Tag Archives: epa

Trump will outline his “thoughts” on energy policy. Here’s what he could say.

by KaleyDevereaux Posted on May 25, 2016

Trump will outline his “thoughts” on energy policy. Here’s what he could say.

By and on May 25, 2016Share

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump will speak at the Williston Basin Petroleum conference in Bismarck, N.D., on Thursday, where he’ll emit puffs of carbon dioxide allegedly on the topic of energy policy. In preparation for the speech, Trump has been chatting with energy adviser Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and he’s presumably studying up on OPEC and energy regulations, too.

We’ve collected some of the real estate developer’s past comments on climate and energy to give you some idea of what to expect to hear on Thursday:

On the basic science of climate change: “I am not a great believer in man-made climate change,” Trump told the Washington Post editorial board in March. “If you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming.”

A panel of scientists ranked all of the then-presidential candidates’ public remarks on climate for the Associated Press last November. Trump got 15 points — out of 100.

On climate vs. weather: When it was “really cold outside” last October, Trump tweeted that we “could use a big fat dose of global warming!”

On the kind of climate change he is worried about: “I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons.” Interpretation: unclear.

On negotiating with OPEC: “We need one thing: brainpower,” Trump said in an interview with CNN in 2011. Oil prices “will go down if you say it properly,” he added. He also wouldn’t have minded strolling into Libya that year: “I would take the oil,” he said.

On coal: “I want clean coal, and we’re going to have clean coal and we’re going to have plenty of it,” Trump said earlier this month. “We’re going to have great, clean coal. We’re going to have an amazing mining business.”

“The miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week, Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me,” he said.

(Trump endorser and coal executive Bob Murray disagrees).

On gas prices: “I will cap gas prices at $1 per gallon,” Trump told reporters in South Carolina in February. “Plus, I will take all of ISIS’s oil. I bet gas prices will be 50 cents in much of the country under my presidency.”

On liquefied natural gas: “What’s LNG?”

On the Environmental Protection Agency: “We’re going to get rid of so many different things,” Trump said in a February debate. “Environmental protection — we waste all of this money. We’re going to bring that back to the states.” But only if he can figure out what the EPA is. Trump said he would eliminate some agency called “Department of Environmental. I mean, the DEP is killing us environmentally, it’s just killing our businesses.”

On clean energy:

On clean energy when campaigning in clean energy-heavy states: Trump told an Iowa voter that he’s OK with wind subsidies. “It’s an amazing thing when you think — you know, where they can, out of nowhere, out of the wind, they make energy.”

On the Paris climate accord signed by 175 countries: “One of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it.”

On his hair: “You have showers where I can’t wash my hair properly, it’s a disaster!” Thanks to the EPA, Trump told a crowd in December, showerheads “have restrictors put in. The problem is you stay under the shower for five times as long.”

On his hair and the ozone layer: “Wait a minute — so if I take hairspray and if I spray it in my apartment, which is all sealed, you’re telling me that affects the ozone layer?’” Trump asked a Charleston audience in May. “I say, no way, folks. No way!”

This post was originally published May 3, 2016. It has been edited and updated. 

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Original article:  

Trump will outline his “thoughts” on energy policy. Here’s what he could say.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Prepara, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump will outline his “thoughts” on energy policy. Here’s what he could say.

Here’s what Obama’s new methane rule won’t cover

by SelmaGuercio13 Posted on May 13, 2016

Here’s what Obama’s new methane rule won’t cover

By on May 13, 2016 4:44 amShare

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency released its final regulations aimed at cutting methane emissions from new oil and gas infrastructure built after 2015. But as impressive as they sound on paper, the rule doesn’t answer the tough question: What is the United States doing about all the methane emissions from its existing infrastructure?

Between the new rule and a related set of 2012 regulations, EPA has suggested that we are currently on course for a 20 to 30 percent cut in methane emissions by 2025. However, the Obama administration has promised a 40 to 45 percent cut by that year, meaning more action is needed.

Thursday’s regulations only cover new and modified wells, and Environmental Defense Fund research suggests that by 2018, nearly 90 percent of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector will come from sources that existed before 2012.

As for these sources, EPA has issued a request that will “require oil and natural gas companies to provide extensive information needed to develop regulations” targeting emissions from existing infrastructure. Those regulations, however, likely won’t begin development until the next administration cozies up in the White House. (And depending on the administration, may never be developed at all!)

In the grand scheme of U.S. emissions, methane makes up about 11 percent of our greenhouse gases, and about one-third of that figure is from oil and gas. This is where the existing infrastructure starts to feel a little more pressing: If we take the EDF’s projection at face value, that means that the new rule will only address the sources of less than 1 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Ignoring other greenhouse gases, even the methane front alone looks a little dismal. The United States has around 3 million abandoned wells, many of which are probably leaking the gas. The natural gas sector already loses about 1 to 3 percent of its product (which is mostly methane) due to leakage.

The regulations also neglect the agricultural sector, which accounts for about 9 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emissions from agriculture increased 11 percent between 1990 and 2014, largely because of a 54 percent spike in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock manure management systems. Globally, agriculture is the largest source of emitted methane. EPA is currently barred from requiring livestock producers to report their emissions.

The EPA regulations do represent a step forward for curbing emissions — as well as for slashing emissions of smog precursors known as volatile organic compounds — but they’re by no means the one-size-fits-all plug for our methane leaks.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original source – 

Here’s what Obama’s new methane rule won’t cover

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s what Obama’s new methane rule won’t cover

Earth Week Daily Action: Change 5 Light Bulbs to LEDs

by p555nf Posted on April 18, 2016

One of the simplest steps you can take during Earth Week is to change out some lightbulbs. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends you switch out bulbs in the 5 lights you use the most. Usually, that means the lights in the kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom and on your porch.

Until recently, EPA mostly recommended that you shift from incandescents to compact fluorescents, or CFLS. CFLS are much more efficient than old-fashioned incandescents, but the downside is that they contain a minuscule amount of mercury. The only way this would be a problem would be if you broke one of the bulbs, and even then, vacuuming up the debris minimizes the risk (and you’re exposed to far more mercury inthe pollution that comes from coal-fired power plants).

Still, with LEDs, there’s no mercury involved. Plus LEDs last much longer than CFLs. That’s because LEDs don’t actually burn out or fail. Instead,they experience something called “lumen depreciation,” in which the amount of light produced decreases over time. Fortunately, this time period can be ten years or more. This is particularly advantageous for bulbs in hard-to-reach places like ceiling lights.

Another benefit of LEDs is that they don’t radiate heat the way incandescents or halogen bulbs do. In fact, about 90 percent of the energy an incandescent bulb uses is radiated in heat, which is one of the reasons why it’s so wasteful.

How to Buy the Right LEDs

Most lighting fixtures can easily use an LED in place of an incandescent. However, if you’re planning to use an LED in a fixture that operates on a dimmer switch, make sure to choose an LED designed specifically for dimmers.

Keep in mind you’re purchasing a bulb based on its lumens, not its watts. Most packages will give you the lumen equivalent so you can get the right amount of lighting to meet your needs. For example, if you want to replace a 60-watt incandescent, you’d buy a bulb that generates between 500 and 800 lumens and would only use 8-12 watts. Consumer Reports offers a good guide to choosing the right LED here.

You’ll also want to choose your light depending on whether you want bright light that is more like daylight, or “soft” or warm light, which is yellowish, like an incandescent.

One strong recommendation is to purchase LED bulbs and lights that are ENERGY STAR certified. ENERGY STAR sets standards to ensure that manufacturers produce products of high quality and performance, with long-term testing to evaluate the products over time and in ways that are similar to how you would use them.

Be prepared to pay a little more for LEDs upfront. The package will tell you how much money you will save on your electricity bill over timeusually it’s many times the cost of the bulb.

Some utility companies offer rebates to help their customers pay for the bulbs. Ace Hardware stores often send out coupons that discount LED purchases. If you have a home energy audit done, the auditors may install LEDs as well.

RELATED
CFL vs. LED: What’s the Best Lightbulb Type?
What to Look for When You Make the Switch to LEDs

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

This article is from – 

Earth Week Daily Action: Change 5 Light Bulbs to LEDs

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Earth Week Daily Action: Change 5 Light Bulbs to LEDs

There’s Only One Presidential Candidate Who Wants to Ban Fracking

by VicenteSommers Posted on January 29, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared in The New Republic and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

There isn’t much daylight these days between the Democratic candidates on the environment. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley all agree that humans are responsible for climate change and that it’s one of the world’s most pressing problems. To that end, they support clean energy tax breaks, reject drilling offshore and in the Arctic, and oppose the (now-rejected) Keystone XL pipeline.

But there’s one environmental issue where Sanders truly stands apart: He wants to ban hydraulic fracturing outright. Clinton and O’Malley have proposed lesser measures, and show no sign of going further. That’s an indication of just how radical Sanders’s stance really is, but it also raises an important question: Is a fracking ban remotely plausible?

Read More: How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World

There used to be more daylight between the candidates, especially Sanders and Clinton. The Vermont senator has long called for “a political revolution that takes on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerates our transition to clean energy, and finally puts people before the profits of polluters”—and he’s taken early, decisive stances in support of many of the environmental movement’s top demands before he ever launched his presidential campaign.

Clinton has followed Sanders’ lead to the left. She came out against the Keystone XL pipeline just months before President Barack Obama rejected it. She knocked the dangers of Arctic drilling last August, as Shell faced increasing scrutiny and abandoned its exploratory drilling just one month later. And she opposed Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal on the grounds it would hurt American jobs and wages, but the move earned her points with green groups who opposed the deal for other reasons. That’s not an exhaustive list of every issue environmentalists care about, but it was enough to earn the Clinton campaign an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters.

Sanders took these very same positions long before the launch of his campaign, a green radicalism that Clinton has somewhat diluted. But a fracking ban remains safely his issue. Whether that’s an advantage or disadvantage is another question entirely.

Fracking, in which a chemical cocktail is injected deep underground to extract oil and natural gas, is a controversial drilling method—and not just among environmentalists. A growing body of evidence links the process to contaminated water and earthquakes, and methane—which is leaked during natural gas extraction, shipment, and storage—is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon.

But fracking, which has been an economic boon and is considered by many to be a solution to America’s energy crisis, is one of the few areas of consensus among establishment Democrats and Republicans.

Sanders, meanwhile, wants to halt the practice nationwide, a stance he’s taken since at least 2014, when Vermont banned the approach. “I’m very proud that the state of Vermont banned fracking,” he said at the time. “I hope communities all over California, and all over America do the same.” He renewed his call for a ban after the recent methane leak at a natural gas storage facility in Porter Ranch, Los Angeles. It’s unclear just what role fracking itself played in the leak, but Sanders has said it “appears fracking of nearby wells could have contributed to this disaster. It is yet another reason why I have called for a ban on all fracking.” Sanders calls the leak “one more tragic cautionary tale in our dependence on oil and gas.”

Many in the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama included, support fracking nonetheless, saying it’s a cleaner-burning fuel than coal or oil, and that it’s possible to safely frack and control potent methane emissions. O’Malley, who contests he has the strongest climate change platform, affirmed his support for fracking in an Iowa campaign stop over the weekend. “Whether or not natural gas is a bridge to a cleaner energy future depends on whether or not we have a national policy to move us to that cleaner future,” O’Malley said. “And I think that a big part of it is having much higher standards in place for protecting the air and the land and the water in the course of the extraction that’s already going on in our country.”

Hillary Clinton’s policy on fracking is more complicated. According to a 2014 Mother Jones investigation, Clinton’s State Department helped “US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas” by encouraging developing nations to embrace fracking. Clinton has suggested looking at how much the government charges companies to drill on federal lands, and proposed in September to revise regulations on methane leaks with better safety precautions like improving leak detection standards and requiring automatic shut-off valves. But she hasn’t said much more than that. A spokesperson did not return a request for comment or clarification about her position.

Is it even possible to ban fracking nationwide? In short, no—not without Congress. The House and Senate would have to approve a tax on greenhouse gas emissions or to amend the “Halliburton loophole.” Passed in 2005 in the Energy Policy Act, the loophole exempted fracking fluids from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which otherwise would regulate how contaminants are injected underground. (In 2013, Sanders proposed a Climate Protection Act to repeal the loophole.)

However, the president has the power to set strict standards for leasing federal lands for fossil fuel development, and Sanders has proposed ending all federal leases to oil, gas, and coal companies. Still, federal lands produce just 11 percent of the country’s natural gas. Under Sanders, the Environmental Protection Agency could also exercise its regulatory authority against fracking companies. For instance, the Halliburton loophole does not cover the Clean Water Act, so companies could be fined if they’re found to be polluting drinking water.

Under President Barack Obama, the EPA has been slow to investigate fracking. An agency report last year found no “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,” a conclusion that was later criticized by the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board panel as being inconsistent with the data. So, if nothing else, Sanders could push for a more thorough investigation of the drilling practice. But that’s a far cry from banning it entirely—and calling for “a bolder EPA” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

Read original article: 

There’s Only One Presidential Candidate Who Wants to Ban Fracking

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There’s Only One Presidential Candidate Who Wants to Ban Fracking

January is Radon Action Month. Here’s What You Need to Know.

by AdrianYqwwp Posted on January 15, 2016

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that can cause lung cancer. You can’t see it or smell it,which is why the U.S. EPA and other organizations encourage people to be on the lookout for it.

January is Radon Action Month, which makes it a perfect time to find out if your home is contaminated with radon. If so, there are several ways you can fix the problem.

Health Impacts of Radon

Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. Although lung cancer can be treated, only between 11 and 15 percent of those afflicted with this horrible disease will live beyond five years. Smoking and secondhand smoke also cause lung cancer, but radon isthe second leading cause. It’s responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. The U.S. Surgeon General issued this national health advisory on radon to encourage people to get their homes tested if they have any reason to believe it could be contaminated.

Where is Radon Found?

Radon comes from the natural radioactive breakdown of uranium in soil, rock and water. It also can get into the air you breathe. Because it is a gas, it can easily get into buildings, including your home.

How Do You Know if Your House has a Radon Problem?

The only way to know for sure if you and your family are at risk from radon is to test for it. The EPA and the U.S. Surgeon General recommend testing all homes below the third floor for radon. EPA also recommends testing in schools.

How Can You Test For Radon?

Use a test kit or find a qualified radon measurement professional to do the test. The National Radon Program Services at Kansas State University offers discounted test kits for purchase online. The cost between $15 and $25 and will test for radon over both the short and long-term. Alternatively, you may be able to find a test kit at your local home improvement or hardware store.

If you need to bring in a professional, you can use EPA’s Map of Radon Zones to find links to your state’s radon program, if one exists, or EPA’s regional contacts, which should be able to help you get in touch with the right contractors.

What If You Find a Radon Problem?

According to EPA, you will need to fix or mitigate the radon problem in your home if, through testing, you find that your radon level is confirmed to be 4 picocuries per liter, pCi/L, or higher. EPA says radon levels less than that amount still pose a risk, so you might want to err on the side of caution and still take steps to reduce radon in your home. If you smoke and your home has high radon levels, you are at a significant risk for developing lung cancer.

To fix the problem, work with a qualified radon mitigation contractor. Before you start, you probably should get estimates from at least two contractors. In its handy Consumer’s Guide to Radon Reduction: How to Fix Your Home, EPA provides a very useful checklist that will help you do a good job securing a contractor and supervising the work.

How the problem is ultimately fixed will depend on the kind of home you have and what the problem is. Some techniques prevent radon from entering your home; others reduce radon levels after it has entered. It’s generally best to prevent radon from getting in, perhaps by suctioning it out of your home or the soil surrounding your home and venting it to the open air, where it will dissipate. If you have a crawlspace under your home, the solution may be to cover the soil below with high density plastic, then suction the radon emanating from the soil below the plastic and send it out into the air.

Sealing cracks and other openings in your home’s foundation may also help prevent radon from entering. Increasing ventilation in the spaces that contain radon will also help, though it’s not generally a permanent solution.

Generally speaking, if your home has a basement or a crawl space, you should probably have it tested for radon. Again, the test is not expensive but the consequences can be extreme if the problem is ignored. Even new homes built with radon-resistant features should be tested after occupancy to ensure that radon levels are low.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

See the original article here:

January is Radon Action Month. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on January is Radon Action Month. Here’s What You Need to Know.

This Bee-Killing Pesticide Is Terrible at Protecting Crops

by RFDPenny790770 Posted on January 15, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In 2011, agrichemical giants Monsanto and Bayer CropScience joined forces to sell soybean seeds coated with (among other things) an insecticide of the neonicotinoid family. Neonics are so-called systematic pesticides—when the coated seeds sprout and grow, the resulting plants take up the bug-killing chemical, making them poisonous to crop-chomping pests like aphids. Monsanto rivals Syngenta and DuPont also market neonic-treated soybean seeds.

These products—buoyed by claims that the chemical protects soybean crops from early-season insect pests—have enjoyed great success in the marketplace. Soybeans are the second-most-planted US crop, covering about a quarter of US farmland—and at least a third of US soybean acres are grown with neonic-treated seeds. But two problems haunt this highly lucrative market: 1) The neonic soybean seeds might not do much at all to fight off pests, and 2) they appear to be harming bees and may also hurt other pollinators, birds, butterflies, and water-borne invertebrates.

Doubts about neonic-treated soybean seeds’ effectiveness aren’t new. In 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency released a blunt preliminary report finding that “neonicotinoid seed treatments likely provide $0 in benefits” to soybean growers. But the agrichemical industry likes to portray the EPA as an overzealous regulator that relies on questionable data, and it quickly issued a report vigorously disagreeing with the EPA’s assessment.

Now the seed/agrichemical giants will have to open a new front in their battle to convince farmers to continue paying up for neonic-treated soybean seeds. In a recent publication directed to farmers, a coalition of the nation’s most important Midwestern ag-research universities—Iowa State, Kansas State, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, North Dakota State, Michigan State, the University of Minnesota, the University of Missouri, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, South Dakota State, and the University of Wisconsin—argued plainly that “for typical field situations, independent research demonstrates that neonicotinoid seed treatments for soybeans do not provide a consistent return on investment.”

The reason is that neonic-treated soybeans wield the great bulk of their bug-killing power for the first three weeks after the seeds sprout; the major pest that attacks soybean plants, the aphid, doesn’t arrive until much later, when the soybean plants are full-grown. “In other words,” the report states, aphid populations “increase to threshold levels weeks after the short window that neonicotinoid seed treatments protect plants.”

And not only are neonics useless against soybeans’ major field pest, aphids; they may actually boost the fortunes of another important one, the slug, which is “emerging as a key pest” in the soybean belt, according to the report. Pointing to a 2015 study from Penn State researchers, the report notes that slugs aren’t affected by neonics, so they can gobble neonic-treated soy sprouts at will, accumulating the chemical. But when insects called the ground beetle—which has a taste for slugs but not soybean plants—eat the neonic-containing slugs, they tend to die. So slugs transfer the poison from the crops to their natural predator, the ground beetle, and throw the predator balance out of whack, allowing slugs to proliferate. As a result, the Penn State researchers found, neonic seed treatments actually reduce yields in slug-infested fields.

Of course, the most celebrated “non-target” insect potentially affected by neonics is the honeybee. As I reported last week, the EPA recently released an assessment finding that one particular neonic that’s widely used on soybean seeds, imidacloprid, likely harms individual bees and whole bee colonies at levels commonly found in farm fields. That’s because plants from neonic-treated seeds don’t just carry the poison in their leaves and stalks; they also deliver it in bee-attracting nectar and pollen.

While cotton is the imidacloprid-treated crop most likely to hit bees hard, soybeans, too, may pose a threat, the EPA found. The agency couldn’t say for sure, because data on how much of the pesticide shows up in soybeans’ pollen and nectar are “unavailable,” both from Bayer and from independent researchers.

That information gap may be cold comfort for beekeepers, but the agrichemical industry will no doubt seize upon it to argue that its blockbuster chemical is harmless to bees. The rest of us can savor the bitter irony that this widely used pesticide may be more effective at slaying beneficial pollinators than it is at halting crop-chomping pests.

Visit site: 

This Bee-Killing Pesticide Is Terrible at Protecting Crops

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, Green Light, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Sprout, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Bee-Killing Pesticide Is Terrible at Protecting Crops

Time to Lead By Example

by Posted on November 18, 2015

back

Time to Lead By Example

Posted 18 November 2015 in

National

President Obama has said that the U.S. needs to lead by example on climate change. But now, he faces a critical decision.

The Renewable Fuel Standard is the most successful climate policy on the books. It has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

But the EPA’s proposal on the Renewable Fuel Standard would insert a waiver that could allow the oil industry to avoid blending low carbon fuel if they so choose. Because oil companies control most of the nation’s gas stations, the proposed waiver would amount to the oil industry deciding the fate of the RFS.

It’s also the same loophole that Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Senate’s most notorious climate denier, tried to get into the law in 2005. Oil companies cannot be allowed to dispute RFS blending requirements based on problems of their own creation.

Our country needs a strong RFS. The RFS has reduced U.S. carbon emissions by 589.33 million metric tons, the equivalent of removing 124 million cars from the road. The EPA’s proposed rules would effectively put 7.3 million cars back on the road in one year alone.

Mr. President, if you intend to keep your promise to the companies that joined your American Business Act on Climate Pledge, the only way to do that is to reverse your disastrous proposal on the RFS and commit to renewable fuel.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
View original post here: 

Time to Lead By Example

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Time to Lead By Example

A Big Week for the RFS

by Posted on September 16, 2015

back

A Big Week for the RFS

Posted 16 September 2015 in

National

Earlier this week, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack both expressed support for the Renewable Fuel Standard at the annual Growth Energy fly-in. Biofuels industry leaders followed up with a letter to President Obama, urging him to support a strong RFS.

McCarthy told attendees that “The biofuel industry is the great American success story,” and that “the EPA is are working hard to make sure we are moving towards the [RFS] levels intended by Congress.” Secretary Vilsack also offered praise for the RFS and encouraged the industry to promote more positive news about ethanol.

Find more coverage of the conference here and here.

In their letter, industry leaders reminded the President that the EPA’s draft proposal endangers the progress our country has made toward bringing cellulosic ethanol, the cleanest motor fuel the world has ever known, to market.

“Mr. President, the ramifications of your decision on this issue are substantial for America’s largest renewable energy sector. If the final rule includes distribution waivers, the global market signal will be that your Administration is backing away from its support of the most transformative U.S. energy and climate policy on the books today; and one that is widely regarded to be the best cellulosic and advanced biofuels policy in the world. While our companies will not fail to deploy advanced biofuels, we will continue to be forced to look overseas where renewable fuel policies are more stable.”

Read the full letter here.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Taken from:

A Big Week for the RFS

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Big Week for the RFS

If the EPA relaxes deadlines for CO2 cuts, will the U.S. still be able to keep its climate promises?

by EusebiaBailey Posted on July 29, 2015

If the EPA relaxes deadlines for CO2 cuts, will the U.S. still be able to keep its climate promises?

By on 29 Jul 2015 3:53 pmcommentsShare

Like pigeons to bread crumbs, climate hawks have been pecking for final details on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Now, in what is perhaps slightly more loaf than crumb, there’s some actual news: Sources familiar with the plan report that the timeline for its implementation will likely be extended.

The plan, which is expected to be finalized next week, will require CO2 emission cuts from coal-fired power plants and will allow states to craft their own strategies for reaching specific emissions targets. The original proposal, released last June, asked for states to begin making cuts by 2020. Sources now suggest the date will be pushed out to 2022. States are also expected to be given an extra year, up from 2017 to 2018, to submit their action plans.

The extended timeline could give rise to a potential problem: The United States just told the U.N. that it would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025. Which is pretty soon — especially if states have longer to curb their power plant emissions. The Clean Power Plan is a major mechanism for hitting the target the U.S. submitted to the U.N., so the more time states have to draw up and adhere to new standards, the more difficult it could be for the country to follow through on its pledge.

The U.S.’s commitment, submitted in advance of the climate negotiations that will take place in Paris this December, is regarded as ambitious but achievable by those familiar with the lay of the emissions landscape. Referred to in climate negotiation parlance as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the U.S.’s emissions target is one of 22 pledges (of varying degrees of ambition) put forth by countries around the world and the European Union. Success of the INDC process — and of the Paris negotiations in general — hinges on participating countries’ abilities to implement their pledges at home. Uncertainty around the Clean Power Plan’s implementation demonstrates again the tight coupling between international negotiations and domestic politics.

As The New York Times notes, the Clean Power Plan has already been subject to a steady stream of Republican and industry attacks:

Several coal-producing states and business groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce are already preparing to file suit against the rules, in a legal clash that is widely expected to end up before the Supreme Court.

The looser deadline came after states and electric utilities spent months appealing to the E.P.A. for more time to comply. The leaders of major electric utilities warned that the tighter timeline could threaten electric reliability, saying that the race to shut down polluting plants and rapidly replace them with wind and solar plants and miles of new transmission lines could lead to rolling blackouts and brownouts.

Conservatives and the utility industry have also been warning that electric bills could soar under the plan, disproportionately affecting the poor. A recent report, however, suggested that early state compliance with the plan coupled with clean energy investment and energy efficiency action could actually reduce residential electricity bills. Another report by a coalition of smart grid and energy companies from earlier this year argued that GOP and industry warnings about grid reliability are overstated, and that plenty of strategies exist to avoid blackouts.

Without knowing further details, though, it’s difficult to say whether the date extension will constitute a net weakening of the new power plant rules. Anonymous officials familiar with the discussions told The New York Times that the extended timeframe could be balanced by tighter requirements in other sections of the plan. The final plan might also include incentives for states to beat the deadlines. We could find out as early as Monday.

Source:
Later Deadline Expected in Obama’s Climate Plan

, The New York Times.

Timing is the element most likely to change in EPA’s final Clean Power Plan

, ClimateWire.

Sources: EPA will ease deadlines on pollution rule to help states comply

, The Washington Post.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work. A Grist Special Series

Meat: What’s smart, what’s right, what’s next

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article: 

If the EPA relaxes deadlines for CO2 cuts, will the U.S. still be able to keep its climate promises?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If the EPA relaxes deadlines for CO2 cuts, will the U.S. still be able to keep its climate promises?