On bright days, the rooftop of the Anaheim Hilton is so blindingly white that it looks like a mirror positioned directly at the sun. That dazzling glare might just be the greenest thing to happen to the top of a building since solar panels.The white coating deflects nearly 85% of the heat that hits it, reducing the surface temperature by as much as 50 degrees. That means less energy is needed to cool the hotel's interior, cutting air-conditioning costs and carbon emissions.
This is no ordinary coat of paint. Designed by an 82-year-old former military scientist from the Inland Empire, the tinted topcoat is filled with tiny hollow glass balls that deflect heat, layered over a waterproof undercoat made of recycled rubber.The Hilton spent more than $150,000 on the project, which was completed in March. That's $300,000 less than the cost of a conventional repair to the old, leaky roof, said Jerome Annaloro, director of property operations at the hotel. If the reflective material cuts utility costs this summer the way management anticipates it will, Annaloro said, he will recommend white roofs for the entire Hilton chain."I was skeptical at first . . . but the product spoke for itself," he said. "It's a win-win."
Americans spend about $40 billion a year to cool buildings, according to U.S. government figures. So-called cool roofs are being touted as a simple, inexpensive way of lowering surface temperatures on the tops of structures by as much as 100 degrees, cutting operating costs and slowing climate change.Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, recently called for all roofs to be painted white to promote saving energy. Some scientists suggest that covering dark tar roofs with light-colored coatings could help mitigate the "urban heat island" effect. Development has raised temperatures markedly in many cities, leading to more energy use and smog as well as greater numbers of deaths during heat waves, experts said.But it will take more than the Hilton to make a dent."To change an entire city and save energy all the way around, you need to get to a critical mass," said Scot Horst, senior vice president of the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system. "One or two buildings doesn't make that big of a difference."Mass implementation of cool roofs in the 100 largest cities would offset 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions, or the equivalent of taking 600 million cars off the road for 18 years, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found last year. Some cities, including Chicago, already have ordinances that require light-colored roofs.Skeptics say white roofs aren't always the eco-friendly panacea they're sometimes made out to be. The reflective component is most effective in sun-saturated regions like the Southwest. And it could lead to higher heating bills in the winter because the sun's warmth can't permeate the roof.Still, the niche is booming. The Energy Department and U.S. Green Building Council are pushing cool roofs to consumers and developers. Entrepreneurs are developing a host of new products using metal, ceramic tile, reflective paints and coatings and even rooftop gardens to beat the heat. Among them is Ronald R. Savin of Rancho Mirage, a serial inventor and holder of nearly 20 patents, who developed the paint atop the Anaheim Hilton.An engineer and retired Air Force colonel who spent much of his military career creating coatings for spacecraft and airplanes, Savin started his own paint company in 1957 and later sold it to a British conglomerate. He slowed down a bit when he reached his 70s, spending more time collecting first-edition books and ornate clocks and less time tinkering.Then, three years ago, he saw a program on the History Channel about recycled rubber. Inspired, he returned to his lab and spent six months experimenting before making a breakthrough on a new paint.His Hyperglass top coat is designed like a Rice Krispies treat. Glass "microspheres," which are used to lighten airplane parts and bowling balls, are suspended in a paint that includes Teflon. The whiter the titanium dioxide tint, the more heat bounces off.Underneath, his Hyperflex primer serves as an insulation layer that also helps prevent water damage and erosion. And because it uses powdered recycled rubber, it helps address another thorny environmental issue: the millions of tires discarded annually in the U.S.The paint could spawn "such a violent change in the paint industry that they won't know what to do," Savin said.Hyperseal paints are free of harmful volatile organic compounds known as VOCs and are relatively cheap to produce, but the company's Palm Desert factory can make only 5 million gallons a year. Most large projects, such as bridges, require several hundred million gallons, Savin said. So he's looking to license his formula to other companies.He'll have plenty of competition. Big players including Sherwin-Williams Co. and Benjamin Moore & Co. are also debuting eco-friendly paints.Still, Savin's product is winning a following. In addition to the Hilton and the roofs of dozens of homes, the rubberized undercoat now covers a large swath of pavement outside a Palm Desert Wal-Mart.He also hopes to expand the use of the paint to other structures such as shipping cargo containers and dams to prevent rust.Rancho Mirage resident David Baron credits Hyperseal paint with helping him cut his $2,500-a-month summer electricity bill by more than half. Living without air conditioning in 110-degree heat just wasn't an option."I gave it a shot because I was looking for anything to help," said Baron, who spent $10,000 to cover the roof of his 5,600-square-foot house. "We're talking huge energy savings. This will pay for itself in a year or two."It's those kind of stories that keep the octogenarian Savin going. He claims to sometimes test new batches at 3 a.m. His house is beset with swipes of paint -- on the rusted gate, on labeled bricks by the pool. The mulch around an outdoor fountain consists of recycled rubber chunks.His laundry room is a makeshift lab, where paint spackles the washer and dryer and rubber blackens the sink. Even the parking lot at the 15,000-square-foot factory is checkered with paint."He ran out of room at his own house," said Loch Jones, Hyperseal Inc.'s director of marketing. "If you're a friend of the colonel's, watch your driveway."
Thursday, July 16, 2009
EPA to develop rule to ensure hardrock miners will pay for environmental cleanup
The Environmental Protection Agency, complying with a court order, will develop a rule to guarantee companies that mine everything from copper to uranium will pay for needed environmental cleanup, not taxpayers.The announcement on Monday comes in the wake of a federal judge's order in February requiring the EPA to close loopholes that allow some companies to get out of paying for such costly cleanups when they file bankruptcy
The agency said it will develop similar financial responsibility requirements for other types of operations but started with hardrock mining because of the size of the operations, the amount of waste and the number of mining sites on its Superfund's national priorities list.The EPA did not release specifics on how it will establish financial assurance requirements but said it will propose the rule by spring 2011. An e-mail message asking the agency for more details was not answered.The National Mining Association trade group said the industry already is regulated by other state and federal laws establishing financial responsibility for cleanup.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored critical facts and used inappropriate data in singling out U.S. hardrock mining for financial assurance requirements under Superfund," association CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement.The EPA's announcement came a day before a Senate hearing on proposed changes to a 137-year-old hardrock mining law that would bolster environmental restrictions and implement royalties.Under the existing law, private companies haven't paid royalties to taxpayers for an estimated $245 billion worth of minerals extracted from public lands in more than a century. It also allows companies to buy public land for as little as $2.50 an acre.In 2008, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sued the EPA, arguing it failed to establish financial responsibility mandates as required under the Superfund act.Among the cases they cited were 94 Superfund sites in 21 states operated by Asarco, which filed bankruptcy in 2005; the Smoky Canyon Mine in southeastern Idaho, and a molybdenum mine near Questa, N.M.Earthjustice Attorney Jan Hasselman, who handled the lawsuit, called the EPA's decision "an important first step."
The agency said it will develop similar financial responsibility requirements for other types of operations but started with hardrock mining because of the size of the operations, the amount of waste and the number of mining sites on its Superfund's national priorities list.The EPA did not release specifics on how it will establish financial assurance requirements but said it will propose the rule by spring 2011. An e-mail message asking the agency for more details was not answered.The National Mining Association trade group said the industry already is regulated by other state and federal laws establishing financial responsibility for cleanup.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored critical facts and used inappropriate data in singling out U.S. hardrock mining for financial assurance requirements under Superfund," association CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement.The EPA's announcement came a day before a Senate hearing on proposed changes to a 137-year-old hardrock mining law that would bolster environmental restrictions and implement royalties.Under the existing law, private companies haven't paid royalties to taxpayers for an estimated $245 billion worth of minerals extracted from public lands in more than a century. It also allows companies to buy public land for as little as $2.50 an acre.In 2008, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sued the EPA, arguing it failed to establish financial responsibility mandates as required under the Superfund act.Among the cases they cited were 94 Superfund sites in 21 states operated by Asarco, which filed bankruptcy in 2005; the Smoky Canyon Mine in southeastern Idaho, and a molybdenum mine near Questa, N.M.Earthjustice Attorney Jan Hasselman, who handled the lawsuit, called the EPA's decision "an important first step."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
India's obese population up by 70m
Seventy million Indians have been re-classified as overweight or obese, after a lowering of obesity thresholds by a diabetes research organisations based here.
This threshold has been lowered for India as South Asian people are more liable than their white counterparts to develop obesity-linked conditions like Type 2 (T-2) diabetes and heart disease. “We know that T-2 diabetes, which is linked to being overweight, is up to six times more common in South Asian people than the white population,” said Pav Kalsi, care adviser at Diabetes-UK. Standards used worldwide to tell when someone is overweight or obese are based on data from white people. These state that people with a body mass index
(BMI) of 25 or more are overweight and obese if it goes above 30. BMI is calculated using weight and height. In India those limits have been lowered to 23 for being overweight and 25 for being obese, to reflect the risks to the population. Indians also have lower thresholds for waist circumference measurements.
This threshold has been lowered for India as South Asian people are more liable than their white counterparts to develop obesity-linked conditions like Type 2 (T-2) diabetes and heart disease. “We know that T-2 diabetes, which is linked to being overweight, is up to six times more common in South Asian people than the white population,” said Pav Kalsi, care adviser at Diabetes-UK. Standards used worldwide to tell when someone is overweight or obese are based on data from white people. These state that people with a body mass index
(BMI) of 25 or more are overweight and obese if it goes above 30. BMI is calculated using weight and height. In India those limits have been lowered to 23 for being overweight and 25 for being obese, to reflect the risks to the population. Indians also have lower thresholds for waist circumference measurements.
Variation in monsoon not due to climate change: Ramesh
Climate model studies has shown no significant impact on change in the mean onset of monsoon in the country, government said.
The long-term mean onset date of monsoon in India is 1st June, with a standard deviation of about 8 days," Environment minister Jairam Ramesh informed Rajya Sabha. "However, year to year variations in the onset or the propagation are part of the natural variability and cannot be attributed to climate change," he said. He however, added that "the government is aware of the challenges posed by climate change and has taken steps in this regard," Ramesh said the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which was released on 30th June last year outlines steps that will enable the country to adapt to climate change and enhance the ecological sustainability of India's development path. Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) in Pune is a dedicated centre for climate change research set up to undertake focused research on the science aspects of climate change, the minister added.
The long-term mean onset date of monsoon in India is 1st June, with a standard deviation of about 8 days," Environment minister Jairam Ramesh informed Rajya Sabha. "However, year to year variations in the onset or the propagation are part of the natural variability and cannot be attributed to climate change," he said. He however, added that "the government is aware of the challenges posed by climate change and has taken steps in this regard," Ramesh said the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which was released on 30th June last year outlines steps that will enable the country to adapt to climate change and enhance the ecological sustainability of India's development path. Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) in Pune is a dedicated centre for climate change research set up to undertake focused research on the science aspects of climate change, the minister added.
Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55m years ago
A runaway spurt of global warming
55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said.
Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius in just a few thousand years. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C, or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out, as this could shed light on aspects of global warming. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -- natural, as opposed to man-made -- were disgorged in a very short time. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now, the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming, says the paper. After the big warm-up, the planet eventually cooled around 100,000 years later, but not before there had been a mass extinction, paving the way to the biodiversity that is familiar to us today.
55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said.
Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius in just a few thousand years. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C, or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out, as this could shed light on aspects of global warming. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -- natural, as opposed to man-made -- were disgorged in a very short time. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now, the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming, says the paper. After the big warm-up, the planet eventually cooled around 100,000 years later, but not before there had been a mass extinction, paving the way to the biodiversity that is familiar to us today.
Negotiators slam India's climate flip at Italy forum
India's endorsement of the climate declaration at the Major Economies Forum in Italy has split its top climate negotiators. In a strong dissent, one of negotiators called Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs signing on to the statement a body blow to everything that we( the indian officials) have fought for.
In his letter to the government, the negotiator, a senior government official, said "India's poor will pay the price for this political declaration". He added, "Irrespective of the positive spin we might give, the honest truth is that the document boxes India in an extremely weak corner. I feel broken and let down. I hope I am wrong and I am afraid to be proven right." The communication lays it bare that the statement had taken the negotiators by surprise and can potentially set off the stage for huge uproar. The clause in the MEF statement that rise in global temperatures be capped at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels has been interpreted as indirectly foisting emission caps on India ^ something that the country doggedly refused to do on the ground that it would hinder its development. Now the fear has been endorsed by at least one of the negotiators on government records. The negotiators for climate talks under UN and other forums are drawn from various government bodies and are all high-level officials. The PM's special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, is the chief negotiator for India. At the MEF, he and another officer from the foreign ministry represented India. While Saran, in a letter to the negotiators, defended the PM's signing of the statement and said it did not compromise the Indian position, the dissenting negotiator and other observers TOI talked to have assessed the situation differently. The negotiator said the political declaration in Italy would "seriously restrict" India's development. As TOI had reported earlier, till weeks before the Italy meeting, India had stuck to its guns and refused to budge under tremendous pressure from UK and the Obama regime as well as other industrialized countries to be party to the pledge to keep global temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial level. India had claimed that the science behind the 2-degree target was yet uncertain and, importantly, it implied emission cuts on India through the backdoor. Refusing to acquiesce, it also argued that the rich nations first declare how much of the burden of reducing emissions they were willing to take in the short and long run. But at the Italy meet, India shifted its goal posts and agreed to the 2-degree and several other contentious clauses that it earlier considered non-negotiable. While the MEF statement was a mere political one in nature and not binding on the ongoing UN negotiations, observers feel that having joined the advocacy for temperature cap and other clauses, India may find it difficult to stick to its earlier stance. It will reduce India's bargaining position at the climate table even in an optimistic scenario. In the statement, the developed countries had disregarded India's demand that they agree to take "strong and quantifiable" emission targets running upto 2020. In another letter, the negotiator explained why the MEF statement would 'box India into a corner' and militates against the country's long-standing demand that the climate negotiations be held on the principle that each person of the world has an equal right to the atmosphere. He said, "The declaration in Italy would allow Indian emissions to peak at about 3 tonnes per capita (of carbon dioxide)." An average US citizen already emits 20 tonnes per capita and a UK citizen 10 tonnes per capita. China, other observers note would be able to get away as it is already at 6 tonnes per person and would be able to reach up to the developed world average of 10 tonnes per capita by the time emission caps kick in. Emissions in the developed world have grown in absolute and per capita terms right up to 2007 and would have grown higher if not for one off incidents like the failure of Eastern European economies. He warns that the only equitable solution to climate change in one that guarantees development space to every citizen at an acceptable level of well-being. This he points is enshrined even in the existing UN convention on climate change that rich countries are signatories to but now want to override with ploys like the MEF. He said that the rich countries had made no concession by the "aspirational goal" of bringing down their emission levels to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050. Assuming that they lived up to the pledge, it would still allow them to continue to occupy more 'carbon space' in decades to come compared to other developing nations. Under an equitable deal, he points out, that countries holding 'atmospheric space' in excess of their allocation would pay their climate debt - the full costs of emission reductions of other developing countries which are forced to act because the rich nations didn't do enough. But he avers that by agreeing to the ideas in the MEF statement India gives up its right to the atmospheric space without gaining either the finance or the technology in adequate levels to compensate it.
In his letter to the government, the negotiator, a senior government official, said "India's poor will pay the price for this political declaration". He added, "Irrespective of the positive spin we might give, the honest truth is that the document boxes India in an extremely weak corner. I feel broken and let down. I hope I am wrong and I am afraid to be proven right." The communication lays it bare that the statement had taken the negotiators by surprise and can potentially set off the stage for huge uproar. The clause in the MEF statement that rise in global temperatures be capped at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels has been interpreted as indirectly foisting emission caps on India ^ something that the country doggedly refused to do on the ground that it would hinder its development. Now the fear has been endorsed by at least one of the negotiators on government records. The negotiators for climate talks under UN and other forums are drawn from various government bodies and are all high-level officials. The PM's special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, is the chief negotiator for India. At the MEF, he and another officer from the foreign ministry represented India. While Saran, in a letter to the negotiators, defended the PM's signing of the statement and said it did not compromise the Indian position, the dissenting negotiator and other observers TOI talked to have assessed the situation differently. The negotiator said the political declaration in Italy would "seriously restrict" India's development. As TOI had reported earlier, till weeks before the Italy meeting, India had stuck to its guns and refused to budge under tremendous pressure from UK and the Obama regime as well as other industrialized countries to be party to the pledge to keep global temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial level. India had claimed that the science behind the 2-degree target was yet uncertain and, importantly, it implied emission cuts on India through the backdoor. Refusing to acquiesce, it also argued that the rich nations first declare how much of the burden of reducing emissions they were willing to take in the short and long run. But at the Italy meet, India shifted its goal posts and agreed to the 2-degree and several other contentious clauses that it earlier considered non-negotiable. While the MEF statement was a mere political one in nature and not binding on the ongoing UN negotiations, observers feel that having joined the advocacy for temperature cap and other clauses, India may find it difficult to stick to its earlier stance. It will reduce India's bargaining position at the climate table even in an optimistic scenario. In the statement, the developed countries had disregarded India's demand that they agree to take "strong and quantifiable" emission targets running upto 2020. In another letter, the negotiator explained why the MEF statement would 'box India into a corner' and militates against the country's long-standing demand that the climate negotiations be held on the principle that each person of the world has an equal right to the atmosphere. He said, "The declaration in Italy would allow Indian emissions to peak at about 3 tonnes per capita (of carbon dioxide)." An average US citizen already emits 20 tonnes per capita and a UK citizen 10 tonnes per capita. China, other observers note would be able to get away as it is already at 6 tonnes per person and would be able to reach up to the developed world average of 10 tonnes per capita by the time emission caps kick in. Emissions in the developed world have grown in absolute and per capita terms right up to 2007 and would have grown higher if not for one off incidents like the failure of Eastern European economies. He warns that the only equitable solution to climate change in one that guarantees development space to every citizen at an acceptable level of well-being. This he points is enshrined even in the existing UN convention on climate change that rich countries are signatories to but now want to override with ploys like the MEF. He said that the rich countries had made no concession by the "aspirational goal" of bringing down their emission levels to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050. Assuming that they lived up to the pledge, it would still allow them to continue to occupy more 'carbon space' in decades to come compared to other developing nations. Under an equitable deal, he points out, that countries holding 'atmospheric space' in excess of their allocation would pay their climate debt - the full costs of emission reductions of other developing countries which are forced to act because the rich nations didn't do enough. But he avers that by agreeing to the ideas in the MEF statement India gives up its right to the atmospheric space without gaining either the finance or the technology in adequate levels to compensate it.
Sen. Boxer Courts Farmers to Seek 'Rare Opportunity' for Climate Bill
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) vowed yesterday to include a major role for agriculture in her climate bill despite mounting criticism from some farm groups and Republicans.
At a hearing on the opportunities for agriculture in the climate bill, Boxer indicated she has no intention of stepping down as she fought back against critics of the bill. The powerful Senate chairwoman, who noted that she represents the top farm producing state, also tried to strike down any notion that the costs of the bill might be too high for agriculture.
(pdf)
"If we do nothing and argue over this to the point of stalling everything, the farmers in my state will be desperate, as they see more droughts and more warming," Boxer said. "This is a rare time, we have the confluence of a recession that is deep and global and the issue of climate change -- it creates an exceptional opportunity, if we can just get over our fearmongering and get over the naysayers."
Her remarks came as Republicans on the EPW Committee and the president of one of the largest farm lobbies, the American Farm Bureau Federation, criticized the House cap-and-trade bill (H.R. 2454), which Boxer has said will be her starting point for the Senate legislation.
"I have strong concerns about whether this legislation will in the end result in higher costs for farmers," said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). "But I would like to find a win-win situation for everyone."
Farm interests are likely to be a major factor in the Senate debate. Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said he wants the Senate to include all of the farm-friendly provisions that were in the House bill. His panel will hold a hearing on the issue next week, with testimony from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the Farm Bureau and other farm groups that support cap-and-trade legislation.
The Farm Bureau and GOP lawmakers on Boxer's committee yesterday listed the potential harm to the rural economy among their grievances against the bill. Boxer also shot back at some high-profile criticism from retiring Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who joined the climate debate yesterday by blasting the cap-and-trade proposal as "an enormous threat to our economy." Boxer said such critiques are to be expected with such a wide-ranging bill.
"I would just tell the American people to take a look at history," said Boxer. "Every single time we've moved forward to go after pollution, the naysayers have been wrong about their predicted costs, about the gloom and doom, and we have in fact led the way."
As Boxer searches for the elusive 60 votes she will need to pass the bill, she said that everyone will have to compromise in order to craft a bill that could pass in the Senate.
"I am going to have to walk away from some things I believe should be in the bill," Boxer said.
'This could transform agriculture'
Farm groups are divided on the bill. The National Farmer's Union, an influential left-leaning group, supported the House measure, along with farmland conservation groups, such as the American Farmland Trust. But the proposal has met opposition from the Farm Bureau and some major commodity groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council.
Supporters of the bill say it could provide tremendous opportunities to rural landowners. The House-passed bill would allow regulated industries that cannot meet greenhouse gas reductions at the smokestack to buy offset credits by investing in green energy or greenhouse gas reduction projects. The provision could significantly reduce compliance costs for some industries.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, use new technology to feed livestock, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil.
The offsets could pose some challenges in the Senate bill, as some environmental groups have begun to question whether these projects will measurable reduce carbon dioxide overall. But most groups insist some form of offsets will be vital for the bill to gain political traction and work on the ground.
"An effective climate solution must include offsets," Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, told the panel yesterday. "I know the topic of carbon offsets can be controversial and advocates all have very strong opinions. But the climate program we all want just doesn't work without these things."
Krupp added: "These [offsets] aren't just important cost-saving devices, these are vital."
Democratic panel members indicated yesterday they want to include a robust offset system, so long as it has environmental checks.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
But the potential profit to farmers from offsets is still not enough to win over the Farm Bureau, Stallman said yesterday. He said that not every type of farmer in every region will be able to participate. Meanwhile, his group is concerned the bill will lead to higher energy and fertilizer costs for farmers.
"Every farmer has production costs to meet, and we know our costs will rise and the concern is for our livelihood," Stallman said.
William Hohenstein, director of the Agriculture Department's global change program, agreed that the agriculture sector will face higher energy and input costs due to their reliance on products that are included under the cap. But he said the bill could provide "significant economic opportunities."
H.R. 2454 includes a billion-ton limit on the use of domestic greenhouse gas offsets. The offsets would likely go toward a wide-range of activities, but Hohenstein said it would be roughly the equivalent to planting 170 million acres of trees or switching to no-till farming on 1.5 billion acres of cropland -- three times the total cropland in the United States.
"What I am trying to say is that this thing is really significant," Hohenstein told reporters after the hearing. "This could transform agriculture, and to do that we will have to engage tens of thousands of acres of land."
Boxer said she will keep promoting those opportunities for agriculture -- which she thinks should far outweigh some of the potential problems the farm sector could face from environmental changes resulting from higher temperatures.
"We need to factor in the cost of doing nothing -- I think if we can get over the mindset of 'no,' we can do something," Boxer said.
At a hearing on the opportunities for agriculture in the climate bill, Boxer indicated she has no intention of stepping down as she fought back against critics of the bill. The powerful Senate chairwoman, who noted that she represents the top farm producing state, also tried to strike down any notion that the costs of the bill might be too high for agriculture.
(pdf)
"If we do nothing and argue over this to the point of stalling everything, the farmers in my state will be desperate, as they see more droughts and more warming," Boxer said. "This is a rare time, we have the confluence of a recession that is deep and global and the issue of climate change -- it creates an exceptional opportunity, if we can just get over our fearmongering and get over the naysayers."
Her remarks came as Republicans on the EPW Committee and the president of one of the largest farm lobbies, the American Farm Bureau Federation, criticized the House cap-and-trade bill (H.R. 2454), which Boxer has said will be her starting point for the Senate legislation.
"I have strong concerns about whether this legislation will in the end result in higher costs for farmers," said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). "But I would like to find a win-win situation for everyone."
Farm interests are likely to be a major factor in the Senate debate. Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said he wants the Senate to include all of the farm-friendly provisions that were in the House bill. His panel will hold a hearing on the issue next week, with testimony from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the Farm Bureau and other farm groups that support cap-and-trade legislation.
The Farm Bureau and GOP lawmakers on Boxer's committee yesterday listed the potential harm to the rural economy among their grievances against the bill. Boxer also shot back at some high-profile criticism from retiring Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who joined the climate debate yesterday by blasting the cap-and-trade proposal as "an enormous threat to our economy." Boxer said such critiques are to be expected with such a wide-ranging bill.
"I would just tell the American people to take a look at history," said Boxer. "Every single time we've moved forward to go after pollution, the naysayers have been wrong about their predicted costs, about the gloom and doom, and we have in fact led the way."
As Boxer searches for the elusive 60 votes she will need to pass the bill, she said that everyone will have to compromise in order to craft a bill that could pass in the Senate.
"I am going to have to walk away from some things I believe should be in the bill," Boxer said.
'This could transform agriculture'
Farm groups are divided on the bill. The National Farmer's Union, an influential left-leaning group, supported the House measure, along with farmland conservation groups, such as the American Farmland Trust. But the proposal has met opposition from the Farm Bureau and some major commodity groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council.
Supporters of the bill say it could provide tremendous opportunities to rural landowners. The House-passed bill would allow regulated industries that cannot meet greenhouse gas reductions at the smokestack to buy offset credits by investing in green energy or greenhouse gas reduction projects. The provision could significantly reduce compliance costs for some industries.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, use new technology to feed livestock, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil.
The offsets could pose some challenges in the Senate bill, as some environmental groups have begun to question whether these projects will measurable reduce carbon dioxide overall. But most groups insist some form of offsets will be vital for the bill to gain political traction and work on the ground.
"An effective climate solution must include offsets," Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, told the panel yesterday. "I know the topic of carbon offsets can be controversial and advocates all have very strong opinions. But the climate program we all want just doesn't work without these things."
Krupp added: "These [offsets] aren't just important cost-saving devices, these are vital."
Democratic panel members indicated yesterday they want to include a robust offset system, so long as it has environmental checks.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
But the potential profit to farmers from offsets is still not enough to win over the Farm Bureau, Stallman said yesterday. He said that not every type of farmer in every region will be able to participate. Meanwhile, his group is concerned the bill will lead to higher energy and fertilizer costs for farmers.
"Every farmer has production costs to meet, and we know our costs will rise and the concern is for our livelihood," Stallman said.
William Hohenstein, director of the Agriculture Department's global change program, agreed that the agriculture sector will face higher energy and input costs due to their reliance on products that are included under the cap. But he said the bill could provide "significant economic opportunities."
H.R. 2454 includes a billion-ton limit on the use of domestic greenhouse gas offsets. The offsets would likely go toward a wide-range of activities, but Hohenstein said it would be roughly the equivalent to planting 170 million acres of trees or switching to no-till farming on 1.5 billion acres of cropland -- three times the total cropland in the United States.
"What I am trying to say is that this thing is really significant," Hohenstein told reporters after the hearing. "This could transform agriculture, and to do that we will have to engage tens of thousands of acres of land."
Boxer said she will keep promoting those opportunities for agriculture -- which she thinks should far outweigh some of the potential problems the farm sector could face from environmental changes resulting from higher temperatures.
"We need to factor in the cost of doing nothing -- I think if we can get over the mindset of 'no,' we can do something," Boxer said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)