Environmental Blog Roundup — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at the Care2 Election Blog)
I happened upon the League of Conservation Voters today, and I decided that this week’s political blog roundup will focus on the environment. Here are ten great blogs addressing some of the environmental issues in the news this week…
EPA Rejection of California
After more than two months, the Bush administration today finally articulated its legal case for rejecting California’s greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles.
The argument is at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ca-waiver.htm
It reads like something written up in the boardroom of General Motors or a law firm working for car companies. It even cites arguments made by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers as justification for the decision!
It’s a phony argument designed to protect the auto industry. It’s typical of the Bush administration to dump out bad news like this on a Friday to minimize media coverage.
EPA Comes Clean on Climate
Today EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson finally explained his decision, announced last December, to deny California’s request for permission to implement its standards regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars. In a 48-page document, Johnson stated that EPA could not receive a “waiver” for its program under the Clean Air Act because the state does not have the kind of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” that make such a waiver appropriate.
But here is the kicker: Johnson concluded that California’s problems aren’t “compelling and extraordinary” because they’re no worse than the very bad problems the rest of the country faces as a result of climate change. Thus, in the course of denying California’s waiver, EPA managed to make explicit, for the first time, its view that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Johnson’s discussion of greenhouse gases and climate change now obligates him to regulate these pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Big Oil Can Afford To Forgo Tax Breaks, renewable energy can’t.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Big Oil accountable Wednesday when it passed H.R. 5351, the “Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008,” which repeals nearly $18 billion in oil company subsidies over the next decade and dedicates the money to renewable energy and energy efficiency investments. Now the Senate must follow suit to help bring Americans relief at the pump and lay the groundwork for the type of clean energy investments we need to combat climate change.
Strike Three For McCain on Renewable Energy…
Yesterday the House passed a bill to continue and accelerate development of clean, renewable energy in America. Here’s what the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming had to say about the bill:
The legislation passed today will increase incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, close a major tax loophole for the largest gas guzzlers on the road, and repeal billions of dollars in taxpayer giveaways to the five most profitable oil companies at a time of record profits from $100 per barrel oil.
The oil industry giveaways amount to $17 billion over the next ten years, and repealing these subsidies frees up the revenue needed to pay for clean energy development. But because of this, the bill faces an uncertain future. In the Senate, the leading Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Pete Domenici, said about the bill: “It seems kind of dumb to me.” And no surprise, the White House has promised a certain veto.
Republicans are arguing that repeal of the oil industry subsidies will lead to higher gas prices, reduced domestic production and increased reliance on foreign oil.
Good political sound bites all — for scaring voters — but none of them true. The domestic oil industry will not even notice that the tax subsidies have ceased.
From TPM Cafe Talk at Talking Points Memo…
I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but neither Senator John
McCain nor Senator Barack Obama have made their campaigns carbon
neutral. What does this mean? This means that neither candidate is
investing any of the millions of dollars their campaigns have raised to
offset the pollution from their many plane and bus rides.
By purchasing carbon offsets, Obama and McCain would mitigate their
campaign’s greenhouse gas emissions by funding renewable energy
research. This could result in more American jobs, improved national
security, and a healthier planet.
Big Green Purse…
While our energy future is clearly a priority, it’s startling that none of the candidates’ environmental proposals consider citizens’ exposure to toxic substances, water pollution, or air pollution - the issues that connect human health and the environment. Where do any of the candidates stand on reauthorizing Superfund legislation to clean up toxic waste sites? Closing loopholes in the Clean Air and Clean Water Act to decrease threats to our health as well as that of wildlife? Quelling the rise in asthma rates, especially among kids? Initiating research to understand what appear to be the increasing links between environmental health and breast cancer, autism, and learning disabilities?
These issues aren’t on any candidate’s agenda - but they should be, especially given the importance of the women’s vote in the 2008 election. Women and children are disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation (e.g., women suffer more heart attacks than men in cities with poor air quality). The candidate who breaks away from the party line on energy to address the links between pollution and human health could muster a real advantage as the race tightens and voters look for ways to distinguish among their choices.
Where has all the money Gone
Guess how much money is needed to fix our crumbling water infrastructure? Now guess higher. The Environmental Protection Agency’s now estimates that we need over $202 billion to fix sewer and storm water systems to meet Clean Water Act goals. Guess how much money the President proposed in his budget for clean water. $555 million - talk about fuzzy math…
The decline in funding for clean water infrastructure is felt all over the country as we’ve documented on our Act for Healthy Rivers site with more and more sewage spilling from old pipes into our local streams and rivers. We need more money at the local, state, and federal levels and it must be better spent, as American Rivers president Rebecca Wodder pointed out recently in the San Francisco Chronicle:
We can stretch those [federal] dollars even further with smart storm water management techniques such as rain gardens, permeable surfaces and by protecting our wetlands.
Clean Water Violations Cost Home Depot…
Home Depot has agreed to pay a $1.3 million penalty and implement a nationwide compliance program to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The settlement resolves alleged violations that were discovered at more than 30 construction sites in 28 states where new Home Depot stores were being built.
The settlement, joined by the state of Colorado, requires that Home Depot implement a comprehensive, corporate-wide program to prevent storm water pollution at each new store it builds nationwide.
A similar consent decree was reached with Wal-Mart in 2005 under which Wal-Mart established a comprehensive storm water compliance plan and paid a fine of more than $3 million.
“EPA requires construction sites to take simple, basic steps to prevent storm water pollution,” said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Also See:
Carbon Conscious Consumer
Chasing Clean Air
