Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘greenhouse gasses’

A lot of hot airPublic Citizen Calls For A Moratorium On Permitting All New Sources
Of Greenhouse Gases Until Texas Gets Plan In Place

EPA issued proposed rules today that will require Texas to modify its state implementation plan to cover Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG).  If Texas does not, then EPA is proposing a federal implementation plan (FIP) that would apply in any state that is unable or unwilling to submit a plan to permit greenhouse gasses.

We are calling on Texas to put a moratorium on permitting of any new sources of greenhouse gas emissions until Texas gets its permitting plan in place and approved.  Governor Perry’s policies and the decisions of his appointees to not regulate global warming gasses will let millions of tons of hot air escape through permitting loopholes that will cost Texans billions of dollars to close. 55 million new tons of CO2 emissions will have been added to Texas overheated skies by the 8 additional coal plants permitted by Perry’s appointees. Three more plants that could emit nearly 22 million tons a year are in the permitting stage, and a moratorium could stop adding hot air and higher costs to the consumer.

No more wailingThe first rule of holes is to quit digging. Rick Perry needs to drop that shovel. It’s time for the Governor to stop complaining and picking fights, and get down to the actual work of governing. It’s easy to blame others when Rome is burning: it’s another thing entirely to be throwing gasoline on the fires.

Texas leads the nation in emissions of greenhouse gasses, and could be leading the nation in economic development from efforts to reduce these emissions. Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions through efficiency programs and leading the country in the development of wind energy has provided jobs for 84,000 Texans, and cheaper, cleaner electric bills for folks when we need it most. Public Citizen calls on both candidates for Governor to quit ducking this issue and disclose their plans for reducing global warming gasses.

Perry and his appointees have known this day is coming for nearly 20 years.  The Texas legislature gave TCEQ the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses in 1991. Since then 37 other states have made plans to reduce global warming emissions, but not Texas. Since 1990, global warming emissions in Texas will have increased by 25 percent.

Perry and his appointees have blocked any attempts to even get early credit for the approximately 42 million tons of emissions reductions resulting from the renewable energy we’ve put on line, or the energy efficiency we’ve installed. This short-sightedness will cost Texans billions to make additional reductions. These are costs that could have been avoided if Perry’s appointees had acted when EPA called for early submittal of pre-existing emission reductions.

This rule would apply to new major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major stationary sources. Those sources must obtain a PSD permit outlining how they will control emissions. The new permits will require facilities to apply best available control technology, which is determined on a case by-case basis taking into account, among other factors, the cost and effectiveness of the control.

EPA intends to finalize this rulemaking action on December 1, 2010, and give states a deadline of 12 months thereafter to submit their plan.

In an earlier dispute with EPA over other issues with Texas’ permitting rules, a lobbying push by oil giants resulted in a bipartisan group of Texas legislators asking state environmental regulators to quickly solve a permit dispute with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that has left some of the nation’s largest oil refineries in operating limbo.  This letter, signed by 46 legislators, is the latest indication that while Gov. Rick Perry and his Republican supporters are ready and willing to wage war with Washington on everything from environmental regulation to education spending, some battles are wearing on the industries that have helped Texas weather the recession.

Let’s move Texas forward along with the rest of the nation in making sure our regulation of pollution ultimately benefits all Texans and harms none.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

In Michael Webber’s Op Ed in the Sunday, March 21st Austin-American Statesman, he beautifully explained why solar is now ready to become the next big energy source, but was shy on steps that the Texas legislature or our local public utilities could take to reduce energy costs while creating a local solar manufacturing boom.

We can do the same thing for solar that we did for wind.  Set a modest statewide goal, say – 5,000 MW by 2025, and require every utility to buy some solar so they can get used to it.

When the sun is the hottest is when solar makes the most energy, during the summer in Texas that is also when our peak demand for electricity occurs. Meeting peak demand is often 3-4 times more expensive than the average cost of power. If small solar energy owners were paid market price for the energy they produce on peak you’d see solar everywhere.

Solar incentive programs work. Austin and TXU have had programs like this that pay about 30% of the cost and have been sold out. This program has kick started local industries and attracts installers and manufacturers.

Solar can cut costs and pollution (the amount of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere per unit of energy produced is 500 times less than coal), but the industry needs a little push. If the state of Texas and local utilities adopt all three of these goals, we’ll be on the way to a solar boom.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Dallas Morning News journalist Elizabeth Souder shares the Six things economists wish journalists knew about greenhouse gas reduction on the DMN’ Energy and Environment Blog.  They sound a lot like the 6 things EVERYONE should know about greenhouse gas reduction, so I thought I’d share them.  Kudos to Elizabeth Souder, and be sure to keep up with her work on the Energy and Environment Blog.

I’m attending the McCormick Energy Solutions Conference for journalists this week at Ohio State University. Andy Keeler, an economist with the John Glenn School of Public Affairs here at the university, offered six things journalist should know about greenhouse gas reduction.

1. It makes economic sense to reduce greenhouse gases. Even though doing so costs money, it will end up costing us even more if we do nothing. Dealing with the effects of global warming, of seeing Texas and the Southwest become a dustbowl, could be financially devastating.

2. Cap and trade, which is the method Congess is considering to regulate greenhouse gases, does two distinct things. By issuing tradable allowances for greenhouse gas emissions, the system raises the price of energy produced from greenhouse gas-heavy fossil fuels. It also generates revenue for the government by selling those allowances, and the money can be used for anything.

“Criticism of cap and trade which mixes these two together is deliberately misleading,” Keeler said.

3. Cap and trade creates broad and efficient incentives. Using market signals as part of our response to climate change risk is good public policy.

4. Who gets the money the government makes by selling allowances is a public expenditures question, not an environmental question.

5. A carbon tax and a cap and trade program have strong similarities. But the details of the program are more important than the choice between the two.

Keeler concludes that, even though economists tend to agree that a tax is cleaner and more elegant than a system of trading allowances, the current bill includes reasonable goals. Therefore, rather than starting from scratch and renegotiating the cap, which leads to a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80 percent cut by 2050, Keeler prefers to stick with the current bill.

6. Trade and competitiveness concerns exist, but are neither broad nor large. The bill could have significant effects on the iron, steel, aluminum, cement and paper industries, but those problems could be solved with targeted rules, rather than broad regulations.

“It’s not to belittle the problem for people in these industries, but it’s misleading to cast it as an overall disaster from a trade point of view,” he said.

Read Full Post »

As expected, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved climate change legislation last night and sent it along in the legislative process. We strongly urge lawmakers to make major overhauls to this bill or go back to the drawing board.

The problem? Oil, coal and nuclear industries had far too much say in its shaping, and it shows.

Now more than ever, Public Citizen needs you to tell your representatives that climate change legislation should not be weakened by the corrupting influence of big money.

Those who say this bill is the best the legislative process can produce are wrong: The American people demanded strong climate legislation, and polluters are subverting these goals.

Public Citizen supports strong, effective climate legislation, but this bill won’t achieve it. We can talk about hoping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, but this bill won’t do it.

It creates a legal right to pollute for industries and gives away credits for free to allow companies to meet those targets without having to pay for them. That is not going to spur the kind of investments we need.

We must act fast to influence lawmakers to fix this piece of legislation. Please take action so that our voices can be heard loud and clear over those of the oil, coal and nuclear industries.

For more information about the climate change bill and how it needs to be fixed, visit our Web site and watch Tyson Slocum explain Public Citizen’s position in an interview on Democracy Now!

Take action today, and let your representatives know you want them to put interests of consumers above those of the energy industries.

Read Full Post »

Smitty MugSustainLane, an on-line “people powered sustainability guide”, recently wrote an in-depth profile piece on Public Citizen’s own Tom “Smitty” Smith.  For an excellent glimpse of the man behind the machine, our very own white-hat-wearing fearless leader and official “American Changemaker,” check out the following:

‘Smitty’ Wrangles Texans for Environmental Battles

by Amy Linn, SustainLane Staff

Tom “Smitty” Smith is one of the leading lights in the environmental movement, in his home state of Texas and beyond.

A large part of wisdom is awareness; another is putting awareness to good use. Taking both those skills—and using them to win countless battles for people and the planet—has made veteran activist Tom “Smitty” Smith one of the leading lights in the environmental movement, in his home state of Texas and beyond.

For 24 years, Tom “Smitty” Smith has been the Texas director of Public Citizen, a consumer and environmental watchdog group that weighs in on nearly every eco-issue, whether it’s fighting the construction of new coal-fired power plants (an ongoing struggle), pushing for renewable energy (one of the group’s major success stories), or combating global warming. Name a progressive battle in Texas, and Smith’s been there, won that.

It’s a path he says he was primed for by his childhood amid the farm belt of Champaign, Ill. In his 20s—before the word “green” meant anything but a color—Smith fought for anti-pollution laws; after graduating college, he stayed on the eco front lines.

What sparked his interest in this tough (and, on bad days, Sisyphusian) line of work?

“My parents,” he says, without hesitation. “When I was a kid we went for walks every Sunday. And they taught me how wonderful nature was, and how little damage it took to the balance of our ecological system to turn a pure little stream into a muddy slough. And they taught me about the impact of pesticides on birds and animals.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

ReadingTime for a Friday wrap-up, all the news that’s fit to link:

The Cost of Climate Inaction, Op-Ed in the Washington Post

An Affordable Salvation, New York Times Op-Ed about the benefits of cap and trade

Carbon Offsets in Waxman-Markey Bill, An Overview, Carbonfund.org Blog

Maryland Passes Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, SustainableBusiness.com News

Cap and trade won’t push heavy industries overseas — study, The New York Times

Net metering: The civil rights movement for solar energy, Photovoltaics World

Who gets tough against companies polluting Texas? Hint: It’s not the state, Houston Chronicle

Utah takes nuclear waste from states with own dump, Houston Chronicle (A glimpse of what could happen in Texas if the Andrews Waste Dump goes through)

Read Full Post »

shockingNEWSFLASH!  Carbon Dioxide emissions may represent a threat to public health or welfare.

Shocking, I know.  But what is old news to the rest of us, released in the form of a proposed endangerment finding by the EPA, is actually a really big deal.  Environmentalists and concerned citizens alike have been waiting years for this announcement.  In 2007, as a result of the landmark Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, the court ordered the EPA administrator to determine if greenhouse gas emissions could “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”  The Bush Administration delayed reacting to this order, but Friday EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a proposed endangerment finding which identified six global warming gasses that pose a threat to human health.

The finding will now enter a 60-day comment period, and have no immediate regulatory effect, but could give the EPA power to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

According to the EPA’s official statement,

Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

After years of global warming being the elephant in the room that the government would not address, the EPA’s proposed finding finally gives the agency the ability to take action on climate change — though as stated, everyone would rather Congress take care of business.  Hopefully, this finding will light a fire under cap-and-trade negotiations.

Its kind of like when my mother used threaten that she’d clean my room herself if I didn’t get cracking — which I knew meant she would just come in with a trash bag and clear everything out.  The EPA could straight up regulate carbon dioxide — but few people would really be happy with the result, most environmentalists included.  By creating new policy, Congress is simply better equipped to deal with our greenhouse gas emissions than the EPA.

So sorry Congress — no more reading the comics you found with the dust bunnies under the bed.  Go clean up, or Mom’s going to start vacuuming.

But don’t take my word for it.  Andy Wilson (Citizen Andy, if you will), Global Warming Program Director here at the Texas Office, wrote a statement on how this finding relates to the big picture, and Texas specifically.  Check it out!

Read Full Post »

Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current broke this story a few days back and I just feel like we have to comment:

As Washington strains under the weight of industry and environmental lobbyists seeking to influence the outcome of what would be our first national climate bill, CPS Energy has been quietly working the angles on Capitol Hill to keep the coal power the city has come to rely on cheap for consumers in the short term. So-called “cheap” power is the mandate the utility operates under, after all.

Too bad that mandate is now at odds with the survival of the earth as we know it and, quite possibly, our survival as a city and a nation.

Responding to an Open Records request submitted by the Current, a CPS Energy legal staffer wrote that the City-owned utility has spent $91,700 lobbying in the past year “in the attempt to influence U.S. climate policy.”

According to Zandra Pulis, senior legal counsel at CPS, the utility has also spent about $67,657 in membership dues to the Climate Policy Group, an industry group it joined in September of 2006 that lobbies Congress against limiting carbon emissions under cap-and-trade legislation. An effort that, to this point, has been remarkably successful.

All told, CPS has spent $2.56 million on lobbyists (since 1999) working the statehouse and the Capitol, according to Pulis.

That’s right — CPS has spent millions of YOUR dollars on lobbying, much of which has gone to try to argue climate change isn’t happening.

Look, I understand that CPS has a mission to produce inexpensive electricity for San Antonio residents and business.  That’s a good thing.  But the facts are these:

1- Climate change is happening.  But even if it wasn’t, everything we need to do to solve it is something that we would want to be to doing anyway.  We need to start living with the fact that political consensus has developed in Washington.  Sooner or later, we’re going to have to  start paying for our greenhouse gas pollution, so we’d better start figuring out how to get our energy from non-polluting sources. (more…)

Read Full Post »

DON”T FORGET:

The general public townhall meeting regarding the release of this audit will be held tomorrow from 6:30 to 8:00 in the Sanchez Building on the UT Campus.

After a long and grueling wait, UT is finally set to release an audit of its carbon footprint today. UT is having a student only event tonight and is planning a full fledged town hall meeting tomorrow that will be open to the general public. The university plans to announce results and analysis from a carbon audit that was conducted in 2008 and then to open up the floor for questions.

The student event begins at 6:00 p.m. today in Wagner Hall and the town hall meeting is tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. in Sanchez Room 104.

main1

The locations of both Sanchez and Waggener Hall can be seen below: (more…)

Read Full Post »

nrgprotest10Last Friday two administrative law judges refused to hear testimony on the impact of carbon dioxide emissions during the permitting process for the NRG Limestone coal-fired power plant. The contested case hearing for NRG’s air quality permit application will be going on all week long, but testimony on the proposed plant’s contribution to global warming will not be allowed.  The judges decided that the TCEQ has adopted clear policies that they would not consider testimony on the issue, even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 (EPA vs Massachusetts) that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. If built, the plant will emit 7.4 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.

NRG has acknowledged that climate change is a serious environmental issue, and has agreed to offset a portion of its greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed new plant. Yet, lawyers for the company maneuvered to strike all references to CO2 or climate change from the week-long hearing.

nrgprotest4In protest, local environmentalists gathered for an 8:30 a.m. protest Monday Feb 22 outside the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Groups supporting the protest included: Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, Environment Texas, Clean Water Action, Re- Energize Texas, and the Texas Climate Emergency Campaign.

Some of the protest’s participants made the following comments in a press release: (more…)

Read Full Post »