UK to take tough line against US over Kyoto

[Epitome22]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,12893...



The government signalled a tougher British and European stance yesterday against the Bush administration's hostility to the Kyoto treaty when Tony Blair takes over the chair in both the EU and the G8 group of major industrial states next year.

Ahead of Mr Blair's big September speech on climate change - the world's biggest collective challenge, he will say - a minister admitted the time has come for the government "to move from words to delivery" at home. Abroad it must also press Washington "to be more ambitious", he said.

That amounts to confirmation that Labour has not done enough, despite brave words since 1997, and that ahead of likely British elections in the spring it must improve its record and distance itself from the White House.

In a speech to an environmental conference in London, Lord Whitty, Labour's former general secretary, now an environment minister, told delegates, "we plan to use our position in every way we can to push this agenda at a senior level" in the EU and the G8, makingwhat he called "a clear case for concerted action" by the world community.

With Mr Blair returning from holiday this week to start preparing his speech, and the environment featuring as a sensitive issue in the Bush-Kerry presidential race, Lord Whitty had to tread a diplomatic course yesterday and was careful to praise US research.

He continued: "But research and development is not a substitute for taking concerted action to reduce emissions now. We know enough about climate change to know that if we do not act now, we will need to make more drastic changes later."

In answer to questions about aircraft pollution he admitted he personally favours a pan-European, preferably, a global tax to tackle a fast-growing problem. Aviation fuel is untaxed.

That is no more likely to appeal to the US aviation lobby than Lord Whitty's confirmation that Mr Blair's chairmanship will press for the start of an EU emissions trading scheme and tackle EU aviation emissions.

He claimed that UK air pollution is much less dangerous than in the 50s, when winter smog killed 4,000 Londoners, but admitted a new hazard - summer smog - had caused the premature death of 769 people in England and Wales in August last year.

Lord Whitty also endorsed the views of a German academic at the conference that aerosol emissions, widely condemned, may actually be helping to cool the planet, acting as a temporary cover for the ozone hole. If aerosol use is stopped, as environmentalists want, it could bring unwanted side-effects, the conference heard.

Lord Whitty praised the UN environmental programme, now headed by the respected former German minister, Klaus Topfer. He also warned Moscow - whose long-pledged support for Kyoto has still not materialised - that hopes that climate change "would be good for Russia" are wrong.

But ministers know that they are failing to meet Labour's 1997 target to cut by 20% carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, well ahead of the Kyoto target of 12.5% for all greenhouse gases. The target has been scaled down to a "goal" which may be missed by 5% or more.

Ministers have also been slower than most EU members to embrace renewable energy sources - notably wind power - in line with well-aired hostility within the Bush administration. A 10% UK reliance on renewables by 2010 is another target the government will miss.

Mr Blair wants climate change and Africa to be the main themes of his international roles in the G8 and EU next year.

[Chiwas]

Why the US does not support the Kyoto treaty?

[sturm und drang]

George W. Bush says:

"Ah, Chiwas. What a foolish question to ask! Mandatory controls on CO2 emissions just aren't necessary. With 6% of the world's population, we produce almost 30% of greenhouse gases. No matter: They certainly aren't harmful. The rest of the world supports it unilaterally, you say? We're America, durn it! We don't have to do what everyone else does!

And, you know, my good-buddy oil and gas lobbyist friends are against it. Wooo-eee do they hate it!

What? I pledged my support of it in my 2000 campaign? No I didn't. I mean, I don't remember. Did I? I forget. Catch me later about it - I have to go sign a bill to make Hummers a tax deduction."

[Chiwas]

From Bush's page:

After rejecting the Kyoto treaty, why hasn’t the President offered an alternative solution to global warming?

Implementation of the Kyoto treaty would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and would have resulted in the loss of up to 4.9 million American jobs. The United States Senate also rejected the treaty 95-0 in 1997. The Bush Administration has a strong alternative strategy to address the long-term challenge of global climate change:


We can start by slowing the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and then, as the science justifies and technology permits, stop – and then reverse – the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.
The President committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002.
The policy is science-based, it encourages innovation, and it takes advantage of the power of markets. It advances global participation.
This approach ensures secure, reliable, affordable, and clean energy for individual Americans and American businesses.

[img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[Sinn Fein]

I guess since Chiwas leaves in Mexico he'd like to see US lose 400 bill dollars, then its economy would only be 100 times better then Mexico.

[LRB]

I actually thought that Chiwas' reply was neutral or if anything in Bush's favor. I could have read it wrong though. It just didn't look like condemning Bush to me.

[Chiwas]

In fact, I was reading Kerry's strategy for the Environment issue after my last post; he doesn't support the Kyoto treaty either, and his plans are very similar to those of Bush in a general point of view, investing money to try to decrease polution of the air in a multi year plan. The diference is that Bush does not want to do it involving the other nations, and although Kerry proposal talks about involving them, it's ambiguous.

Sinn Fein: If we confront money and environment on the hands of politicians, money will always win. Also, air has no frontiers. When we get a point when we cannot breathe air, maybe we could breathe jobs.

In a mores serious comment, I don't think that jobs have to be lost in order to improve our environment, all the contrary. There are a lot of technological options to make our work clean in the first place saving money in the same time. Besides, the environmental industry is waiting for an oportunity to have their own boom, creating a lot of jobs as a colateral benefit.

[dude1394]

The us doesn't support the treaty mainly because the senate (I believe 95-5) rejected it for one. Secondly it's a farce. The air is getting cleaner not dirtier. And thirdly kyoto doesn't address the two fastest growing economies in the world. China/India.

[sturm und drang]

Kerry isn't much better on the environment than Bush is – marginally better, but not much.

It's weak all around. At some point, the environment has to be addressed, even if it comes at the temporary expense of the economy.

Unfortunately, I'll guess we'll find out how long we can ignore it before it comes catastrophic.

Sigh.

[Sinn Fein]

Originally posted by: LRB
I actually thought that Chiwas' reply was neutral or if anything in Bush's favor. I could have read it wrong though. It just didn't look like condemning Bush to me.

His face icon at the bottom indicated different to me.

[Sinn Fein]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Kerry isn't much better on the environment than Bush is – marginally better, but not much.

It's weak all around. At some point, the environment has to be addressed, even if it comes at the temporary expense of the economy.

Unfortunately, I'll guess we'll find out how long we can ignore it before it comes catastrophic.

Sigh.

Then environment is being addressed. Improving Our Nation’s Air Quality - President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants’ emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and mercury by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative.


Improving The Quality of Our Waters and Wetlands, and Resolving Water Crises - On Earth Day 2004, the President announced an aggressive new national goal to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acres and quality.


Cleaning and Redeveloping Hazardous Waste Sites - Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields, to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.


Promoting Land Conservation and Stewardship - In December 2003, President Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative. The President’s initiative is helping restore the health and vitality of forests and rangelands, and helping reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.


A Realistic, Growth-Oriented Approach to Global Climate Change - President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, or greenhouse gas intensity, by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002.

There is only so much that can be done Sturm. There are also hundreds of commitees throughout the world dedicated to helping the environment. The problem is quite overblown in proportion to the countering affects.

[dude1394]

It's impossible that a republican could actually do anything to make the environment cleaner. They are so eeeeevvvvvviiiiiiilllllllll dontcha knokw.

[Mavdog]

There has been no President who has ben as been so insensitive to environmental threats. Bush's changes have benefitted those who harm our air and water. They even attempted to reclassify mercury as "non-toxic".
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bush air pollution plan weakens current law, threatens public health

February 27, 2003: The Bush administration's air pollution plan, misleadingly dubbed the "Clear Skies Initiative," was reintroduced in Congress. If enacted, the plan would weaken public health protections of the current Clean Air Act. It would delay and dilute cuts in power plants' sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollution compared to timely enforcement of current law. By allowing industry to make fewer reductions in toxic pollution over a much longer period of time than current law, critics say the plan would cost thousands of lives, intensify global warming and reward polluting industries that have been flouting the law for years.

The administration plan allows more than twice as much SO2 for nearly a decade longer (2010-18), compared with faithful enforcement of the current Clean Air Act. After 2018, SO2 emissions will still be one and a half times higher than if current law is enforced. The plan allows more than one and a half times as much NOx for nearly a decade longer (2010-2018), and one third more NOx even after 2018. The plan also lets power plants emit more than five times as much mercury for a decade longer (2010-2018), and three times as much after 2018.

"The Bush air pollution plan would It would make lethal pollution legal, condemning millions of Americans to breathing dangerous air," said David Doniger, policy director of NRDC's Climate Center
--------------------------------------------------------
EPA resists further mercury studies

June 25, 2004: Yet again, the Bush administration has rebuffed pleas to perform additional, comprehensive studies of the Environmental Protection
Agency's plan to address mercury emissions from electric power plants. Panel members at a recent Clean Air Act Advisory Committee meeting requested that the EPA analyze more protective control approaches under the Clean Air Act's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) program. But Jeff Holmstead, the EPA's top air pollution official, refused, informing the media -- but not the Committee -- within an hour of the request that he did not intend to do the work. He cited tightening time constraints before the March 15, 2005 deadline for the finalized rule. Those supporting further studies claim that under MACT, as much as 90 percent of airborne mercury emissions from almost all of the nation's 1,150 coal- and oil-fired power plants could be reduced.

"The Bush administration doesn't want the public to have the benefit of this analysis because of what it would reveal: the EPA's plan avoids more protective, more cost-effective mercury cleanup approaches and allows power plants to emit more mercury for longer," said John Walke, director of NRDC's clean air program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes industry-preferred mercury pollution plan

December 15, 2003: The Environmental Protection Agency, under a settlement agreement with the Natural Resources Defense Council, met its legal deadline to formally propose the first-ever controls on mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants. Such plants account for about 40 percent of the nation's mercury pollution -- a dangerous neurotoxin. However, the EPA's proposal, which gives power plants 15 years to install new pollution-control technology, mirrors a similar proposal that the agency considered and rejected as too weak during the Clinton administration. The EPA's new plan, which was leaked to the media last week, would mandate a nearly 70 percent decrease in mercury emissions -- from 48 tons to 15 tons -- by 2018. But in December 2001, the EPA supported a plan that would cut mercury pollution by as much as 90 percent, to 5.5 tons, by 2008 using best available technology. More troubling, say environmentalists, is that the Bush proposal wouldn't put any restrictions on individual power plants, but would let companies buy and sell the rights to emit mercury.

"The Bush administration's plan cuts less mercury pollution and delays even those reductions," said John Walke, director of NRDC's clean air project. "And the 'cap-and-trade' provision would be bad news for people living near a power plant that buys emissions credits instead of cleaning up its act."
--------------------------------------
Bush announces rollback of power plant pollution rules

February 14, 2002: President Bush announced new targets for three pollutants from U.S. power plants that would delay by up to 10 years life-saving emission cuts now required under the Clean Air Act. The Bush plan allows three times more toxic mercury emissions than current law would allow, and postpones forthcoming mercury limits by a decade. It would allow 50 percent more sulfur emissions -- which cause acid rain and premature death from respiratory disease -- than current law and push back clean-up standards from 2012 to 2018. It would also allow hundreds of thousands tons of additional smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution, and delay their clean-up for a decade beyond current requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------
White House altered scientific findings on mercury threat

April 07, 2004: Hundreds of pages of internal government documents and email messages show that White House staffers played down the effects of mercury while working with Environmental Protection Agency officials to write regulations for coal-fired power plants. It appears that the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality altered some of the EPA's language in developing the Bush administration's new mercury pollution proposals. Critics, who attacked the administration's plan as too weak, say the White House's subtle changes made the facts on mercury misleading.

Many scientists, environmentalists and politicians are outraged that the White House tweaked the scientific information to minimize the threat of mercury exposure. Examples of the changes include crossing out the word "confirmed" in the phrase "confirmed public health risk," and changing "are at an increased health risk" to "may be at an increased health risk." In several cases, the edits toned down the link between power plants and elevated levels of methylmercury in fish, despite the fact that power plan pollution is the largest unregulated source of mercury air pollution. In fact, high mercury levels prompted fish safety warnings in more than 44 states over the past year.

Under the Clinton administration, the EPA recommended that mercury from power plants be strictly regulated under the Clean Air Act's requirements for hazardous air pollutants. However, the Bush administration reversed course last December, much to the delight of coal and utility lobbyists. Recently, 10 state attorneys general and 45 U.S. senators spoke out against the EPA's pollution plan, urging the agency to scrap its proposals and adopt more protective mercury requirements.

[dude1394]

Sorry mavdog,this junk doesn't fly without links. YOU need fact-checking.

And as posted many times before. The NYTimes is not a reputable news source. Must be corroborated by another news source.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Sorry mavdog,this junk doesn't fly without links. YOU need fact-checking.

And as posted many times before. The NYTimes is not a reputable news source. Must be corroborated by another news source.

When you say corroborated by another news source, do you mean one in addition to the New York times, or another news source altogether.

The "not a reputable news source" seems to be an argument of favor with you. By your own estimation, what is it that makes the New York times an unreputable news source?, what in your estimation makes a publication a reputable news source and could you give some examples of new sources you consider to be reputable?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Sorry mavdog,this junk doesn't fly without links. YOU need fact-checking.

And as posted many times before. The NYTimes is not a reputable news source. Must be corroborated by another news source.

Links? You want to see links? We don't need no stinkin' links!

These facts are all over the web. I would challenge YOU to find a "reputable news source" that contradicts the fact that the Bush administration has weakened our country's environmental policies and has allowed the producers to influence public policy. From power plants to the fabled energy meetings it's the corps over the people.

I'ver shown the record on air quality rules, on the duplicity of the mercury study they altered, all actions which aided the producers at the expense of the public.

what's in yoiur bag?

[LRB]

There are reputable news sources all over the web which debunk your theory Mavdog. But if you don't post links it's more than kind of unfair to expect others to post them. You claim that you posted a story, but provide no link. You're obviously biased and need to be fact checked. Right now all you have is you biased opinion that Bush is doing a bad job on the environment. You have 0 proof.

You don't get to make a dumbass assertion posting a formal looking "article" but leave off giving a link to the source and expect others to take it as "proof". It's your opinion which along with 99 cents + tax will get you something off the value menu at Wendy's.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
There are reputable news sources all over the web which debunk your theory Mavdog. But if you don't post links it's more than kind of unfair to expect others to post them. You claim that you posted a story, but provide no link. You're obviously biased and need to be fact checked. Right now all you have is you biased opinion that Bush is doing a bad job on the environment. You have 0 proof.

I see that you were able to reference some of those "reputable news sources"...

There's no "theory" there is the record. Defend the Bush record if you're able, or you can continue to spout out nothing such as above wiwhich has NO substance.

I put forth the facts on the proposed changes to the Clean Air Act which neutered its enforcement. I showed the Bush Administration was caught changing the mercury report.

If they are not accurate, prove it. You can't. they are true.

You don't get to make a dumbass assertion posting a formal looking "article" but leave off giving a link to the source and expect others to take it as "proof". It's your opinion which along with 99 cents + tax will get you something off the value menu at Wendy's.

you do it all the time.

your's is the classic response from Bush defenders. You cannot address the facts, so you deflect away. "I don't have to defend Bush" they say "when I can make you talk about something else".

So where is the defense of the Bush environmental record? Where is the defense of the "Clean Skies Initiative" which reduces the cuts in emissions and gives the power plants more time to acheive the lower limits? Where is it? I don't see any...

[Mavdog]

Here's some more of the "dubya-ous" environmental record...
-----------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 2004
Bush Administration Weakens Clean Water Act Requirements for Power Plants
The Bush administration’s EPA issued a rule that would make it easier for power plants to avoid installing the best technologies to reduce the large amounts of cooling water they use. Power plants withdraw huge quantities of water from oceans, bays, and rivers, endangering fish and other aquatic life. In response to this rule, attorneys general from six Northeast states sued the EPA, arguing that the agency is crippling proven safeguards and ignoring the availability of better, cost-effective technologies, once again putting corporate profits before environmental health.

I'll even give kudos to this recent decision by the EPA. This is a good decision by Leavitt. Too bad they are few and far between..
-------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2004
Diesel Rule Signed by Leavitt
Some good news for a change: EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt signed a rule that will reduce pollution from “non-road” (i.e., heavy equipment) sources. The rule, to be phased in beginning in 2006, reduces the sulfur in diesel fuel by 99%, while also requiring that new engines have pollution control technology. EPA estimates that the rule will save the lives of 12,000 people a year when fully implemented in 2030

[dude1394]

Bush environmental initiatives.

Preserving the Beauty and Quality of Our Environment

* Improving Our Nation’s Air Quality - President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants’ emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and mercury by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative.

* Improving The Quality of Our Waters and Wetlands, and Resolving Water Crises - On Earth Day 2004, the President announced an aggressive new national goal to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acres and quality.

* Cleaning and Redeveloping Hazardous Waste Sites - Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields, to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.

* Promoting Land Conservation and Stewardship - In December 2003, President Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative. The President’s initiative is helping restore the health and vitality of forests and rangelands, and helping reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.

* A Realistic, Growth-Oriented Approach to Global Climate Change - President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, or greenhouse gas intensity, by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002.

[FishForLunch]

Chiwas you should not also forget the evil republican want to poison the air and water that the children breathe and drink. Kerry wants to make sure that the children of this third world country are saved. Did UK and Germany actually ratify the Kyoto treaty or are they just upset the US turned it down by a vote of 98 to 0 ? I guess it was those 98 Republican senators that voted to not ratify the Kyoto treaty.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Bush environmental initiatives.

Preserving the Beauty and Quality of Our Environment

* Improving Our Nation’s Air Quality - President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants’ emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and mercury by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative.

The "Clear Skies Initiative" was a softening of the existing rules.

The EPA claimed that the Clear Skies plan would reduce sulfur dioxide pollution in Washington State by 87 percent, and nitrogen oxide and mercury pollution would remain stable. But the EPA's regional office questioned the data for months. "I am also concerned that Region 10 (Seattle) data is still wrong," read a July 1, 2002, email from a senior EPA regional official to agency headquarters in Washington, D.C. It turns out that sulfur dioxide emissions were already achieved last year when the state's largest power plant installed state-of-the-art pollution control equipment under a preexisting agreement with state and federal air officials. EPA corrected its analysis, but continued its defense of Clear Skies. According to state air officials, however, under Clear Skies sulfur dioxide pollution could increase 34 percent, mercury pollution could rise by up to 88 percent, and nitrogen oxides pollution could double.
link

* Improving The Quality of Our Waters and Wetlands, and Resolving Water Crises - On Earth Day 2004, the President announced an aggressive new national goal to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acres and quality.

The proposal will lead to less wetlands, not more. It allows for wetlands to be removed and replaced. You can't put a wetlands in a box and move it...
The new Bush plan to ensure the goal of "no net loss" of the nation's wetlands -- set by the first President Bush in 1989 -- emphasizes the ecological quality of the wetlands replaced over quantity. In other words, the administration's approach will focus on how and where developers must create new wetlands to compensate for those destroyed by highways, subdivisions or other construction projects rather instead of achieving acre-for-acre replacement. Bush officials said this approach to wetlands replacement could result in a numerical loss, but an ecological gain.

Environmentalists warned that the administration's new strategy would do little to stem the loss of valuable wetlands, particularly since 80 percent of wetlands restoration or mitigation projects are failures.

Link

* Cleaning and Redeveloping Hazardous Waste Sites - Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields, to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.

Bush supported the bill only after exemptions were given to the owners of the contaminated sites, in effect letting many who caused the problem to walk away. It also seems that his budget doesn't back up the talk:

Housing and Urban Development will lose $612 million or 13 percent of funding in affected programs. Lead control programs, brownfields redevelopment, and rural housing and economic development would all be terminated.

link

* Promoting Land Conservation and Stewardship - In December 2003, President Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative. The President’s initiative is helping restore the health and vitality of forests and rangelands, and helping reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.

Are these off the Bush website? They are not accurate.
As part of its so-called Healthy Forests Initiative, the Bush administration is using the guise of forest fire prevention to stop requiring environmental studies -- including consultations on endangered species protections -- before allowing allow large-scale logging or burning of trees in national forests. Under the proposal, logging projects up to 1,000 acres would be exempt from environmental reviews and consultation with federal wildlife agencies over logging impacts would be optional. Environmentalists blasted the proposal as another environmental rollback, one that will leave homes and communities exposed to fire risk and damage national forests. They also said it clears the way for the timber industry to loot federal forestlands and pocket the proceeds, free from public input or environmental review.

link

* A Realistic, Growth-Oriented Approach to Global Climate Change - President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, or greenhouse gas intensity, by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002.

"Realistic" is certainly subjective, not accurate if one believes that these emissions should be decreased as the bush plan doesn't really accomplish that goal.

February 14, 2002: President Bush announced a global warming plan that would do nothing to address the problem. In fact, the plan uses a brazen accounting trick to mask the fact that -- even if his voluntary emissions targets are actually achieved -- heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution would keep increasing at almost exactly the same rate it has for the past 10 years. Based on the president's own projections, emissions would increase 14 percent over the next ten years, which is precisely the rate at which they grew during the last ten years

The president's non-binding goal is to reduce "emissions intensity" (carbon dioxide pollution relative to economic output) by 18 percent over the next 10 years. Yet from 1990 to 2000, emissions intensity fell 17.4 percent. That's because economic growth already tends to outpace carbon dioxide increases, and has for several decades. But it still allows unsafe emissions growth to proceed unabated.

[b]The Bush record is one of industry protection while exposing the public to pollution dangers.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

The "Clear Skies Initiative" was a softening of the existing rules.

The EPA claimed that the Clear Skies plan would reduce sulfur dioxide pollution in Washington State by 87 percent, and nitrogen oxide and mercury pollution would remain stable. But the EPA's regional office questioned the data for months. "I am also concerned that Region 10 (Seattle) data is still wrong," read a July 1, 2002, email from a senior EPA regional official to agency headquarters in Washington, D.C. It turns out that sulfur dioxide emissions were already achieved last year when the state's largest power plant installed state-of-the-art pollution control equipment under a preexisting agreement with state and federal air officials. EPA corrected its analysis, but continued its defense of Clear Skies. According to state air officials, however, under Clear Skies sulfur dioxide pollution could increase 34 percent, mercury pollution could rise by up to 88 percent, and nitrogen oxides pollution could double.
link

Sure is focused on WashingtonState..They don't sound "nuanced" enough. For a little credibitily (since their whole site was pretty much a bush bash) I'd like to see some of their agreements with the bush administration. I couldn't find any.

The proposed Clear Skies legislation would create a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury by setting a national cap on each pollutant.

Clear Skies was proposed in response to a growing need for an emission reduction plan that will protect human health and the environment while providing regulatory certainty to the industry. The program was submitted as proposed legislation in the US House of Representatives on July 26, 2002 and in the US Senate on July 28, 2002. The program was reintroduced in the US House of Representatives (HR 999) and the US Senate (S. 485) as the Clear Skies Act of 2003 on February 27, 2003 (more information ...). Comprehensive technical analyses of the 2003 legislation are now available.
[/l=link]http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/[/l]

Technical Alaysis Of the Clear Skies Program ([/l=link]http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/[/l]
to these above)

2003 Technical Support Package for Clear Skies:

* Introduction, Table of Contents, Notes on the 2003 Analysis (PDF 94KB)
* Section A: 2003 Program Elements in the Clear Skies Act (PDF 396KB)
* Section B: 2003 Human Health and Environmental Benefits (PDF 4.7MB)
* Section C: 2003 Projected Costs (PDF 210KB)
* Section D: 2003 Projected Impacts on Generation and Fuel Use (PDF 687KB)
* Section E: 2003 Projected Impacts at the State and Regional Level (PDF 3.4MB)
* Section F: 2003 Allocations (PDF 100KB)
* Section G: 2003 Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies (PDF 35KB)
* Section H: 2003 Summary of the Models Used for this Analysis (PDF 23KB)

Other Technical Information from 2003 Analyses:

* Technical Addendum: Methodologies for the Benefit Analysis of the Clear Skies Act of 2003 (PDF 1.7MB)
* Detailed Results of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) for 2003 Clear Skies & Base Case
* Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document

2002 Technical Support Package for Clear Skies:

View the entire 2002 Technical Support Package (PDF 6MB), or view each section separately from the list below.

* Introduction, Table of Contents, Notes on the Analysis (PDF 351KB)
* Section A: 2002 Program Elements in the Clear Skies Act (PDF 877KB)
* Section B: 2002 Human Health and Environmental Benefits (PDF 4.3MB)
* Section C: 2002 Projected Costs (PDF 993KB)
* Section D: 2002 Projected Impacts on Generation and Fuel Use (PDF 1.9MB)
* Section E: 2002 Projected Impacts at the State and Regional Level (PDF 3.5MB)
* Section F: 2002 Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies (PDF 647KB)
* Section G: 2002 Summary of the Models Used for this Analysis (PDF 854KB)

Other Technical Information from 2002 Analyses:

[dude1394]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog
[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394
Bush environmental initiatives continued.

* Cleaning and Redeveloping Hazardous Waste Sites - Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields, to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.

Bush supported the bill only after exemptions were given to the owners of the contaminated sites, in effect letting many who caused the problem to walk away. It also seems that his budget doesn't back up the talk:

Housing and Urban Development will lose $612 million or 13 percent of funding in affected programs. Lead control programs, brownfields redevelopment, and rural housing and economic development would all be terminated.

link

brownsfields

Brownsfield Legislation Passed.

Benefits of Brownfields Legislation

This document presents a summary of Public Law 107-118. It does not constitute a statement of EPA policy, interpretation, or guidance.

Small Business Liability Relief (Title I)

* Exempts certain small volume contributors from Superfund liability

* Exempts certain contributors of municipal solid waste from Superfund liability

* Shifts court costs and attorneys fees to a private party if a private party loses a Superfund contribution action against de micromis or municipal solid waste exempt party

Brownfields Program (Title II - Subtitle A)

* Provides legislative authority for brownfields program including grants for assessment and cleanup

* Expands current brownfields program by increasing funding authority up to $200 million per year including up to $50 million per year to assess and cleanup brownfields with petroleum contamination

* Expands eligibility for assessment and cleanup grants

* New provision for direct cleanup grants of up to $200,000 per site

* Streamlines current requirements for the brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund and makes funding available to nonprofits

* Applies Davis Bacon Act on same terms as authority for current program

* Makes funds available for technical assistance, training and research

Brownfields Liability Clarifications (Title II - Subtitle B)

* Exempts certain contiguous property owners from Superfund liability

* Exempts certain prospective purchasers from Superfund liability

* Clarifies the innocent landholders defense to Superfund liability

State Response Programs (Title II - Subtitle C)

* Supports State and Tribal response programs and preserves Federal safety net

* Provides $50 million per year for State and Tribal response programs

* Expands activities available for funding of State programs

* Provides Superfund liability relief for certain properties cleaned up under State response programs

Cosponsers to the bill:

ALPHABETICAL

Rep Boehlert, Sherwood L. - R- NY
Rep Carson, Julia - D- Ind
Rep Dingell, John D. - D- Mich
Rep Green, Gene - D- Tex
Rep Pallone, Frank - D- NJ
Rep Sawyer, Tom - D- Ohio
Rep Shimkus, John - R- Ill
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - R- Lou
Rep Towns, Edolphus - D - NY

[dude1394]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: dude1394

Are these off the Bush website? They are not accurate.
As part of its so-called Healthy Forests Initiative, the Bush administration is using the guise of forest fire prevention to stop requiring environmental studies -- including consultations on endangered species protections -- before allowing allow large-scale logging or burning of trees in national forests. Under the proposal, logging projects up to 1,000 acres would be exempt from environmental reviews and consultation with federal wildlife agencies over logging impacts would be optional. Environmentalists blasted the proposal as another environmental rollback, one that will leave homes and communities exposed to fire risk and damage national forests. They also said it clears the way for the timber industry to loot federal forestlands and pocket the proceeds, free from public input or environmental review.

link

President Bush Signs Healthy Forests Restoration Act into Law

* On December 3, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. The legislation is based on sound science and helps further the President.s Healthy Forests Initiative pledge to care for America.s forests and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities, help save the lives of firefighters and citizens, and protect threatened and endangered species.
* The Healthy Forests Restoration Act:
o Strengthens public participation in developing high priority forest health projects;
o Reduces the complexity of environmental analysis allowing federal land agencies to use the best science available to actively manage land under their protection;
o Provides a more effective appeals process encouraging early public participation in project planning; and
o Issues clear guidance for court action against forest health projects.
* The Administration and a bipartisan majority in Congress supported the legislation and are joined by a variety of environmental conservation groups.

The Need for Common-Sense Forest Legislation

* Catastrophic fires, particularly those experienced in California, Arizona, Colorado, Montana and Oregon over the past two years, burn hotter and faster than most ordinary fires.
* Visibility and air quality are reduced, threatening even the health of many who do not live near the fires.
* The habitat for endangered species and other wildlife is destroyed.
* Federal forests and rangelands also face threats from the spread of invasive species and insect attacks.
* In the past two years alone, 147,049 fires burned nearly 11 million acres
o 2002: 88,458 fires burned roughly 7 million acres and caused the deaths of 23 firefighters;
o 2003 (thus far): 59,149 fires have burned 3.8 million acres and caused the deaths of 28 firefighters.
o Nearly 6,800 structures have been destroyed in 2003 (approximately 4,800 in California).
o The California fires alone cost $250 million to contain and 22 civilians have died as a result.

reducing wildfiresHealthy Forests DescriptionHealthy forests guidancehealthy forests initiative

[dude1394]

As usual there is another side to this story than the one the enviro's would tell. Here form san fran and someone from UC berkley.

from the sanfrangate

Pro and Con on the Healthy Forest Initiative
Bipartisan initiative will save California's forests
- David A. Bischel
Friday, October 31, 2003

As we watch in horror the devastation in Southern California, our thoughts go out to the families that are suffering, along with our thanks to the heroic firefighters working tirelessly to bring this tragedy to an end. While we can never completely stop the heinous acts of arsonists or the criminally negligent, we can do something about the growing risk of catastrophic fire if we have the will and dedicate the resources to do so.

There now should be no debate that the threat of catastrophic fire is the most significant environmental challenge facing California's forests and wildlands. The Southern California disaster that burns with no end in sight was not unforeseen. The U.S. Forest Service has identified 24 million acres of federal land alone that is at the absolute highest risk of catastrophic fire, with a third of that in California, more than any other state.

Fortunately the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan effort led by our own Sen. Dianne Feinstein, took action this week, voting 97-1 to support an amended version of the president's Healthy Forests Initiative. Congress has now given the American people their best hope for restoring forest health and protecting communities from catastrophic wildfire.

The Healthy Forests Initiative establishes local control, putting forest management decisions in the hands of local foresters committed to sustaining entire forests -- wildlife, watersheds, fish, trees and soil. It also clears roadblocks that prevent much needed action on the ground, streamlining the appeals process and procedures within federal agencies that manage federal forestlands while encouraging public participation early in project planning.

Nobody denies that our forests are overcrowded. Fire suppression and restrictions on forest management have created forests that are 20 times denser than normal, more in some places. Everyone agrees that this overcrowding makes our forests more susceptible to wildfire, disease, and insect infestation.

In Southern California, we're seeing again that leaving forests alone equates to watching them burn.

Yet some activists still cling to no-action ideologies while others have begrudgingly accepted what they call "appropriate thinning" only around communities. Why acknowledge that forests are choked with fuel and need thinning, but insist that only a tiny percentage of the land be treated? As if the rest of the forest, and the wildlife and watersheds in it, aren't worthy of our attention?

About 75 percent of California's drinking water originates in forest watersheds. Animals perish and lose critical habitat when fires ravage landscapes. Smoke does not stay in remote forests and canyons, but pollutes the air for miles over long periods of time.

We must protect our communities first, as the Healthy Forests Initiative does with its commitment to managed lands near the wildland/urban interface. But thinning around homes is not a cure-all -- a hundred-foot wall of flames simply will not lie down at a fuel break or small clearing. The initiative wisely aims to restore entire forests so we can fulfill our obligation to ensure that our children have the same opportunities to enjoy forests, wildlife and wilderness areas that we have had.

We need policies that protect our national treasures and conserve forests for future generations. The Healthy Forests Initiative does that with a plan that has the consensus support of scientists, wildlife biologists and professional foresters. The plan puts a priority on lands:

-- near communities;

-- in high-risk municipal watersheds;

- that provide important habitat for threatened and endangered species; and

-- where insects or disease are increasing the threat of catastrophic wildfire.

The Healthy Forest Initiative recognizes that we must thin our forests, yet not place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. By allowing some trees, not old growth, to be harvested and used in products we depend on everyday, we can create jobs, revive rural communities and help fund the very process of returning our forests to health and grandeur. Now, thanks to bipartisan support, a more efficient system brings renewed hope for our national forests.

David A. Bischel, president of the California Forestry Association, is a registered professional forester with a forestry degree from UC Berkeley and a natural resources degree from UC Davis.

[Chiwas]

Did UK and Germany actually ratify the Kyoto treaty or are they just upset the US turned it down by a vote of 98 to 0 ?

I don't understand.
Uk and Germany ratified it at May 31, 2002.
The fact is 44% of the emissions are from countries (parties) annexed. If the US ratified it, the emissions under Kyoto control would be 80.3%.
Both candidates have plans for the control of the emissions, but not to annex to Kyoto, alleging that their plans would be more quick, with less money expended and less jobs lost. Why the World shouldn't be worried under those facts, including the dubious domestic plans not under unbiased scrutiny?

[Chiwas]

Folded Ice Discovered Beneath Antarctica

Thu Sep 23, 2:41 PM ET Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON - Glaciers in Antarctica are thinning faster than they did in the 1990s and researchers have discovered an unexpected folded section deep beneath the ice cap, findings that may indicate the ice is less stable than had been thought.

Glaciers in West Antarctica are discharging 60 percent more ice into the sea than they are accumulating from snowfall, a research team led by Robert Thomas at NASA (news - web sites) Goddard Space Flight Center in Wallops Island, Va., reports in Thursday's issue of the journal Science.

The glaciers flowing into the Amundsen Sea are thinning twice as fast as they did in the 1990s, the researchers said, a rate of loss that could raise sea level by 0.2 millimeters per year. That's a rate equal to previous estimates for all Antarctic melting, the team said.

Global sea level rise has been estimated at 1.8 millimeter per year. There are about 25 millimeters in an inch.

A second paper in the same issue of Science disclosed an unexpected fold in the ice deep inside the Antarctic ice cap.

The fold, located some 2,600 feet below the surface, may indicate a change in the speed and direction of movement of the ice several centuries ago, said the research team from England's Bristol University and the British Antarctic Survey.

The discovery suggests that the whole ice sheet is more susceptible to future change than previously thought, they reported.

Change in the West Antarctic ice sheet has been limited to its edges, but the group led by Martin Siegert of Bristol University said the fold indicates that several centuries ago this ice sheet was moving more rapidly and in a different direction than currently. Such changes, the group said, imply that the center of the ice sheet is more mobile than had been thought.

They used ice-penetrating radar to locate the fold deep below the surface.

In a separate report in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists disclosed that glaciers that had been blocked behind an ice shelf have started flowing more rapidly into the Weddell Sea, following the breakup of that shelf.

The Larsen B ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula collapsed in 2002 and researchers said nearby glaciers began flowing up to eight times faster than they did prior to the breakup.

They said the speedup also caused glacier elevations to drop, lowering them by up to 125 feet in six months.

That report was compiled by researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.