Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

My daughter's Girl Scout troop wants to start an anti-idling campaign at her school. We need help justifying why a car should be turned off for more than 30 seconds. Although they have found that it saves gas and wear and tear on the engine and other parts, very few people believe that 30 seconds is long enough. Most believe that their starter, in particular, will need to be replaced, thereby reducing the gas savings. Can you point us to definitive information about idling and when and why to turn off your engine? Thanks.

Kew100
Brentwood, Tenn.

A. Dearest Kew,

Stop idling (and stop worrying about your starter).madame.furie via flickrIsn't a car made to last through tens of thousands of stops and starts? You don't find these same pro-idling people assiduously avoiding frequent car trips in order to lengthen the overall life of their car. I'm missing some piece of the logic train wherein the engine knows that the driver maybe could have chosen to leave it running, and it takes revenge by breaking down sooner.

In my own personal car experience, the failure of starters is more closely linked to car manufacturer than to age or anti-idling. But personal experience is not definitive information, so instead I am going to point you to bossy federal agencies and a helpful nationwide anti-idling campaign.

First, let us reflect on why we are anti-idling. Idling a passenger car is almost always unnecessary, it wastes gas, and it produces myriad air pollutants (as detailed in one of my previous columns). Schoolchildren's mouths are closer to both engine and tailpipe (by virtue of their height, not because they are licking engines), so these polluting emissions enter their sensitive young bodies with ease. Larger diesel engines, such as would be found in a school bus or delivery truck, have the same issues, only diesel fuel is dirtier than gasoline. Most idling emissions research has been done on these diesel engines, and there are idling regulations now in many states (some include all engines, not just diesel). Tennessee does not appear to have anti-idling regulations.

One helpful resource for you might be Earth Day Network's No Idling Campaign. It's based on a Georgia No Idling campaign, is aimed at schoolchildren, and includes toolkits, data collection charts, and lesson plans. In terms of the "definitive information": Here is a serious refutation of the starter damage myth from the California Energy Commission; some data and resources on school bus idling from the EPA (including curriculum materials); and a short EPA sheet that references the 30-second rule. Another way to look at it is that no reputable source recommends idling.

If you commence your campaign and still have trouble with families worried about the imminent failure of their car, it might be effective to find a reputable local mechanic or car dealer who will vouch for the durability of the starter. The federal government is simply not persuasive enough in some situations -- too far away, too easily linked to a disliked leader. A community expert might be just the person you need. Best of luck.

Alternatorly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

With all attention focused elsewhere, a key federal court handed climate and clean energy advocates a major surprise victory yesterday.  In the case, State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. [pdf], the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a group of eight states, three land trusts and New York City could sue some of the country's biggest producers of global warming pollution and force them to clean up their acts.  This decision will likely spur a flood of follow-on court cases and will create increased pressure from corporate boardrooms for the Senate to finally act on climate change.  This case is likely the most important ruling on the subject since the Supreme Court's decided over two years ago that global warming pollution was air pollution in Massachusetts v. EPA.  This decision should remind us of the critical role that the judiciary has played in driving all of the major social change movements in the past century. 

Another Party Heard From

Why the surprise?  In recent months, the challenges of winning Senate approval for clean energy legislation and reviving the apparently stalled international negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen conference have completely dominated the bandwidth for activists and observers, with only a few brain cells left even for EPA's efforts to establish the first rules ever for global warming pollution. It is not surprising, then, that yesterday's decision by federal appeals court has mostly flown under the radar, getting attention only from the kind of legal wonks that delight in the complicated intricacies of the federal Clean Air Act. 

No one can accuse the courts of acting in haste, and part of the surprise came from the length of time that the case has been pending.  Connecticutt v. EPA was first filed five years ago, in 2004, and was argued in the appeals court three years ago after a district judge had ruled in favor of the polluters.  Interestingly, one of the three original judges on the panel that heard the case was Judge Sonia Sotomayor before she was tapped for the top court.  Some insiders speculated at the time of her confirmation that this decision may have been delayed to avoid having it become an issue in her Senate hearings. 

Making a Nuisance of Themselves

In brief, the states and their allies claimed that putting large amounts of global warming pollution into the atmosphere was a public nuisance, and that the courts needed to require the polluters to control their emissions.  The case targeted five of the nation's biggest greenhouse gas polluters and coal power generators: AEP, the Southern Company, TVA, XCEL and Cinergy. Collectively, these companies are responsible for about a quarter of the coal plant emissions in the country and a tenth of the total greenhouse gases.

So what's a nuisance? Long before we had environmental statutes like the federal Clean Air or Clean Water acts, courts have recognized a common law right to protection from pollution that harmed the property or health of neighbors.  As it is sometimes explained in law school, "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."  Over the years, nuisance law has been used for cases like acute smells from hog farms, fish kills in rivers or toxic clouds from the steel mills.  Importantly, courts have decided that the federal common law right to sue for a nuisance goes away if Congress adopts a statute that defines protections in the same area. This was a major reason that the federal Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed in the early 1970s -- major companies were getting increasingly concerned about their exposure to nuisance complaints and lobbied Congress and the Nixon Administration to adopt an overall framework that would "occupy the field."  In general, the one thing that corporations hate worse than government mandates is uncertainty and exposure to liability at the whims the court system and juries. 

Is It a "Political Question" When Congress Is Silent?

The main argument that the utilities have used in convincing court to throw out climate change cases is that curbing global warming is a "political question" that should be decided by the legislature or the executive, not the judiciary.  They argued, for example, that the international climate negotiations make this a subject that only Congress and the President can deal with under the Constitutional provisions defining the authority to enter into treaties.  The court dismissed this argument, noting that the states were only asking it to limit emissions from six power plants that were spewing massive amounts of global warming pollution into the atmosphere. It also rejected claims that the factual issues were too complex.  The court cited complicated disputes between states over cross-border pollution going back over a century that have been successfully resolved under nuisance law.  The court also rejected arguments that the states and allies lacked "standing" to bring these claims.  It recognized that the impacts of global warming were clearly affecting health, property and environment in the states and ruled that they had a right to protect its citizens in court. 

The court concluded by paraphrasing the leading Supreme Court case allowing states to sue for cross-border water pollution:  "'It may happen that new federal laws and new federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal common law of nuisance. But until that comes to pass, federal courts will be empowered to appraise the equities of the suits alleging creation of a public nuisance' by greenhouse gases." (emphasis added).

What's Next?

Because the case had been dismissed by the lower court, the appeals court kicked it back down for a full trial to determine the extent of the harm and the remedy -- including potential controls for the power plants.  Most observers think that an appeal to the Supreme Court is nearly certain -- putting the case back on Justice Sotomayor's desk. Although many will try to dismiss the Second Circuit as left-leaning, it is worth noting that the two judges who decided the case were both Republicans appointed by the two Presidents Bush.

The other main expected legal repercussion is opening the flood gates to other nuisance and common law cases arguing for controls on major global warming polluters or monetary damages.  One case that observers are watching closely involves the Village of Kivalina in Alaska.  This suit pits a small native village which had to be relocated due to sea level rise and erosion against corporate giants like Exxon-Mobil.  The lead plaintiffs attorneys include Seattle's famed trial lawyer Steve Berman (who lead a team of states on the tobacco claims) and Matt Pawa, who represented the land trusts in yesterday's AEP case.   Following the strategy used in tobacco and asbestos cases, the Kivalina plaintiffs are arguing that fossil fuel corporations and trade associations engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide the facts on global warming and "greenwash" their images.  One conservative advocacy group has called this "the most dangerous litigation in America."

More than One Way Home

As NRDC's superlawyer David Doniger points out, yesterday's decision is an important reminder that there are three branches of government and three routes for the nation to get control of global warming pollution: congressional legislation, rulemaking by the executive under the clean air act, and judicial action.  We strongly agree with David that the best route is comprehensive congressional action on clean energy and climate.  This prospect has finally been teed up by the House's approval of the American Clean Energy and Security Act in June.  The Senate needs to step up and pass an even stronger bill that President Obama can take to Copenhagen.  But the EPA's decision to move forward with rules under the Clean Air Act (itself prompted by the Supreme Court's direction to get moving in Massachusetts v EPA) and yesterday's ruling both show that we don't have to despair in the face of potential filibusters and congressional delay tactics.  The question is no longer if we are going to control global warming pollution -- it is how and when.  And just as the common law nuisance cases fueled demand from board rooms for comprehensive air and water legislation in the 1970s, it is virtually certain that this decision will help bring reluctant corporations to the congressional table. 

I'll give the final word to Matt Pawa, the attorney who helped develop the winning legal strategy:

Related Links:

Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash

A victory for Katrina victims; a defeat for Alaskan villagers

Ask Umbra on anti-idling campaigns

Electric cars powered by the burning of biomass would "average 81% more transportation kilometers and 108% more emissions offsets per unit area cropland than cellulosic ethanol" according to a recent study, and climate science guru James Hansen has declared implementation of biomass crucial to combating climate change, but those endorsements won't make a bit of difference if few bio-electricity plants are built due to pollution and sustainability concerns.

At least that's the state of play here in Massachusetts, where 5 biomass plants are proposed and face big hurdles. Two are further along than the rest: Russell Biomass proposes a 50 MW plant along the Westfield River in the south-central part of the state, and Pioneer Renewable Energy is proposing a 47 MW plant just east of Greenfield, Mass., near the Vermont border.

Western Massachusetts is an environmentally-minded region rich with wood resources (it's 70% trees), yet each proposal has attracted notable grassroots opposition, and for some good reasons. Russell's proposal is being opposed due to disputes over siting, pollution, and large water withdrawals from the Westfield, as outlined by Concerned Citizens of Russell. The Greenfield plant is opposed by a broad coalition of individuals, 450 of which packed a zoning board hearing recently, on pollution, trucking, and sustainabiiity questions.

In 2002 Massachusetts adopted a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to encourage the generation of clean, renewable electricity in the state using indigenous resources such as wind, solar, and biomass. Under this legislation, Massachusetts must generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by the year 2025. Which explains the state's enthusiastic support for these projects.

A resource assessment performed as part of the Massachusetts Sustainable Forest Bioenergy Initiative found that there is enough sustainable, harvestable wood within the state to meet the needs of a 150 MW facility. In their words, "Early studies indicate that as much as 4 million tons of woody biomass could be produced annually in Massachusetts, mostly from forests and forest products industries. Utilizing only half that volume for the production of electricity would represent an estimated 150 MW of renewable generation, and substantial rural economic development associated with the fuel supply."

So by their own math, 5 plants at 50 MW would exceed the sustainable wood supply. Presumably wood would also be imported? Another point of confusion for many citizens is if trees fix carbon, why do we want to burn so many for energy? While these questions could be adequately answered or at least attempted, the state has done itself no favors in terms of providing answers, and worse, recently put its foot in its mouth: asked at a recent hearing, a state forester admitted that they lack a definition or a sense of what "sustainable harvest" would look like.

The state also stumbled by approving Pioneer's Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review without requiring an environmental impact report on the effects of the operation. Certainly, an examination of air pollution, particulates, trucking, and sustainable supply should be undertaken: so says a citizens' group that has now served the secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs with an intent to sue on this issue.

The proposals would be more palatable at least if they planned to capture heat for district heating or industrial use, but despite some rhetoric from the project proponets seemingly indicating a willingness, the reality appears to be that these plants will be focused solely on producing electricity, putting them at a very low efficiency rating (20 percent by many estimates vs 80 percent for combined heat and power) in terms of getting full value from the available BTUs of the feedstock. In the words of one opponent, "use the resource wisely or not at all."

Certainly biomass can be done right, generating both heat and power and at a community scale. A hospital in the city of Northampton, between Russell and Greenfield, has a biomass plant, but the scale is much more appropriate.

And that's what it boils down to in cases like this too often. Too much money is at stake to create sensible, appropriate projects, "renewable" or not, when there are shareholders to pay.

Related Links:

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?

Fixing the bioenergy accounting loophole

"How do we make this little planet of ours a big star?" asks actress Cameron Diaz in the cover story of Marie Claire's July issue. "The planet needs a publicist."

And this bubbly blonde is just the gal for the job. She's long been an environmental activist -- running around with an MTV video crew for her 2005 show Trippin', which took her to exotic locales all over the world -- but it wasn't until she attended the TED conference recently that she really felt the push to do something a bit more serious.

These days, she's doing a lot of press for her new film My Sister's Keeper, but she also happens to be the star of a much smaller production. She's been filming a documentary about our relationship with the planet, traveling to less-than-exotic locales across the country to talk to regular folk about the toxins in their air and water -- and what they're willing to do about it.

Check out this short video about her journey:

Related Links:

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford

Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Should the clunkers plan be junked?Support “cash for clunkers” as an auto-industry bailout if you must, but don’t call it green.

So say the Wall Street Journal, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and U.K. environmentalist George Monbiot, all critical of the environmental benefits of the proposal President Barack Obama endorsed yesterday.

Obama and Democratic House lawmakers reached compromise on a plan that would pay drivers $3,500 to $4,500 to trade in gas-guzzling older vehicles for more fuel-efficient new ones. The idea has been tossed about as a way to give automakers a boost and retire the nation’s dirtiest vehicles.

But the House plan, which could end up in the larger Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, sets almost laughably low standards.

A House Energy and Commerce Committee fact sheet [PDF] reveals just how low. The plan would require a new passenger car to get only 22 miles per gallon (according to EPA “window sticker” estimates) and be at least 4 mpg more efficient than the car it’s replacing. For light trucks, the threshold drops to 18 mpg and a 2 mpg improvement. For large light-duty trucks, it’s 15 mpg and a 1 mpg improvement.

“Toothless,” the WSJ’s Keith Johnson calls the plan:

ACEEE, an efficiency advocacy group, preferred the ‘clunkers’ plan put forth earlier this year: “Unlike the scrappage bill introduced in January, which aims to accelerate the modernization of the U.S. fleet to a more fuel-efficient one, the program just announced aims primarily to clear Detroit’s unsold inventory from the storage lots,” it said in a press release.

“I can’t see using taxpayer dollars to sell a Hummer H3T,” ACEEE Transportation Program Director Therese Langer said in the release. “We would welcome incentives to retire gas guzzlers and encourage the purchase of efficient vehicles, but the proposal just isn’t there yet.”

The Guardian’s George Monbiot tore apart a similar U.K. proposal and a German cash-for-clunkers program already in effect:

Wonkette's analysis is less heavy on the numbers: “Congress Will Buy Your Crappy ‘Ride’ For $4,500!”

And more debunkery, for good measure, from Common Tragedies.

Related Links:

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

Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Photo: Peter Davis via FlickrIf Seattle were an 8th grader, she'd probably be grounded right now. And considering the poor scores the city received on its air quality report card (an F for ozone pollution and a C for particulates), it might not be a bad idea if we all stay inside for a while.

Issued by the American Lung Association, the "State of the Air" report [PDF] analyzes data from 2005-2007 for the two most common pollutants in cities and counties across the country. They found that six in 10 Americans live in areas where air pollution is high enough to endanger lives -- damaging lungs, exacerbating asthma, and increasing the risk for heart attacks, stroke, and premature death.

The cities receiving the dubious distinction of most polluted were Pittsburgh (short-term particulate pollution), Bakersfield, Calif. (year-round particulate pollution), and Los Angeles (ozone pollution), while Fargo, N.D., was the only city to be named one of the cleanest in all three categories. (Which leads me to wonder which is worse: realizing how bad your air is or that you live in Fargo?)

But not to worry, the poor marks for Seattle and other cities can be partially attributed to a recent change in the EPA's standards, says Janice Nolen of the Lung Association. "[It] does not necessarily mean the air is getting dirtier. It means we've had unhealthy air all along." Brilliant! I feel so much (cough, hack, cough) better!

Here's a rundown of the top bottom most-failingest five in each pollution category:

Short-term particle pollution

Year-round particle pollution

Ozone pollution

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill

Friday music blogging: Here We Go Magic

The Environmental Defense Fund's Fred Krupp threw down the gauntlet to carbon taxers in the Wall Street Journal last month:

Environmental taxes have worked well to raise revenue, but without a cap they inevitably become a license to pollute in unlimited amounts. No air pollution problem has ever been solved except by imposing a legal limit on emissions. (emphasis added)

This is a little like the Pope complaining that sex isn't enough fun: how would he know? Pollution taxes have seldom been tried. But in the few cases where they've been tried, they've worked rather well.

One example is from the dawn of my own career, in early 1973, when I was a junior economist with the New York City EPA, and the City was almost entirely dependent on fuel oil to generate electricity and heat offices and apartments. A local law requiring a switch to low-sulfur oil had just gone into effect. Swearing that supplies of the cleaner fuel were drying up, the oil companies began jawboning city officials for variances to keep selling the dirtier (and cheaper) fuel.

The city was about to cave, until an EPA lawyer channeled Adam Smith and suggested granting the variances with a condition: that each barrel of dirty oil be "surcharged" at a rate slightly greater than the price premium for the clean fuel. After researching market conditions, the City settled on a surcharge of 75 cents to $2.00 a barrel of higher-sulfur oil, depending on the sulfur content.

Guess what? The Invisible Hand carried the day. With the surcharge canceling the profit from polluting, the oil companies discovered ways to get more clean fuel from their refineries and otherwise re-allocate supplies. For the rest of that year's heating season, the dirty stuff amounted to a tiny fraction of the total granted in the variances. A simple, market-correcting tax probably saved hundreds from succumbing to emphysema and other pulmonary diseases while keeping the lights on.

Another pollution-tax success story is the global phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-destroying chemicals. While this landmark achievement is often ascribed to the cap-and-trade system built into the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the fact is that emissions barely dropped until a U.S. tax on CFC's took effect on Jan. 1, 1990.

The rate of reduction in emissions in 1990, the first year with the tax, was at least five times greater than in the preceding period with the cap alone. While a more aggressive cap might have worked by itself, the fact is that, contrary to Krupp, a pollution tax did the job quite well.

Krupp's hostility to pollution taxes represents a retreat from good sense on the part of EDF, which used to be a conspicuous - and prescient - advocate of price incentives. For example, it was EDF that hired economist William Vickrey to testify for social-cost-based pricing in regulatory proceedings on electricity and rail transit in the mid-1970s - 20 years before Bill's work on peak-load pricing won him the Nobel Prize.

Back then, EDF understood the simple idea that when something becomes more expensive to do, people do less of it. Even granting the group's allegiance to cap-and-trade, is it really necessary for them to turn up the rhetorical heat against pollution taxes?

True, price internalization isn't the sole answer to everything, including slashing carbon emissions. Institutional barriers like split incentives and unequal access to capital need to be addressed by complementary policies. Regulatory standards, technology-forcing measures and pollution limits all have a part to play. But without fuel prices that clearly convey the real price of pollution to the purchaser, the transition from fossil fuels won't happen until most of the carbon still underground has moved into the atmosphere.

On the other hand, if human nature is anything like what it was in Adam Smith's day, then a phased-in, upward-adjustable and largely revenue-neutral carbon tax, such as proposed last month by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), is the best tool for the job.

The market insiders lined up at the cap-and-trade trough will gnash their teeth. But in some celestial think-tank, Mr. Smith will be smiling.

Related Links:

Are carbon taxes a viable option?

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Feed the world sustainably by 2050? Yes, we can!

Eighteen months ago, I watched the head of the Environmental Protection Administration shake hands with Mickey Mouse after the two had hoisted a compact fluorescent light bulb for a Disneyland photo op. I'd been promised a sit-down interview with Stephen Johnson, the career EPA staffer tapped by George W. Bush in 2005 to run the agency, but his handlers evidently thought better of it, and reneged.

Instead, they gave me a few minutes to sprint alongside Johnson as he headed out of the Magic Kingdom. I asked him when he would respond to an April 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that compelled the EPA to decide whether greenhouse gases were endangering the public, and ordering the agency to act if there was a risk. That could include allowing California and other states to move forward on tough laws requiring recalcitrant automakers to slash greenhouse gas emissions. All that was needed was his signature waiving the states from having to wait for national action. Similar waivers on air pollution regulations have been granted for decades.

Johnson, a genial, unfailingly polite man (whether shaking hands with an oversized mouse or being accosted by a Los Angeles Times reporter), said he had ordered his staff to respond to the Supreme Court with an national emission plan that was even better than the states' by the end of 2007. He said he was extremely proud of how hard they were working to get it done. Then he was off for the first leg of a Sony-funded, cross-country tour promoting the aforementioned light bulbs as a bright idea for slowing global warming.

Back in D.C., EPA career staffers were indeed pulling long nights and weekends to finish a comprehensive plan. That December they presented it to their boss and the White House. The report concluded that greenhouse gases were in fact a danger, that a national plan was needed, and that California and the other states should be allowed to act.

Johnson's response? "He froze us out," said one exhausted, frustrated staffer I tracked down in a late night phone call at the time. In an Orwellian series of phone calls and e-mails, White House staffers also refused to acknowledge to me that they'd received any such document from the EPA. If they had confirmed it publicly, it would have set in motion the process requiring the federal government to act. Weeks later, Johnson denied California's waiver request.

Last July Johnson went further, saying that despite the high court's order, the Clean Air Act was "the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse gases" because it would be too costly for the American public, and that Congress should pass legislation to tackle the issue.

By engaging in such Mickey Mouse stunts, Johnson broke his word to his own staff and the American public.

Today, his successor, Lisa Jackson, partly reversed course, announcing that the EPA had in fact concluded that mounting greenhouse gases pose a serious threat. In the accompanying report, agency staff again laid out a frightening litany of possible dangers: increased heat waves that would likely fell the elderly, the very young and the chronically ill, increases in ozone smog that would add to respiratory infection, asthma and premature death, more severe coastal hurricanes, and other devastating impacts.

The report also explicitly tied motor vehicle emissions to climate change. But there was no mention of allowing California or more than a dozen other states to move forward promptly with their long languishing laws. Quite the opposite.

In a briefing with Senate staff Friday before the announcement, Jackson's new climate change adviser, who led the charge for Massachusetts in the Supreme Court case, said the legal underpinning for granting the states' waivers had nothing to do with finding a danger from greenhouse gases. Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder and California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols both said the same thing. "We are delighted" by Jackson's decision, said Nichols. "And it has no bearing on the California waiver decision, there's no connection."

That doesn't quite jibe with what environmental attorneys and California regulators were saying a year ago, and it's not clear why. Possibly Jackson intends to finally approve California's waiver and let it and other states proceed with concrete action to tackle greenhouse gases, and she doesn't want some new legal finding to delay that. In fact Congress slipped a little noticed June 30 deadline for her to either grant or deny California's waiver request into this year's omnibus budget act.

But perhaps there's no public mention of the states' emissions laws because she and the new president don't want to face the heat from irate automakers and business interests, preferring to leave it to Congress to do the dirty work on climate change. Indeed, Jackson and Obama are sounding curiously like their predecessors, Bush and Johnson, wanting to punt to Congress to take action.

As today's EPA press release concluded, in classic government verbosity, "Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue."

Furious jockeying will begin in earnest next week over climate change legislation proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has promised the House will pass a bill by Memorial Day. But even the most optimistic observers say it will be a steep climb to meet that deadline.

This afternoon, there is Beltway chatter about harmonizing states' climate laws creatively with a national automobile regulation, with both included in the Waxman-Markey bill. There is also brave talk of the regulatory process marching onward no matter what happens in Congress.

There is no talk of promptly granting the states' waivers.

In the meantime, an estimated 7 billion tons of greenhouse gases continue to pour annually from U.S. automobiles and smokestacks into the atmosphere. Hopefully, Obama and Jackson will move forward quickly to address the looming perils laid out in today's report. Otherwise, they risk looking like Mickey's pals, Goofy and Minnie.

---

Related Stories

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

A Penny Saved Is…

President Obama discusses the latest efforts to aide the U.S. auto industry. (White House photo)

Did President Obama endorse a "cash for clunkers" program today? Maybe.

In detailing the government's latest efforts to shore up General Motors and the U.S. auto industry, Obama said this:

Pulling older-model cars off America's freeways could do a lot to improve air quality, as studies have shown that a large portion of air pollution can be attributed to these cars.

Related Links:

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

General Motors to start repaying government loans

U.S. and China announce plan for collaboration on clean energy and climate change

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Feed the world sustainably by 2050? Yes, we can!

SHANGHAI—China’s environmental problems remain serious with local governments not putting enough pressure on businesses to control pollution, the nation’s environment protection minister has said.

Efforts to toughen environment laws have not done enough to fix the widespread problems for China’s air, lakes and rivers, Zhang Lijun said Tuesday, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

“The general situation of environmental pollution does not allow us to be optimistic,” Zhang was quoted telling a national meeting on pollution control in Shanghai.

Zhang’s ministry replaced the environmental protection agency last year with greater powers, but enforcement still depends largely on local officials.

Zhang said environmental protection departments across the country needed to place greater pressure on businesses to contain pollution, according to Xinhua.

“The fundamental way to overcome this is to continue to press enterprises to reduce pollution emissions through technology and management,” he said.

Local governments, however, often face a conflict of interest because they benefit economically from heavily polluting industries.

Nearly a quarter of the monitoring stations set up along major rivers, such as the Yangtze and Yellow, reported the worst water quality on China’s six-level scale, the report said, citing documents distributed at the meeting.

Nearly 40 percent of the water in 28 major lakes also registered level six ratings—meaning it was too polluted for even farm irrigation.

In urban areas 90 percent of river water and half of underground water is polluted, the report said.

Meanwhile, the average air quality in two out of five Chinese cities ranges from “polluted” to “hazardous”, according to a survey conducted in November in 320 cities, according to Xinhua.

In one of the latest reported incidents, hundreds of thousands of people in the eastern Chinese city of Yancheng had their tap water cut off over the weekend after a chemical company spilled their products into a local river.

One of the most high-profile cases occurred in 2005, when a massive chemical spill into northeast China’s Songhua River resulted in tap water being cut for millions of people and pollution flowing into Russia.

Related Links:

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

The Climate Post: You heard it here first—Copenhagen a success

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

A Penny Saved Is…

Related Links:

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Related Links:

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Related Links:

Let’s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail

Here’s what we know so far

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Green groups won an important victory for clean air last week when a federal appeals court ruled that chemical plants, refineries, and other industrial sites are still subject to pollution limits even during equipment malfunctions and when plants start up or shut down. Some refineries and other sites have used the Clean Air Act’s start-up, shut-down loophole—which the Bush administration expanded—to evade enforcement actions. “For more than a decade, polluters have relied on this loophole at the expense of neighboring communities,” said Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew.

Related Links:

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

Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Over 100 million people in the United States, nearly one-third of its population, live in metro areas that violate federal standards for daily soot pollution on at least some days, the U.S. EPA said this week. However, missing from the EPA’s list of officially sooty areas—and thus exempt from further enforcement actions to clean up the pollution—are at least five metropolitan areas that violated the annual standard for soot pollution and have been struggling with long-term soot problems, among them ultra-polluted Houston, Texas.

Related Links:

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

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…

In yet another late-in-the-game not-so-green move, the Bush administration on Friday issued a regulation that exempts factory farms from having to report to the government about releases of hazardous air pollution from animal waste.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Corporate agribusiness divides farmers