The U.S. is expected to finally throw its hat into the ring of international cooperation during July's G8 summit in Japan, according to ... hey, what do you know, the White House. And we aren't talking about "unnamed sources" or speculation. None other than the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, James L. Connaughton, has been talking to the press about America's newfound willingness to cooperate.
The assistant to President Bush for International Economic Affair, Daniel Price, said point-blank that the U.S. is prepared to accept "binding international obligations." Connaughton is also trying to clarify the Administration's seemingly 180 degree change in position by explaining that it was mistaken in its tactic of focusing negotiations on what they weren't willing to do, which overshadowed the fact that they were willing to negotiate- really!
Pick your chin up off the floor, because there are strings attached, of course.
Price stressed that the U.S. is only committing to mandates as long as it is a global affair, meaning developing countries like India (currently the #5 largest GHG emitter) and China (who is either tied or has surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter) will be forced to reduce their emissions as well. Bush had previously refused to sign on to Kyoto because only industrialized nations are required to reduce their emissions, while poorer countries were allowed to emit away.
The Exxon Valdez, the tanker responsible for the worst oil spill in American history, has come back into the news this week, as the Supreme Court finally decides the price that Exxon will pay for ruining the fishing industry in Alaska. But it will likely surprise you to know that the Valdez spill was actually only the 34th largest oil spill in history.
These ten oil spills, all massively larger than the Exxon Valdez, were all smaller new stories, either because the ships were offshore, or dropped their toxic loads in less developed parts of the world. The Valdez spilled 10 million gallons off the coast of Alaska, the smallest spill in the top ten was four times larger.
Kuwait - 1991 - 520 million gallons
Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean.
Mexico - 1980 - 100 million gallons An accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year.
Trinidad and Tobago - 1979 - 90 million During a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship, and lost nearly its entire cargo.
Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallons A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired.
Persian Gulf - 1983 - 80 million gallons A tanker collided with a drilling platform which, eventually, collapsed into the sea. The well continued to spill oil into the ocean for seven months before it was repaired.
South Africa - 1983 - 79 million gallons A tanker cought fire and was abandoned before sinking 25 miles off the coast of Saldanha Bay.
France - 1978 - 69 million gallons A tanker's rudder was broken in a severe storm, despite several ships responding to its distress call, the ship ran aground and broke in two. It's entire payload was dumped into the English Channel.
Angola - 1991 - more than 51 million gallons The tanker expolded, exact quantity of spill unknown
Italy - 1991 - 45 million gallons The tanker exploded and sank off the coast of Italy and continued leaking it's oil into the ocean for 12 years.
Odyssey Oil Spill - 1988 - 40 million gallons
700 nautical miles off the cost of Nova Scotia.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a disaster, but so were the 33 oil spills that were, in fact, worse. Spills have slowed down in recent years, due to advances in logistics and tanker hulls. There are no longer any new single-hulled tankers being built...but there are still plenty that haven't yet been decommissioned.
But as long as we're dependent on the stuff, there will be accidents, as there were three in 2007 alone, one of over 3 million gallons of oil.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that California must seek federal approval for stringent new controls on sulfur emissions from oceangoing ships that enter the state's waters, following a suit filed by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.
The new rules ban vessels from burning bunker fuel, an environmentally dirty high-sulfur fuel, within 24 miles of the California coast. The PMSA objects not to the regulation, despite the higher cost of low-sulfur diesel, but to the creation of a de facto national standard independent of federal involvement, and the resultant “patchwork” of regulations.
For its part, California's State Attorney General Jerry Brown asserts that applying to the EPA is onerous due to its bureaucratic inertia and because the agency is “lax” in its enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
Whatever the outcome, this definitely represents another challenge by Calfornia to the EPA's primary authority to set air pollution regulations. It's a conflict that may end up costing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson his job, if Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gets her way – and, while it started with a waiver to reduce CO2 emissions from California vehicles, who knows where it might end?
Hard to tell whether this is an admission of their own ineffectiveness or an act of good will toward the private sector, but the Energy Department is going to give a few renewable energy start-ups access to their really nice labs and match them with venture capital firms.
It's probably a combination of both, but it still sounds like a good idea to us. DOE officials said yesterday that they've chosen the three VC firms who will sponsor and choose participants in the new Entrepreneur in Residence program.
The program is aimed at accelerating the commercialization of technologies that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Three DOE labs -- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory -- will host one startup at a time and contribute up to $100,000 for research. The venture capital firms will match that figure and negotiate a license to use the technology.
"It's really a Silicon Valley idea - it's kind of alien to the federal government," said Andy Karsner, who heads the Energy Department's renewable power and efficiency programs.
According to DOE, the lucky entrepreneurs will conduct technology assessments, evaluate market opportunities and formulate preliminary business cases. No word on when the VC firms will select the first participants in the pilot program.
Americans hate taxes. Why else would McCain, Clinton and Obama all have tax-cuts as part of their presidential platforms? But the House of Representatives won't have to worry about backlash from their constituents for repealing tax breaks -- and few Americans will be shedding a tear for the prosperous oil industry -- after lawmakers voted yesterday to repeal billions in subsidies
The bill passed easily, 236-182, likely aided by record high prices, as oil hit $102 per barrel yesterday. The legislation revoked subsidies for oil companies, worth over $18 billion over 10 years, and instead allocated that money to extend renewable energy tax credits that are set to expire this year, and offer new credits for energy efficient changes made to homes, plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, and fund renewable energy bonds to fund clean energy investments by rural electric co-ops.
House Republicans and the White House bristled over this unfair treatment of the oil industry, claiming it will reduce their incentive to look for new oil and gas deposits in the U.S. Looking out for your best interest, Republicans also claimed that consumers would have to pay even more at the pump. The reality is that the repealed subsidies will cost the 5 biggest oil companies 2 percent of their revenue, and even if they try and pass that on to the consumer, it won't cost us more than one penny per gallon.
Anyway, the GOP ought to go check their notes, since two years ago, back when oil was only $55 a gallon, President Bush said that subsidies for oil and gas exploration were no longer necessary.
In an eloquent defense of the wronged, Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) said the bill, "Punishes the oil and gas industry. This is wrongheaded. It's spiteful and wrong."
The bill is expected to face tougher opposition in the Senate, where it had previously fell one vote short of the 60 votes needed to block a fillabuster, so leaders will wait until after the March 4 primaries to introduce the legislation.
For those of you who have never been bored/drunk enough or obligated by academic assignment to take part in a review of federal documents before, here is a quick primer.
1. Read document looking for inconsistencies/missing information.
2. In a *constructive* manner, point out said failings and how they should be remedied.
3. Sit back and bask in the glow of civic duty fulfilled, which one typically only feels after voting or making a citizen's arrest.
Don't be intimidated. The report is surprisingly easy to read, with most of the prose no more sophisticated than: "A rise in sea level implies that land that is now barely above sea level will end up below sea level if no shore protection measures are taken to prevent it from being submerged."
And there are lots of colorful pictures throughout.
The report does discuss important issues, such as deciding which coastal areas are most worthwhile to protect, how sea-level rise will affect your ability to go to the beach, and institutional barriers keeping governments from taking proactive steps to address sea-level rise.
But, please, keep your comments concise, as the office has previously been criticized for taking too long to get these reports out of draft status and available to decision makers. And we want this report publicized before the east coast is already underwater.
Alaskans who were born the year that the Exxon Valdez slammed into a reef in Prince William Sound have now graduated from high school, but that doesn't mean lawyers have finished fighting about it all. It has, however, finally reached the highest court in the land.
One month before the 19th anniversary of the infamous oil spill, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning over whether the $2.5 billion award of punitive damages to victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster is too high.
We were a bit stunned to hear that ExxonMobil, the world's largest company by revenue ($404.5 billion for FY 2007), is still fighting this. We're even more stunned to learn that the company has argued it should pay no more than $25 million in punitive damages, or about $2.25 for each of the 11 million gallons of crude oil that spilled into the sound.
Granted, the company already has paid about $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs and other expenses resulting from the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Then again, they also hired a drinking alcoholic to take the helm of a supertanker.
The attorney for ExxonMobil told justices today that under the principles of maritime law, ship owners cannot be hit with punitive damages for the actions of their ship captains. You might not have heard of the Amiable Nancy case cited as precedent, because it was argued in 1818.
But a lawyer for the 33,000 commercial fishermen and business owners harmed by the spill said the company repeatedly overlooked reports that Captain Joseph Hazelwood had a drinking problem.
Court observers said it was unclear who the justices appeared to side with during the 90-minute hearing. But because Justice Samuel Alito owns ExxonMobil stock and has recused himself from the case, we could be looking at a tie. And a split decision would favor the plaintiffs.
If ExxonMobil is forced to pay the full award, plus more than $2 billion in accrued interest, it would be the largest-ever punitive damage payment.
Hopefully this doesn't take another 19 years to work itself out.
At this time last year, most in the know assumed California would be granted its application for a waiver to impose a 30 percent reduction on CO2 emissions from vehicles in the state? After all, it had special status under the Clean Air Act that allowed officials to impose stricter regulations, thanks to the state's astoundingly poor air quality.
Filed way back in 2005, it took several lawsuits and appearances before Congressional committees to explain why the EPA took so long to reach a decision. The Supreme Court even got involved, ruling last year that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, removing the final roadblock in EPA's path to grant the waiver. Before the ruling ever came out, leaked documents showed EPA had determined that "there is no legal or technical justification for denying the waiver.
But you know what happens when you assume -- you make an ass out of you and California.
Getting in under the wire of its promise to have the issue resolved by the end of 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson came out on December 19, 2007 and denied California's request. In an odd coincidence, Johnson made his decision the same day President Bush signed new CAFE standards into law, because what's the point of having a 36 mpg CAFE in 2016, when you can wait until 2020 for 35mpg?
Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is convinced the White House is responsible for pressuring Johnson into his denial -- and in a move that is sure to please Ranking Member James "Global Warming is the Greatest Hoax Ever" Inhofe -- has promised to investigate Johnson's decision.
Nearly a million people in South Florida lost power this afternoon, a blackout that officials are blaming on a substation failure that subsequently caused both nuclear reactors at Florida Power & Electric's Turkey Point plant to go offline.
Perhaps most notable is that the outage knocked out all but four of Miami-Dade County's 2,670 traffic lights, leading to -- and we're just guessing here -- 2,666 scenes like the above photo from the Miami Herald.
The failure occurred early this afternoon and knocked out power to customers north of Miami on both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The "significant equipment failure" at the substation triggered the automatic shutdown of both nearby nuclear reactors.
According to the AFP, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in a statement it was "monitoring the widespread power outages in Florida" and looking into possible violations of federal rules as it consulted with other US agencies. By late this afternoon, power had been restored for the majority of Floridians.
Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.
So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.
