Report guardian (UK): Smart businesses will act now to reduce their environmental impact

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/06/20/White-House-Climate-change-isnt-partisan/UPI-73821371724874/

WASHINGTON, June 20 (UPI) -- Climate change policies in the United States should not fall victim to bipartisan politicking, the White House energy adviser said.

President Obama described climate change as one of the top threats to the international community in a wide-ranging speech Wednesday in Berlin.

Obama's administration has been criticized by environmental groups for lacking a clear-cut climate policy. The president said Wednesday, however, it was time to act.

"Our generation must move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate before it is too late," he said. "That is our job. That is our task. We have to get to work."

White House energy adviser Heather Zichal was quoted by online news magazine Politco as saying the president will outline new energy policies that would not require additional funding or legislation to move forward.

"It's time to turn this issue from a red-state [Republican], blue-state [Democrat] issue to an American issue, and frankly that's what I think you'll be seeing from the president and the rest of his Cabinet -- a sustained focus on depoliticizing the climate on climate policy," she was quoted as saying after the president's speech.

Zichal said the plan may include benchmarks for renewable energy, energy efficiency and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Back to Menu

_________________________________________________________________


US News and World Report: Immigration Bill Amendment Aims to Win Residency Rights for Climate Change Refugees

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/06/21/immigration-bill-amendment-aims-to-win-residency-rights-for-climate-change-refugees

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, introduced an amendment Wednesday to the pending immigration bill that aims to allow Pacific islanders and others affected by climate change to reside legally in the United States.

"It simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world," Schatz said, according to Think Progress.

If enacted as law, the amendment would allow non-U.S. citizens to seek recognition as "stateless persons," allowing them possible legal residency in the U.S.

"This amendment to the immigration bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion, but not an obligation, to take into account situations in which a person cannot return to their country because it's uninhabitable due to climate change," a Schatz spokesperson told U.S. News in an email.

"This is not an abstract issue. Hawai'i has had a long, close and enduring relationship with its island neighbors in the Pacific for which climate change is an imminent threat. For Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, the Cook Islands and others, rising seas threaten the very existence of these countries," said the spokesperson. The amendment's language does not specify these nationalities.

According to Refugees International, there are currently 4,000 people without citizenship from any country living in the United States. "Statelessness is not a recognized condition under U.S. immigration law, so it is nearly impossible for people without nationality to obtain residency, asylum, or citizenship in the United States," the group said in a May post.

The current Senate immigration bill would grant conditional legal status to "stateless" people, and they would ultimately be able to apply for permanent residency and citizenship.

Schatz's amendment say the DHS secretary "in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate, as stateless persons, any specific group of individuals who are no longer considered nationals by any state as a result of sea level rise or other environmental changes that render such state uninhabitable for such group of individuals."

The amendment would also instruct the comptroller general to "carry out a study on the effects of climate change-induced migration on United States immigration policies" and "climate change-induced internal migration of residents of Alaska, Hawaii, and other States" within 18 months of the bill becoming law.

Back to Menu

_________________________________________________________________

Planet Ark: Stakeholders brace for White House move on power plant emissions

http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/69025

Before President Barack Obama unveils a plan to lower carbon emissions from thousands of existing U.S. power plants, stakeholders on all sides of the issue have attempted to make their mark on the regulations.

Electric utilities, environmental groups, large electricity consumers, and states have been working furiously behind the scenes for months to have a say in new rules that will be laid out by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Obama, in a video released by the White House on Saturday, confirmed that he will deliver a major speech on climate change on Tuesday. "I'll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go - a national plan to reduce carbon pollution," Obama said.

Administration officials have said the White House will use the Clean Air Act to tackle power plants, which account for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

This comes as no surprise to the companies and states that will have to either comply with or carry out the regulations. For the past few months, they have been working behind the scenes to influence the EPA before it begins what could be a months- or years-long rule-making process.

"The traditional industry response to EPA rule-making is - the EPA puts something out and then we respond to it," said Emily Fisher, a director of legal affairs for energy and environment at electric industry lobby group Edison Electric Institute (EEI). "This is different in that we feel obligated to be more engaged early on."

Fisher said the EPA will be in a "gray area" when it takes its first steps to regulate existing sources because the agency will need to use a rarely used and broadly worded section of the Clean Air Act, known as 111(d).

Under that statute the EPA would set federal emissions guidelines and decide upon the best systems or technologies for reducing emissions. Each state would then be left to set performance standards for its power plants and to determine how the plants will meet those standards.

Because there is little legal precedent for the rule, the agency will rely on a range of external sources for input, said Dina Kruger, a former director of the EPA climate change division and now a regulatory consultant.

EARLY START

Environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has developed the most detailed proposal so far.

In December it unveiled a plan in which the EPA would set state-specific emissions rates that would give the states most reliant on coal-generated energy more time to comply.

Dan Lashof, NRDC's climate and clean air program director, said the group wrote the plan to "rehabilitate the reputation of the Clean Air Act," which critics say will raise electricity prices, "and show there is a flexible way to regulate carbon."

Under the plan, a state that currently gets more electricity from coal-fired power plants than cleaner-burning natural gas or renewable energy would set an emissions rate target in 2020 that is higher than for a state that is less coal-dependent. States would then develop their own plans to meet the target.

The NRDC said its plan would cut carbon pollution 26 percent under 2005 levels by 2020 and cost $4 billion, which it said was a fraction of the cost of health and environmental damages from not acting on climate change.

But this approach may be vulnerable to legal challenges, said Robert Wyman, a lawyer at Latham and Watkins in Los Angeles who heads up a coalition of major companies that are also trying to influence the EPA rule-making.

The EPA "lacks the legal authority to differentiate among states in setting the eventual performance standards for specific fuel and technology subcategories," Wyman said.

The National Climate Coalition, which includes companies such as Boeing, Shell and utilities NRG and Midwest Generation, has developed a framework for the EPA that Wyman feels would stand up to potential legal challenges.

Under their approach, the EPA would set separate emission performance standards for coal- and gas-fired power plants.

"The EPA would develop the basic building blocks for coordinated state action while leaving to the states the choice of approach," according to a summary of their plan.

The NCC approach would let utilities calculate average emissions across their range of facilities, which in turn would enable states to use market-based mechanisms, such as trading of emissions permits.

EARLY ACTORS

Several states and certain utilities that have already taken steps to lower carbon levels at their plants will lobby the EPA to get credit for emissions already reduced under states' carbon reduction or clean energy programs.

Xcel Energy, which operates in states with renewable energy mandates including Colorado and Minnesota, estimates that its greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 will be three to four times greater than if it kept its fleet of coal plants and tried to maximize their efficiency under future EPA regulations.

States such as California and the nine northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which have market-based cap-and-trade systems in place, have also said they will seek equivalency.

The EEI also warned in a white paper on existing power plant rules in 2012 that while the EPA should give companies "flexible approaches" to meet the standard, "some are concerned that flexibility may open the door to more stringent standards."

http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1059983337/search?keyword=CLIMATE%3A+Obama+to+lay+out+ambitious+global+warming+plan

President Obama is set to provide details tomorrow of how he plans to deliver on his second-term promise of tackling man-made climate change.

Obama announced in a video this weekend that he will lay out his climate agenda in a speech at Georgetown University and that it will seek to "reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it."

The announcement follows months of speculation about how Obama would make good on his inaugural and State of the Union vows to again make global warming an administration priority.

He billed the plan as good for the United States economically, employing scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and workers to develop and build a low-carbon economy.

He also returned to a theme from his January inaugural speech, saying that addressing climate change is about protecting the next generation. "When it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can," he said.

Industry officials vowed to fight the plan if it contains overly burdensome regulations. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) panned the president's yet-to-be-released climate change plans as "absolutely crazy," certain to increase the cost of energy and "kill more American jobs."

Environmentalists applauded Obama's pending announcement but said they will be listening closely for an expected presidential commitment to curb greenhouse gases from today's fossil-fuels utilities.

"He knows that addressing climate change is not only an obligation we have to the next generation, but something we owe ourselves -- because it means modernizing our energy system in order to generate electricity that is reliable, affordable, healthy and clean," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp said in a statement.

Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke took slight exception to the president's statement in the video that "there's no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change."

She said, "The single-most important thing we can do, as a nation, is to reduce the dangerous carbon pollution from our power plants," noting that the sector accounts for 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions.

The Sierra Club's Michael Brune concurred. "Establishing strong pollution standards for new and existing power plants is critical for protecting our families and our planet from runaway climate disruption and is something our coalition has worked mightily to achieve," he said.

EDF, NRDC, the Sierra Club and others have been laying the groundwork for years for U.S. EPA rules to curb new and existing power plant emissions (see related story). They sued the agency to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, pressed for curbs on utility-sector emissions and kept up the pressure on allies in the administration who put off finalizing a rule for yet-to-be built power plants while repeatedly saying they had "no plans" to regulate CO2 from today's power fleet.

Now the White House appears to be signaling that it may be time to make those plans after all.

Details of the rumored White House announcement had been trickling out for weeks, but last week, the president and a senior aide hinted that existing power plant rules will probably be part of that mix.

Speaking Wednesday during a visit to Germany -- a country that has slashed its own emissions by a quarter compared with 1990 levels, mostly by reducing the carbon intensity of its power sector -- the president called climate change the "global threat of our time" (Greenwire, June 19.)

His top energy and climate change adviser, Heather Zichal, told a Washington, D.C., audience on the same day that her boss sees climate change as "a legacy issue" and offered the Clean Air Act as a tool that history has shown could be used to combat power plant emissions successfully (Greenwire, June 19).

Green groups said last week that they were expecting to see years of work pay off.

"Presumably, this is the moment that we have been waiting for since the Massachusetts v. EPA case was decided," said Joshua Saks, legislative director for the National Wildlife Federation, referring to the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision that started EPA down the path to carbon regulations. "And we are doing everything we can to be ready to respond and to support this, assuming that it takes the necessary steps forward."

Greens say they are prepared to push for a rule that makes a significant dent in the emissions of a sector that is responsible for 40 percent of the United States' CO2.

"Now that we have rumblings of a potential climate plan on the horizon, we are ramping up work to make sure that that's a strong plan and that we are set to spread the world about that announcement if and when it happens," said Nathan Wilcox, Environment America's federal global warming director.

League of Conservation Voters (LCV) President Gene Karpinski said, "This is one of the most important campaigns our community has ever put together to elevate support for a historic set of proposals."

Even after the regulations are finalized, he added, environmental groups are poised to align with other advocates in the public health, labor and business spheres to stave off an all-but-guaranteed push to undo them legislatively.

But while environmentalists celebrated, some hinted that whatever Obama proposes tomorrow will not be enough to stave off the growing threat of catastrophic climate change.

The Sierra Club's Brune said Obama's climate "legacy" will not be secure unless he eventually rejects the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

"A clear and bold commitment from the president to address climate disruption also gives us hope that he is prepared to cement his legacy by rejecting the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL pipeline, ending destructive oil drilling in the Arctic, halting mountaintop removal, and abandoning dirty energy," he said.

But many have speculated that Obama may be offering his climate commitments now to mollify environmentalists ahead of a decision later in the year to approve the Alberta-to-Texas oil sands pipeline.

And Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity said Obama should commit to extend EPA's regulatory scope beyond the utility sector to other industries that contribute heavily to global warming.

"The international targets the U.S. have announced are clearly well below what the best science says we need, even from a pro-rated perspective of U.S. global contributions," he said in an email, referring to Obama's pledge that the United States would cut its emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

He suggested that EPA use the Clean Air Act to implement a broader cap on greenhouse gas emissions. "Such a move could actually allow the US significant leverage with our trading partners," he said.

Meanwhile, industry is prepared to go on the defense if Obama announces tomorrow that his administration will move ahead with existing power plant rules.

"The law does not allow the president a broad range of options for addressing carbon emissions from existing power plants," said Scott Segal of Bracewell & Guiliani in an email. "If he pushes the envelope, and suggests a plan with unrealistic timetables or emissions limits, the plan may well violate the spirit and text of the Clean Air Act."

NRDC has put forward a proposal that would allow utilities some flexibility in reducing their emissions from existing plants but hold them to a strict standard. But industry lawyers have argued that it oversteps the limits of the section of the Clean Air Act that EPA would use to regulate emissions from existing sources.

By requiring emissions reductions that are not technologically feasible, said Segal, EPA could drive up power costs and stop economic recovery.

This track would "even force energy-intensive manufacturing overseas, thus increasing carbon emissions as goods flow back to the United States," he said.

He recommended that Obama stick to "win-win" strategies like energy efficiency and "steer clear of untenable regulations."

Back to Menu

_________________________________________________________________

The Christian Science Monitor: Obama's cold calculation on global warming (Op-Ed)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0620/Obama-s-cold-calculation-on-global-warming

By the Monitor's Editorial Board / June 20, 2013 at 5:07 pm EDT

As president, Barack Obama has never visited North Dakota. Does that matter? Yes, if he now acts to effectively shut down hundreds of coal-burning power plants, a regulatory move that officials say is only days away.

In 2010, North Dakota generated 82 percent of its electricity from coal. Many other states, from Wyoming to Kentucky, rely heavily on coal for either energy or jobs. In 15 states, at least half of the power comes from coal. To be sure, they are among the worst contributors to global warming.

Yet people in these states would be forced to make the largest personal sacrifice in Mr. Obama’s plan to dethrone “king coal” and help the United States be a leader in curbing climate change.

The president should now visit those places heavily dependent on coal and try better persuasion. This would be smart politics to avoid the blocking tactics of both Democratic and Republican leaders from those states. But it would also address on a personal level the fact that Americans in general remain resistant to the sacrifices needed for drastic reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Five years ago, for example, 48 percent of Americans said their personal actions on energy use would significantly reduce their contribution to global warming; that figure has since dropped to 31 percent, according to the latest survey by Yale and George Mason universities.

Such trends show Obama has work to do. And those states most dependent on fossil fuels are most in need of being convinced of their common bond to the rest of humanity and to future generations. Environmental action relies more on individuals than government to see themselves in a wider, even global community and accept the discipline and sacrifice needed to protect the planet.

That may sound a bit corny, but the main tactic of climate-change activists – stoking fear – hasn’t worked very well over the past quarter century. And appeals that rely on scientific predictions of temperature increases and to economic self-interest have also shown their limits.

Obama blames Congress for not requiring the existing coal plants to end carbon emissions into the atmosphere – a requirement that is unfeasible with current commercial technology. He has long threatened to take executive action. Indeed White House officials said this week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon issue regulations on existing plants.

Such tough emission rules will probably face a long battle in the courts with suits filed by coal-dependent states – whether their governors are Democratic or Republican. Kansas, Montana, and West Virginia have already advised the Supreme Court that the EPA is abusing its authority under the Clean Air Act.

Heather Zichal, the White House coordinator for energy and climate change, says Obama has made action on climate change a “legacy issue” for his second term. If so, he needs to do more than give speeches on global warming in Washington or, as he did this week, in Berlin.

“Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher, less hospitable planet,” he told the Germans. Now he needs to look North Dakotans in the eye and convince them of the need for heart-felt responsibility – and sacrifice – for the rest of the world

Back to Menu

_________________________________________________________________
Canada
The Star Phoenix: U.S. environmental expert cautions Alberta landowners about pipeline risks

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/environmental+expert+cautions+Alberta+landowners+about+pipeline+risks/8564074/story.html

Alberta must introduce tougher regulations to catch pipeline spills and mandate better technologies to prevent them, says a pipeline expert visiting from the United States.

"When it comes to leak detection, we have a problem with the regulations themselves and what they allow pipeline companies to miss when it comes to leaks," said Anthony Swift, a lawyer with expertise in pipeline safety for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C.

Swift, who previously testified against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline expansion from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, spent the week speaking to landowners in Camrose, Bowden and Lac La Biche about issues with pipelines running through their properties.

"We're finding that many of the safety issues that concern our pipeline systems are shared across the border. Both the United States and Canada are facing the same challenges and, particularly in Alberta, there have been a series of major pipeline accidents, many of which have been associated with lax or lack of regulatory oversight," said Swift, who was invited to Alberta by the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Alberta Surface Rights Group and the Council of Canadians.

One recent leak emptied 9.5 million litres of industrial waste water from a pipeline operated by a Texas-based company over 42 hectares near Zama City, a remote Alberta community near the border with the Northwest Territories. Apache Canada said an on-site operator detected the leak and reported it to the Energy Resources Compensation Board June 1. Marc Douglas, spokesman for Apache, said in an email one bird, a common American bittern, has died.

Another leak is being cleaned up northwest of Manning after a Plains Midstream Canada pipeline spilled about 950 barrels of natural gas liquids and byproducts from its 79-kilometre, six-inch Kemp Pipeline. Early investigations suggested the leak may have been caused by construction equipment.

The Alberta government says the province has strong regulations to deal with such incidents.

"We have a long track record of looking after pipelines in our province," said Mike Feenstra, spokesman for the energy ministry. Feenstra said statistics show 99.9 per cent of Alberta diluted bitumen is transported via pipelines safely.

One year ago, the Energy Re-sources Conservation Board reported a rate of failure per thousand kilometres of pipeline as 1.5, down from 2.2 in 2006. That's in a province that has nearly 400,000 kilometres of pipelines, including those that move gas, oil, water or other products.

"We have a very safe system in Alberta, one of the most tightly regulated systems in the country for pipelines," Energy Minister Ken Hughes said in 2012.

In Canada, Swift said oil companies are required to detect a leak in the volume of five per cent of a pipeline's capacity within five minutes.

"That's all well and good, but once leaks get below five-per-cent capacity, the regulations weaken significantly," he said.

A leak of between two and five per cent of a pipeline's capacity must be detected within seven days. A leak of between one to two per cent of a pipeline's capacity must be detected within one month.

Back to Menu