Saturday, October 3, 2009

Climate Progress

Climate Progress


Chamber of Overstated Horrors

Posted: 03 Oct 2009 06:03 AM PDT

IT IS refreshing to see three energy companies — the nuclear power operator Exelon; Pacific Gas and Electric; and New Mexico's largest electricity provider, PNM — quitting the US Chamber of Commerce over that organization's increasingly shrill, doom-saying opposition to climate change legislation in Washington. The chamber claims that limits on greenhouse gas emissions by Congress or the Environmental Protection Agency would be "a job killer,'' would "completely shut the country down,'' or, even worse, "virtually destroy the United States.''

chamber-of-horrorsSo begins a great Boston Globe editorial, "Chamber of overstated horrors."  These resignations really brought home the message of the Chamber's extremism to the broader media in a tangible way (see Chamber of Horrors: The incredible, shrinking industry group falsely claims "We've never questioned the science behind global warming").

The rest of editorial makes clear just how much the Chamber brought this on themselves with its Luddite call for "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on global warming:

The chamber went completely off the rails in August. It proposed to take the climate change debate all the way back to the 1920s, to a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.'' William Kovacs, the chamber's vice president for environmental regulation, told the Los Angeles Times that a public hearing on the evidence of climate change "would be evolutionism versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial.''

The verdict has long been in from the vast majority of climate scientists that humans are changing the atmosphere. What's becoming increasingly clear is that fighting climate change is good for business, because restrictions on carbon emissions will foster innovations in efficiency and renewable-energy technologies. Last month at a forum in New York – organized in part by the Boston-based business and environmental coalition Ceres – a group of 181 investors handling more than $13 trillion in global assets called for greenhouse gas emission reductions of between 50 percent and 85 percent by 2050.

Going backward eight decades was too much for Exelon, PG&E and PNM. Also protesting somewhat this week was Nike. The sneaker maker did not quit the chamber, but resigned from the board of directors. These are welcome cracks in the stone wall of the chamber. The question is how many more of the chamber's 3 million members need to quit before the organization alters its retrograde view.

Arts and Crafts go Green

Posted: 03 Oct 2009 05:49 AM PDT

Durham, North Carolina-based The Scrap Exchange (above) is "a sustainable art supply store that takes unwanted materials and resells them as arts and crafts supplies," as explained in this CAP repost.

Is one person's trash really another's treasure? According to a Durham, North Carolina-based arts and crafts store it is.

The Scrap Exchange lets people explore their creativity while helping out the environment. The Scrap Exchange was founded in 1991 as a sustainable art supply store that takes unwanted materials from businesses and community members and resells them as arts and crafts supplies. Materials sell for 50 to 70 percent off their retail prices, and popular items include paper, fabric, office supplies, marble scraps, and CD cases. The idea is to promote environmental awareness and creativity by providing high-quality, low-cost materials for artists.

The Scrap Exchange also has an in-house art gallery to show off the local artists who turn recycled materials into crafts such as handmade bags, metal sculptures, and jewelry. Classes such as quilting and collage are available for people who may not have a natural creative streak. And the Scrap Exchange offers children's birthday parties that give kids a chance to create fun projects with their friends while teaching them about taking care of the planet.

The Resource Center in Chicago is another nonprofit organization that is encouraging creative re-use. Their Creative Reuse Warehouse finds rejects and by-products that local businesses treat as waste. The materials are donated to Chicago schools, service organizations, performance companies, and individual artists. It's a win-win situation for the CRW's donors and recipients—donors get a tax deduction, and recipients have materials to teach classes and present artwork that they may not have been able to afford otherwise.

Similar programs are available throughout the country. The Scroungers' Center for Reusable Art Parts has been in San Francisco since the 1970s, and it offers unique workshops where participants learn about different crafts and art techniques. And Creative Reuse Pittsburgh, a newcomer to creative re-use, collects reusable discards from businesses and other organizations in its region, offers hands-on creative arts programs, and hosts booths at local arts festivals.

A day at any creative re-use center might be a great way to become re-acquainted with the right side of your brain without the guilt of waste. Participating in the arts isn't just fun—it's beneficial. Art has been linked to developing critical thinking skills, persistence, and lightheartedness. Add that to the environmental benefits of places like The Scrap Exchange, and the lure of creative re-use centers is almost irresistible.

The American Enterprise Institute compares EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Clint Eastwood and carbon polluters to criminals

Posted: 02 Oct 2009 10:41 AM PDT

http://web.tiscalinet.it/silviodr/Dirty%20Harry.gifIn a bizarre pop-culture flip-flop, Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute has compared the mild-mannered EPA administrator to Dirty Harry:

You can just see Jackson standing there with a .44 magnum in her hand, and a steely glint in her eye, telling industry "You've got to ask yourself one question, 'do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"

Seriously!

Let me get this straight, the right-wing is now saying it's bad to be like Clint, the quintessential tough guy hero lionized by conservatives because he'll do whatever is needed to save human life?  That means Green is directly equating U.S. industry with the psychopathic serial killer and criminals that Clint fights in the iconic 1971 movie.

Well, logic was never a priority of Denier-Industrial-Complex Kooks (DICKs) like Green, who regularly spouts nonsense like, "We're back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978….  No matter what you've been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly" — from a 2008 speech AEI later removed from their website (excerpts here).

In fact, Green's analogy makes no sense whatsoever since Jackson is simply obeying the command of the highest court in the land to regulate carbon pollution (see here).  Green entirely omits the fact that in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were pollutants and that the EPA would have to regulate them if they were found to endanger public health and welfare.

So the only part of the analogy that makes sense is that deniers and delayers like Green oppose the rule of law — while Jackson is trying to enforce it.

Ironically, in its zealous quest to kill climate action, AEI has done another flip-flop.  Jackson proposes to start regulating only  "large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year."  Jackson explained, "This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources – those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources."  She told the Governors Climate Summit in Los Angeles, "we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy," adding, "The corner coffee shop is not a meaningful place to look for carbon reductions."

But Green doesn't believe in common sense — he urges big polluters to sue to make sure small businesses and farmers are regulated also:

For that matter, the large emitters would be wise to sue for this also, both to ensure that they're not the only ones disadvantaged by the EPA's actions, and to make manifest the insanity involved with EPA regulating greenhouse gases.

Note that for Green and the American Enterprise Institute, obeying the Supreme Court is "insanity." You don't have to be Dirty Harry to realize which side of the law he is on.

Fundamentally, Green wants to use the legal system to pervert the process.  And this scorched earth strategy is one the big polluters are threatening, too.  I'll end this post with an analysis — "It's Hard To Hide An Oil Refinery Behind a Donut Shop" — from David Doniger, Policy Director at NRDC's Climate Center, and former "director of climate change policy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and, before that, counsel to the head of the EPA's clean air program":

Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that EPA has the authority and responsibility to use the existing Clean Air Act to cut dangerous global warming pollution.  And under President Obama, EPA is starting act.  Under the clean car peace treaty unveiled in the Rose Garden last March, Administrator Jackson has proposed nationwide global warming pollution standards for new cars and trucks, modeled on California's path-breaking standards.  And EPA is working on carbon limits for big power plants, oil refineries, cement plants, and other big factories responsible for most of our heat-trapping pollution.In a fairly desperate reaction, some of America's biggest polluters – led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA), and others – are trying to scare America's small businesses owners into thinking it's them that the EPA is after.

If they force me to curb my pollution, the big boys say, they'll come after schools, homes, and hot dog stands.  No one is safe, they shout.  Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

But it's hard to hide an oil refinery behind a donut shop.

So what is EPA really doing?

Well, when EPA issues its final clean car standards next March, certain other things happen automatically under the Clean Air Act.  The most important is that when companies build or expand big pollution sources — power plants, oil refineries, or cement kilns, for example — they will have to install the "best available control technology" (BACT) for carbon dioxide and the other global warming pollutants.  This is nothing fancy.  It's what they've done for years for other dangerous pollutants like sulfur dioxide.

EPA is proposing to set "thresholds" – carbon pollution levels that separate big sources that will have to meet these requirements from small ones that will not.

This is a common sense concept that NRDC and other environmental groups proposed a more than a year ago.

But along come lawyers and spokesmen for the big boys arguing that EPA can't do that.  If you regulate any of us, you have to regulate all of us, down to the donut shop.

It's hostage taking.  We're gonna take everyone down with us.  Listen to Charles Drevna, of the National Petroleum Refiners Association:

"This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry's greenhouse gas emissions are worse than another's," Drevna said. "Greenhouse gas emissions are global in nature, and are not isolated to a few select industries. The Clean Air Act stipulates unequivocally that the threshold to permit major sources is 250 tons for criteria pollutants.  EPA lacks the legal authority to categorically exempt sources that exceed the Clean Air Act's major source threshold from permitting requirements, and this creates a troubling precedent for any agency actions in the future."

EPA argues that it can set a different threshold – it has proposed 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide – to recognize that each power plant or other big source emits roughly 100 times more carbon dioxide than conventional pollutants like sulfur dioxide.  Accordingly, EPA says the proposed 25,000 ton threshold respects Congress's decisions about which big plants should have to install the best available control technology, and which small ones should not.  Congress, EPA contends, never wanted to treat mom and pop shops the same as the big boys.  In short, EPA argues that its new thresholds avoid absurd results and administrative nightmares.

The big boys' lawyers are getting ready to argue that EPA can't do this, that only Congress can change these threshold numbers.  They claim the courts will strike EPA's rule down.  But who'll bring that suit?  It won't be NRDC or any of the other environmental groups active in this fight.  And it's not clear that the big boys have "standing" – the kind of legal injury needed to take to take this complaint to court.  And the courts themselves have recognized the doctrines of avoiding absurd results and administrative nightmares..

So I'm betting on EPA.  And then, with small businesses safely shielded, the Chamber and NPRA will have no one to hide behind.

What's more likely is that Congress will clear this up well before the courts weigh in, by writing the EPA's thresholds into new comprehensive climate and energy legislation.  That's an idea with support from both environmental organizations and responsible companies.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but it's never too late for the Chamber and its allies to stop the scare-mongering and join the effort to pass this new legislation.

Well, the Chamber's call for a 'Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century' worked out so well for them (see "Nike runs fast and loud from the incredible, shrinking U.S. Chamber Board over its global warming denial"), that if they want to pursue this lawsuit, which I suspect will be equally popular with their members, I say, "Go ahead, make my day!"

Great collection of Obama climate and clean energy quotes

Posted: 02 Oct 2009 10:30 AM PDT

For the source of this video — and for youth action — go here.