The American Farm Bureau Federation today said S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act, leaves no water unregulated in the United States and could even impact standing water from rain in a dry area. The organization signed onto a letter on behalf of the Water Advocacy Coalition to Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) asking them to oppose the legislation.“S. 787 would remove any bounds from the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that the regulatory reach of the act would extend to all water — anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater,” stated the letter. “For the first time in the 36-year history of the act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation.”
According to AFBF, by applying the Clean Water Act to “all interstate and intrastate waters,” farmers and ranchers would be significantly impacted due to the number of normal farming activities that would be subject to citizen-suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, which could lead to outright regulation.
“Not only would many activities not previously regulated require federal permits, those permits would be subject to challenge in federal court, delaying or halting these activities to the detriment of our economy,” stated the letter.
AFBF also believes that by deleting the term “navigable” as a condition for regulation under the Clean Water Act, it would allow for an extraordinary expansion of federal jurisdiction, giving the federal government the right to exert inordinate control over private property, while opening the door for activists to sue landowners whose activities they don’t like.
The coalition letter signed by AFBF stated that the group supports the protection of U.S. navigable waters, as well as rivers and streams that flow to navigable waters. All of these are already protected under the Clean Water Act today.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Green Portland rejects EPA clean water measure
The city of Portland is perhaps the finest ambassador for the Environmental Protection Agency. Nestled in the idyllic Willamette Valley, the Rose City is the shining environmental vanguard, the poster child for sustainable growth and clean energy. So when the EPA asks Portland to take precautionary measures to guarantee safe drinking water, it’s odd that the city refuses to comply.
The federal agency’s directive to remove illness-causing bacteria seems sensible enough; but Portlanders balk at the idea, for obvious reasons: Hazardous microorganisms have yet to be found in water samples, beer-makers may suffer from the altered character (and cost) of the water, and the $350M price-tag seems a bit high, given that Portland’s water source is the cleanest in the country.Paradoxically, the “green capital” of America is now the EPA’s recalcitrant partner. The fiasco illustrates Portland’s inconsistencies: The city emphatically supports the costly initiatives it deems necessary but considers the EPA’s request outlandish.
Why? Because streetcars and net-zero buildings are so much sexier than a water-treatment facility. Evidently, Portland’s burgeoning reputation as a green mecca exempts the city from cumbersome precautions. Portland spends millions of dollars every year on highly visible projects; but according to the City Council, safe drinking water does not warrant that kind of attention.
Stephan Burklin is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
The federal agency’s directive to remove illness-causing bacteria seems sensible enough; but Portlanders balk at the idea, for obvious reasons: Hazardous microorganisms have yet to be found in water samples, beer-makers may suffer from the altered character (and cost) of the water, and the $350M price-tag seems a bit high, given that Portland’s water source is the cleanest in the country.Paradoxically, the “green capital” of America is now the EPA’s recalcitrant partner. The fiasco illustrates Portland’s inconsistencies: The city emphatically supports the costly initiatives it deems necessary but considers the EPA’s request outlandish.
Why? Because streetcars and net-zero buildings are so much sexier than a water-treatment facility. Evidently, Portland’s burgeoning reputation as a green mecca exempts the city from cumbersome precautions. Portland spends millions of dollars every year on highly visible projects; but according to the City Council, safe drinking water does not warrant that kind of attention.
Stephan Burklin is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Green bosses tend to over-comply with environmental rules
Highlights- Environmental pressure has little impact on firm’s environmental decision- Market forces help reduce environmental violations- Smaller firms violate rules more than larger firms- Executive green values can create over-compliance
A business is more likely to “over-comply” with environmental regulations if its senior management believes in protecting the environment and that it makes financial sense in the long term, according to a new study by an economist at Oregon State University. The study, published online in the Journal of Environmental Management and accepted for publication in its print version, examined why some firms violate environmental regulatory standards while others exceed them. It used data from a survey that 689 businesses in Oregon answered. The study’s author, OSU professor JunJie Wu, said the results could be useful to policymakers when developing strategies to reduce environmental violations and encourage firms to do more than regulations require.“The results suggest that a narrow strategy to promote environmental over-compliance may not fare well,” Wu said. “For example, offering technical and financial assistance to reduce compliance costs may be offset if these policies reduce competitive pressures. It’s apparent that policymakers must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and be innovative when designing environmental policies.”
Among key findings of the study:
· Pressures from consumers, investors and interest groups have no statistically significant impact on a firm’s decision to violate or comply with environmental regulations. However, facilities that make products that are sold directly to consumers or offer services directly to them are less likely to violate the regulations.
· Competitive market forces are significant factors in deterring environmental violations. These forces include investing in cleaner products to differentiate them from another company’s, improving environmental performance to keep up with competitors, and being environmentally responsible to reduce employee turnover and increase productivity.
· Costs and risks associated with environmentally friendly practices increase the probability of environmental violations and decrease the likelihood of environmental over-compliance. These costs and risks include high upfront investments, high day-to-day costs, uncertain future benefits, and downtime and delivery interruptions during implementation.
· Smaller firms (ones with annual revenue of no more than $5 million) and publicly traded companies are more likely to violate environmental standards than companies that are bigger and privately owned.
· Upper management’s environmental values were one of the leading factors affecting a firm’s decision about whether to over-comply with environmental standards.
“It’s surprising that management’s attitude toward environmental stewardship plays such a large role,” Wu said. “Historically, economists believe that profit drives business decisions, but we’ve found that management’s attitude affects a firm’s decision about its compliance level. This doesn’t mean, however, that profits don’t play a role.
“It’s also surprising that executives are willing to think beyond next quarter’s earnings and spend money to adopt some environmental policies that might not benefit the company until perhaps much later.”
The study is titled “Environmental Compliance: The Good, the Bad, and the Super Green.” The survey that it was based on questioned firms that employed at least 10 workers and operated in six sectors: food manufacturing, wood product manufacturing, construction of buildings, truck transportation and hotels.
The survey included questions that asked what environmentally friendly practices they had implemented, which factors influenced their environmental management the most, and whether they had been sanctioned for environmental infractions.
The survey also asked them to rate their level of compliance with regulatory standards for water pollution, solid waste, toxic and hazardous waste, and hazardous air emissions. The study considered a facility to be in violation if it did not meet standards in at least one of these areas. It was considered in compliance if it did just enough to meet standards in all four areas. It was over-complying if it did more than the regulation required in at least one area and met standards in all other areas.
A business is more likely to “over-comply” with environmental regulations if its senior management believes in protecting the environment and that it makes financial sense in the long term, according to a new study by an economist at Oregon State University. The study, published online in the Journal of Environmental Management and accepted for publication in its print version, examined why some firms violate environmental regulatory standards while others exceed them. It used data from a survey that 689 businesses in Oregon answered. The study’s author, OSU professor JunJie Wu, said the results could be useful to policymakers when developing strategies to reduce environmental violations and encourage firms to do more than regulations require.“The results suggest that a narrow strategy to promote environmental over-compliance may not fare well,” Wu said. “For example, offering technical and financial assistance to reduce compliance costs may be offset if these policies reduce competitive pressures. It’s apparent that policymakers must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and be innovative when designing environmental policies.”
Among key findings of the study:
· Pressures from consumers, investors and interest groups have no statistically significant impact on a firm’s decision to violate or comply with environmental regulations. However, facilities that make products that are sold directly to consumers or offer services directly to them are less likely to violate the regulations.
· Competitive market forces are significant factors in deterring environmental violations. These forces include investing in cleaner products to differentiate them from another company’s, improving environmental performance to keep up with competitors, and being environmentally responsible to reduce employee turnover and increase productivity.
· Costs and risks associated with environmentally friendly practices increase the probability of environmental violations and decrease the likelihood of environmental over-compliance. These costs and risks include high upfront investments, high day-to-day costs, uncertain future benefits, and downtime and delivery interruptions during implementation.
· Smaller firms (ones with annual revenue of no more than $5 million) and publicly traded companies are more likely to violate environmental standards than companies that are bigger and privately owned.
· Upper management’s environmental values were one of the leading factors affecting a firm’s decision about whether to over-comply with environmental standards.
“It’s surprising that management’s attitude toward environmental stewardship plays such a large role,” Wu said. “Historically, economists believe that profit drives business decisions, but we’ve found that management’s attitude affects a firm’s decision about its compliance level. This doesn’t mean, however, that profits don’t play a role.
“It’s also surprising that executives are willing to think beyond next quarter’s earnings and spend money to adopt some environmental policies that might not benefit the company until perhaps much later.”
The study is titled “Environmental Compliance: The Good, the Bad, and the Super Green.” The survey that it was based on questioned firms that employed at least 10 workers and operated in six sectors: food manufacturing, wood product manufacturing, construction of buildings, truck transportation and hotels.
The survey included questions that asked what environmentally friendly practices they had implemented, which factors influenced their environmental management the most, and whether they had been sanctioned for environmental infractions.
The survey also asked them to rate their level of compliance with regulatory standards for water pollution, solid waste, toxic and hazardous waste, and hazardous air emissions. The study considered a facility to be in violation if it did not meet standards in at least one of these areas. It was considered in compliance if it did just enough to meet standards in all four areas. It was over-complying if it did more than the regulation required in at least one area and met standards in all other areas.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Arctic is warmest in 2 millennia
"The Arctic is experiencing its warmest temperatures in 2,000 years, even though it should be cooling because of changes in the Earth's orbit that cause the region to get less direct sunlight
If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," says Bette Otto-Bliesner of National Center for Atmospheric, USA and co-author of a study of Arctic temperatures published in the journal Science.
The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell S. Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University, USA.
Summer temperatures in the Arctic averaged 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected if the cooling had continued, the researchers says.
It is the latest in a drumbeat of reports on warming conditions in the Arctic, including:
—A marine scientist reports that Alaskan waters are turning acidic from absorbing greenhouse gases faster than tropical waters, potentially endangering the state's 4.6 billion dollars fishing industry.
—NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area; it is thinning dramatically. The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008.
—Global warming effects in Alaska also include shrinking glaciers, coastal erosion and the march north of destructive forest beetles formerly held in check by cold winters.
And as land-based ice melts, such as the massive Greenland ice cap, sea levels could rise across the world, to threaten millions who live in coastal cities.
In addition as the Arctic warms there is less snow and ice to reflect solar energy back into space and the newly exposed dark soil and dark ocean surfaces absorb solar energy and warm further, accelerating the warming process.
The Arctic cooling had been the result of a 21,000-year cycle in the Earth's movement that caused the far north to get progressively less summertime energy from the sun for the last 8,000 years. That process will not be reversed for another several thousand years.
If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," says Bette Otto-Bliesner of National Center for Atmospheric, USA and co-author of a study of Arctic temperatures published in the journal Science.
The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell S. Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University, USA.
Summer temperatures in the Arctic averaged 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected if the cooling had continued, the researchers says.
It is the latest in a drumbeat of reports on warming conditions in the Arctic, including:
—A marine scientist reports that Alaskan waters are turning acidic from absorbing greenhouse gases faster than tropical waters, potentially endangering the state's 4.6 billion dollars fishing industry.
—NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area; it is thinning dramatically. The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008.
—Global warming effects in Alaska also include shrinking glaciers, coastal erosion and the march north of destructive forest beetles formerly held in check by cold winters.
And as land-based ice melts, such as the massive Greenland ice cap, sea levels could rise across the world, to threaten millions who live in coastal cities.
In addition as the Arctic warms there is less snow and ice to reflect solar energy back into space and the newly exposed dark soil and dark ocean surfaces absorb solar energy and warm further, accelerating the warming process.
The Arctic cooling had been the result of a 21,000-year cycle in the Earth's movement that caused the far north to get progressively less summertime energy from the sun for the last 8,000 years. That process will not be reversed for another several thousand years.
Finance ministers' report puts pressure on major developing countries
Ahead of the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, USA, by the end of this month, ministers of finance from the world’s largest economies are meeting in London today. According to The Times of India, an overview paper from the G-20 secretariat has “ignored India’s submissions and demanded that (India) impose carbon taxation and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.”
The daily quotes an anonymous “senior Indian official”:
“Despite strong opposition from key developing countries, including India, the G-20 secretariat has sent this overview which more or less mimics the base papers we had rejected as not representative of the views and concerns of all G-20 member countries.”
The G-20 climate change finance report under preparation, originates from the Major Economies Forum (MEF) held in Italy in the beginning of July this year. Here India signed a statement which calls for global warming to be kept below 2 degrees C compared to pre-industrial levels. India has since insisted that MEF discussions are informal and do not relate to the formal discussions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
The daily quotes an anonymous “senior Indian official”:
“Despite strong opposition from key developing countries, including India, the G-20 secretariat has sent this overview which more or less mimics the base papers we had rejected as not representative of the views and concerns of all G-20 member countries.”
The G-20 climate change finance report under preparation, originates from the Major Economies Forum (MEF) held in Italy in the beginning of July this year. Here India signed a statement which calls for global warming to be kept below 2 degrees C compared to pre-industrial levels. India has since insisted that MEF discussions are informal and do not relate to the formal discussions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
India could be climate deal maker
India will be a “potential deal maker” at the upcoming UN conference on climate change this December, Ed Miliband, UK Climate Change Secretary, tells The Guardian:
“India has very stretching targets on solar energy, on renewable energy (…) it has big ambitions on energy efficiency (…) I think India wants to be a deal maker not a deal breaker in Copenhagen.”
The British minister’s hopes would probably be further encouraged by official statements in an Indian newspaper this week.
“We are (…) hoping to curb ten percent of the current level of emissions by 2012 and attract foreign investment worth 16 billion US dollars through over 1,000 greenhouse gas mitigation projects,” Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh tells The Economic Times (of India).
According to the newspaper, India wants to play a key role in getting agreement especially on three issues in Copenhagen: Forestry for mitigating climate change effects, Clean Development Mechanism and technology cooperation.
“India has very stretching targets on solar energy, on renewable energy (…) it has big ambitions on energy efficiency (…) I think India wants to be a deal maker not a deal breaker in Copenhagen.”
The British minister’s hopes would probably be further encouraged by official statements in an Indian newspaper this week.
“We are (…) hoping to curb ten percent of the current level of emissions by 2012 and attract foreign investment worth 16 billion US dollars through over 1,000 greenhouse gas mitigation projects,” Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh tells The Economic Times (of India).
According to the newspaper, India wants to play a key role in getting agreement especially on three issues in Copenhagen: Forestry for mitigating climate change effects, Clean Development Mechanism and technology cooperation.
Switzerland commits to a 20 percent CO2 cut
Yesterday, the Swiss government committed to cut its carbon emissions by at least 20 percent from its 1990 levels by 2020. According to Reuters, the Swiss proposal is almost identical with a proposal by the European Union – of which it is not a member. The cut is larger than the average cuts planned by industrialized nations of between 10 and 14 percent. However, the proposal is not as comprehensive as the demands of a public referendum proposal for a cut of at least 30 percent, Reuters reports. "By adopting such weak climate targets, the Swiss government ignores scientific facts and refuses to take its responsibilities in the struggle against climate change," says Alexander Hauri, who leads Greenpeace Switzerland's climate campaign, according to AFP. In 2007, a UN panel of climate experts recommended cuts of between 25 and 40 percent by 2020 to avoid the worst of global warming in order to prevent dangerous effects of climate change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)