With summer upon us, how many green vacationers’ fancies will turn to thoughts of nudism?
Going without clothes on beaches and other vacation spots is commonly called naturism — a description that implies helping the planet, as some practitioners claim to be doing.
Spending more time with nothing on stems waste and pollution in all sorts of ways, according to an article by Kathy Blanchard on The Naturist Society’s Web site.
“Living more hours naked each day results in a dramatic drop in my laundry, which in turn reduces my water and energy use (along with my related bills),” Ms. Blanchard wrote. “It also reduces the amount of soap I release, in my case, into the Puget Sound.”
She also advocates naturist holidays — staying close to home wherever possible, to cut down on fuel usage — but sometimes traveling to places where it is possible to leave the car behind and backpack or paddle naked into the wild.
“For those few days, we use virtually no fuel, our diet is minimal with low ecological impact, and we return healthier,” she wrote, adding that the “trips are coolly green clothes-free vacations.”Where to go? France is already a top destination for “textilists” (a term some naturists use to describe clothes-wearers) but also seems to be one of the most appealing spots for vacationing in the buff. According to the tourist authority in the Aquitaine region on the French Atlantic coast, “ ‘green’ naturism is growing fast in popularity.”
Of the 1.5 million people who practice naturism in France, nearly a third come to Aquitaine, while “foreign naturists” account for more than half of vacationers in the centers and campsites across the region. (Presumably their fossil fuel use in transportation could cancel any climate benefits of going clothes-free.)
In the Swiss Alps, nude hiking in winter seems to be a growing phenomenon — although some locals are trying to outlaw the practice, as my colleague John Tagliabue wrote this year.
The prospect of winter raises another issue: for people going without clothes, global warming may have a fringe benefit. Michael Hewitt says in an article in the article in The Independent that a few nudists seem happy that the demise of winter may be in the offing. However, others may side with groups like EcoNudes, which believes that living in the buff has “a positive effect on global warming, climate change and society.”
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
California solar-power subsidy program approaches its limit
Lis Sines of Hermosa Beach loves watching her electric meter run backward.When that happens, she knows that the 20 solar panels on her roof are producing more power than she needs to run her 3,800-square-foot home. The excess electricity flows to the electric company's grid, and she gets its full retail value credited to her utility bill.
Sines' electric bill has plunged since she and her husband, William, installed a photovoltaic system on their roof three months ago. In June the bill totaled just $1.26, compared to about $100 a year earlier.But the Sineses' subsidy may not be available to future solar-power users for long.The state's $3.3-billion solar subsidy program has become so popular that the state utilities are approaching the legal limit for how much power they can buy from customers.
The limit could be reached in parts of northern and central California served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by the end of this year. The state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., are proceeding somewhat more slowly. Eager to keep the program growing, the solar industry is pushing for approval of legislation in Sacramento that would quadruple the amount allowed. The state's for-profit utilities oppose the higher cap in the bill AB 560 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).A key Senate utilities committee vote on the measure is expected this week. Currently, utilities are limited by state law from buying from its customers more than 2.5% of a utility's maximum generating capacity. Skinner's bill would lift the cap to 10%. All three companies oppose Skinner's bill. They do not want lawmakers to raise the limit until next year at the earliest, after the California Public Utilities Commission tallies up the program's costs and benefits.Utilities say they strongly support solar power but want more information about whether it's fair to further increase financial incentives for solar-panel ownership. Such incentives, they point out, would come at the expense of most of the utilities' other customers, who don't want or can't afford to invest in the costly panels."We want to make sure there isn't an unfair level of cost-shifting," said Jennifer Briscoe, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric.Fairness issues were also raised in a report on Skinner's bill by the staff of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which will review the bill this week. The report pointed out that California solar-panel owners already benefit from a variety of subsidies approved in recent years -- even without this "net metering" program, which allows people to sell power to the utilities.Solar power users get a state subsidy of about 20% of the purchase and installation cost and a federal income tax credit of 30%. Adding more incentives could be going too far, the committee staff analysis suggested. The staff report also takes issue with the amount of credit that solar users get when they sell power to the utilities. "By compensating the solar or wind customer at the full retail rate" for energy sold to the grid, "the utility is using ratepayer funds to pay the solar or wind customer at a rate well above the value of the generated power, which is about one-third of the total cost of a typical residential customer's bill," it said. The other two-thirds of the bill covers utilities' fixed expenses for building power plants and transmission lines, buying electricity from independent generators and meeting a variety of state mandates, including the cost of subsidizing low-income customers and solar-power system owners.Supporters of solar-power systems say the net metering program and other subsidies are essential. And many would like to see no caps at all. "Without net metering we're not going to see a lot more people" buy expensive solar systems, said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco advocacy group. "If we hit the net metering cap, the California solar industry grinds to a halt."Caps are an impediment to fully developing solar power's potential and its ability to provide clean energy that can be tapped in urban areas, where it is most needed, during peak demand on hot summer afternoons, Browning said. Eighteen states allow net metering without any caps, he noted.The appeal of lower electric bills appears to be persuading more people to go solar. Legislation, approved in 2007 and known as the Million Solar Roofs program, has spurred the production of solar-generated electricity to rise 78%. That's equivalent to the power generated by a modern power plant, the Public Utilities Commission reported last week. Consumer demand continues to grow despite the recession. Applications for state subsidies hit a record high in May, the commission said.The commission's first solar program assessment recommends raising the net metering cap "to prevent a stall in the solar market," and the commission endorses the Skinner bill. One solar booster is Harry Pope, a retired Edison executive who bought a large system for his Long Beach home after the energy crisis of 2000-01. He said he needs the state's incentives to make his investment pay off."I probably put in $30,000 and got half back. Maybe over 15 years I might achieve total payback," he said. Without people like him, Pope said, the state will have to build more power plants. "I'm preventing the utilities from having to build that next-generation power plant . . . the most expensive power plant you ever saw."
Sines' electric bill has plunged since she and her husband, William, installed a photovoltaic system on their roof three months ago. In June the bill totaled just $1.26, compared to about $100 a year earlier.But the Sineses' subsidy may not be available to future solar-power users for long.The state's $3.3-billion solar subsidy program has become so popular that the state utilities are approaching the legal limit for how much power they can buy from customers.
The limit could be reached in parts of northern and central California served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by the end of this year. The state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., are proceeding somewhat more slowly. Eager to keep the program growing, the solar industry is pushing for approval of legislation in Sacramento that would quadruple the amount allowed. The state's for-profit utilities oppose the higher cap in the bill AB 560 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).A key Senate utilities committee vote on the measure is expected this week. Currently, utilities are limited by state law from buying from its customers more than 2.5% of a utility's maximum generating capacity. Skinner's bill would lift the cap to 10%. All three companies oppose Skinner's bill. They do not want lawmakers to raise the limit until next year at the earliest, after the California Public Utilities Commission tallies up the program's costs and benefits.Utilities say they strongly support solar power but want more information about whether it's fair to further increase financial incentives for solar-panel ownership. Such incentives, they point out, would come at the expense of most of the utilities' other customers, who don't want or can't afford to invest in the costly panels."We want to make sure there isn't an unfair level of cost-shifting," said Jennifer Briscoe, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric.Fairness issues were also raised in a report on Skinner's bill by the staff of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which will review the bill this week. The report pointed out that California solar-panel owners already benefit from a variety of subsidies approved in recent years -- even without this "net metering" program, which allows people to sell power to the utilities.Solar power users get a state subsidy of about 20% of the purchase and installation cost and a federal income tax credit of 30%. Adding more incentives could be going too far, the committee staff analysis suggested. The staff report also takes issue with the amount of credit that solar users get when they sell power to the utilities. "By compensating the solar or wind customer at the full retail rate" for energy sold to the grid, "the utility is using ratepayer funds to pay the solar or wind customer at a rate well above the value of the generated power, which is about one-third of the total cost of a typical residential customer's bill," it said. The other two-thirds of the bill covers utilities' fixed expenses for building power plants and transmission lines, buying electricity from independent generators and meeting a variety of state mandates, including the cost of subsidizing low-income customers and solar-power system owners.Supporters of solar-power systems say the net metering program and other subsidies are essential. And many would like to see no caps at all. "Without net metering we're not going to see a lot more people" buy expensive solar systems, said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco advocacy group. "If we hit the net metering cap, the California solar industry grinds to a halt."Caps are an impediment to fully developing solar power's potential and its ability to provide clean energy that can be tapped in urban areas, where it is most needed, during peak demand on hot summer afternoons, Browning said. Eighteen states allow net metering without any caps, he noted.The appeal of lower electric bills appears to be persuading more people to go solar. Legislation, approved in 2007 and known as the Million Solar Roofs program, has spurred the production of solar-generated electricity to rise 78%. That's equivalent to the power generated by a modern power plant, the Public Utilities Commission reported last week. Consumer demand continues to grow despite the recession. Applications for state subsidies hit a record high in May, the commission said.The commission's first solar program assessment recommends raising the net metering cap "to prevent a stall in the solar market," and the commission endorses the Skinner bill. One solar booster is Harry Pope, a retired Edison executive who bought a large system for his Long Beach home after the energy crisis of 2000-01. He said he needs the state's incentives to make his investment pay off."I probably put in $30,000 and got half back. Maybe over 15 years I might achieve total payback," he said. Without people like him, Pope said, the state will have to build more power plants. "I'm preventing the utilities from having to build that next-generation power plant . . . the most expensive power plant you ever saw."
Colorado town's wildfire law called intrusive
Until its trees started dying, the Colorado ski resort town of Breckenridge stayed out of the business of telling residents how to defend their homes against wildfire.But with trees ravaged by a mountain pine beetle epidemic that has left large rust-tinged swaths of forest vulnerable to a catastrophic fire, town officials decided this year they had to act.
Breckenridge, with a population of 3,500, recently passed an ordinance requiring residents to thin vegetation around their homes -- creating "defensible space" in firefighting lingo -- a move authorities say could help stanch a spreading blaze and aid firefighters in protecting homes.But the new law has infuriated many residents, who call it an encroachment on their rights and demand its repeal."This country has always been based on the idea of private property ownership. It's a sacred thing. The town's ordinance pretty well tramples on that," said Ed Nolan, 65, whose home is surrounded by 37 trees that firefighters say should go.
"If cutting these trees saves my life or my wife's life or a firefighter's life, then it's worth it," countered John Quigley, 59, who has hired a crew to thin some of the 185 trees on his land.California long has required residents in wildfire-prone areas to trim vegetation, and Nevada lawmakers recently approved a similar law for homes in the Tahoe Basin, but other Western states have generally skirted such directives, instead employing public education campaigns to coax residents into doing so. In recent years, many Colorado counties began requiring homeowners in new developments to create defensible space before building permits are issued. But there's nothing authorities can do to compel them to maintain the clearance after they receive their permits, said Kevin Klein, director of the Colorado Division of Fire Safety.Breckenridge's tactic could signal a newly aggressive approach, he said, one that other communities may adopt as Colorado grapples with an infestation that has destroyed thousands of acres of trees and that fire officials fear will contribute to a conflagration."It's a pretty dramatic shift from what we've been doing," said Breckenridge Councilman Jeffrey Bergeron.Surrounded by the White River National Forest, Breckenridge for years has focused more on making hillside homes blend in with their environs by encouraging landscaping around homes, Councilman Dave Rossi said.Then came the beetles. When the town passed a law requiring residents to cut down infected trees, Rossi said few residents objected. But fire officials thought such measures weren't enough. Too many homes were surrounded by brush and trees, said Gary Green, chief of the Red, White and Blue Fire District.Some residents regarded the proposal to require defensible space as necessary to protect the community. Relying on volunteers isn't enough, Quigley said. "If you do it and your three adjoining neighbors don't do it, you haven't accomplished anything," he said.But others have objected to the mandate, citing the expense of removing healthy trees and shrubs and lowered property values."I now have trees that protect the master bedroom from a view of road," Nolan said. "I'm going to pay to lessen the value of my property by taking out these trees."Opponents are circulating a petition seeking to compel the council to repeal the ordinance or put the matter on the ballot. They say they've collected more than the 330 signatures needed to qualify such a measure.The opponents also contend there's scant evidence that the town's approach would be effective against a massive blaze, a criticism the fire chief disputes.They have found a sympathetic ear in Rossi, one of two council members who voted against the ordinance.Though Rossi believes residents should trim vegetation, he questions how effective the strategy can be in one town if neighboring communities don't take the same approach."I'm not sure it gets us where we need to be," said Rossi, noting that the town has not taken other important steps, such as requiring fire-resistant roofing materials.But Bergeron, who was among five council members who supported the ordinance, rejects the argument that the town has overstepped its bounds."I sympathize with people who don't want to cut trees. I'm a tree hugger," he said. "But what I don't buy is the argument that the government can't tell me what to do on my property even if it saves lives and the property of my neighbors.".
Breckenridge, with a population of 3,500, recently passed an ordinance requiring residents to thin vegetation around their homes -- creating "defensible space" in firefighting lingo -- a move authorities say could help stanch a spreading blaze and aid firefighters in protecting homes.But the new law has infuriated many residents, who call it an encroachment on their rights and demand its repeal."This country has always been based on the idea of private property ownership. It's a sacred thing. The town's ordinance pretty well tramples on that," said Ed Nolan, 65, whose home is surrounded by 37 trees that firefighters say should go.
"If cutting these trees saves my life or my wife's life or a firefighter's life, then it's worth it," countered John Quigley, 59, who has hired a crew to thin some of the 185 trees on his land.California long has required residents in wildfire-prone areas to trim vegetation, and Nevada lawmakers recently approved a similar law for homes in the Tahoe Basin, but other Western states have generally skirted such directives, instead employing public education campaigns to coax residents into doing so. In recent years, many Colorado counties began requiring homeowners in new developments to create defensible space before building permits are issued. But there's nothing authorities can do to compel them to maintain the clearance after they receive their permits, said Kevin Klein, director of the Colorado Division of Fire Safety.Breckenridge's tactic could signal a newly aggressive approach, he said, one that other communities may adopt as Colorado grapples with an infestation that has destroyed thousands of acres of trees and that fire officials fear will contribute to a conflagration."It's a pretty dramatic shift from what we've been doing," said Breckenridge Councilman Jeffrey Bergeron.Surrounded by the White River National Forest, Breckenridge for years has focused more on making hillside homes blend in with their environs by encouraging landscaping around homes, Councilman Dave Rossi said.Then came the beetles. When the town passed a law requiring residents to cut down infected trees, Rossi said few residents objected. But fire officials thought such measures weren't enough. Too many homes were surrounded by brush and trees, said Gary Green, chief of the Red, White and Blue Fire District.Some residents regarded the proposal to require defensible space as necessary to protect the community. Relying on volunteers isn't enough, Quigley said. "If you do it and your three adjoining neighbors don't do it, you haven't accomplished anything," he said.But others have objected to the mandate, citing the expense of removing healthy trees and shrubs and lowered property values."I now have trees that protect the master bedroom from a view of road," Nolan said. "I'm going to pay to lessen the value of my property by taking out these trees."Opponents are circulating a petition seeking to compel the council to repeal the ordinance or put the matter on the ballot. They say they've collected more than the 330 signatures needed to qualify such a measure.The opponents also contend there's scant evidence that the town's approach would be effective against a massive blaze, a criticism the fire chief disputes.They have found a sympathetic ear in Rossi, one of two council members who voted against the ordinance.Though Rossi believes residents should trim vegetation, he questions how effective the strategy can be in one town if neighboring communities don't take the same approach."I'm not sure it gets us where we need to be," said Rossi, noting that the town has not taken other important steps, such as requiring fire-resistant roofing materials.But Bergeron, who was among five council members who supported the ordinance, rejects the argument that the town has overstepped its bounds."I sympathize with people who don't want to cut trees. I'm a tree hugger," he said. "But what I don't buy is the argument that the government can't tell me what to do on my property even if it saves lives and the property of my neighbors.".
EPA makes move to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding today that six greenhouse gases cause air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The finding also found that emissions from motor vehicles contribute to the concentration of three of those gases, which contributes to climate change.
Air pollution is regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, so this finding is a step toward the EPA implementing regulation of carbon dioxide, which it the primary gas responsible for global warming.
This is a big deal for New Mexico, as the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant in the Four Corners region received an air quality permit from the EPA under the Bush administration, despite protests by the state of New Mexico, environmental organizations and local citizens of the Navajo Nation that the EPA had not considered the impact of carbon dioxide released from the plant into the atmosphere. The the leadership of the greater Navajo Nation itself strongly supports the project.
That air quality permit is currently being appealed by the state of New Mexico.
The six gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
According to the EPA news release, science “clearly shows” that these gases are at unprecedented concentration levels as the result of human emissions, and that these levels are “very likely” the cause of increased climate temperatures.
The finding states that “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
The EPA statement also said science shows a link between climate change and negative effects on human health. These impacts included higher concentrations of ground-level ozone; increased drought; more heavy downpours and flooding; more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires; greater sea level rise; more intense storms; and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
Additionally, the statement said, new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson took into account the disproportionate impact of these impacts on the health of certain groups of people, “…such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.”
The EPA also stated that global warming is a national security issue as resources like water become more scare forcing mass migrations into more stabilized regions.
This announcement results from a review by the Obama administration of the findings from a prior EPA scientific review ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, looking at whether or not greenhouse gases harm the environment. EPA scientists said they did, but the Bush administration suppressed those results, and never acted to regulate the greenhouse gases.
Obama ordered the review shortly after taking office, which was widely expected.
The finding will now be placed in the federal register, and the public has 60 days from that point to provide comments to the EPA. A final rule will be made after that.
Air pollution is regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, so this finding is a step toward the EPA implementing regulation of carbon dioxide, which it the primary gas responsible for global warming.
This is a big deal for New Mexico, as the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant in the Four Corners region received an air quality permit from the EPA under the Bush administration, despite protests by the state of New Mexico, environmental organizations and local citizens of the Navajo Nation that the EPA had not considered the impact of carbon dioxide released from the plant into the atmosphere. The the leadership of the greater Navajo Nation itself strongly supports the project.
That air quality permit is currently being appealed by the state of New Mexico.
The six gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
According to the EPA news release, science “clearly shows” that these gases are at unprecedented concentration levels as the result of human emissions, and that these levels are “very likely” the cause of increased climate temperatures.
The finding states that “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
The EPA statement also said science shows a link between climate change and negative effects on human health. These impacts included higher concentrations of ground-level ozone; increased drought; more heavy downpours and flooding; more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires; greater sea level rise; more intense storms; and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
Additionally, the statement said, new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson took into account the disproportionate impact of these impacts on the health of certain groups of people, “…such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.”
The EPA also stated that global warming is a national security issue as resources like water become more scare forcing mass migrations into more stabilized regions.
This announcement results from a review by the Obama administration of the findings from a prior EPA scientific review ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, looking at whether or not greenhouse gases harm the environment. EPA scientists said they did, but the Bush administration suppressed those results, and never acted to regulate the greenhouse gases.
Obama ordered the review shortly after taking office, which was widely expected.
The finding will now be placed in the federal register, and the public has 60 days from that point to provide comments to the EPA. A final rule will be made after that.
Greenpeace: New Mexico belches more greenhouse gases than 137 countries
According to a report by Greenpeace, New Mexico emitted more global warming pollution from fossil fuel consumption since 1960 than the emissions of 137 of the 184 countries with comprehensive data available.The study looked at each state in the United States compared to the rest of the country. New Mexico had the 11th most per capita carbon emissions from 1960-2005. Wyoming had the most per capita.
In overall emissions, however, New Mexico ranked 19th 33rd among all U.S. states, while Vermont had the least carbon emissions in both counts.
The United States as a whole had 26 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions according to the Greenepeace report. The United States ranked third in per capita carbon dioxide emissions behind just Luxembourg and Estonia.
“Here in New Mexico we are already seeing the effects of climate change on our community,” Greenpeace field organizer Joe Smyth said.
In 2007, New Mexico joined the Western Climate Action Initiative (WCI) along with Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington. The WCI sets a regional global warming emissions reduction goal.
Also, in 2005, New Mexico “established a statewide goal to reduce global warming emissions to 2000 levels by 2012, 10 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, and 75 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.”
“If we want to reduce global warming’s impacts and kick-start a clean energy future we must think not as New Mexicans but as citizens of the world,” Smyth said. “If we let our government get it wrong on global warming, instead of being the planet’s best hope, we will remain its biggest obstacle to progress.”
In overall emissions, however, New Mexico ranked 19th 33rd among all U.S. states, while Vermont had the least carbon emissions in both counts.
The United States as a whole had 26 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions according to the Greenepeace report. The United States ranked third in per capita carbon dioxide emissions behind just Luxembourg and Estonia.
“Here in New Mexico we are already seeing the effects of climate change on our community,” Greenpeace field organizer Joe Smyth said.
In 2007, New Mexico joined the Western Climate Action Initiative (WCI) along with Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington. The WCI sets a regional global warming emissions reduction goal.
Also, in 2005, New Mexico “established a statewide goal to reduce global warming emissions to 2000 levels by 2012, 10 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, and 75 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.”
“If we want to reduce global warming’s impacts and kick-start a clean energy future we must think not as New Mexicans but as citizens of the world,” Smyth said. “If we let our government get it wrong on global warming, instead of being the planet’s best hope, we will remain its biggest obstacle to progress.”
Climate change already changing New Mexico
According to an article in today’s edition of the Albuquerque Journal, a report says that “the effects of human-caused climate change” are already being felt in New Mexico. The effects come in the form of “rising temperatures and dwindling snowpacks.”There looks to be plenty of reason to be concerned. Albuquerque Journal science writer John Fleck tells of some of the effects that man-made climate change will have on New Mexico:
The website for the “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” report says, “Recent warming in the Southwest has been among the most rapid in the nation.”
The effects will be felt not only in areas like the agriculture of our region, but also in the “unique tourism and recreation opportunities.”
“Rising temperatures will adversely affect winter activities such as downhill and cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling,” the Southwest area of the website on the report states.
The website for the “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” report says, “Recent warming in the Southwest has been among the most rapid in the nation.”
The effects will be felt not only in areas like the agriculture of our region, but also in the “unique tourism and recreation opportunities.”
“Rising temperatures will adversely affect winter activities such as downhill and cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling,” the Southwest area of the website on the report states.
Feds allow New Mexico and 13 other states to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency granted a waiver on Tuesday that allows California and 13 other states, including New Mexico, to create regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new automobiles, according the governor’s office late Tuesday afternoon.
Gov. Bill Richardson immediately lauded the development.
“This decision gives us the best of both worlds – it validates the leadership of states like New Mexico that have adopted clean vehicle emission standards while demonstrating strong federal leadership to address transportation-related climate pollution in the future,” the governor said in a news release issued by his office.
The federal government’s reversal is a 180-degree turn away from a Bush administration decision to not let states adopt stiffer vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.
New Mexico has been involved in the fight to regulate vehicle emissions for the past year and a half.
The Land of Enchantment in late 2007 adopted the so-called California clean car emissions standards, meaning that it would impose stricter emission standards than the federal government’s on vehicles sold in New Mexico. A month later, however, in December 2007, the then-EPA administrator denied California the waiver to institute the tougher emission standards. No waiver for California getting meant the other states, including New Mexico, couldn’t adopt the tougher standards either.
New Mexico and other states then sued EPA over the denial.
But President Obama asked EPA to reconsider this decision earlier this year.
Transportation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico, the state has said in the past. The tougher vehicle emission standards would apply to model year 2011 vehicles and beyond.
“By adopting and defending these standards, states like New Mexico have effected federal action on climate change,” New Mexico’s Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry said in the news release issued by the governor’s office. “The greenhouse gas vehicle standard started in the states and is now becoming a national program. I think we will see a similar trend with the passage of an economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction bill in Congress.”
Gov. Bill Richardson immediately lauded the development.
“This decision gives us the best of both worlds – it validates the leadership of states like New Mexico that have adopted clean vehicle emission standards while demonstrating strong federal leadership to address transportation-related climate pollution in the future,” the governor said in a news release issued by his office.
The federal government’s reversal is a 180-degree turn away from a Bush administration decision to not let states adopt stiffer vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.
New Mexico has been involved in the fight to regulate vehicle emissions for the past year and a half.
The Land of Enchantment in late 2007 adopted the so-called California clean car emissions standards, meaning that it would impose stricter emission standards than the federal government’s on vehicles sold in New Mexico. A month later, however, in December 2007, the then-EPA administrator denied California the waiver to institute the tougher emission standards. No waiver for California getting meant the other states, including New Mexico, couldn’t adopt the tougher standards either.
New Mexico and other states then sued EPA over the denial.
But President Obama asked EPA to reconsider this decision earlier this year.
Transportation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico, the state has said in the past. The tougher vehicle emission standards would apply to model year 2011 vehicles and beyond.
“By adopting and defending these standards, states like New Mexico have effected federal action on climate change,” New Mexico’s Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry said in the news release issued by the governor’s office. “The greenhouse gas vehicle standard started in the states and is now becoming a national program. I think we will see a similar trend with the passage of an economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction bill in Congress.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)