removal projects under the Clean Water Act.

For better or worse, the forthcoming EPA list of environmentally risky projects will mark an important step closer to the establishment of clear, public standards for what level of environmental impact the agency will allow or prohibit at MTR sites proposed throughout Appalachia. The EPA has so far avoided establishing any such clear public standard.

With hundreds of mountaintop removal sites now in the balance, this is the moment of truth for the EPA, Administrator Lisa Jackson, and President Obama to make good on promises to reign in this clearly environmentally devastating practice. As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained on National Public Radio last week:

As we wait for the EPA's decision on the dozens of pending MTR permits, the Agency moved forward on a seperate front to block the largest proposed mountaintop removal site in West Virginia history in letter sent to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers late last week.

Read the full story at www.WattHead.org, the new home of WattHead - Energy News and Commentary

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

This story was written by Danielle Ivory.

There is some evidence that Congress -- and the Environmental Protection Agency -- are rethinking their policies on a commonly used weed-killer after disclosures that the EPA failed to notify the public about high levels of the herbicide in drinking water.

As the Investigative Fund revealed last week, the herbicide atrazine has been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states. The chemical has been studied for its potential link to breast cancer, prostate cancer, and birth defects, and the EPA considers it to be a potential endocrine disruptor. It is banned in the European Union.

The Natural Resources Defense Council published a report on atrazine levels last week, and the New York Times weighed in with an article on growing questions about the herbicide's health effects.

The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee has asked the EPA for a comprehensive briefing next week on the agency's failure to publicize results of tests that showed high levels of atrazine. The committee also is asking the EPA to develop a specific plan for reporting this data to the public in the future.

A senior committee staffer confirmed Friday that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and her staff plan to meet with "key players" at the EPA next week to discuss their data on atrazine.

"This is a top priority for us," the staff member said. "We're not going to shy away from this. People have a right to know what is in their drinking water, particularly when the EPA's data suggests that there could be a health concern."

For five years, the EPA has been collecting weekly tests of drinking water in about 150 watersheds, primarily in the Midwest, where farmers spray the herbicide on cornfields and other crops. The agency, however, never acted on the results. Nor had it ever published the data -- until tonight. EPA officials say they have now decided to make the test results available on their Web site.

The Investigative Fund obtained the data this summer through a public records request and published it last week.

In a statement to the I-Fund on Friday night, the EPA said the change in policy is important "because now people can get the data much easier" without going through the "burdensome" process of requesting public records.

The statement from the EPA said: "EPA is taking a hard look at atrazine, including many of the issues you raise. Atrazine is very controversial ... Administrator Jackson has made a commitment to strengthen the Agency's chemical management programs, which she identified as one of her top priorities upon her arrival at the Agency. This includes atrazine. We really want to emphasize that this new team is actively rethinking how to address atrazine."

It’s not only the Senate and EPA that plan to take a look at policy on atrazine. In the House, one congressman is planning to reintroduce legislation to ban the herbicide atrazine in the fall.

Last August, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) introduced a bill (H.R.3399), prohibiting the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. It died in the health subcommittee last September.

Minh Ta, legislative director for Ellison, said the congressman is concentrating on the financial crisis and health care, but would reintroduce the bill in the fall. "It’s an issue that the Congressman has been concerned about," Ta said. "These articles in the Huffington Post reinforce the need to act quickly."

But Richard Wiles, executive director at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, said that it will be difficult to garner broad congressional support for tighter atrazine regulation, let alone a ban. "This is the big kahuna," Wiles said. "Atrazine is one of those pollutants with a fortress of defenders — more so than most other chemicals."

Wiles said that any attempt to restrict atrazine use would likely be blocked by the House Agriculture Committee, who tend to favor the "pro-pesticide farm lobby and pesticide makers." The committee is chaired by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Peterson was the top congressional recipient of campaign contributions from the agricultural services industry (which includes Syngenta Corp) in the 2008 and 2006 election cycles. Peterson's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce can't catch a break these days. When the Waxman-Markey bill rolled out, it did what it always does: pretended to agree with the goal while recommending changes in the means so drastic that they would gut the bill. See this comical letter wherein it wants to "balance environmental objectives with the need for economic growth and job creation" by lowering targets, increasing free allocations, ditching the renewable energy standard, waiting for China and India to act first, completely preempting state programs, and increasing subsidies to fossil-fuel companies. This is standard operating procedure for CoC, a game it knows how to play. It lobbies for the interests of the corporate class.

But in this case, there's a problem: many, many business see enormous opportunities in the shift to clean energy. Many businesses want the stability and predictability ACES would bring. And many of those businesses happen to be members of the CoC. In May, several of them, including Nike and Johnson & Johnson, dealt the CoC a very public smack on the nose, asking it to quit speaking on behalf of "business" when lobbying on behalf of a few dirty-energy industries.

This kind if dissension in the ranks is new and embarrassing for the CoC. Its flailing response rolled out last week: a call for a "21st Century Scopes Monkey Trial" that would force the EPA to justify its endangerment finding in court.

Now, before you start mocking -- we'll get to that -- step back and think about this from a right-wing hack's perspective. The point is not, repeat not, to get at the truth of climate change. The CoC doesn't give a rat's ass about the truth of climate change. It's very simple: when in doubt, distract. Start a circus. Hype "the controversy."

The idea is to propose something that sounds reasonable on the surface, to the casual news reader, so that the EPA looks defensive if it refuses. It gives the right wing something to make hay over (and oh boy, are they). Most of all, it drags out the faux controversy of the existence of climate change.

Normally this stuff has worked well for conservatives, but a) times are changing, and b) this was a particularly ham-fisted attempt.

In comparing his proposal to the Scopes trial, CoC's Bill Kovacs revealed too much. In that case, conservatives had lost in the realm of science, so they relitigated via a theatrical court case in front of a jury with no scientific training. And Scopes lost. He was found guilty. It was less any kind of American triumph than a sad expression of provincial ignorance.

And that's exactly what Kovacs wants another one of.

Still, he came in for so much mockery that he tried to back off on Thursday, in a National Journal post that is, to put it charitably, rather opaque. He now says the Scopes comparison was "inappropriate" and that the CoC "is not denying or otherwise challenging the science behind global climate change." They just question whether it's a danger, despite the clear conclusion that it is contained in ... the science behind global climate change. Oh, and the Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA.

Kovacs goes on to recycle the myth of the EPA "whistleblower," which shows how desperate he is. The EPA has spent a couple years now making a determination, complete with the requisite 60 days for open comment, but Kovacs wants to second-guess the agency staff's conclusion before a judge. Hell, he'd probably like to treat all regulations this way -- in the name of "transparency," you know. But it would be ridiculous. Government would grind to a halt.

I don't know how much the public is really paying attention to this stuff. But I can't imagine this looks anything but buffoonish to the casual news consumer.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Should Waxman and Markey have kicked off House climate-bill negotiations with a stronger ask?

The bill they introduced was effectively the U.S. Climate Action Partnership proposal, which already reflected years of negotiation and compromise. The idea was that the difficult work of negotiations had already been done -- enviros and business both on board! -- and it would be easy for conservative Dems (and a few Republicans) to sign off on it.

Of course that's not what has happened. Republicans are balking en masse. Conservative Dems have compromised the bill down further, and by all indications will further weaken it in the Senate. Could the bill have ended up in a stronger place if it had started in a stronger place?

The counterargument is that the "green" side just didn't have much leverage. Without sticks, all they had were carrots -- more giveaways, more offsets.

One stick they did have was the threat of EPA greenhouse-gas regulations. There was a lot of talk about this when Dems first won their majorities but very little once negotiations actually got underway. Nobody is brandishing the stick.

Rep. Rick BoucherCould it have made more of a difference? Some recent comments from Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) are intriguing in this regard. In an interview with the Kingsport Times-News, Boucher was candid about his motivation for negotiating with Waxman:

Boucher stressed his interest in climate change has not been driven by a moral belief to control greenhouse gases. [Paging Times-News editors: You awake over there? What is a moral belief to control GHGs?]

What is driving his involvement, said Boucher, is the U.S. Supreme Court determined two years ago that greenhouse gases are pollutants.

“As a consequence of that decision, the Environmental Protection Agency is, for all intents and purposes, effectively required to regulate greenhouse gases,” Boucher said. “The debate about whether or not we will have regulation is over. So the only question is will EPA regulate or ... will we have congressional regulation that does balance economic effect against environmental effect? Given that choice, industry would rather have Congress do this. Industry needs and wants a bill to pass.”

"Industry needs and wants a bill to pass" -- the words of the coal industry's most dogged and effective spokesperson.

So there was leverage. It was used to get Boucher to the table. But once he was there, it went out the window. Not once in the process has industry been forced to face an ultimatum or bargain away a key position. They've been relentlessly wooed, but rarely challenged. They've been able to talk out both sides of their mouths, offering tepid, nominal support while bulldogs like the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Edison Electric Institute attack and weaken the bill.

And Boucher got just about everything he wanted for Big Coal:

The Southwest Virginia congressman said he spent more than six weeks helping to rewrite the draft bill to help coal-powered utilities and coal producers in his district.

He pointed to “four key things” inserted in the bill.

First, Boucher said, was making sure emission allowances were assigned for free and not put up for auction by the federal government.

“That helps to keep electricity prices affordable and strengthens the case for utilities to continue to use coal,” he said.

Secondly, Boucher said the bill now includes 2 billion tons of carbon offsets available to industrial emitters to help them satisfy their reduction obligations.

“That means an electric utility burning coal will not have to reduce the emissions at the plant site. It can just keep burning coal,” he explained.

The third provision is a $1 billion per year special fund to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies for controlled disposal or storage.

In the fourth provision, there is another special fund created to deploy the carbon capture and sequestration technology.

“Carbon capture and sequestration attached to coal still makes coal the cheapest fuel,” Boucher asserted.

These are the key -- some argue fatal -- weaknesses of the bill. They were put in to woo an industry that "needs and wants a bill to pass."

One other thing to note:

[Boucher] said lawmakers have “no political will” to mandate the EPA to do a cost-benefit analysis on climate change legislation.

Strictly speaking, this is false. The EPA has done detailed cost-benefit analyses of ACES. (It's going to be cheap, they say.) If Boucher is talking about the dipshit lawsuit the Chamber of Commerce is pushing, he's drifting into "death panel" territory.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Louis Meeks' well water contains methane gas, hydrocarbons, lead and copper, according to the EPA's test results. When he drilled a new water well, it also showed contaminants. The drilling company Encana is supplying Meeks with drinking water.Abrahm Lustgarten / ProPublicaThis story was written by ProPublica reporter Abrahm Lustgarten.

Federal environment officials investigating drinking water contamination near the ranching town of Pavillion, Wyo., have found that at least three water wells contain a chemical used in the natural gas drilling process of hydraulic fracturing. Scientists also found traces of other contaminants, including oil, gas or metals, in 11 of 39 wells tested there since March.

The study, which is being conducted under the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program, is the first time the EPA has undertaken its own water analysis in response to complaints of contamination in drilling areas, and it could be pivotal in the national debate over the role of natural gas in America's energy policy.

Abundant gas reserves are being aggressively developed in 31 states, including New York and Pennsylvania. Congress is mulling a bill that aims to protect those water resources from hydraulic fracturing, the process in which fluids and sand are injected under high pressure to break up rock and release gas. But the industry says environmental regulation is unnecessary because it is impossible for fracturing fluids to reach underground water supplies and no such case has ever been proven.

Scientists in Wyoming will continue testing this fall to determine the level of chemicals in the water and exactly where they came from. If they find that the contamination did result from drilling, the placid plains arching up to the Wind River Range would become the first site where fracturing fluids have been scientifically linked to groundwater contamination.

In interviews with ProPublica and at a public meeting this month in Pavillion's community hall officials spoke cautiously about their preliminary findings. They were careful to say they're investigating a broad array of sources for the contamination, including agricultural activity. They said the contaminant causing the most concern -- a compound called 2-butoxyethanol, known as 2-BE  -- can be found in some common household cleaners, not just in fracturing fluids.

But those same EPA officials also said they had found no pesticides -- a signature of agricultural contamination -- and no indication that any industry or activity besides drilling could be to blame. Other than farming, there is no industry in the immediate area.

In Pavillion, a town of about 160 people in the heart of the Wind River Indian Reservation, the gas wells are crowded close together in an ecologically vivid area packed with large wetlands and home to 10 threatened or endangered species. Beneath the ground, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the earth is a complex system of folded crusts containing at least 30 water-bearing aquifer layers.

EPA officials told residents that some of the substances found in their water may have been poured down a sink drain. But according to EPA investigation documents, most of the water wells were flushed three times before they were tested in order to rid them of anything that wasn't flowing through the aquifer itself. That means the contaminants found in Pavillion would have had to work their way from a sink not only into the well but deep into the aquifer at significant concentrations in order to be detected. An independent drinking water expert with decades of experience in central Wyoming, Doyle Ward, dismissed such an explanations as "less than a one in a million" chance.

Some of the EPA's most cautious scientists are beginning to agree.

"It starts to finger point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development, including, but not necessarily conclusively, hydraulic fracturing itself," said Nathan Wiser, an EPA scientist and hydraulic fracturing expert who oversees enforcement for the underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Rocky Mountain region. The investigation "could certainly have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination."

Tanks hold natural gas condensate and mark the spot of producing gas wells in the Pavillion field, in Fremont County, Wyo., in the heart of the Wind River Indian Reservation. The Environmental Protection Agency has found chemicals that are used in gas drilling in water wells near this site.Abrahm Lustgarten / ProPublicaThe Superfund investigation follows a series of complaints by residents in the Pavillion area, some stemming back 15 years, that their water wells turned sour and reeked of fuel vapors shortly after drilling took place nearby. Several of those residents shared their stories with ProPublica, while other information was found through court and local records. Several years ago a one resident's animals went blind and died after drinking from a well. In two current cases, a resident's well water shows small pooling oil slicks on the surface, and a woman is coping with a mysterious nervous system disorder: Her family blames arsenic and metals found in her water. In two of those cases the Canadian drilling company Encana, which bought most of the area's wells after they were drilled and assumed liability for them, is either supplying fresh drinking water to the residents or has purchased the land. In the third case a drilling company bought by Encana, Tom Brown Inc, had previously reached an out-of-court settlement to provide water filtering.

Though the drilling companies have repeatedly compensated residents with the worst cases of contamination, they have not acknowledged any fault in causing the pollution. An Encana spokesman, Doug Hock, told ProPublica the company wants "to better understand the science and the source of the compounds" found in the water near Pavillion before he would speculate on whether the company was responsible. 

Precise details about the nature and cause of the contamination, as well as the extent of the plume running in the aquifer beneath this region 150 miles east of Jackson Hole, have been difficult for scientists to collect. That's in part because the identity of the chemicals used by the gas industry for drilling and fracturing are protected as trade secrets, and because the EPA, based on an exemption passed under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, does not have authority to investigate the fracturing process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Using the Superfund program gave the agency extra authority to investigate the Pavillion reports, including the right to subpoena the secret information if it needs to. It also unlocked funding to pay for the research.

EPA officials have repeatedly said that disclosure of the fluids used in fracking -- something that would be required if the bill being debated in Congress were passed -- would enable them to investigate contamination incidents faster, more conclusively and for less money. The current study, which is expected to end next spring, has already cost $130,000.

About 65 people, many in jeans, boots and 10-gallon hats, filled Pavillion's community hall on Aug. 11 to hear the EPA's findings. They were told that a range of contaminants, including arsenic, copper, vanadium and methane gas were found in the water. Many of these substances are found in various fluids used at drilling sites.

Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes, a natural hydrocarbon found in gas that can be used to fingerprint its origin, and 2-BE, listed as a common fracturing fluid in the EPA's 2004 research report on hydraulic fracturing. That compound, which EPA scientists in Wyoming said they identified with 97 percent certainty, was suspected by some environmental groups in a 2004 drilling-related contamination case in Colorado, also involving Encana. 

EPA investigators explained that because they had no idea what to test for, they were relegated to an exhaustive process of scanning water samples for spikes in unidentified compounds and then running those compounds like fingerprints through a criminal database for matches against a vast library of unregulated and understudied substances. That is how they found the adamantanes and 2-BE.

An Encana representative told the crowd the company was as concerned as they were about the contamination and pledged to help the EPA in its investigation.

Some people seemed confounded by what they were hearing.

"How in god's name can the oil industry dump sh*t in our drinking water and not tell us what it is?" shouted Alan Hofer, who lives near the center of the sites being investigated by the EPA.

"If they'd tell us what they were using then you could go out and test for things and it would make it a lot easier right?" asked Jim Van Dorn, who represents Wyoming Rural Water, a non-profit that advises utilities and private well owners on water management.

"Exactly," said Luke Chavez, the EPA's chief Superfund investigator on the project. "That's our idea too."

Now that the EPA has found a chemical used in fracturing fluids in Pavillion's drinking water, Chavez said the next step in the research is to ask Encana for a list of the chemicals it uses and then do more sampling using that list. (An Encana spokesman told ProPublica the company will supply any information that the EPA requires.) The EPA is also working with area health departments, a toxicologist and a representative from the Centers for Disease Control's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to assess health risks, he said. 

Depending on what they find, the investigation in Wyoming could have broad implications. Before hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, the EPA assessed the process and concluded it did not pose a threat to drinking water. That study, however, did not involve field research or water testing and has been criticized as incomplete. This spring, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson called some of the contamination reports "startling" and told members of Congress that it is time to take another look. The Pavillion investigation, according to Chavez, is just that.

"If there is a problem, maybe we don't have the tools, or the laws, to deal with it," Chavez said. "That's one of the things that could come out of this process."

Reprint courtesy ProPublica.org.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the 97-year-old organization that bills itself as the “voice of business” — wants to put climate science on trial. As the Environmental Protection Agency nears a final ruling that manmade global warming endangers the public health and welfare, “the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing” on the science of climate change is needed to “make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science.” William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the Los Angeles Times this hearing would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century“:

It would be evolution versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial.

In 1925, Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was indicted for teaching evolution against state law. His trial, intended as a test of the law, became a national phenomenon when as the World Christian Fundamentals Association and the American Civil Liberties Union brought the famed lawyers William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow into battle. Scopes was found guilty. Even though the state supreme court overturned the verdict of the “bizarre case” on a technicality, the public fallout was intense. The anti-evolution movement lost steam (before being reborn as “intelligent design“) and science textbooks with biblical quotations were phased out.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking a similarly bizarre approach here, calling for a show trial of climate science. Perhaps Kovacs and other officials at the U.S. Chamber believe that the rest of the business world shares their extremist views. After all, U.S. corporations continue to fund their multi-million-dollar lobbying against health care and energy reform.

It’s also possible this is an attempt to disrupt the effort to fight global warming with a culture war, tying the science of climate change to fundamentalists’ unease with evolution. Conservative activists have already made the connection. “It’s still a theory,” a town hall protester confronted Rep. Mike Castle (D-DE) after he supported climate legislation in June. “So is Darwin’s theory of evolution! And yet we have the audacity to say global warming is accurate, it’s more than a theory?”

There aren’t many natural parallels between the physics of greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels and the biology of natural selection, but the American conservative movement depends on the cozy relationship between oil and the Christian right. It seems like a high-risk strategy to convince Americans that God means for us to pollute His creation on behalf of oil and coal tycoons. But when reality is not on your side, there’s not much else left.

Update: At the Swamp, Jim Tankersley explains how the "trial" would work:

Update: At Climate Progress, Joe Romm notes that the science of climate change has already been fought over in court, and asks the board members of the Chamber of Commerce "to declare whether they are evolved members of humanity or dedicated to our self-destruction."

These members claim to “support economy-wide reductions in CO2 emissions and/or federal cap-and-trade legislation”: Alcoa, Caterpillar, Deere & Co., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Eastman Kodak, Entergy, Fox Entertainment, IBM, Lockheed, Nike, PepsiCo., PNM Resources, Rolls Royce, Siemens, Toyota, and Xerox.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

This story was written by Danielle Ivory.

One of the nation's most widely used herbicides has been found to exceed federal safety limits in drinking water in four states, but water customers have not been told and the Environmental Protection Agency has not published the results.

Records that tracked the amount of the weed-killer atrazine in about 150 watersheds from 2003 through 2008 were obtained by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund under the Freedom of Information Act. An analysis found that yearly average levels of atrazine in drinking water violated the federal standard at least ten times in communities in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas, all states where farmers rely heavily on the herbicide.

In addition, more than 40 water systems in those states showed spikes in atrazine levels that normally would have triggered automatic notification of customers. In none of those cases were residents alerted.

In interviews, EPA officials did not dispute the data but said they do not consider atrazine a health hazard and said they did not believe the agency or state authorities had failed to properly inform the public. "We have concluded that atrazine does not cause adverse effects to humans or the environment," said Steve Bradbury, deputy office director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs.

Officials at Syngenta, the Swiss company that manufactures atrazine, declined requests for interviews about the testing results. In a statement on its Web site, the company says that atrazine "poses no threat to the safety of our drinking water supplies. In 2008, none of the 122 Community Water Systems monitored in 10 states exceeded the federal standards set for atrazine in drinking water or raw water."

Atrazine has become an issue of concern for environmentalists and consumer groups as the use of the herbicide has soared in the United States over the past few decades. Some scientists who have studied atrazine said the information about its higher levels in drinking water should be made public.

For more background on the story of atrazine, watch our video: How Safe Is Atrazine?

"This is an issue of the EPA not being forthright about what they know," said Robert Denver, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of Michigan who has served on two of the EPA's scientific advisory panels on atrazine.

"It is the responsibility of the EPA and Syngenta to inform the public of accurate levels of atrazine in their drinking water," said Jason Rohr, a specialist in ecotoxicology at the University of South Florida who studies the effects of atrazine in animals, and who served on the EPA's atrazine panel this past spring.

Atrazine is sprayed on cornfields and other major crops during the summer months and can run off into rivers and streams that supply drinking water. It is also commonly used on golf courses.

Studies of atrazine's potential links to prostate and breast cancer have been inconclusive. Based on the recommendations of its scientific advisory panels in 2000 and 2003, the EPA has listed atrazine as "not likely" to be a carcinogen but does officially consider it to be a potential hormone disruptor – a risk factor explored by researchers testing animals.

In recent years atrazine has been the subject of intensive debate among scientists about its effects on the reproductive systems of frogs and other vertebrate animals. In some studies, male frogs that were exposed to high levels of atrazine have been documented to grow eggs.

In 2004, the European Union banned atrazine because it was consistently showing up in drinking water and health officials, aware of ongoing studies, said they could not find sufficient evidence the chemical was safe.

State regulators in the U.S. test their local water systems for atrazine a maximum of four times a year, under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In 2003, the EPA again approved atrazine for use in the United States but it made some demands of Syngenta for the re-registration.

The EPA and Syngenta negotiated a deal for more extensive monitoring of about 150 vulnerable watersheds. Under that arrangement, the company pays for weekly monitoring and sends the results to the EPA, as well as to the local water companies and most state regulators.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy organization, is expected to release a report on Monday that fully analyzes a smaller set of Syngenta's weekly testing results -- from 2003 through 2006 -- and reaches conclusions similar to the Investigative Fund's analysis of all five years of data. The group supplied an advance copy of its report to The New York Times, which today published an article about the tests and other safety questions about atrazine.

Misleading Water Bills

The EPA plans to revisit its rules for atrazine in 2011. Presently the agency requires water systems to notify their customers if the quarterly state tests average higher than 3 parts per billion (ppb) annually. According to the EPA data obtained by the Investigative Fund, cities in four states — Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas — had yearly averages of atrazine violating that standard from 2003 to 2008.

In addition, more than 40 water systems in those states showed spikes of atrazine over 12 ppb – which if found in the state quarterly tests would have required the water system to notify the public within 30 days.

In none of those cases were residents notified of the high levels. In fact, the brochures in their water bills – reviewed for this report -- contained misleading numbers based on the state testing.

For example, based on the quarterly tests, residents of Mt. Olive, Ill., were told that the highest level of atrazine in their drinking water last year was 2 ppb. However, the EPA data shows a spike in June of 16.47 ppb. The same year, residents of McClure, Ohio, were told that the highest level of atrazine in their drinking water was 3.4 ppb. The EPA data shows a spike in June 2008 of more than ten times that amount — 33.83 ppb.

Both of these cities' water utilities received the weekly EPA data directly from Syngenta, but did not report it. Legally, they didn't have to. The drinking water act only requires cities to report data collected by the state. State tests are performed infrequently, so they are vulnerable to missing the chemical spikes that consistently occur around the time the weed-killer is being applied. With weekly tests, such as those ordered by the EPA, it is all but impossible to miss these spikes.

Asked why the results of the weekly tests had not been published, the EPA's Bradbury said "no data is withheld from the public." Bradbury said the information has been posted on the agency's electronic public docket. In fact, the weekly test results are one of the only items on the docket that are not posted on the site.

Instead they are listed as available only through the Freedom of Information Act.

In an on-camera interview with the Investigative Fund in June, Bradbury also said that the weekly monitoring had found no spikes in any watershed over 3 ppb. "It's these spikes that we're focusing on," he said. "There have been no exceedances." In fact, the EPA's data recorded more than 130 spikes over 3 ppb during 2008 alone — not only in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Kansas, but also in Missouri, Louisiana, and Texas. Bradbury declined to elaborate on the apparent contradiction.

The EPA does not consider one-time spikes of atrazine to be dangerous, but several peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest that the chemical may be harmful, particularly to developing fetuses, in doses as low as 0.1 ppb. One study, published this year in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica, found that birth defect rates in the United States were highest for women who conceived during months when atrazine levels were spiking.

"If you happen to become pregnant in June, you care about the levels [of atrazine] in June, not in January," said Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at the University of Rochester who has studied atrazine's effect on semen quality and development.

"For pregnant women, you have a critical period of a couple of weeks to a couple of months," Swan said. "If you have a peak exposure in that period, that's what's relevant to the pregnancy."

"The annual average might be relevant for [measuring the risk of] cancer, but it's obviously not okay if they [the EPA] care about regulating for reproductive toxicity," she said.

Had the EPA, the state or the local water companies made the weekly testing results public, residents could have made different choices about their water consumption, such as using inexpensive household carbon water filters or bottled water.

Asked about the discrepancies between the state and weekly EPA data, an EPA spokeswoman, Deb Berlin, said in an e-mail, "Consumers need accurate information to make health decisions for themselves and their families. EPA and state authorities would be interested in knowing about any situation where a public water system is not reporting accurate information to their customers as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act."

‘I'd Do More Testing'

Under the terms of its 2003 agreement with the EPA, Syngenta for the past five years has been monitoring water weekly in 10 states, with special emphasis on Illinois, Ohio, and Kansas.

This is how the EPA's testing program generally works: Syngenta sends boxes containing two tubes to about 150 water utilities. During the summer growing season when atrazine levels are likely to spike, water operators at these utilities take samples on a weekly basis. Every week, they fill one test tube with river water and one test tube with drinking water. They ship these samples to Syngenta labs, where the company analyzes them. Syngenta then reports the data to the EPA, as well as to the water utilities themselves and the state regulators.

Testing at the state level is much more modest. Up to four times a year, but as infrequently as once a year, water utilities ship one test tube filled with drinking water to their state regulator. The state analyzes the water and reports the data back to the water utility. This limited data is reported to the public, as required by federal right-to-know laws.

There are vast discrepancies between the two data sets. The Huffington Post Investigative Fund contacted water plant operators to see if they had noticed.

Some local water officials said they provided weekly samples to Syngenta but did not realize the company was acting under a requirement from the EPA intended to supply more data as a safeguard for their drinking water. They indicated they paid little attention to the results of the tests.

Robert Leonhardt, the water plant manager in Mt. Olive, Ill., received the weekly EPA data but said he was not aware of any of the spikes during the last five years, including a high reading of 16.47 ppb. He said the weekly testing was not a central part of his work. "This is a side thing," he said.

Steve Kubler, the water plant manager in Chanute, Kan., initially said of the state and weekly tests: "The numbers match up pretty well. I've never noticed a discrepancy." He added, "If I did, I'd do more testing."

According to that data, his town of Chanute recorded one reading of 6.51 ppb last year. The city reported a high of 1.4 ppb to the public. Asked about the numbers, Kubler said, "Look, what I do with Syngenta — it's in excess of what I have to do. I don't know even know why they're testing."

In Illinois, Roger Selburg of the state's Environmental Protection Agency said that he looks at the weekly data. But he said he does not use it to determine violations, nor does he report any of it to the public, because he does not know if the data are reliable or accurate. "We are only required to report the state data," he said.

Other water officials expressed some surprise and dismay about the levels of atrazine that showed up in the weekly tests. Osawatomie, Kan., showed a spike of 8.70 ppb in May 2008, although the city reported to the public a high of 0.89 ppb for the year. "That's a pretty good spike," said Marty Springer, water plant manager at Osawatomie's plant. "And no one knows about it."

McClure, Ohio, showed a spike of 33.83 ppb in June 2008, but the town told its residents the highest level that year was 3.4 ppb. "If we had been using Syngenta's data, obviously we would have hit the maximum contaminant level," said Christopher Diem, superintendent at McClure's water utility.

In Baxter Springs, Kan., atrazine spiked above 11 ppb in May 2008 while the town told its residents the highest level during the year was 1.3 pbb.

"We may have passed the quarterly tests for the state, but we're not passing them weekly or daily," said Stan Schafer, a water plant operator in Baxter Springs. "Somebody's got to do something," he said. "I live here. I drink the water. My parents drink the water. My kids drink the water. I just try to keep it clean."

Schafer said he regularly receives atrazine testing data from Syngenta, along with the results from the state, but he doesn't think he is allowed to report it to the public.

That fits with the impression that Kansas state health officials gave Lloyd Littrell, director of utilities in Beloit, about the weekly test results from Syngenta.

"I kept track of those numbers for a couple of years, but I stopped," Littrell said. "The state of Kansas would not let us report the results. We had several conversations about it. They said it wasn't certified by the state or something. I stopped trying. If we can't use it, what's the point of me looking at it?"

According to the EPA data, atrazine spiked above 20 ppb in May 2008, but Beloit reported a high of 2 ppb to the public.

"It concerns me," Littrell said. "If it's an actual health hazard and they know and the EPA knows it's getting in water — I can't believe they're not doing anything about it."

--

See also: Huffington Post Investigative Fund also obtained access to the EPA's data on atrazine levels for about 150 community watersheds in ten states from 2003 to 2008.

Reprinted courtesy the Huffington Post Investigative Fund. The article was first posted here.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

"President Obama has lit a fire under people. He’s actively engaged in taking on big issues: energy; two wars; health care; the economy. 

I haven’t seen a brother take on so many issues at once since Marvin Gaye put 'What’s Going On,' 'Mercy Mercy Me,' and 'Inner City Blues' all on the same album."

-- EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, speaking at the National Association of Black Journalists 
conference

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president of the Hip Hop Caucus, discusses the Green the Block partnership. In the background (L-R) are Dept. of Energy Undersecretary Kristina Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan. Kate Sheppard / GristEnsuring that low-income communities and minority youth benefit from green jobs programs is the goal of a new partnership between the White House and two grassroots organizations -- Hip Hop Caucus and Green For All.

Two Cabinet members and leaders of the grassroots groups unveiled the Green the Block initiative Tuesday at a White House press conference, describing the partnership as as both a campaign and a coalition that is designed to build political support for greening efforts in low-income and minority communities..

"The 20th century was defined by civil rights and The 21st century will be defined by clean energy," said Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president of the Hip Hop Caucus. "Future generations will measure us by our success in transitioning from a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy economy, and in the process building opportunity and prosperity for our most economically disenfranchised communities."

"We have to convince our generation that this truly is our lunch-counter moment of the 21st century," said Yearwood, referring to the sit-ins held at segregated diners during the Civil Rights era.

The initiative will officially kick-off with a day of service on September 11, 2009 -- part of the White House's already announced United We Serve program. The Green the Block website has more information on local initiatives taking place around the country.

"September 11 is about bringing people together to recognize that change happens not in the corridors of Washington, DC, but it happens in the streets of Detroit, Cleveland, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, and cities across the country," said Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of the Oakland-based group Green for All.

The cabinet members -- EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan -- touted some of the investments that the Obama administration has made to assist low-income Americans through greening efforts. In the economic stimulus package, $14 billion is designated for housing upgrades, including $5 billion to make low-income housing more energy efficient. Noting that the government currently spends $5 billion a year providing monetary assistance for energy bills to low-income households, Donovan said investments like those in the stimulus plan will help offset costs for families and the government in the long run.

Jackson noted the EPA's Tuesday announcement of $61 million for brownfields revitalization efforts. The funds will go toward job training programs.

Jackson also touted the climate and energy bill that passed the House in June as another potential means of growing the green economy and creating new jobs. Green for All's Ellis-Lamkins praised the House bill for including provisions that help ensure jobs will be created in low-income and minority communities, which include local hiring requirements and devotes a portion of pollution permit revenues to job training programs. She said it will be important to get these communities engaged in the debate as the bill moves in the Senate, in order to ensure that this type of provision is included in the final bill.

"If communities of color aren't engaged, you won't see provisions like that," said Ellis-Lamkins.

Video: Green jobs adviser Van Jones talks about green jobs efforts and how the Obama administration can work with underserved communities to ensure they have access to the benefits and opportunities of a clean energy economy.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Are we there yet?

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has decided she'll take another look at monitoring of car battery recyclers, concrete kilns and power plants that spew dangerous lead emissions. She did not say she'd toughen up the monitoring, but clean air advocates are hopeful.

"It's a step in the right direction for public health, and children's health in particular," said Avi Kar, staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. His group and several others petitioned the agency in January to reconsider -- and tighten -- proposed monitoring requirements on lead emitting facilities. On Thursday, Jackson granted their petition, and said a new monitoring proposal would be ready later this summer.

"We do take it as a good sign that they're willing to reconsider," said Kar in an interview.

In an online blog post, he was more effusive.

The granting of NRDC's petition for reconsideration, as it's known in bureaucratic parlance, is one step in a still lengthy process. There will be a proposal, public comment, and, finally, a possible amendment to a huge update of the entire lead regulation. This is the federal government, after all.

"This is just reconsideration, this is just a first step," said EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn. "NRDC and others asked us to reconsider it, and our answer is yes, we will reconsider it. ... We can't 'just change the rule' without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking. We can't change any final rule without giving the public opportunity to comment on potential changes."

Many in the environmental movement were astonished last fall when President Bush's EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, took his own scientists' advice over the complaints of industry, and lowered the legally allowable amounts of lead in the air by more than ten times. Lead battery smelters had charged over to the White House a few weeks earlier, as a court deadline neared to update the regulation. It was the first time lead limits had been touched since 1978.

The astonishment turned to familiar groans from environmentalists when it turned out White House budget officials had intervened at the eleventh hour to eliminate required monitoring for facilities emitting less than a ton of lead annually. Being exposed to the heavy metal in even small amounts can damage children's brain development, heart and kidney functions, among other maladies. Johnson's own staff had recommended that facilities spewing out half a ton be monitored in geographic areas where emissions exceed the new limits.

The night before Johnson's announcement, a senior EPA staffer e-mailed a White House Office of Management and Budget staff person saying a technical, rather than a policy explanation, was needed for why there had been a last minute, sharp reduction in monitoring. That explanation was never received, and Johnson followed the White House recommendations in his announcement the next day.

EPA staff reiterated in a conversation this week that proper monitoring is a critical part of protecting public health.

Any proposal by Jackson and her staff will have to be vetted by the White House budget office again, said Milbourn in an e-mail.

"Yes, whatever we propose will have to go back to OMB," she wrote.

A battery council representative did not return a call for comment Thursday. Industry representatives have argued in the past that they are among the world's best recyclers, and that the new regulations could drive their business overseas to places with far more lax health and environmental regulations.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

George VoinovichSen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) is holding up the confirmation of a deputy administrator at the U.S. EPA until the agency coughs up numbers on the House climate bill that are to his liking.

Voinovich sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson [PDF] on Monday saying that he has placed a procedural hold on the appointment of Robert Perciasepe, who has been nominated to serve as second-in-command at the EPA.

Voinovich made it clear in his letter that it's not about Perciasepe, who previously served as the assistant administrator in the EPA water and air offices during the Clinton administration and is now chief operating officer at the National Audubon Society. Rather, it's about Voinovich's desire for a new EPA analysis of the cap-and-trade bill that the House passed last month. Voinovich serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is responsible for the confirmation of EPA appointees.

From his letter:

The EPA has already produced two analyses of the bill, both of which indicated that its costs for American households would be low. But Voinovich believes the EPA's estimate "contains significant flaws that mask the economic consequences of the bill," and that these "flaws center around the agency's assumptions regarding the availability of certain low-carbon technologies and the widespread availability of international offsets." Voinovich is asking for a "refined analysis" from the agency ASAP.

But if he wants predictions that the bill would devastate the American economy, will the EPA ever be able to satisfy him?

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

MoveOn is running full-page ads in D.C.-based publications urging the Senate to maintain the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide.

The climate bill passed by the House last month would limit the EPA's ability to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, instituting a new regulatory system instead.

Keeping the EPA's authority intact is one of several improvements that enviros and progressives are hoping to make to the climate bill in the Senate, where discussions about climate policy began this week.

Here's the MoveOn ad:

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles