Tag Archives: Environmental Protection Agency

CLIMATE CHANGE: Gov. Rick Perry fails on climate change and on other significant environmental issues

Posted on by
Reply

Via NPR:

Perry is a strong opponent of the Environmental Protection Agency and he has expressed doubts that human activity is causing climate change.

JOHN BURNETT: Last month at a breakfast speech in Bedford, New Hampshire, when Rick Perry was asked about climate change, he gave this answer.

Governor RICK PERRY: There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated…

BURNETT: Perry said there are a substantial number of scientists who’ve manipulated the data so they would have dollars rolling into their projects. The governor went on to say that weekly, indeed daily, scientists are abandoning the theory of manmade global warming. Perry has long been a climate science doubter, a position that has endeared him to certain factions of the electorate. In his book, “Fed Up!” – a screed against the federal government – Perry calls global warming a contrived phony mess that’s falling apart under its own weight.

His statement in New Hampshire prompted blowback from Andrew Dessler, a prominent professor of atmospheric sciences at Perry’s alma mater, Texas A&M University. Dessler fired off an angry editorial that appeared in papers around the country.

ANDREW DESSLER: Well, if Governor Perry wants to talk to us, we can explain to him that the science of climate change is nearly 200 years old and at this point, we have a really well validated and sophisticated understanding of how the climate system works.

BURNETT: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the science academy of every major industrialized nation believe that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests, have contributed to increased concentrations of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, which is heating the planet. Andrew Dessler says climate change is indisputably part of Texas’ current calamity.

DESSLER: And what that means is it makes the heat more extreme, it increases evaporation from the soil, that makes the drought more extreme. So we can be pretty confident that we’ve made the hellish summer that we just have gone through and we’re sort of still going through, we’ve made this worse than it would have been.

BURNETT: The Perry campaign did not respond to emails requesting clarification of his remarks on climate change. If Rick Perry disdains climate scientists, that’s nothing like his animosity toward the Environmental Protection Agency. Texas has more polluting industrial plants than any other state and Texas SUVs and coal-burning power plants spew out more carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, than any other state. The Perry administration has fought the regional EPA office in Dallas, which has been more aggressive under President Obama in trying to bring Texas polluters into line with federal regulations.

Continue reading this article at NPR.

CLIMATE POLITICS: Under Republican leadership, Texas has decided to ignore upcoming federal greenhouse gas emission rules

Posted on by
2

Image via melancholic optimist on Flickr

In Texas, the Republican Party is taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its obligation to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, held that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (footnotes omitted):

On the merits, the first question is whether § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does. In relevant part, § 202(a)(1) provides that EPA “shall by regulation prescribe … standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the provision.

The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air … .” § 7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.” Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical … substance [s] which [are] emitted into … the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.

SCOTUS also determined that the EPA can’t ignore science or its statutory obligations:

Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” § 7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

Despite SCOTUS’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, Texas, under Republican leadership, is “refus[ing] to meet new federal greenhouse gas emission rules that go into effect in January.” More via the Los Angeles Times:

Texas is staking out a role as the anti-California.

With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, powerful Texans such as Rep. Joe L. Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have vowed to check the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to use its existing authority to curtail greenhouse gases.

An even more ambitious challenge is coming directly from the Texas state government and leading Texas politicians. State Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, with the support of Republican Gov. Rick Perry, has filed seven lawsuits against the EPA in the last nine months.

In some ways, Texas’ attack was bound to be bigger and bolder than it might have been from other states. After all, Texans proudly trace their lineage back to the defiant stand of Texas patriots at the Alamo and the days when Texas was an independent republic under the Lone Star flag.

ACID RAIN is increasing

Posted on by
1

Image via numbphoto – Color mad on Flickr

Acid rain is an environmental problem, because it destroys forests and aquatic ecosystems. More from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

Acid rain causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage. Prior to falling to the earth, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases and their particulate matter derivatives—sulfates and nitrates—contribute to visibility degradation and harm public health.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from utilities contribute to the problem of acid rain. However, emissions trading or cap and trade, a market-based regulatory program, which is also “a program within the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,” was successful in reducing these pollutants. As a result, the Acid Rain Program was successful in reducing acid rain. However, an increase in other types of anthropogenic activities is contributing to the problem of acid rain. For example, industrial agriculture operations, such as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, also contribute to acid rain. Other factors for the return of acid rain include agricultural nitrogen runoff and more vehicles, which are displacing the gains made from the introduction of the catalytic converter. More from Scientific American:

The acid rain scourge of the ’70s and ’80s that killed trees and fish and even dissolved parts of statues on Washington, D.C.’s National Mall is back. But unlike the first round, in which sulfur emissions from power plants mixed with rain to create sulfuric acid, the current problem stems primarily from nitrogen emissions mixed with rain to create nitric acid.

.       .       .

Sulfur emissions from power plants were one of the primary motivations for the U.S.’s Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which set reduction targets for both sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). However, whereas sulfur dioxide emissions decreased almost 70 percent from 1990 to 2008, emissions of one NOx—nitrogen dioxide (NO2)—went down only 35 percent for that same period, and amendment targets have yet to be made, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “This comes as scientists have grown increasingly aware of the consequences of the remaining nitric acid deposition,” Schlesinger says.

.       .       .

Nitric acid rain is derived primarily from power plant, car and truck emissions as well as from gases released by fertilizer use. Part of the problem dates back to WWI, when two German scientists invented the Haber–Bosch process, which took nonreactive nitrogen from the air (N2) and converted it into reactive, usable ammonia (NH3). Most of the nitrogen harvested via this process has been used in fertilizers, and the runoff from farms has created dead zones in Chesapeake Bay and at the mouths of the Columbia and Mississippi rivers. Some efforts have been made to regulate the agricultural nitrogen runoff, but atmospheric emissions of agricultural ammonia remain virtually unrestricted.

Agri-ammonia vapors also derive from concentrated animal feeding operations in the U.S. South. The gas rises into the air and is deposited dry or in rainfall where in the ground bacteria breaks it into nitrogen and nitric acid, which can kill fish and plants. “Agriculture is increasingly functioning as an intensively managed industrial operation, and that is creating serious water, soil, and air problems,” says Viney Aneja, a professor at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. Aneja says that state’s concentrated animal feeding operations may also emit particulate matter from swine and chicken manure into the atmosphere, which can carry diseases.

NOx escapes from power plants as a by-product of coal combustion, whereas vehicular engines run at high enough pressures and temperatures to combine nitrogen and oxygen in the air. “Though catalytic converters have decreased the amount of pollution per vehicle, there are more vehicles on the road and more miles driven,” Schlesinger says. Emissions from fertilizers are the chief source of atmospheric nitric oxide, but motor vehicles have now overtaken coal power plants as the secondary most critical source of this problem.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

GREENHOUSE GASES: EPA to announce that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare

Posted on by
1

An endangerment finding from the EPA would be a win for Copenhagen. More from The Hill:

EPA is expected to issue a formal finding today that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, which sets the stage for the agency to regulate the emissions under its existing power.

.       .       .

The so-called endangerment finding stems from a major 2007 Supreme Court decision that enables EPA to limit the emissions if it finds that greenhouses gases are indeed a danger. The agency issued a preliminary finding in April.

The EPA announcement could also give U.S. negotiators more leverage at the international climate talks in Copenhagen that begin today, demonstrating domestic action even though Congress has not completed a final bill to curb emissions.

Of course the so-called United States Chamber of Commerce doesn’t support an endangerment finding, because the Chamber believes that climate change regulations will hurt businesses. However, the impacts of climate change—and from environmental degradation and exploitation—will cost (and is currently costing) small businesses and families. The Chamber’s positions are shortsighted and lack prudence, because their position on climate change isn’t based on the science and observations of what’s really occurring. From the New York Times:

The move gives President Obama a significant tool to combat the gases blamed for the heating of the planet even while Congress remains stalled on economy-wide global warming legislation.

The E.P.A. finding also will allow Mr. Obama to tell delegates at the United Nations climate change conference that began today in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem.

.       .       .

Industry groups and the United States Chamber of Commerce have objected to the proposed regulations, saying they would damage the economy and drive jobs overseas. Some groups are likely to file lawsuits challenging the new regulations, which could delay their effective date for some years.

Thomas J. Donohue, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, said that the endangerment finding “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project.” He said that his group supports “rational” federal legislation and an international agreement to control global carbon emissions.

Update: EPA officially announces endangerment finding:

Video: EPA: Greenhouse Gases Endanger Human Health:

On the Net:

  1. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity
  2. TODAY: Administrator Jackson to Make Significant Climate Announcement
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY reviewing how mountaintop removal impacts water quality and aquatic ecosystems

Posted on by
1

mountaintop-mining31mountaintop-miningmountaintop-mining2With the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Obama Administration, perhaps the environment will become the focus instead of industry interests—which was the case under the Bush Administration.

Today, the EPA asserted that it will use the “best science and follow the letter of the law” in protecting the environment, and the agency announced that it would review the practice of mountaintop removal and investigate how the coal industry is impacting aquatic ecosystems. It will be interesting to see what type of rules the EPA promulgates for the coal industry following its announcement.

The images illustrate the destructive nature of mountaintop removal. From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has sent two letters to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressing serious concerns about the need to reduce the potential harmful impacts on water quality caused by certain types of coal mining practices, such as mountaintop mining. The letters specifically addressed two new surface coal mining operations in West Virginia and Kentucky. EPA also intends to review other requests for mining permits.

“The two letters reflect EPA’s considerable concern regarding the environmental impact these projects would have on fragile habitats and streams,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “I have directed the agency to review other mining permit requests. EPA will use the best science and follow the letter of the law in ensuring we are protecting our environment.”

EPA’s letters, sent to the Corps office in Huntington, W.Va., stated that the coal mines would likely cause water quality problems in streams below the mines, would cause significant degradation to streams buried by mining activities, and that proposed steps to offset these impacts are inadequate. EPA has recommended specific actions be taken to further avoid and reduce these harmful impacts and to improve mitigation.

The letters were sent to the Corps by EPA senior officials in the agency’s Atlanta and Philadelphia offices. Permit applications for such projects are required by the Clean Water Act.

EPA also requested the opportunity to meet with the Corps and the mining companies seeking the new permits to discuss alternatives that would better protect streams, wetlands and rivers.

The Corps is responsible for issuing Clean Water Act permits for proposed surface coal mining operations that impact streams, wetlands, and other waters. EPA is required by the act to review proposed permits and provides comments to the Corps where necessary to ensure that proposed permits fully protect water quality.

Because of active litigation in the 4th Circuit challenging the issuance of Corps permits for coal mining, the Corps has been issuing far fewer permits in West Virginia since the litigation began in 2007. As a result, there is a significant backlog of permits under review by the Corps. EPA expects to be actively involved in the review of these permits following issuance of the 4th Circuit decision last month.

EPA is coordinating its action with the White House Council on Environmental Quality and with other agencies including the Corps.

mountaintop-mining4
—
Photo source for attribution here, here, here, and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook