WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg
June 19, 2009 by Ben Somberg

The Heartland Institute's Shifting Statements

Andrew Freedman of washingtonpost.com's Capital Weather Gang has a nifty catch: the Heartland Institute, the people cluttering up my newspaper this week with climate-change-denying ads, have officially changed tack on their lobbying policy. Back in March, the group told Freedman:

"Our purpose is to bring scientists, economists, and policy experts together to address issues overlooked or ignored by the IPCC the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .... If we really wanted to influence policy we would have held the event in Washington, not New York - as many of the policy wonks at the conference have urged us to do, but we resist."

But the group ended up holding its conference in Washington this month. Now they tell Freedman:

"The reason we moved up the date, changed the location, and presented a shorter schedule ... was to bring our message to elected officials in Washington D.C. in time to inform the debate over climate and energy policy."

Inform, right.

June 18, 2009 by Ben Somberg
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

Today CPR releases Reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program: Exchanging Promises for Results (press release, full report).

For years, the jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay watershed (the states and Washington D.C.) have essentially not faced consequences for failing to meet pollution-reduction targets. It's not surprising that the Chesapeake Bay has languished.

What the new CPR report recommends is almost an obvious next step: the states should face consequences for not meeting goals. The report calls on Congress to empower the EPA to impose penalties on jurisdictions that flunk.

The report says that Congress should reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program with changes to require Bay jurisdictions to set a statutory deadline of 2020 for Bay restoration, and require Bay jurisdictions to establish five sets of two-year milestones outlining the interim reduction requirements necessary to achieve that deadline. When jurisdictions fail to meet the milestones, the CPR report …

June 17, 2009 by Alice Kaswan
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

The Waxman-Markey bill, in its current form, continues the nation’s wise respect for the complementary roles of the federal government and the states. By establishing a national cap and a national trading program, the bill would draw all states into the essential task of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But, like the federal environmental laws before it, the bill simultaneously provides states with the power to achieve more stringent reductions. Although industry may resist the prospect of state control, Congress should maintain the balance between federal and state power the bill has established.

The Clean Air Act, which the bill amends, already allows states to set more stringent regulatory standards for facilities in their states. In a national cap-and-trade program, however, that power could be rendered meaningless due to the interconnections among the states created by a national trading system. For example, if a state were …

June 16, 2009 by Daniel Farber
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

The Congressional Budget Office recently issued its report on the Waxman-Markey bill. The Washington Times soon trumpeted: “CBO puts hefty price tag on emissions plan: Obama's cap-and-trade system seen costing $846 billion.”

This is quite misleading. Actually, the CBO report tells us virtually nothing about the economic costs of the bill or how much consumers will lose out of pocket. In fact, the way most people understand the idea of a budget deficit, it doesn’t really say much about that either. CBO’s analysis is based on some very technical accounting that may can easily be misinterpreted. In particular, CBO treats the issuance of free carbon allowances quite differently than most people would expect.

CBO’s job is to project the bill’s effect on the federal budget. Here’s the bottom line from the report, which is what the Washington Times story was reflecting …

June 15, 2009 by Yee Huang
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

It’s a frackin’ mess out there in the world of natural gas extraction – exploding houses and water wells, dying cattle, and curious rashes.  The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House Natural Resources Committee recently held a hearing to explore the risks of hydraulic fracturing, or fracing (sometimes spelled, “fracking”), which is currently exempt from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Representatives Diana DeGette (D-CO), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced a bill to close the exemption, known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” secured by the eponymous company under the Bush-Cheney Administration in 2005.  The proposed bill would also require the industry – the only industry exempt from the nation’s Safe Drinking Water Act – to disclose the chemicals used in fracing.

The hydraulic fracturing process is used in most natural gas wells.  A highly pressurized solution of water, sand, and chemicals are …

June 12, 2009 by Holly Doremus
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

This week, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on the problem of waste pharmaceuticals ending up in the nation’s waterways. The issue sounds trivial – does Congress really need to spend its time worrying about people with a few left-over prescription pills flushing them down the toilet? The answer is yes. The cumulative volume of pharmaceuticals flowing from America’s bathrooms (and hospitals and landfills) to our rivers and lakes is significant, and even low levels can harm fish and wildlife. As a result, the environmental impacts of careless drug disposal are serious.

Some pharmaceuticals, known as endocrine disruptors, mimic female hormones in fish, “feminizing” male fish and interfering with reproduction. Even if only one species in a waterway is directly affected, the loss can propagate through the food chain – if the fish that feed predators disappear, the predators tend to …

June 12, 2009 by Rena Steinzor
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

This past Sunday’s New York Times Magazine had a terrific piece by Matt Bai on the Obama White House and how it is “taking” Capitol Hill, one battle at a time. After extolling the team of congressional insiders Obama has assembled, and emphasizing the importance of their attentiveness to key players on the issue du jour -- health care reform -- Bai predicts that Obama will be compelled to wade up to his neck in the messy details of the legislation because only his personal power will be enough to guide this behemoth through. This prediction, which has already begun to come true -- note the stories last week saying he’d be willing to consider taxing benefits -- could spell disaster for a different issue: climate change legislation.

Allow me to pause for just a moment, in fairness to the Obama team, to lament congressional gridlock, which has yet …

June 11, 2009 by Holly Doremus
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

Over the past few months, the Obama Administration has sent mixed signals on mountaintop mining, the practice of blowing the tops off mountains containing coal and piling the left-over rubble in valleys and streambeds. Early on, things seemed to be going well for the environment. First, EPA objected to the issuance of two specific permits for mountaintop removal under Clean Water Act section 404, and announced that it would review hundreds of others. Then the Department of Interior asked a court to remand a Bush-era rule that made it easier for coal companies to dump their mountaintop waste in valley streams. But then, to the consternation of the environmental community, EPA announced that after review it would allow 42 of 48 pending permits in one Corps of Engineers district to go ahead, objecting to only six.

Now the Administration has announced an interagency agreement on a coordinated …

June 11, 2009 by Matt Shudtz
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

This afternoon, Congressman Brad Miller (D-NC), Chairman of the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, will hold a hearing on recent revisions to the IRIS assessment process. IRIS (the Integrated Risk Information System) is EPA’s premier database of toxicological profiles for dangerous chemicals. The profiles are used for everything from setting cleanup standards at Superfund sites to determining liability in toxic tort suits. The problem is, IRIS only contains profiles for 548 chemicals. On average, 700 new chemicals enter commerce each year. Because IRIS numbers can serve as a cornerstone in the risk assessment/risk management process, an extensive database would greatly benefit policymakers in their daily work to protect public health.

We wanted to see whether some well-known toxins are adequately covered in the IRIS database, so we looked at the number of hazardous air pollutants that are listed in the Clean …

June 10, 2009 by Matt Shudtz
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

This afternoon, Congressman Brad Miller (D-NC), Chairman of the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, will hold a

hearing

on recent revisions to the IRIS assessment process.

IRIS

(the Integrated Risk Information System) is EPA’s premier database of toxicological profiles for dangerous chemicals. The profiles are used for everything from setting cleanup standards at Superfund sites to determining liability in toxic tort suits. The problem is, IRIS only contains profiles for 548 chemicals. On average, 700 new chemicals enter commerce each year. Because IRIS numbers can serve as a cornerstone in the risk assessment/risk management process, an extensive database would greatly benefit policymakers in their daily work to protect public health.

 

We wanted to see whether some well-known toxins are adequately covered in the IRIS database, so we looked at the number of hazardous air pollutants that are listed in the Clean …

CPR HOMEPAGE
More on CPR's Work & Scholars.
June 30, 2009

Drywall Summer - An Update

June 29, 2009

Waxman-Markey Analysis Round-Up

June 26, 2009

Offsets in the USDA – The Bad, the OK, and the Unknown

June 26, 2009

The Peterson Compromises and the Question of

June 25, 2009

Running the Cost-Benefit Analysis on the Metro Crash?

June 24, 2009

Handing Primary Control of Offsets to USDA: What this Might Mean

June 23, 2009

The Roberts Court Gets Reckless with Administrative Law in Coeur Alaska: Problems Now, Problems Later