• Debate Questions on Global Warming, Clean Energy Sought
  
• Coalition Urges Doubled Federal Spending on Renewables
  
• Bills Introduced to Prevent Taxing of Federal Disaster Relief
  
• Unions Intercede for Power Companies in Climate Case
  
• Court Upholds Challenge to Florida's Impaired Waters Rule
  
• Illinois Hospitals Begin Incinerator Shutdowns
  
• Expert Panel Criticizes Flawed Plan for Mississippi Locks
  
• Certification of World's Largest Fishery Made Final
  

Debate Questions on Global Warming, Clean Energy Sought

Eighteen union, religious, science, state government and former federal officials Wednesday petitioned the trustees of the Commission on Presidential Debates, as well as debate moderators Charles Gibson and Bob Schieffer, to "include questions about the candidates’ plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean energy and clean vehicle technologies as urgent matters of both domestic and foreign policy."

Signers of the joint statement include United Steelworkers of America President Leo Gerard and Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, as well as National Council of Churches of Christ General Secretary Robert Edgar, California State Controller Steve Westley, United Nations Foundation President and former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth, and former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey.

Adding his name to the petition was Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, Bern Research Professor, Earth System Science, University of California at Irvine and winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995 for the discovery of stratospheric ozone depletion by refrigerants known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The joint statement says, "There is a strong consensus in the science community that global climate change is underway and that we must dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to slow the rate of warming. America's major faith communities have named climate change as a matter of great moral urgency for our nation and the planet."

"It is also becoming clear," the petition says, "that as the rest of the world moves to limit emissions from burning fossil fuels, we are on the cusp of a major industrial transition, a transition the United States must choose to lead in order to preserve and create jobs for the 21st century and protect future generations."

"Both candidates have offered ideas," the petition says, "but the issue has not yet been presented as a matter for serious consideration to the general public."

The two remaining debates between President George Bush and Senator John Kerry will take place on October 8 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and October 13 at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.

The joint statement effort was coordinated by Ceres, the Civil Society Institute’s Results for America project, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. A complete list of signatories is found at: http://ceres.org/pdf/debate_state_100604.pdf

Another group of concerned citizens also wants clean energy and climate questions addressed. The Sierra Club polled subscribers of RAW, the organization's twice weekly electronic newsletter tracking the Bush administration's environmental record, to find out what questions they would want to ask in Friday's debate.

Topping the online poll are questions about how the candidates propose to curb global warming, whether they support transferring the burden of toxic cleanup from polluters to taxpayers, and whether or not the government should base energy policies on secret meetings with energy industry representatives.

Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive director, said, "Environmental issues can reveal a lot about the candidates' values and priorities. They definitely deserve a role in the debates."  

Coalition Urges Doubled Federal Spending on Renewables

Spending for energy research and development is the lowest of any major industry and has declined since the 1980s, the coalition says.

For Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06), the coalition of business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations submitted program-by-program recommendations totalling almost $1.7 billion.

Saying that "these programs have been chronically under-funded for several years," urged the White House to "support robust funding." The recommendations went to officials in the White House Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other federal agencies.

The document outlines suggested budget levels and program priorities for solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and geothermal energy generation and for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive.

Recommendations for the Department of Energy's industrial, buildings, and vehicles energy efficiency programs as well as the weatherization, fuel cells, hydrogen, and Federal Energy Management programs are detailed along with suggestions to increase the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star and the U.S. Agency for International Development's Clean Energy programs.

The federal government's continued funding of non-renewable energy options over renewable energy and energy efficiency "is putting American ingenuity and resources at a global disadvantage," the coalition said.

"It not only threatens the security of the United States but also cedes the leadership for which Americans have already paid as we advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies over the past quarter century, only to see the commercialization benefits accrue to overseas governments and industries," the SEC said in its statement.

By contrast, the SEC said, federal energy efficiency programs are effective. In 2001, the National Research Council found that for the 17 DOE research programs it analyzed, every dollar of federal investment in energy efficiency has yielded $20 in economic benefits to the nation in the form of new products, new jobs and energy cost savings to American homes and businesses.

The Energy Department estimates that its efficiency and renewables programs will result in savings of $134 billion in energy bills, 157 gigawatts of new conventional power plants, 1.9 quads of natural gas, and 213 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2025.

In 1993, the federal Energy Star program helped Americans save enough energy to power 20 million homes and avoid the greenhouse gas emissions from 18 million cars – while also saving over $9 billion. The U.S. cannot reap these savings without federal support, because private industry will not do the research and development, the SEC said.

Bills Introduced to Prevent Taxing of Federal Disaster Relief

Unions Intercede for Power Companies in Climate Case

Unions for Jobs and the Environment (UJAE) Tuesday filed a brief in federal court in support of six power companies fighting a lawsuit brought by eight states that seeks to limit greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

UJAE filed a friend of the court brief on September 30, 2004, in the case State of Connecticut, et al. v. American Electric Power, Inc., et al., and its companion case, Open Society Institute, Inc., v. American Electric Power, Inc., et al. Both cases were filed in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York.

Attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, as well as New York City's corporation counsel, filed the original suit on July 21, alleging that carbon dioxide emissions from six power companies are a "public nuisance."

Gene Trisko, counsel to the United Mine Workers and one of the attorneys authoring the brief, said, "UJAE and its 10 union members have official status as observers at the Council of Parties for the Kyoto Protocol. That puts us in a unique position to tell the court that the so-called 'public nuisance' case on carbon dioxide is clearly preempted by the march of U.S. foreign policy."

"The 3.2 million workers represented by this brief have a strong interest in a sensible approach to climate change," said Trisko.

The UJAE asks the court to dismiss the lawsuit because the states' attorneys general as asking the court to reverse U.S. foreign policy, which under the Bush administration does not limit greenhouse gas emissions. "We think the real nuisance is litigation that is wrong-headed, bad for workers, and is likely unconstitutional," Trisko said.

Trisko says the industrial workers that are part of UJAE object to U.S. companies limiting greenhouse gas emissions until developing nations do so. "These countries benefit from lower environmental standards, and have become havens for outsourced U.S. jobs as a result," he said.

Lisa Jaeger, former acting general counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and another of the brief's authors, said, "Congress has been clear: the U.S. is to withold unilateral concessions regarding carbon reductions until and unless the developing world - a group whose carbon emissions are quickly increasing - agree to substantial reductions themselves."

"Regardless of your view on the merits," Jaeger said, "the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled in last several years that courts and their state petitioners cannot alter U.S. foreign policy without running afoul of the Constitution."

Court Upholds Challenge to Florida's Impaired Waters Rule

The court sent the case back down to the federal trial court to identify specific Florida waters that have wrongly been removed from the mandatory cleanup program.

The environmental groups that prosecuted the lawsuit were the Sierra Club, Florida Public Interest Research Group, Save Our Suwannee, and Friends of St. Sebastian River along with Florida resident Linda Young. They sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection seeking to force a change in the 2002 Impaired Waters Rule.

"The Court today confirmed what we already knew: that the Bush administration and Florida pollution cops were not on the beat," said Frank Jackalone with the Sierra Club in Tampa. "The Bush administration is failing to enforce the laws that protect the waters that flow throughout Florida and sustain our economy."

"The health and safety of Florida communities depends on cleaning up these waters polluted with mercury, fecal coliform and other dangerous toxics," said John Swingle, Sierra Club Florida Conservation Chair. "We need our federal and state leaders to do their jobs."

In April 2001, Florida passed a regulation, known as the "impaired waters rule," reducing the number of polluted waters in the state that would be cleaned up.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Bush administration had a duty to ensure that the new rule did not put Florida’s water quality at risk. In the lawsuit filed by environmental groups, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bush administration failed to protect Florida’s water quality.

The administration allowed the state to omit from its pollution cleanup list more than 100 water bodies with fish consumption advisories due to mercury.

Mercury is a toxic pollutant known to cause damage to developing brains and neurological systems in fetuses and children.

Among the waters with fish consumption advisories that are not included for clean up are Tampa Bay, Lake Kissimmee, Peace River, Escambia River and the Ochlockonee River. All of Florida’s coastal waters and more than 100 of its rivers, streams, and lakes are under fish consumption advisories for mercury.

In a separate case, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Linda Young today filed suit Monday in Tallahassee seeking to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take over the water pollution control duties of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

"By asking that EPA take control of the situation, we are hoping to hold all parties accountable for enforcing the Clean Water Act," said David Bookbinder with the Sierra Club legal team.

The governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, is brother to the President of the United States George W. Bush. "Both Bush administrations should be protecting the waters that Floridians use for fishing, swimming and drinking," Bookbinder said.

Illinois Hospitals Begin Incinerator Shutdowns

The hospital incinerator shutdown came in response to growing concerns raised by communities near hospital incinerators and emerging scientific data about the health effects of exposure to toxic emissions from these medical waste incinerators.

Dozens of people rallied in Evanston, calling for the closure of the incinerator, and saying it releases toxins into the air.

On September 13, Governor Blagojevich called on 11 hospitals across the state to voluntarily shut down their incinerators. For those that don’t comply, the Governor will seek legislation during the Fall veto session banning all hospital incinerators. He also instructed the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with the hospitals on implementing cleaner disposal methods.

The governor offered Illinois EPA’s assistance to the hospitals as they transition to cleaner and safer alternatives.

The Illinois EPA expedited its review and approval of Evanston Hospital’s permit application, which was received on Setember 17, just days after the governor’s request.

The hospital is trying to meet a shutdown deadline of October 15 imposed by an Evanston City Council ordinance passed September 13.

“Evanston Hospital is the first to step up and do the right thing and is setting a great example for the other hospitals that will follow,” said Blagojevich. “I’m pleased to see that Illinois EPA and the hospital have worked quickly on the changes necessary to keep the incinerator’s heating capacity.”

“Illinois EPA staff is ready and willing to work cooperatively with other hospitals to provide guidance, address alternatives and expedite any necessary permits just as we have done with Evanston Hospital,” said Illinois EPA Director Renee Cipriano.

Illinois EPA issued a joint construction and operating permit which allows Evanston Hospital to add natural gas fired burners on its existing incinerator’s heat recovery unit. This retrofit will provide the steam needed for heating, cooking and other daily hospital activities.

The permit paves the way for Evanston Hospital to shut down its incinerator but still use the former waste boiler as stand-alone heating equipment.

Expert Panel Criticizes Flawed Plan for Mississippi Locks

In the second of three reports reviewing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Restructured Upper Mississippi River - Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) Feasibility Study, the National Research Council (NRC) is critical of the $70 million study.

The review found that the Corps, deliberately discounted alternatives to new locks and spent too little consideration on ecosystem restoration. In fact, the new $2.5 billion lock system may not be needed as barge traffic has leveled out, the NRC suggests.

“Despite statements to the contrary, the commercial navigation and ecosystem restoration components of the study have proceeded essentially on separate tracks. There is little evidence that prominent and important trade offs and interactions between these two sectors and other users on the UMR-lWW were carefully considered," the review states.

"There has been more attention devoted to considering nonstructural measures than in previous versions of the study, but the study still lacks adequate analysis in this realm, and some promising nonstructural approaches for managing waterway traffic appear not to have been considered at all," the NRC says.

The Corps came under fire for using unreliable and inflated forecasts of barge traffic that would make use of the new locks. "...the scenarios reflect a bias in the direction of future increases in exports," the review states. “There are no overwhelming regional or global trends that clearly portend a marked departure from a 20 year trend of steady U.S. grain export levels.”

The National Research Council said the Corps produced a poor economic model. "The Corps’ principal model is “incapable of producing any credible estimate of a lower bound of the benefits of lock extensions. Economic feasibility for any of the navigation alternatives has therefore not been demonstrated.”

“Boiled down to lay terms, the National Academy of Sciences is saying that the Corps, after 10 years of work and spending more than $70 million, succeeds in subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge,” said Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Executive director Jeff Ruch whose organization represents Corps economists who have repeatedly disclosed flaws in the study and in the agency planning process.

But that assessment is even more critical than the National Research Council's review, which recognized that much effort has been put into designing an ecological restoration program, and "the proposed restoration measures represent an impressive range and number of candidate actions."

But the assembly of those measures into restoration alternatives, "is not adequately grounded in principles and theories of large river floodplain science and restoration," the NRC said. "The ranking of alternatives is therefore unpersuasive."

Still, the NRC review committee says, "If the Corps is provided the resources and if it commits to the needed data collection, improved modeling techniques, and evaluation many of the flaws and omissions in this study can be corrected in the course of implementation by the application of adaptive management principles. "

The Upper Mississippi River - Illinois Waterway system "is a natural resource of enormous value to the nation," the NRC review states. "As the largest riverine system in the United States and third-largest drainage basin in the world, it is also an ecological resource of global significance."

Tens of millions of visitors and residents use the waters for drinking, boating and fishing, hunting, trapping and commercial navigation.

The NRC review emphasized that "restoration" of ecological structure, functions, and habitat on a system as large as the UMR-lWW is unprecedented, and "there is no perfect blueprint for restoration efforts." A third report from the NRC on the locks program is due early next year.

Read the NRC review of the Corps plans for the Upper Mississippi at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11109.asp

Certification of World's Largest Fishery Made Final

After reviewing its certification process in the light of objections by environmental groups, the MSC announced this week that it is satisfied that the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands pollock fishery conforms to the MSC's Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing and can now display the eco-label.

The MSC eco-label tells shoppers that the seafood they are buying is not overfished and was caught in ways that do not harm the marine ecosystem.

The primary markets for pollock are in the United States and Europe with the Japanese market for surimi, minced fish, and roe. Most of the pollock is frozen. Pollock contributes to a large volume for fish fingers around the world. Fillets are used for fish and chips, and the surimi used for imitation crab and similar products.

The pollock fisheries were approved for the eco-label by Scientific Certification Systems Inc., of Emeryville, California, hired by MSC to evaluate the $750 million fishery. The certification is being sought by the industry group At-Sea Processors Association.

The final report for the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands pollock fishery assessment, which has been underway since early 2001, was issued in June 2004 when any organizations opposed to the recommendation were given 21 days to signal their plans to file an objection.

The Alaska Oceans Program, Greenpeace International, National Environmental Trust and Oceana filed an objection to the certification in August 2004 and a further objection on September 23.

The groups say that despite an extensive review lasting nearly four years, Scientific Certification Systems ignored a recent 80 percent decline in Steller sea lions, which prey on the pollock in addition to a drop in pollock numbers, particularly in the Gulf of Alaska. They say that in their view the fisheries are not well managed.

But the objections of the environmental groups were dismissed by a four person panel headed by British MP John Gummer, and including Dr. Keith Sainsbury, Kees Lankester, Henrique Cavalcanti.

The determination made by the certification body will become the final decision, MSC said, so the fisheries are now certified.

Brendan May, outgoing chief executive of the MSC after five years in post, said, "The Bering Sea Aleutian Islands Pollock fishery has been subject to robust and rigorous scrutiny under the MSC programme. It is hard to find a more thorough certification and auditing process for any commodity in the world than the MSC has developed for fisheries."

The MSC used the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries as its starting point to develop the MSC Standard. This encompasses the general principles of good fisheries management and fisheries sustainability regardless of a fishery's size, scale, complexity, geography or technology.

"An independent third party certification body and its expert team of scientists and lawyers has made the determination that this fishery meets the standard set by the MSC's Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing," said May. "This follows an extensive review lasting nearly four years."

The Bering Sea Aleutian Islands Alaska pollock fishery is a mid-water trawl fishery which accounts for approximately 30 percent of all fish harvested by volume in the United States.

The certification is valid for five years and is subject to annual audits by an independent certification body to confirm that required improvements are being made.