Updates

Well, the month of December was quite busy for me, and I was unable to keep up with the blog for a few weeks. Despite the lack of articles on The Future Earth lately, I have been following many environmental stories in the news, I have gotten some new books to read, and I am brimming with ideas for articles.

Much has been happening in Congress regarding laws that will impact our health and the environment. Since toxic toys and other products have been in the news much lately, voters have been pressuring politicians to do something about it. From the Washington Post, December 20th:

The House passed legislation yesterday that would ban lead from children's products, require toy testing by independent labs, and boost funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission over the next several years. But the Senate left without taking up that bill or a version passed by a Senate committee in October, making it less likely that toys sold next year will be affected by any regulatory changes. On Tuesday, Congress approved two far more limited measures affecting the agency as part of a larger spending bill. It passed $80 million for the 2008 fiscal year budget for the CPSC and a ban on industry-sponsored travel for commissioners and staff...The bill's sponsors hope to cut a deal with the White House and Senate Republicans by the time Congress returns in late January. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who sponsored the Senate bill, said on the floor yesterday that he was "very close to achieving bipartisan compromise to allow this bill to go forward early next year."

Another issue that voters are demanding action on is higher energy standards for vehicles. And not just because of global warming. According toUS News and World Report on December 13th: This fall, Republican pollster Bill McInturff was surprised to find one issue uniting every segment of the U.S. electorate, from solid Republicans focused on national security to Democratic global-thinking environmentalists. All put America's dependence on foreign oil at the top of the political agenda. "An issue essentially not on the radar screen two years ago now cuts across all different segments," McInturff says.

It's a finding in repeated polls, and it goes a long way toward explaining the relentless drive to force automakers for the first time in decades to engineer better gas mileage for their fleets. Although Congress and President Bush remain at odds over energy policy, both say they want to increase the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard—to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the favored Capitol Hill proposal. Meanwhile, in a drama that may play out through President Bush's final days, as many as 17 states, led by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have vowed to force carmakers to improve mileage even faster.

While battles continue, the carmakers themselves say that the atmosphere is altered and that they support higher standards, even as they work to shape the details in their favor. "Certainly, there have been changes with regard to the cost of gasoline, the political situation in the Middle East, and most importantly, control of Congress," says Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. It "was more of a question of how the standards would be increased, not whether they'd be increased."

...In October, Democratic pollster Mark Mellman completed a survey for Pew finding that a stunning 87 percent of Americans favored stricter CAFE standards and that voters' views on Congress would improve if this goal were achieved.

McInturff came up with similar findings in his work for Pew and for Ted Turner's United Nations Foundation with Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. "We have the confluence of gas fatigue and Iraq fatigue," says McInturff. "There's no question a majority of Americans think we have gone to war for oil and that it's a huge cause of our engagement in the Middle East. Combine that with $3-a-gallon gasoline."

On December 6th, the House passed the 2007 Energy bill. A week later, the Senate passed a watered-down version of the bill that was signed into law by President Bush on Decmber 19th. Representative Ed Markey explained the bill on the Huffington Post:

Improving Fuel Economy? Yes. 40 percent increase by 2020, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon.
Investing in Renewable Fuels? Yes. Ambitious goals for transition from corn ethanol to climate-friendly cellulosic ethanol.
Renewable Electricity Standard? No, not yet. The Senate failed to overcome objections lodged by Senators from the southeast who believe -- against all evidence to the contrary -- that the South is not a good region for turning the sun into energy.
Lighting and Appliance Efficiency? Yes.
Creating Green Jobs? Yes.
Building Efficiency? Yes. Although incentives for zero-emissions efficient building were cut back, these provisions are still a robust new initiative.
Nuclear Loan Guarantees? Not in the energy bill, although proponents are busy reinforcing the fact that without endless subsidies, nuclear electricity can't survive in a capitalist economy.
Long-term Production Tax Credit for Wind and Solar? No, not yet.
Ending the special tax deduction for Hummers? No, not now. Ouch. When the Senate dropped most tax provisions, this went with it, but it may soon return.

Overall, by 2030, the Energy Bill will reduce the U.S. global warming emissions by nearly a quarter of what's needed to save the planet and will reduce our consumption of oil by more than 4 million barrels per day, which is more than twice the amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. The strong energy efficiency provisions for our buildings and appliances will make more than 100 coal-fired power plants unnecessary, avoiding massive amounts of heat-trapping pollution. In short, we are making serious progress towards breaking down the barriers to more energy efficiency and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

I know that getting a bill passed requires compromise , but 35mpg by 2020? My Honda got that mileage in 1994. I am not fooled into thinking this is landmark legislation. We can do better than this!

California proposed its own, more restrictive limits to greenhouse gasses from automobiles, requiring a 30-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the first cutbacks starting in 2009. The Clean Air Act allows California to pass its own emmission standards provided that the EPA grants it a waiver. Other states are allowed to adopt the same rules as California. A suit brought by automakers to stop California's stricter regulations was thrown out of court and it appeared that there were no further obstacles. But in a surpise move in mid-December, the EPA refused to grant the waiver.

On December 21st, the LA Times reported The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver...

"California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."

PA administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced Wednesday that because President Bush had signed an energy bill raising average fuel economy that there was no need or justification for separate state regulation. He also said that California's request did not meet the legal standard set out in the Clean Air Act.

But his staff, which had worked for months on the waiver decision, concluded just the opposite, the sources said Thursday. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk with the media or because they feared reprisals...California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to fight in court to overturn the decision.

Technical and legal staff also concluded that if the waiver were denied, EPA would very likely lose in court to the state, the sources said. But if Johnson granted California the waiver and the auto industry sued, "EPA is almost certain to win," said two sources quoting the briefing document. They advised him to either grant the waiver outright or give California a temporary one for three years.

Instead, three sources said, Johnson cut off any consultation with his technical staff for the last month and made his decision before having them write the formal, legal justification for it. "It's very highly unusual," said one source with close ties to the agency.

"Clearly the White House said, 'We're going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we're done, the deal is done,' " said one staffer....Staff and critics said delay or outright elimination of the federal regulation on vehicles spells possible trouble for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from other major sources.

"Once EPA makes the . . . finding on vehicles, then it opens the door to standards for smokestack industries as well," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "That's why the Chamber of Commerce and all the others wrote to the Senate. . . . They weren't doing it because they were worried about fuel economy for cars. The did it because they understand the legal ramifications if EPA moves forward with greenhouse gas standards."

Other news that I have been following includes the 2007 Farm Bill. I hope to write about this subject very soon.