In The News
E&E; News: Inhofe Letter Questions Basis for NRC Task Force Recommendations
Wednesday July 13, 2011
A leading Senate Republican says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's failure to compare Japanese and U.S. regulations for nuclear plants may weaken a safety review the agency is expected to make public today.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe of Oklahoma told NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko in a July 8 letter that the agency should compare the two countries' safety requirements to legitimize new regulations stemming from a months-long review of American plants.
"The absence of such a review would diminish the credibility of any new regulatory requirements since there would be no clear basis for assessing whether the recommended changes accurately and adequately address actual programs highlighted by the Fukushima accident," Inhofe wrote.
He added that he is concerned NRC's efforts on the issue are "inadequate."
NRC did not provide comment on Inhofe's letter by publication time.
The nuclear commission launched a two-tiered safety review after a magnitude-9 earthquake and tsunami struck Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex on March 11, triggering explosions and radioactive leaks at the site. NRC initiated a short-term, 90-day review to determine whether immediate changes are needed and a long-term review has also begun.
The commission, which has repeatedly insisted American reactors are safe, sent its short-term findings to the White House yesterday and is expected to make the report public today (Greenwire, July 12).
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe of Oklahoma told NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko in a July 8 letter that the agency should compare the two countries' safety requirements to legitimize new regulations stemming from a months-long review of American plants.
"The absence of such a review would diminish the credibility of any new regulatory requirements since there would be no clear basis for assessing whether the recommended changes accurately and adequately address actual programs highlighted by the Fukushima accident," Inhofe wrote.
He added that he is concerned NRC's efforts on the issue are "inadequate."
NRC did not provide comment on Inhofe's letter by publication time.
The nuclear commission launched a two-tiered safety review after a magnitude-9 earthquake and tsunami struck Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex on March 11, triggering explosions and radioactive leaks at the site. NRC initiated a short-term, 90-day review to determine whether immediate changes are needed and a long-term review has also begun.
The commission, which has repeatedly insisted American reactors are safe, sent its short-term findings to the White House yesterday and is expected to make the report public today (Greenwire, July 12).
*** Media Advisory *** Leading Conservatives to Hold Press Conference on the Nomination of John Bryson to be Secretary of Commerce
Monday July 11, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. -Tuesday, July 12 at 12:30 PM, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, will join leading conservative groups, Freedom Action and the American Conservative Union to hold a media availability for credentialed press to discuss their opposition to the nomination of John Bryson to be the Secretary of Commerce.
Senator Inhofe: "The Secretary of Commerce should have a record of promoting not stifling economic growth and Bryson's career is a clear demonstration of the latter. Not only is he the founder of a radical environmental organization and a member of a United Nations' advisory group on climate change, he was also a strong advocate of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Even though this legislation would have been the largest tax increase in American history, would have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and made gas and electricity bills skyrocket for every American, Bryson said the bill was ‘moderate.' I am pleased to join the American Conservative Union and Freedom Action in opposition to John Bryson's nomination."
Senator Inhofe: "The Secretary of Commerce should have a record of promoting not stifling economic growth and Bryson's career is a clear demonstration of the latter. Not only is he the founder of a radical environmental organization and a member of a United Nations' advisory group on climate change, he was also a strong advocate of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Even though this legislation would have been the largest tax increase in American history, would have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and made gas and electricity bills skyrocket for every American, Bryson said the bill was ‘moderate.' I am pleased to join the American Conservative Union and Freedom Action in opposition to John Bryson's nomination."
E&E; News: Inhofe questions EPA science behind new standards
Wednesday July 6, 2011
The top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is seeking to use a recent National Academy of Sciences review of formaldehyde to raise questions about U.S. EPA's scientific basis for new air quality standards due out this summer.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) linked NAS criticisms of the scientific methodologies used by EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in evaluating formaldehyde to the process the agency is using to update the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) this month.
"The same scientific defects noted in the formaldehyde assessment are also present in EPA's evaluations of the science used to establish and revise [NAAQS], including the ongoing reconsideration of the ozone standard," wrote Inhofe, along with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
In April, NAS issued a long-awaited review of EPA's draft formaldehyde assessment. NAS questioned some of EPA's assertions about whether formaldehyde is a carcinogen, although it said EPA supported its conclusion that formaldehyde causes cancer in the nose and throat. In particular, however, the report criticized the methodologies by which EPA prepared the assessment (Greenwire, April 8).
In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) linked NAS criticisms of the scientific methodologies used by EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in evaluating formaldehyde to the process the agency is using to update the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) this month.
"The same scientific defects noted in the formaldehyde assessment are also present in EPA's evaluations of the science used to establish and revise [NAAQS], including the ongoing reconsideration of the ozone standard," wrote Inhofe, along with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
In April, NAS issued a long-awaited review of EPA's draft formaldehyde assessment. NAS questioned some of EPA's assertions about whether formaldehyde is a carcinogen, although it said EPA supported its conclusion that formaldehyde causes cancer in the nose and throat. In particular, however, the report criticized the methodologies by which EPA prepared the assessment (Greenwire, April 8).
Talking Points Memo: James Inhofe: Al Gore Is Right, Obama's Bailed On Talking About The Environment
Thursday June 30, 2011
One of America's foremost climate change skeptics, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says Al Gore (one of the nation's foremost climate change believers) is right in saying that President Obama has backed off when it comes to selling climate change to the electorate.
Inhofe says climate skeptics like him are partially responsible for the change. And he also warns that the shift is only skin-deep.
Inhofe was scheduled to give the keynote opening address at the Annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by the Heartland Institute, an organization devoted to shooting down the accepted scientific view that human behavior is altering the climate.
Inhofe is a regular in these circles, but not today. He couldn't make the conference, citing health reasons. Instead he sent over a statement read from the podium to the several hundred climate change skeptics gathered in Washington Thursday.
Inhofe says climate skeptics like him are partially responsible for the change. And he also warns that the shift is only skin-deep.
Inhofe was scheduled to give the keynote opening address at the Annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by the Heartland Institute, an organization devoted to shooting down the accepted scientific view that human behavior is altering the climate.
Inhofe is a regular in these circles, but not today. He couldn't make the conference, citing health reasons. Instead he sent over a statement read from the podium to the several hundred climate change skeptics gathered in Washington Thursday.
Scientists tout climate skepticism at Heartland conference kickoff (06/30/2011)
Thursday June 30, 2011
The last time the Heartland Institute hosted a climate conference in Washington was in 2009. The Democrat-controlled House had just passed a sweeping climate and energy bill and efforts were under way in the Senate to do the same.
Two short years later, the climate skeptics gathering that kicked off this morning at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel had the air of a victory lap. Notable dissenters took on the science of man-made global warming, the motives of "warmers" -- scientists who believe human emissions are contributing to climate -- and the academic and political organizations that support their work. The meeting runs today and tomorrow.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had been set to headline the event but canceled his appearance due to illness. Still, in a message he told the group that skeptics had played an important role in changing the political landscape in the past two years.
"Today the mood in Washington is significantly different," said Inhofe, who has famously called climate change a hoax.
"Everyone readily admits that cap-and-trade legislation is dead on Capitol Hill -- even our good friend, Senator Boxer," he said, referring to Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who shepherded a climate change bill through her committee last Congress that never reached the Senate floor.
Inhofe has proposed his own legislation this Congress that would strip U.S. EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but a test vote earlier this year revealed that it is 10 votes short of the support it needs to clear the Senate. Still, Inhofe expressed optimism that Congress would act to head off EPA's current and proposed greenhouse gas rules.
Two short years later, the climate skeptics gathering that kicked off this morning at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel had the air of a victory lap. Notable dissenters took on the science of man-made global warming, the motives of "warmers" -- scientists who believe human emissions are contributing to climate -- and the academic and political organizations that support their work. The meeting runs today and tomorrow.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had been set to headline the event but canceled his appearance due to illness. Still, in a message he told the group that skeptics had played an important role in changing the political landscape in the past two years.
"Today the mood in Washington is significantly different," said Inhofe, who has famously called climate change a hoax.
"Everyone readily admits that cap-and-trade legislation is dead on Capitol Hill -- even our good friend, Senator Boxer," he said, referring to Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who shepherded a climate change bill through her committee last Congress that never reached the Senate floor.
Inhofe has proposed his own legislation this Congress that would strip U.S. EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but a test vote earlier this year revealed that it is 10 votes short of the support it needs to clear the Senate. Still, Inhofe expressed optimism that Congress would act to head off EPA's current and proposed greenhouse gas rules.
Watch: Boxer Sets Precedent for Dems To Ask Questions from Dais
Thursday June 30, 2011
Senator Boxer. So Senator, you wanted to make a comment?
Senator Inhofe. I did want to make one comment. There is no one I love more than Senator Mikulski. We are very, very close. We actually have been together on a lot of our Thursday afternoon meetings. But I have to object to have the Senator sit at the dais, because we have never done that in the history of this Committee. I know this came up a couple of times when I was Chairman of the Committee, and I hope you understand that.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Chair, may I respond?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Chair, you will hear in my testimony that the subcommittee that I have the proud honor to Chair, Commerce, Justice and Science, funds 85 percent of the science that is done on global warming. I ask to sit at the dais in two capacities. Number one as the Senator from Maryland, because this is a hearing, and I would of course be happy to be joined by my colleague. I am delighted that our colleague from the House, Congressman Gilchrest is here. We do function as Team Maryland on the issues related to the State.
The second reason that I wanted to sit at the dais, though, is that I do fund 85 percent of the science that this Committee relies upon, all that information that Senator Cardin has conveyed up there and that Senator Inhofe conveys comes from our committee. I might add, the committee is the Mikulski-Shelby Committee. We really do function on a keen bipartisan basis.
I will yield to the Senator's objection, but I will ask as a courtesy since 85 percent of what we fund and you rely on, I will assume my seat behind you, as I am behind you 100 percent, and I will function as a staff member to the Committee.
Senator Inhofe. I did want to make one comment. There is no one I love more than Senator Mikulski. We are very, very close. We actually have been together on a lot of our Thursday afternoon meetings. But I have to object to have the Senator sit at the dais, because we have never done that in the history of this Committee. I know this came up a couple of times when I was Chairman of the Committee, and I hope you understand that.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Chair, may I respond?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Chair, you will hear in my testimony that the subcommittee that I have the proud honor to Chair, Commerce, Justice and Science, funds 85 percent of the science that is done on global warming. I ask to sit at the dais in two capacities. Number one as the Senator from Maryland, because this is a hearing, and I would of course be happy to be joined by my colleague. I am delighted that our colleague from the House, Congressman Gilchrest is here. We do function as Team Maryland on the issues related to the State.
The second reason that I wanted to sit at the dais, though, is that I do fund 85 percent of the science that this Committee relies upon, all that information that Senator Cardin has conveyed up there and that Senator Inhofe conveys comes from our committee. I might add, the committee is the Mikulski-Shelby Committee. We really do function on a keen bipartisan basis.
I will yield to the Senator's objection, but I will ask as a courtesy since 85 percent of what we fund and you rely on, I will assume my seat behind you, as I am behind you 100 percent, and I will function as a staff member to the Committee.
Cornyn shut out of Senate hearing on new air regs that affect Texas
Thursday June 30, 2011
Republicans are complaining that California's Barbara Boxer, the Senate's foremost environmentalist, won't let Sen. John Cornyn participate in a committee hearing tomorrow that affects Texas.
Cornyn is not a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. But Republicans claim Boxer has allowed fellow Democrats who aren't members of the committee to participate at such hearings in the past.
Tomorrow's hearing will examine a pending EPA regulation that would further restrict coal-fired power plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The EPA didn't include Texas in this rule when it was proposed in Aug. 2010. However, the agency later announced that Texas' plan for controlling downwind pollution from its coal-fired power plans was inadequate.
Cornyn is not a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. But Republicans claim Boxer has allowed fellow Democrats who aren't members of the committee to participate at such hearings in the past.
Tomorrow's hearing will examine a pending EPA regulation that would further restrict coal-fired power plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The EPA didn't include Texas in this rule when it was proposed in Aug. 2010. However, the agency later announced that Texas' plan for controlling downwind pollution from its coal-fired power plans was inadequate.
Inhofe Message for Heartland Climate Conference
Thursday June 30, 2011
To my friends attending the Heartland Climate Conference today in Washington DC,
I am sorry that I will not be able to join you today at the Heartland Institute’s sixth International Conference on Climate Change. Unfortunately, I am under the weather, but I did want to send a short note to say thank you for all of your hard work and dedication. Your efforts have gone a long way to stop the global warming alarmist agenda.
It is my hope that over the next two days you will take a little time to note the tremendous successes we have enjoyed. Remember, the last time this conference was held in Washington was just weeks after the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey global warming cap-and-trade bill. With an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate, many predicted that the bill would sail through the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama in time for the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen.
But, just as I told you we would at that Conference, we succeeded in defeating the bill by exposing the huge costs that would be imposed on the American people for no environmental gain. I said that Senate Democrats would not be able to go back to their constituents and justify voting for the largest tax increase in American history. Further undermining the effort was the latest science which showed that there was no “consensus” on global warming. For those who are here at this Conference, the revelations uncovered just a few months later in the Climategate scandal came as no surprise.
Today the mood in Washington is significantly different. Everyone readily admits that cap-and-trade legislation is dead on Capitol Hill—even our good friend, Senator Boxer. So our efforts have shifted to stopping President Obama from imposing through regulation what he was unable to achieve through legislation. I am pleased that the House has passed the Upton-Inhofe bill—which would stop the EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda—with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the Senate, we are ten votes short. But I would point out that sixty-four members sent a clear message to the administration that the Obama-EPA needs to be reined in.
And President Obama has received the message loud and clear: you don’t often hear him speak about global warming, much to the consternation of Al Gore. He understands that the green agenda is not popular but that doesn’t mean he has given up trying to implement it. Take a good close look at the President’s administration. With sky high unemployment and a weak economy, who does he ask to head the Department of Commerce? The founder of the Natural Resource Defense Council, John Bryson. That’s right, a committed green activist who supported legislation that would have imposed huge costs on consumers and shipped American jobs overseas. Why did Bryson like cap-and-trade? Simple, because it was a “hidden tax.” And while the cap-and-trade bill would devastate the economy, he said it was a “modest, but acceptable” approach. I hope you agree with me that our work is far from over and we now have to focus on holding back the regulatory overreach and oppose nominees who have the mistaken belief that Government is the answer, when we know that more often than not it is the problem.
I am sorry that I will not be able to join you today at the Heartland Institute’s sixth International Conference on Climate Change. Unfortunately, I am under the weather, but I did want to send a short note to say thank you for all of your hard work and dedication. Your efforts have gone a long way to stop the global warming alarmist agenda.
It is my hope that over the next two days you will take a little time to note the tremendous successes we have enjoyed. Remember, the last time this conference was held in Washington was just weeks after the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey global warming cap-and-trade bill. With an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate, many predicted that the bill would sail through the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama in time for the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen.
But, just as I told you we would at that Conference, we succeeded in defeating the bill by exposing the huge costs that would be imposed on the American people for no environmental gain. I said that Senate Democrats would not be able to go back to their constituents and justify voting for the largest tax increase in American history. Further undermining the effort was the latest science which showed that there was no “consensus” on global warming. For those who are here at this Conference, the revelations uncovered just a few months later in the Climategate scandal came as no surprise.
Today the mood in Washington is significantly different. Everyone readily admits that cap-and-trade legislation is dead on Capitol Hill—even our good friend, Senator Boxer. So our efforts have shifted to stopping President Obama from imposing through regulation what he was unable to achieve through legislation. I am pleased that the House has passed the Upton-Inhofe bill—which would stop the EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda—with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the Senate, we are ten votes short. But I would point out that sixty-four members sent a clear message to the administration that the Obama-EPA needs to be reined in.
And President Obama has received the message loud and clear: you don’t often hear him speak about global warming, much to the consternation of Al Gore. He understands that the green agenda is not popular but that doesn’t mean he has given up trying to implement it. Take a good close look at the President’s administration. With sky high unemployment and a weak economy, who does he ask to head the Department of Commerce? The founder of the Natural Resource Defense Council, John Bryson. That’s right, a committed green activist who supported legislation that would have imposed huge costs on consumers and shipped American jobs overseas. Why did Bryson like cap-and-trade? Simple, because it was a “hidden tax.” And while the cap-and-trade bill would devastate the economy, he said it was a “modest, but acceptable” approach. I hope you agree with me that our work is far from over and we now have to focus on holding back the regulatory overreach and oppose nominees who have the mistaken belief that Government is the answer, when we know that more often than not it is the problem.
WASHPOST: Obama's focus on visiting clean-tech companies raises questions
Monday June 27, 2011
With trips that began two months after he took office, President Obama has devoted more than half of his out-of-town private-business visits to promoting a single industry: clean technology, which the president says will lead the nation back to economic prosperity.
His praise for renewable-energy projects has been effusive. A day after this year's State of the Union address, he stood among workers at a small Wisconsin lighting company and dubbed it a "model for the future," helped by government incentives offering a "leg up to renewable-energy companies."
He praised workers for "helping to point the way" to a cleaner future while visiting a Charlotte company that makes an electric-car battery component. In Reno, Nev., in April, he lauded a start-up for "growing by leaps and bounds" as it markets a machine that converts waste heat into electricity.
He used similar words a few weeks ago at a Durham, N.C., company that makes energy-efficient lighting, saying it is "helping to lead a clean-energy revolution."
His praise for renewable-energy projects has been effusive. A day after this year's State of the Union address, he stood among workers at a small Wisconsin lighting company and dubbed it a "model for the future," helped by government incentives offering a "leg up to renewable-energy companies."
He praised workers for "helping to point the way" to a cleaner future while visiting a Charlotte company that makes an electric-car battery component. In Reno, Nev., in April, he lauded a start-up for "growing by leaps and bounds" as it markets a machine that converts waste heat into electricity.
He used similar words a few weeks ago at a Durham, N.C., company that makes energy-efficient lighting, saying it is "helping to lead a clean-energy revolution."
WSJ Editorial: The Facts About Fracking
The real risks of the shale gas revolution, and how to manage them
Monday June 27, 2011
The U.S. is in the midst of an energy revolution, and we don't mean solar panels or wind turbines. A new gusher of natural gas from shale has the potential to transform U.S. energy production-that is, unless politicians, greens and the industry mess it up.
Only a decade ago Texas oil engineers hit upon the idea of combining two established technologies to release natural gas trapped in shale formations. Horizontal drilling-in which wells turn sideways after a certain depth-opens up big new production areas. Producers then use a 60-year-old technique called hydraulic fracturing-in which water, sand and chemicals are injected into the well at high pressure-to loosen the shale and release gas (and increasingly, oil).
The resulting boom is transforming America's energy landscape. As recently as 2000, shale gas was 1% of America's gas supplies; today it is 25%. Prior to the shale breakthrough, U.S. natural gas reserves were in decline, prices exceeded $15 per million British thermal units, and investors were building ports to import liquid natural gas. Today, proven reserves are the highest since 1971, prices have fallen close to $4 and ports are being retrofitted for LNG exports.
Only a decade ago Texas oil engineers hit upon the idea of combining two established technologies to release natural gas trapped in shale formations. Horizontal drilling-in which wells turn sideways after a certain depth-opens up big new production areas. Producers then use a 60-year-old technique called hydraulic fracturing-in which water, sand and chemicals are injected into the well at high pressure-to loosen the shale and release gas (and increasingly, oil).
The resulting boom is transforming America's energy landscape. As recently as 2000, shale gas was 1% of America's gas supplies; today it is 25%. Prior to the shale breakthrough, U.S. natural gas reserves were in decline, prices exceeded $15 per million British thermal units, and investors were building ports to import liquid natural gas. Today, proven reserves are the highest since 1971, prices have fallen close to $4 and ports are being retrofitted for LNG exports.
