Happy Earth Day

Earth Day, first held April 22, 1970, is now celebrated every year by more than a billion people in 180 nations around the world. All work together for the common goal of preserving the Earth and leaving it a better place for the future. This photo of Earth is from 2002. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of the planet. (NASA/MCT)

What are your thoughts on Earth Day and the environment? Click below to leave us a comment!

EPA declaration sets stage for more regulation

By Jim Tankersley

Tribune Washington Bureau

(MCT)

WASHINGTON _ The federal government's declaration Friday that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health marked a first step toward likely regulation of the tailpipe emissions of cars, power plants and factories that scientists blame for global warming.

The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency was a clear break with the Bush administration, which downplayed concerns about global warming, and set the stage for a possible national standard for vehicle emissions and other federal efforts to curb such pollution.

The Obama administration already is developing a plan to make the U.S. auto fleet cleaner by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes. But the move Friday also gives it the capacity to either regulate larger emissions producers like power plants or prod Congress to set limits, which the administration would prefer.

Lawmakers have begun debating legislation that would crack down on power plant emissions, which generate twice as much greenhouse gas as cars and trucks. But the prospect of the White House taking action could push Congress to come to an agreement.

"The Obama administration now has the legal equivalent of a .44 magnum" to fight global warming, said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. "The bullets aren't loaded yet, but they could be."

Environmentalists celebrated the EPA's action as the clearest signal yet that the Obama administration is prepared to act boldly to combat global warming. O'Donnell called the move "a landmark moment in environmental history."

But critics say the EPA decision, and the regulations that could accompany it, could chill an already recessionary economy.

"An endangerment finding would lead to destructive regulatory schemes that Congress never authorized," a group of eight leading conservative and free-market activists warned the EPA in a letter this week. They added that "the administration will bear responsibility for any increase in consumer energy costs, unemployment and GDP losses" that result.

In its ruling, the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases endanger public health. "In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem," the agency declared. "The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."

The ruling includes a lengthy summation of scientific warnings about human contributions to climate change, and of the potentially devastating impacts that could result.

But in finding that greenhouse gases endangered public health "within the meaning of the Clean Air Act," the EPA also moved beyond what most Americans think of as air pollution, said Bill Farland, a former top EPA scientist who is now senior vice president for research and engagement at Colorado State University.

The EPA is equating otherwise benign gases that are leading to rising temperatures with traditional pollutants such as smog and lead, he said.

"Clearly, you can expose animals and humans to (carbon dioxide) without a harmful effect," Farland said. "On the other hand, in today's society there's mounting information that if you continue to release CO2, it's going to be problematic from a climate change perspective."

Friday's decision said that automobiles, which produce about 20 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, contribute directly to climate change. The administration is expected to develop vehicle emissions limits along the lines of strict regulations that California and other states are attempting to adopt.

Some industry groups said the text of the decision appeared to give the administration an "off ramp" to avoid widespread regulation.

William Kovacs, a vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the finding allows the EPA to delay emissions limits until technology improves and compliance costs fall, a move he said would avoid "disastrous" regulations that would all but put the EPA in control of the entire economy.

Obama often links carbon emissions limits _ and the price increases they would assuredly impose on fossil fuel energy _ with the creation of millions of jobs through renewable energy development. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a press release Friday that global warming "has a solution _ one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil."

The next move belongs to Congress. The House will reconvene Monday after a two-week break, with a major climate bill on its agenda. One of that bill's drafters, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., on Friday called the EPA decision a "game-changer" that will force representatives to assume that if they don't limit emissions, the administration will.

Markey was echoed by the Senate's lead climate bill drafter, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who said that if Congress fails to pass a climate bill, "then I will call on EPA to take all steps authorized by law to protect our families."

The EPA will accept public comments on its finding for two months, and it has scheduled public hearings in suburban Washington and in Seattle. Industry groups will ramp up their economic warnings. The Sierra Club on Friday launched a campaign to generate a half-million comments in support of the finding and other parts of Obama's climate agenda.

___

© 2009, Tribune Co.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America

By Renee Schoof and David Lightman

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON _ Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday announced a sweeping plan to change how the nation produces and uses energy in order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.

No environmental legislation in America has ever attempted such wide-reaching changes. The bill _ an incomplete draft that will evolve in the months ahead _ would provide incentives to boost wind, solar and other renewable energy, would improve efficiency so that homes and businesses need less fuel and would support the development of cars that run on biofuels and electricity.

It also would make using fossil fuels more expensive _ and that will be the central issue of debate in Congress, with armies of lobbyists on both sides.

The measure contains a variety of terms intended to help businesses survive the energy transition, but it leaves open for debate the central question: how revenues from pollution permits would be used. That means the question of how consumers would be helped also remains to be worked out.

The plan calls for a system to limit for the first time the amount of global warming pollution _ mainly carbon dioxide from coal and oil combustion _ that's permitted from utilities, oil companies and large-scale industries, which make up 85 percent of the U.S. economy. They'd have to buy permits for each ton of emissions.

The total emissions amount would be lowered each year until it was 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. That's the amount that science suggests will be needed as part of a global effort to prevent irreversible problems from steadily increasing warming.

Companies that need more permits could buy them from companies that need fewer of them. This system of a declining cap on overall emissions and a market for permits is known as "cap and trade."

Sponsors declared that their plan would create jobs in clean energy that couldn't be shipped offshore, would reduce dependence on foreign oil and would make the United States an exporter of energy technology, all while making sure that American consumers and coal-dependent parts of the nation are spared from sharp cost increases.

"This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence and cut global warming pollution," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who sponsored the draft along with Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

Waxman and Markey modeled their cap and trade plan on a consensus report that U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of 26 large businesses _ including ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP America Inc., Duke Energy, Alcoa and the U.S. automakers _ and five environmental groups released in January.

Environmental groups supported the draft.

Democrats are pushing for ambitious climate-change legislation this year before a global conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December that aims to set new goals for reducing the emissions that contribute to global warming.

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the Waxman-Markey plan a "new national energy tax" and asserted that it would cost households up to $3,100 a year and reduce the number of U.S. jobs.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio attacked the plan with similar arguments and added that AK Steel, which is in his district, would pay more under cap and trade than competitors in places such as China would.

"Their costs will skyrocket and their customers will simply buy cheaper imported steel," Boehner said.

The draft, however, contains provisions to protect businesses from foreign competition and leaves open for debate how consumers will be protected. One idea that has some bipartisan support is returning all or most revenue from pollution permit sales to taxpayers.

Another suggestion is to give permits to companies free in the plan's early years. That also could help hold down costs to consumers if the companies passed the benefits along.

In a sign of the argument to come, Republicans unleashed a series of ads Tuesday aimed at 54 politically vulnerable House Democrats, charging that a cap and trade plan would send energy prices soaring. Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "fiscally irresponsible cap and tax proposal that will increase energy bills, raise taxes and overwhelm the budgets of American families."

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said he was glad that the draft bill included plans to protect American industries from competitive disadvantage. Still, he said it would take time to analyze the 640-page draft to determine how effective and how costly the bill would be.

The bill's section on global competitiveness calls for some industrial sectors to receive rebates to compensate for additional costs. If the rebates aren't sufficient, the president could impose tariffs on foreign manufacturers and importers to cover the carbon they emitted in making their exported products.

James Mulva, the chairman and chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, said at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday that businesses wanted certainty about energy prices so they could make investment decisions. He predicted that this issue will be a difficult fight in Congress and called for work toward an "environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair" approach.

Mulva said that a "significant proportion" of the permits should be given free to businesses to help consumers and protect against competition from foreign countries without mandatory controls.

The measure offers other provisions that businesses sought. One is offsets; companies can increase their emissions if they obtain reductions of emissions elsewhere at a lower cost which offsets those increases. Total offsets would be limited.

___

© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.

Huge public lands bill gets final congressional approval

Map of the U.S. locating lands to be protected as wilderness; the House has passed and sent to President Barack Obama a long-delayed bill to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness. MCT 2009

By Michael Doyle

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON _ The House of Representatives on Wednesday gave long-awaited final approval to a massive public lands package designed to protect wilderness, restore rivers and expand national parks.

Years of debate and negotiations ended anticlimactically, as the 1,218-page bill strolled to victory on a 285-140 margin. Approved earlier by the Senate, the legislation now goes to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature.

"It will restore balance to the management of our public lands ... after nearly a decade in which responsible land stewardship was abandoned," said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Tactically constructed, with provisions targeting a majority of states, the bill drew 38 Republicans to join 247 Democrats. Even so, conservative GOP critics lambasted the bill as a land grab put together with what one Republican lawmaker termed "every legislative trick in (the Democratic) playbook."

House Democratic leaders brought the measure to the floor in a way that blocked potential amendments.

"The passage of this bill is another disappointing display of heavy-handed Democratic tactics that rely on secret, backroom bill-writings that are then jammed through without any opportunity for alternatives," complained Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the senior Republican on the House resources panel.

Dubbed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, the measure pulled together more than 150 separate public lands, parks and water bills into one package. Among other things, the legislation designates 2 million acres of additional wilderness in nine states and 1,000 miles of new wild and scenic rivers. It creates three new national park units, one new national monument and 10 new national heritage areas.

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

Provisions in the bill range from honoring President Bill Clinton's birthplace in Arkansas to creating a national institute for the study of caves. It designates a Wyoming river as wild and scenic, creates a geologic trail that tracks cataclysmic ice age floods and requires the government to research the problem of increasingly acidic oceans.

"Altogether, it is one of the most sweeping conservation laws that Congress has passed in many, many years," declared Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

The bill will be expensive. It authorizes projects expected to cost more than $5.5 billion over five years if Congress provides the money, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also adds an additional $900 million in spending after 2013, the nonpartisan budget office estimates.

Hastings warned the bill would restrict potential development of energy resources on public lands, while other lawmakers focused on the addition of new lands to the national wilderness roll.

"The federal government already owns 30 percent of the total land area of the United States," said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif. "I don't think we need any more."

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, called the bill's passage "a day of celebration for all who treasure and enjoy our natural and cultural heritage," and numerous environmental groups had been lobbying hard for its passage. In many cases, the public lands package collected provisions that had lingered without action during the years that Republicans had controlled Congress.

One provision, for instance, names a new wilderness in California's Sierra Nevada mountains after former California Rep. John Krebs. The measure creating the John Krebs Wilderness was first introduced in 2002.

The bill's occasionally rocky road to passage included a controversy over allowing guns in national parks and a concern that some amendments might expose potentially vulnerable lawmakers to difficult votes.

___

(Les Blumenthal and Erika Bolstad contributed to this report.)

___

© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.

_____

GRAPHIC (from MCT Graphics, 202-383-6064): 20090325 LANDS map

Obama expected to kill key Bush EPA program

By John Shiffman, John Sullivan and Tom Avril

The Philadelphia Inquirer

(MCT)

WASHINGTON _ The Obama administration intends to close an EPA program heavily promoted by the Bush Administration that rewards voluntary pollution controls by hundreds of corporations with reduced environmental inspections and less stringent regulation, according to EPA sources and internal emails.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson is expected to sign a memo terminating the Performance Track program, possibly as early as this week, senior EPA officials said Saturday.

Performance Track offers regulatory perks to corporations that pledge to save energy and reduce pollution. Entry into Performance Track, EPA's premier voluntary "Green Club," is supposed to be reserved for companies with sterling environmental records, but has been denounced by environmentalists as a public relations charade.

EPA's decision to close Performance Track comes three months after an Inquirer investigation found the program lauded companies with suspect environmental records, spent millions on recruiting and publicity and failed to independently confirm members' environmental pledges. The program became so desperate to find new members, The Inquirer found, that it turned to gift shops and post offices to pad its numbers.

A senior EPA official said Saturday in an interview the Inquirer's findings played a role in Jackson's decision.

The Inquirer's investigation of Performance Track came as part of a four-part series, published in December, on the Bush administration's subversion of the EPA, the federal agency charged with safeguarding human health and the environment.

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

The Inquirer found the Bush administration's antiregulatory bent drove down funding, regulation and employee morale as senior political appointees censored the agency's own scientific findings in ways that consistently benefited corporations.

The series detailed how the Bush Administration circumvented Congress to rewrite air pollution rules to benefit business, and how a conservative-leaning court later declared a dozen of those rules illegal, invoking unusually caustic language. The Inquirer analysis also found that in nearly 50 pollution lawsuits filed in Washington, the EPA settled 80 percent of those brought by industry, compared to just 15 percent of those filed by environmental groups.

Inquirer reporters investigated plants across the country as part of its investigation of Performance Track.

Voluntary programs, such as Performance Track, and partnerships between EPA and corporations can work, said the senior EPA official, who was involved in the decision to kill the program.

But, the official added, "this one wasn't doing what it was created to do." Ultimately, the official said, Performance Track benefited business more than the environment.

Although the Performance Track program is small, it was symbolic because it represented a big part of Bush's environmental strategy. Top Bush officials promoted Performance Track to fight global warming by encouraging companies to reduce greenhouse gases, rather than forcing them to do so.

During the Bush years, the program doubled its corporate membership to 548 and increased its budget fourfold to $4.7 million.

Critics, however, said the program did little more than burnish green images for corporations.

"Performance Track is Exhibit A for why voluntary environmental programs will never be as effective as strong laws, faithfully enforced," said John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Performance Track now joins eight years of failed Bush administration voluntary global warming approaches as mistakes we must not repeat."

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy said a final decision to close Performance Track has not been made. But two other people involved said Jackson's signature is a mere formality and related meetings, including notification to companies and the 19 states participating in the program, could come as early as this week .

Late last week, Chuck Kent, an EPA supervisor in Washington, sent an e-mail to colleagues at the agency's regional headquarters, including in Philadelphia, about the program's termination on Thursday, according to a copy obtained by The Inquirer.

"Administrator Jackson has decided to halt the Performance Track program," Kent wrote. "We will be putting a banner across the Performance Track Web site notifying visitors of the program status and linking to the memos mentioned above as soon as the Administrator's memo is made public."

Late last year, EPA officials said, the Performance Track program employed 18 employees _ plus consultants. The employees are all career civil servants, and when the program is closed, they will be transferred to other EPA jobs, an official said.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Performance Track was created in 2000, during the waning days of the Clinton administration. The Bush administration became an immediate champion after it caught the attention of a former American Plastics Council lobbyist who managed the administration's EPA transition team in 2001.

The Bush administration promoted Performance Track as a bold new approach that moved the EPA beyond its traditional role as enforcer of environmental laws, encouraging a philosophy in which EPA collaborated with industry to encourage cutting-edge environmentally sensitive practices.

Companies admitted to Performance Track pledge to promote "environmental stewardship" to local communities and must choose four environmental goals, such as energy or waste reduction.

Since 2001, Performance Track members have reported reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 310,000 tons and saving 3.7 billion gallons of water. The program's current 548 members range from Fortune 500 corporations to trailer parks.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

But, among The Inquirer's findings:

_The EPA has recruited companies with mixed _ even dismal _ environmental records to become Performance Track members.

_Despite offering members regulatory breaks and promoting the program as one that improves environmental performance, the EPA fails to independently verify that Performance Track companies actually reach their goals.

_Some Performance Track members have paid fines to settle EPA accusations they broke environmental rules. Since 2003, they have racked up more than 100 violations and paid $15.25 million in fines _ including $10.25 million paid by DuPont Co. for allegedly failing to provide information to the EPA about the health effects of a pollutant one of its plants spilled into drinking water.

_At least a dozen Performance Track members have actually increased the amount of toxic chemicals they pump into the air and water.

_As early as 2005, EPA enforcement officials discovered violations by Performance Track companies, and began to ask questions about compliance and corporate promises.

_EPA recruited into its "green club" a Charleston, Tenn. chlorine manufacturer despite the factory's rejection of a call to join most other manufacturers and abandon a 19th-century process that uses mercury.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Neighbors near the Olin Corp. factory say it is the source of mercury pollution so severe that it prompted state warnings about eating fish in the local river.

One of the neighbors, Sherry Neidich, today applauded the decision to close Performance Track because, she said, it unfairly recognized Olin as an environmental leader.

"Companies like Olin haven't done anything," she said.

An Olin spokeswoman did not return a cell phone call today. The company has previously said its use of mercury is "always careful and controlled" and was recently significantly reduced.

The Performance Track program, which sponsors an annual May conference and award ceremony, has many fans among its corporate members.

Ken Ross, a spokesman for one local Performance Track member, the Lockheed Martin facility in Moorestown, Pa., said he was unaware of the plan to eliminate the program. He said Performance Track has had a positive effect on how the company addressed environmental issues, leading it to take such steps as using more recycled paper and converting several acres of the South Jersey site to a natural bird habitat.

"I think the bottom line is, it did a lot to get companies to think more about the environmental impact they have," Ross said. "That is part of our business culture at this point."

But Cary Coglianese, the associate dean of the Penn Law School and director of its program on regulation, said there is no evidence that Performance Track members are better environmental stewards than non-members.

"If Performance Track dies, the nation loses a major symbol of a new approach to environmental protection," Coglianese said. "But citizens need not linger long in mourning. Performance Track's members have no doubt done some good things for the environment, but it just can't be said they did all those good things because of Performance Track. In the program's absence, responsible companies will still continue to go beyond compliance and make environmental progress."

Besides, said Coglianese, who has closely studied Performance Track: "Ending the program is certainly one way to rid the agency of distraction at a time when it faces major battles over other issues like climate change."

___

© 2009, The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com/

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.