Petition Drive: keeping the Clean Air Act strong at 350ppm

In the past several months, with the poor results coming from the COP15 conference in Copenhagen and the CITES conference in Qatar, environmental issues have taken a few lumps. It would seem that the policymakers and the industrialists have their own agendas and these don't seem to be aligned with the long-term interests of the planet. So, what to do? We take back the initiative!

It may sound a little 60's-ish corny, but it's time for the people to be heard again. If we can't depend on our institutions to do the right thing then the least we can do is let them know where we stand and that we are watching. If we can vote you out, we will. If we can refuse to buy your products, we will. And we will support those groups that actively promote the long-term interests of the planet - and by "planet" I mean plants, animals and humankind.

350.org and The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are starting a petition drive to keep the Clean Air Act strong by having greenhouse gases designated as "criteria" pollutants under the act and to get the 350ppm standard for CO2 emissions adopted by the EPA. If you recall, leading climate scientists have cited the 350ppm level as the point that must be attained if we are to have a fighting chance in getting a handle on climate change and insuring a manageable future for generations to come. Ambitious? Sure. Controversial? Absolutely. It will require a major commitment on the part of governments and industry. And there won't be 100% consensus within the scientific community that this is the right approach. Accept when we ask this simple question: what's wrong with reducing carbon emissions to that level? Will it harm the environment? Would we be moving in the wrong direction environmentally?

350.org and CBD are hoping to get 500,000 to sign on to the petition. No reason why not. Click here to read about it and add your name. And check out 350.org's web site, too. Lots of good information there.

Click here to sign the petition.
Click here to visit 350.org.

Clean Air Act: though threatened with restrictions, act has a history of doing good

As you may know from following U.S. news or from past postings in this blog, there is an ongoing political battle over the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and its ability to use the Clean Air Act to enforce standards that would require addressing issues regarding climate change and global warming. The previous administration had tried to weaken or limit the application of the Clean Air Act and though some action was taken by the current administration in rolling back those restrictions or limitations, it's not out of the woods yet.

The Center for Biological Diversity is using an email campaign to remind legislators as to the importance of a full and vibrant Clean Air Act by citing not the environmental or ecological implications and impacts, but by putting it in the context of dollars and cents, lost productivity, and increased human health hazard.

"It is directly responsible for saving lives, improving health, and decreasing hospitalizations and lost school and work days. According to the EPA, in 2010 the Clean Air Act will save 23,000 lives and prevent 1.7 million asthma attacks, 4.1 million lost work days, and more than 68,000 hospitalizations and emergency-room visits.

The Clean Air Act saves money and protects our economy. In its first two decades alone, the Act provided pollution reduction benefits 42 times greater than the estimated costs of regulation, including decreased healthcare costs and reduced lost work time worth $22.2 trillion. If implemented by the EPA as required by existing law, the Clean Air Act will produce similar benefits while reducing greenhouse pollutants."

Now, opponents of climate change or those favoring a more limited application of the Clean Air Act might argue with the stats listed above, but it makes for a more politically relevant debate when the impacts in question are immediately personal and not appear, at least to the politician, somewhat esoteric or obscure. Heaven forbid that these impacts might catch the attention of ... of... one of their... voters! Eeeuuuuwh!

Click here to send an email to your legislator.

Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.

Conservation & Politics: climate bill and species protection lagging

Getting caught up on my backlog of environmental and conservation email, I ran across some interesting and disturbing items from the Center of Biological Diversity, one of the most proactive organizations in wielding the power of the law to effect change. According to CBD:

Senate Climate Bill Spells Disaster

The Senate took a disastrous step backward on climate legislation last week, passing a loophole-ridden global warming bill with unacceptably low pollution-reduction goals that would also work against our most effective existing law to fight global warming. First, the bill has no target for atmospheric CO2 levels; in fact, it would let CO2 increase to about 600 parts per million -- while science shows we must reduce levels to 350 ppm to avoid climate catastrophe. Second, the bill eliminates the Clean Air Act's requirement for federal scientists to determine the safe level of greenhouse gas concentrations. Third, the bill's carbon-offset provisions are so many and poor that they undermine its own pathetic emissions-reduction goals.

The second point CBD lists is one that concerns me because it is the scientists - not the political or commercial interests - who should be the objective source for determining greenhouse gas limits. Industry may not like what they have to say and it may involve considerable financial cost - but nature is not interested in what is financially expedient and further delay will only guarantee greater financial and human costs later.

Read more from CBD/New York Times.

Obama Trailing Bush on Species Protection

Late last week, the Obama administration released its first review of animals and plants deemed deserving of federal protection that are still languishing without it -- and there are a whopping 249. On average, these candidates for Endangered Species Act protection have been waiting for safeguards for 20 years; at least 24 candidate species have gone extinct due to delays in protection. The Center for Biological Diversity and allies have a lawsuit pending in D.C. to stop the illegal and fatal stall in protecting all 249 candidate species, from the Oregon spotted frog to the Florida semaphore cactus.

After 10 months in office, the Obama administration has granted federal protection to only two species, including the Hawaiian plant Phyllostegia hispida, which had been on the candidate list for more than a decade. The Bush administration -- with the worst species-protection record in history -- put an average of about eight species per year on the endangered list. Obama administration, you'd better get cracking.

Many of us welcomed this new administration with hopeful expectations but were fully aware of the enormity of the problems it faced. Expectations were high and maybe, to an extant, unreasonable. But with such a backlog of candidate species and only two granted protection so far, CBD is right on target. Even with health care and foreign policy issues capturing so much attention, those within the administration in charge of federal protection of species to need to get cracking.

Read CBD press release.

American Clean Energy and Security Act: is it strong enough?

In an attempt to trim governmental bureaucracy, lawmakers will, from time to time, try to consolidate regulations, agencies, or laws. Oil czars, Homeland Security, etc. - all are understandable and well-intended steps to a more streamlined approach. And it can be effective as long as the the strengths of the consolidated components are retained - and sometimes that is not always the case.

On June 26th, a vote is scheduled in the U.S. Congress on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. While on the surface it would appear to be a worthwhile attempt at defining a single overarching strategy, the act is receiving considerable criticism from NGOs and scientific experts because it does not go far enough in properly addressing C02 emission standards and also limits the use of the current Clean Air Act in regulating or enforcing emission standards. The Clean Air Act has been successfully used for 40 years to reduce air pollution. If it's not broke, why fix it?

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, " Leading scientists such as NASA's James Hansen warn that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere must be reduced to no more than 350 parts per million. The American Clean Energy and Security Act sets a goal of allowing greenhouse gas concentrations to increase to more than 450 parts per million. At that level, scientists say there is a 50/50 chance that global warming will cause catastrophic impacts to humans and other species.

Any new global warming solution bill should work together with the Clean Air Act to preserve the lives and health of our children and fellow species. The American Clean Energy and Security Act instead repeals the Clean Air Act's ability to regulate critical polluters, instead allowing numerous coal-fired power plants to be built without any additional emissions-reduction requirements for more than a decade into the future. The world's top climate scientists call this approach 'reckless.' "

If you would like to voice your concern to your congressperson regarding the need for strengthening the American Clean Energy and Security Act, click here.

Refinery Pollution: U.S. Court closes loophole

In another piece of encouraging news, the U.S. Court of Appeals decided on Friday to close a gaping loophole in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on refinery pollution by striking down a provision that allowed refineries to exceed pollution limits during start-ups, shut-downs, and equipment outages.

According to a suit filed by Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental defense firm, on behalf of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, refineries have overused and/or abused this regulation, enabling them to spew tens of millions of pounds of excess toxic pollutants annually.

"We are elated," said Jesse Marquez, head of the Wilmington, CA-based Coalition for a Safe Environment, a plaintiff in the suit.

The court had ruled that the EPA's regulation exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act. This ruling will impact facilities nationwide, particularly in Southern California, Texas, and Louisiana where there are concentrations of refinery facilities.

Saving the Arctic: petitioning the U.S. to step up to the plate

Several leading conservation organizations along with the mayors of San Francisco and Pacific Grove, California; and Juneau, Homer, and Shishmaref, Alaska have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish comprehensive regulations governing greenhouse gases to protect the Arctic regions and, in so doing, North America and the world.

"We're all in the same boat—whether you live in northern Alaska or southern California, we all have a stake in the enormous impacts climate change is already having on the Arctic," said Keith Addis, Chairman of Oceana's Board of Directors. "Quite simply, as goes the Arctic, so goes the planet."

The conservation groups included the Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and Alaska Conservation Solutions. Trying to undo years of neglect or political intransigence on the part of the EPA, efforts are being made to get the EPA back on track, particularly in light of growing scientific evidence as to the effects of climate change - from melting sea ice and permafrost to encroaching warm climate flora and fauna to changing weather patterns, caused by fossil fuels and/or other man-made activities - by using the Clean Air Act as the vehicle to provide the EPA with the federal authority it requires to protect the public and the environment.

"As the Arctic melts, California feels the heat. The Arctic is where these impacts are seen first, but the effects experienced by Alaska communities are not only crucial to the people who there, they are a wake up call that our economies and communities are at risk everywhere," said Dr. Denny Kelso, Executive Vice-President for Ocean Conservancy.

I had the opportunity to document on film the effects of climate change in the Arctic - including striking footage of the lowest recorded levels of summer sea ice - for the marine research and education organization, InMER. Some of the results and images from that expedition will be available soon as part of a leading internet company's online ocean project, currently under wraps but should debut in the next few weeks.

If change is to come in how the U.S. government operates, as has been touted throughout the recent presidential election, the EPA is one agency that needs to review its original charter and take a leadership role. (Read Ocean Conservancy press release.)