Krugman and Climate Change

Tuesday April 5, 2005

Columnist Paul Krugman of the New York Times writes in his column today that Republicans send a message disrespecting science and academia and hope to chill scholarship by applying political pressure. Specifically, Krugman cites Senator Jim Inhofe and writers George Will and Michael Crichton for challenging so called environmental groups on issues of global warming. Amazingly, Krugman actually attacks the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee for doing exactly what is demanded of the academic mission; asking questions and requesting continued research. This attack is even more even more stunning coming from a member of the press who also shares responsibility for asking questions. Finally, the columnist might take note that the New York Times itself is still recovering from a cloud of distrust following problems with journalistic integrity. They certainly should know the importance of asking questions. FACT: The science behind global warming remains far from certain and as a scientific theory demands further examination. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe is a proven leader in the United States Senate on the issue of climate change. As a prominent skeptic of the science behind global warming, Inhofe continually presents his views through delivering speeches on the floor of the United States Senate, holding Senate committee hearings featuring all sides of the debate, attending international conferences on climate change, and publishing committee whitepapers specifically detailing the science of climate change. More information is available on the website www.epw.senate.gov.

ANWR

Tuesday March 22, 2005

Republicans and Democrats appear to have very different approaches to moving toward achieving energy independence, which both claim to support. The historic vote on drilling in Alaska last week shows Republicans willingness to find common sense solutions to energy needs while protecting the environment. Democrats on the other hand have a much different policy – one of “wait and see”. Former Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004 wrote in a campaign letter dated March 16, 2005, “ “We have to put America's energy future in the hands of Americans - by inventing our way to real energy independence and having energy sources that create jobs and lower prices.” FACT: While Democrats wait for the next great invention, Republicans are fighting for energy independence for the United States. According to the Energy Information Administration, ANWR would produce nearly 1.5 million barrels a day or more, everyday for roughly 30 years. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that ANWR contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. At peak production, ANWR could produce more oil than any U.S. state, including Texas and Louisiana. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Chairman Domenici said in a press release March 15, 2005 explained the economic benefit saying, “ANWR, at peak production and at today’s oil prices, would pump nearly $50 million into our economy every day. That’s $18 billion a year – money that is going to foreign nations right now.” Even with the substantial economic benefits and energy independence, environmental needs are also met. The Department of Interior makes clear exploration will be limited to winter months to protect wildlife, protections of tundra are required and strict rules to protect streams, rivers, springs and wetlands will be in place.

EPA Mercury Regulations

Thursday March 17, 2005

What are the opponents of the recently stalled Clear Skies Legislation saying about the new mercury regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday? “We will fight it in the courts, we will fight it here in Congress and we will fight it in Statehouses across the nation”. - Senator Jim Jeffords, press release 3-15-05 “Only through comprehensive clean air legislation that restricts mercury and other pollutants will we achieve the kind of air quality all Americans deserve.” - Senator Tom Carper, press release 3-15-05 “New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bradley Campbell today announced that New Jersey will file suit against the new federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mercury rule unveiled today. “The rule fails to protect the public adequately from harmful mercury emissions,” - press release 3-15-05 FACT The recently stalled Clear Skies legislation (stalled in a 9-9 vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 9, 2005) would have reduced the mercury emissions faster, more efficiently, more cost effectively, and addressed the mercury hotspot issue. The first phase of Clear Skies would have reduced mercury to 34 tons in 2010, while the new regulation only reduces mercury to 38 tons by 2010. In the second phase Clear Skies would have reached the regulation’s target of 15 tons two years earlier...in 2016. Apparently some people are opposed to everything.

Highway Bill and Congestion

Wednesday March 16, 2005

According to a recent report from the Department of Transportation (DOT), motorists spend 40 percent more time driving during a peak period than they do on the same trip if they were to take it in the middle of the day. Compare that to the same statistics for 1982, when the difference in drive time between the two trips was only 13 percent. The problem is not just in urban areas; cities with populations of less than 500,000 have experienced the greatest growth in travel delays, according to the DOT. FACT: The current highway bill proposed legislation would address the congestion problem by increasing the total investment level and providing states more tools and flexibility to deal with the problem. An example of one of these latest tools is the newly established Transportation Freight Gateway program which targets bottlenecks around ports and intermodal facilities. The deadline of the highway extension passed last year is quickly approaching. Critical issues in our transportation system, such as congestion, need to be addressed by passing a highway bill. It has been nearly 18 months since TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003. The Federal-aid program has since been operating under a number of short-term extensions -- a total of six to date. Last year in a strong bipartisan, collaborative process, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee crafted a six-year transportation bill that would create jobs, promote economic growth, and address the nation’s surface transportation needs. The bill successfully passed in the Senate by a vote of 76-21, but came up just short in the Conference Committee.

Highway Bill and Jobs

Monday March 14, 2005

Over the past six years, significant progress has been made in preserving and improving the overall physical condition of the nation’s transportation system. However, more needs to be done. This is not just a transportation issue, but is also an economic development issue for our neighborhoods, communities and the nation. A safe, effective transportation system is the foundation of a growing economy.  

FACT: According to DOT estimates, every $1 billion of federal funds invested in highway improvements creates 47,000 jobs. The same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new orders for the manufacturing sector and $500 million spread throughout other sectors of the economy. Unfortunately, there are serious consequences if Congress further delays the process. State contract awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction season are going out to bid. If Congress fails to pass a bill soon, states will not know what to expect in federal funding and the uncertainty will potentially force states to delay putting these projects out to bid. According to a study done by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, an estimated 90,000 jobs are at stake nationwide. This problem is even more serious for northern-tier states that have shorter construction seasons. In many states, transportation departments have advanced state dollars to construct projects eligible for federal-funding in anticipation of action by Congress to increase those funding levels. Without a new bill, states are holding the bag until Congress acts.

 

 

Republicans Give, Democrats Give Up

Thursday March 10, 2005

Editorial writers of the Chicago Tribune sounded eerily similar to Democrats around Capitol Hill yesterday writing, “Clear Skies can make significant progress--if Republicans are willing to give.” Surprisingly nothing was asked of Democrats. The paper specifically mentioned need for Republicans to address time-tables and hotspots. Attempting to negotiate a compromise of President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation Chairman Inhofe and Clean Air Subcommittee Chairman George Voinovich agreed to postpone scheduled markups of the legislation three times in a good faith. While enormous movement was made throughout the process on the part of Inhofe and Voinovich, they did not receive a legitimate counter proposal(s) on any issue from the opposition as of today’s markup.

FACT: While Clear Skies supporters reached out, listened, and made significant changes, Democrats simply voted NO. On February 16th (four weeks ago) Inhofe, Voinovich and Senator Kit Bond circulated a manager’s amendment offering major changes based on concerns raised by the opposition and stakeholders. On March 2 they amended the package further. The manager’s amendment includes: Tightening the phase 2 deadlines for all 3 pollutants to 2016, creating an EPA regulatory program to eliminate the risk of mercury hotspots, addressing carbon in a credible way by creating a pool of allowances worth more than $650 million to promote IGCC technology, and tightening numerous provisions to further reduce pollution, increase monitoring and eliminate potential loopholes. It now appears the Tribune was wrong, Republicans gave a lot, but the significant progress of Clear Skies may well be lost because Democrats did nothing but vote no.

 

Bashing Bush Bad for Environment, Good for Fundraising

Wednesday March 9, 2005

President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, receiving more votes than any President in history, struck the so called “environmental movement” particularly hard. Speaking from the Michael Moore and Ward Churchill branch of the Democratic Party, these liberal special interest groups compared President Bush to fascism in Nazi Germany, blamed the President for the hurricanes in Florida, and wrote President Bush is "the most corrupt and immoral President that we have had in American history.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a leading environmental activist, blames and then lambastes the American media for deliberately failing to sufficiently report what he describes as the Bush administration’s dismal environmental record in their reporting during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. To Kennedy, the American people simply did not know. 

FACT: The escalating hostile political rhetoric of the leadership of today’s so called “environmental groups” reveals a truly disturbing problem. The obsessive abhorrence of President George W. Bush takes precedence over environmental progress. While Kennedy claims the “environmental message” never reached the American voter; it seems more likely the American voter rejected the “environmental groups” extreme liberal rhetoric. Consider rather, these special interest groups while losing the election, learned extreme political rhetoric results in substantial financial contributions. Of the top 527 groups in the Presidential election, League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club ranked near the top. According to opensecrets.org, the League of Conservation Voters established "Environmental Victory Project,” and according to the website, “will focus on four states where the presidential vote was close in 2000.” In total, the LCV 527 group raised $6,049,500 for these four battle-ground states. The Sierra Club raised even more money, a sum total of $9,574,827.00. The description of the Sierra Club 527 group states on the website, “It is coordinating with another 527 organization, America Votes, to “register, educate and mobilize the public for the 2004 elections.” Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope speaking of the 2004 election told an online environmental journal, "Of course our strategies will evolve in the next four years ... but it was the most sophisticated, well-funded, and determined effort by this community to sway a presidential election to date," "Not only that, it worked." Not too long ago, a vote against campaign finance reform was a vote against the environment -- according to the League of Conservations Voters scorecard, but now LCV President Deb Callahan understanding the financial gain seems to indicate these groups have changed their minds and will be opposing further campaign finance reform measures targeting 527 groups in the future.

 

 

 

Clear Skies and CAIR

Tuesday March 8, 2005

Environmental groups once adamantly opposed to the Bush Administration’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) now fervently support the rule. When the President introduced CAIR, Clear the Air went so far as to say, “The air pollution rule announced today will do more than add insult to injury. It will heap injury upon the injured. Thousands of Americans with asthma won't be able to breathe any easier any time soon. What's even more alarming is that EPA's timid reductions will still allow tens of thousands of Americans to die prematurely every year.” More recently however, environmental groups are saying the exact opposite, as a quote from Environmental Defense website shows, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) simply needs to sign off on a strong, protective Clean Air Interstate Rule (known as CAIR) to clean up smokestack emissions, and thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks could be prevented every year.”  

So why the change of heart? Simple, litigation, litigation, litigation. David Whitman in his article Party Sunny writes “CAIR, however, is significantly more vulnerable to court challenges than Clear Skies would have been (it is easier to bring a challenge to regulations than to enacted law) and will undoubtedly be held up, not unlike the Clinton administration's 1997 air quality standards.” Darren Samuelsohn, E&E Daily senior reporter agrees writing, “Litigation over CAIR is almost certain to be filed from various stakeholder groups, from environmentalists bound to view the final plan as weak and industry groups who may feel it parcels out emissions credits unfairly.” A Washington Post article from today clinches the environmental litigation strategy stating, “Environmental groups are so disenchanted with the trading proposal that they have stopped fighting it -- they want the agency to issue the rule in order to fight it in court.”

FACT: Signing Clear Skies legislation into law provides greater certainty than implementing Clean Air Interstate Rule. Furthermore, Clear Skies proposes to put in place an integrated set of emissions control requirements with coordinated compliance deadlines. It avoids piecemeal implementation of multiple emissions control obligations and is essential if electric power generators are to achieve compliance in the most economically efficient manner possible. Among other things, coordinating the compliance deadlines for all three air pollutants (SO2, NOx and Hg) will promote economic efficiency, including enabling many companies to meet a substantial portion of Hg emission reduction obligations through the co-benefits achieved by installing pollution controls to reduce SO2 and NOx (scrubbers and SCRs).

 

 

Cap-and-Trade vs. “Command and Control”

Monday March 7, 2005

Democrats with deep ties to the environmental community oppose President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation arguing stricter enforcement of existing laws would reduce emissions faster. Yet with the Clean Air Act is already marred by extensive litigation, the Democrat approach only serves as a further invitation to lawyers and prolonged litigation. The magazine Economist warns the Democrat Party “is in danger of becoming associated with ‘command and control’ legislation that is hard to enforce and subject to time-wasting litigation.” FACT: The Clear Skies bill is the most aggressive presidential initiative in history to reduce power plant pollution and provide cleaner air across the country. The bill reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and -- for the first time -- mercury from power plants by 70 percent by 2016 through expanding the successful Acid Rain Trading Program. Unlike most of our nation’s environmental laws and regulations, this program has had virtually no litigation and has achieved goals of substantial reductions in acid rain at less than the projected cost. Greg Easterbrook with the Brookings Institute noting the success of cap-and –trade programs writes in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, “In practice, cap-and-trade systems have proved faster, cheaper and less vulnerable to legal stalling tactics than the ‘command and control’ premise of most of the Clean Air Act.”

Praise for Clear Skies

Tuesday March 1, 2005

The Clear Skies bill is the most aggressive presidential initiative in history to reduce power plant pollution and provide cleaner air across the country. The bill reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and -- for the first time -- mercury from power plants by 70 percent by 2016 through expanding the successful Acid Rain Trading Program. This program, combined with the historic diesel rules being implemented by the Bush Administration, provide a national clean air strategy that will bring nearly all of the nation’s counties that are not meeting clean air standards into attainment, makes the future for clean coal possible, and keeps energy affordable, reliable and secure. FACT: President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation means real environmental progress across the United States. Even better, Clear Skies balances environmental protection with economic concerns. Recognizing these tremendous benefits for state and local communities, diverse interests are speaking in favor of Clear Skies. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana certainly favors Clear Skies saying, “Hoosiers will be healthier, and Hoosier pocketbooks will be healthier.” The Southern Illinoisan praises Clear Skies for balancing environmental protections while protecting Illinois job’s writing, “Tough federal regulation killed the Southern Illinois coal industry and our region has yet to recover from the devastating economic blow. We all want clean air. We do not want pollution. We also do not want a regulatory environment which makes companies like Peabody industry fearful of investing in our region. But we also need reasonable guidelines and regulations with recognition of how much technology has improved in recent years and enabled the industry to do a much better job of burning coal in a clean process.” Douglas Benevento, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, recognizes the benefit of Clear Skies over existing law, “Clear Skies not only allows us to maintain and enhance our air quality, it is also necessary to modernize current law and bring it into the 21st century. In some cases, we're operating under requirements that are 30 years old. The negative outcomes of using old methods to protect air quality are becoming more and more evident. In the past six years, the EPA has filed multiple lawsuits against utilities to force emissions reductions - but virtually none have resulted in any environmental improvement.” South Florida Sun-Sentinel takes issue with critics explaining, “Critics of Clear Skies are playing a simplistic numbers game….They fail to appreciate the benefits of a less complex system that would invite far fewer lawsuits and far fewer delays in enforcement.” Greg Easterbrook, an editor at The New Republic agrees with both Benevento and the Sun-Sentinel in his New York Times op-ed, “In practice, cap-and-trade systems have proved faster, cheaper and less vulnerable to legal stalling tactics than the "command and control" premise of most of the Clean Air Act. For example, a pilot cap-and-trade system, for sulfur dioxide from coal-fired power plants, was enacted by Congress in 1990. Since then sulfur dioxide emissions have fallen by nearly a third (the reason you hear so little about acid rain these days is that the problem is declining - even though the amount of combustion of coal for electricity has risen.)”
« First < Prev Next > Last »

Related Links