Tag Archives: EPA

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

Posted on
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.

AIR POLLUTION: EPA “completely blindsided” by President Obama’s decision to scrap tougher smog rules

Posted on
Reply

Image via Fanboy30 on Flickr

President Obama has, in the past, made decisions that have been unpopular with his base. For example, the President extended the unpopular Bush Tax Cuts, which were never paid for. Now, he’s unexpectedly scrapped the implementation of EPA’s tougher smog rules.

However, he’s undoubtedly made decisions that have been popular with his base. Though, it seems that the former have drawn more attention than the latter, because arguably, again, the American people lose at the expense of corporate favoritism or over some perceived threat that doesn’t actually exist.

The effects of air pollution are quantifiable. Air pollution costs governments millions in healthcare costs, and poor air quality costs people their lives. In fact, EPA “estimates indicate the stricter [smog] rule would have cut asthma attacks in [certain] areas, as well as reduc[e] premature deaths.”

The President is taking a huge gamble by compromising with Republicans too much and by compromising over issues that are considered significant to his base. Certainly, it doesn’t matter how much the President gives up, because Republicans would rather watch Obama fail even if the President’s policies could be helpful to the American public. Also, the Republicans never seem to give the President credit, without attacking him, even though he’s made huge concessions to them. In fact, although “Republicans said [that] scrapping the smog rule was the right thing to do . . . they hammered Obama anyway.”

Perhaps the President truly believes that abandoning tougher air pollution regulations will assist economic recovery. However, the economy is most certainly so damaged by Bush-era policies that I seriously doubt rolling back environmental policies and regulations will actually have a meaningful, positive effect on economic recovery or job recovery. In fact, rolling back environmental regulations will have the opposite effect or a negative impact, I believe, by making people sicker and less productive.

Obviously, sick people aren’t as productive as healthy people, so employers or corporations and small businesses lose profits when their employees can’t be productive due to sicknesses that have been brought on by environmental degradation. Furthermore, since some employers provide their employees with health insurance, employers certainly pay more when their employees suffer from sicknesses associated with environmental degradation.

Also, the healthcare system (or lack thereof) of the United States isn’t a system that’s affordable. People have lost their homes simply because they got sick. Thus, I believe it’s a terrible idea to abandon environmental regulations and policies that make (or will make) the environment cleaner and ensure that more people remain healthy.

Furthermore, by abandoning environmental policies, the President is sending the message to the American people and to the international community that the environment is less important than corporate profits — despite the fact that without the environment, there can be no corporations, markets, or societies, because all of the goods and services that we depend on come directly from the environment. Also, even though the new smog rules will certainly cost corporations capital to implement, these rules could spur the development of new, useful technologies and save corporations money for the aforementioned reasons. Ultimately, everyone loses when we abandon environmentalism for profit — people, employers, and corporate profits.

—
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.

POLITICS: Government shutdown looms as Republicans refuse to compromise on conservative policy riders

Posted on
2

Political cartoon via Clay Bennett

Despite a looming government shutdown, Republicans are still using the budget bill process to impose right-wing policies on all Americans by inserting policy riders that have no place in a budget bill. These policy riders have included riders to defund healthcare reform, defund NPR, defund PBS, cut spending for Planned Parenthood, and cut spending to the Environmental Protection Agency, thereby attacking healthcare reform, women’s health, clean air, and clean water. Furthermore, these policy riders attack domestic discretionary spending that has nothing to do with avoiding a government shutdown or reducing the national deficit or the national debt and could actually result in more debt and put Americans at risk. Republican shenanigans to force a government shutdown could also hurt economic recovery. Undoubtedly, the spending cuts are more ideological in nature and have nothing to do with passing a budget or keeping the U.S. government running. Most recently, Tea Party members actually cheered for a government shutdown (and it appears that a majority of Republicans actually favor a government shutdown over a budget compromise), but a government shutdown would actually cost taxpayers money. According to U.S. Senator Jack Reed, “The Gingrich-led government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 lasted 26 days and cost taxpayers over $1.4 billion.”

On the Net:

  1. Tea Partiers Cheer ‘Shut It Down,’ But Bachmann Says They Don’t Want A Shutdown
  2. Government shutdown in budget battle may hinge on clean air, abortion

NATURAL GAS: Drilling companies injected over 30-million gallons of diesel underground to extract natural gas

Posted on
2

Between 2005 and 2009, oil and gas service companies injected more than 30 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states, according to an investigation released by House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats.

— Politico

Image of frackwater via Keith Srakocic/Associated Press. Frackwater is a byproduct produced from natural gas drilling activities. Image of protest sign via ltmayers on Flickr.

The fossil-fuel industry doesn’t make or produce coal, natural gas, petroleum, or any other type of fossil fuel. The industry merely extracts materials that have been made by natural processes within the Earth.

However, the fossil-fuel industry reaps huge profits by polluting the human environment and natural landscapes. Although, the fossil-fuel industry has a well-documented history of making profits at the expense of the environment and human health, the industry has received billions in subsidies from governments and taxpayers. The entire process is deplorable and immoral. More via the Dallas Morning News (emphasis added):

Drilling companies violated federal law by injecting 16 million gallons of diesel fuel underground in Texas to extract natural gas, senior House Democrats said Monday.

In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency , the lawmakers said the companies failed to obtain necessary permits when they used diesel fuel in their hydraulic fracturing mixtures. The fracturing process, which is widely used in North Texas’ Barnett Shale, has come under scrutiny as environmental groups and some residents allege it has contaminated drinking water supplies.

The congressional inquiry, which began in early 2010 when Democrats controlled the House, did not conclude that the use of diesel polluted any drinking-water sources. The Democrats said the firms they questioned couldn’t provide data on the proximity of drilling operations to underground sources of drinking water.

.       .       .

Nationwide, over 32 million gallons of diesel fuel or fluids containing diesel were injected underground, the lawmakers wrote. The drilling firms used 10.2 million gallons of “straight diesel fuel” and 21.8 million gallons of products containing at least 30 percent diesel, the letter states

The ugly truth of the natural gas boom via the post-gazette.com:

The natural gas boom gripping parts of the United States has a nasty byproduct: wastewater so salty, and so polluted with metals like barium and strontium, that most states require drillers to get rid of the stuff by injecting it down shafts thousands of feet deep.

But not in Pennsylvania, one of the states at the center of the gas rush. In Pennsylvania, the liquid that gushes from gas wells is only partially treated for substances that could be environmentally harmful, then dumped into rivers and streams from which communities get their drinking water.

In the two years since the frenzy of activity began in the vast underground rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania has been the only state letting its waterways serve as the primary disposal place for huge amounts of wastewater produced by a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. State regulators, initially caught flat-footed, tightened the rules this year for any new water treatment plants, but let existing operations continue discharging water into rivers.

At least 3.6 million barrels of the waste were sent to treatment plants that empty into rivers during the 12 months ending June 30, state records show. That’s enough to cover a square mile with more than 8 1/2 inches of brine.

Halliburton is among twelve companies that were cited in the House probe. Via Reuters:

The probe of diesel use in hydraulic fracturing, a practice that has allowed drillers to tap abundant shale gas, found that oil services firms such as Halliburton (HAL.N: Quote) and BJ Services, which was bought by Baker Hughes Inc (BHI.N: Quote), injected millions of gallons of fluids containing the fuel into wells between 2005 and 2009. A total of 12 companies were cited in the probe for using diesel without proper permits.

Critics say the chemicals used in the process, called “fracking,” can contaminate drinking water.

In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency entered into a voluntary agreement with Halliburton, BJ Services and Schlumberger (SLB.N: Quote) to eliminate the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing fluids injected into coalbed methane wells.

In addition, a 2005 energy law exempted hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except when diesel is used.

Still, the probe found that no oil and gas service companies sought or were issued permits for the use of diesel fuel in fracking between 2005 and 2009.

Democrats who sponsored the probe in the House of Representatives urged the EPA to look into this matter.

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

Posted on
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.