Green Daily

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be taking public comment on pollution prevention activities ahead of its September 3-4 Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) meeting.

The SAB meeting will focus on "consultative advice" from the EPA's Environmental Engineering Committee to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) "on possible new approaches to measuring results of pollution prevention activities." The OPPT is responsible for oversight of programs falling under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Pollution Prevention Act. These acts evaluate chemical safety and while "promoting the use of non-toxic or less-toxic substances, implementing conservation techniques, and re-using materials rather than putting them into the waste stream." Programs specifics can be found on the EPA website.

Given the EPA's already legendary foot-dragging on pollution standards, the need for public comment now is greater than ever.

Although the U.S. is responding to the worsening global food crisis via emergency food aid programs, some international agencies are concluding that biofuel production is to blame.

The Guardian, a UK newspaper, obtained a copy of a World Bank report on the effect of biofuels on food prices. According to the newspaper, the report was held in order to prevent any discomfort to President Bush ahead of the G8 summit.

Despite a Supreme Court decision and a near-miss on a contempt of Congress citation, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided to thumb its nose at, oh, everyone by continuing to delay rule-making on greenhouse gas emissions.

The SCOTUS decision, from April 2007, ruled that the EPA improperly declined to regulate pollutants that contribute to climate change.

Rather than following the decision, or heeding repeated warning from Congress (notably the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming), Administrator Stephen Johnson issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR). In this case, the issuance amounts to the EPA fiddling while Rome burns.

And as if that weren't enough, the ANPR – some 580 pages – is accompanied by numerous comments urging the government to NOT regulation carbon dioxide and other gases via the Clean Air Act.

As lawmakers ease back into work after the July 4 recess, they'll be considering a couple of bills of interest to the green community:

H.R. 5741, the Shark Conversation Act of 2008; H.R. 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008; and H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research And Monitoring Act of 2007.

The last bill would establish the Interagency Committee on Ocean Acidification comprised of members from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States Geological Survey, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy.

Within 18 months of the bill's enactment, the Committee would be required to issue a report to Congress on the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide on ocean chemistry, including biological impacts. To carry out this and other related research, the bill would authorize $6 million in FY2009, $8 million in FY2010, $11 million in 2011, and $30 million in FY2012.

As predicted in an earlier post, the Senate is slated to take up S. 3036, America's Climate Security Act, this week. The Senate will vote this evening on a cloture motion to close debate and proceed to a vote on the measure; the bill's supporters are confident they have the 60 votes needed to pass the motion.

(The bill number is different -- it started life as S. 2191 -- and the main sponsor is now Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, although it is named for the original drafters, Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Warner.)

S. 3036 enjoys widespread support - from General Electric and PG&E to the Teamsters to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to the Environmental Defense Action Fund and the Nature Conservancy.

But it appears that the bill is already a lame duck. And for reasons that make me want to ask, "Is anyone at the White House familiar with the word 'irony'?"

This week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted, 10-9, to approve S. 2555, a bill that would require the EPA allow states to set stricter-than-the-national emission limits. The vote was mostly on party lines with two exceptions -- outgoing Sen. John Warner (R-VA) voted for it; Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE) voted against it.

An archived webcast of the bill's markup, including talk from I-believe-global-warming-is-a-big-hoax, Ranking Member Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is available.

The bill is designed to overturn the EPA's 2007 decision to deny California a waiver that would have allowed the state to more stringently regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and other motor vehicles.

Today, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing examining the Bush administration's energy policy. The sole witness is Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman. The hearing will focus on the administration's strategic petroleum reserve policies, as well as its support for tax credits for oil and gas companies.

However, the real fireworks will likely precede the hearing. The committee will, immediately before considering Mr. Bodman's testimony, vote on a resolution "recommending that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson be found in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a subpoena."

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony from executives at BP America, Shell Oil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon Mobil on the "skyrocketing price of oil."

The Judiciary Committee's website has a link to the webcast of the hearing (once it is complete, a link to the archived webcast will be provided), as well as testimony from each of the oil executives. Chair of the committee, Patrick Leahy, has a statement online too.

Last week, the House Transportation Committee passed the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act (HR 6052). At a time of record high gas prices – Hartford and Chicago are in the $4 gallon range with the national average not far behind – the bill would authorize $1.7 billion in grant funding for public transit.

The bill recognizes that some 37 million metric tones of carbon dioxide are saved annually by the 10.3 billion public transit trips Americans took in 2007. And, as a daily public transit rider myself, I appreciate the estimated annual cost-savings of $6,251 (as per the American Public Transportation Association).

Last week, the International Center for Technology Assessment and a coalition of environmental and public health groups, including the the Center for Food Safety, Greenpeace, and Consumers Union, filed a citizen petition asking that the EPA regulate nanosilver as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act .

Nanosilver has been added to a host of consumer products -- everything from sheets to bus handrails to children's toys -- for its antimicrobial properties.

The House and Senate are just about finished with conference negotiations over the reauthorization of the farm bill (HR 2419). The farm bill is sprawling, $570 billion piece of legislation, containing provisions on everything from Food Stamps and WIC to crop subsidies to biofuels to drought and flood aid.
This year's reauthorization looked all but dead as conferees from the House and Senate fought over protectionist subsidies and tariffs, the competing demands of a tight budget v. the need to increase food aid, conservation measures, and more.

But, after months of intense negotiations between House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson, Sens. Tom Harkin, Pat Roberts, and Kent Conrad, is the farm bill dead on arrival?

A silent tsunami which knows no borders sweeping the world.

That is how Josette Sheeran, head of the UN World Food Program, described the worsening global food crisis. Food shortages have caused riots in Haiti, Cameroon, Indonesia and Egypt, among others.

The sharp increases in food prices are attributed to several factors, including (1) an increased demand for biofuels (corn being made into ethanol rather than sold on the food market), (2) drought (e.g., in Australia) or flooding (Bolivia, South Asia, some parts of E. Africa), (3) surging demand from developing nations like China and India, (4) shortages of fertilizer, and (5) property rights.

So what's being done to ease the burden on the world's poor?

America's Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is supposed to be coming to the floor of the Senate sometime in early June.

Even though S. 2191 hasn't yet reached the floor, an alternative is already percolating. Sen. George Voinovich plans to introduce his own climate change bill: the Incentives-Based Climate Policy Act.

The Voinovich bill -- still in draft form -- looks like an attempt at a real, middle-of-the-road compromise in the increasingly partisan debate over reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So, it appears that Sen. McCain isn't alone in his need for an Econ 101 refresher.

Today, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama for not supporting the plan to suspend federal taxes on gasoline and diesel from Memorial Day through Labor Day. "I understand the American people need some relief," said Sen. Clinton.

There's no denying that the Americans are cash-strapped. As oil prices climbed toward $120 a barrel, food costs continue to skyrocket, and access to credit tightens, suspending the gasoline tax would almost certainly provide some small measure of short-term relief. But suspending the tax, in the long-term is a terrible idea.

Presidential candidate John McCain is calling for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day moratorium on collecting the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax and 24.4 cent-a-gallon federal diesel tax.

Yes, gasoline is very expensive. The price for one barrel of light, sweet crude hit $114.08 on April 15. The national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.386; diesel is $4.119 per gallon. And yes, prices will increase as more refineries move to summer-blend gasoline, a lower evaporation formula that causes less air pollution (for more on blended gasoline, check out this Slate article.)

But reducing the cost of gasoline by reducing or eliminating the federal tax is a phenomenally bad idea.