Friday, August 1st, 2008
California announced yesterday that it intends to lead a number of states in filing a lawsuit against the EPA for its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships, planes and farm equipment. The announcement, made by Attorney General Jerry Brown, comes on the heels of a series of environmental disputes between California and the federal government. This is also not the first dispute between the parties dealing with the EPA’s stance towards greenhouse gas emissions.
An EPA spokesman responded to Jerry Brown’s announcement by stating, this “is certainly typical of the attorney general of California. If they don’t like how we make a decision on something, they sue and hope the courts will mandate toward their position. It works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn’t work.”
Apparently, greenhouse gas emissions from the sources in dispute here (ships, off-road engines and jets), are greater than those released by every registered vehicle in the United States. This is clearly an important issue for state governments, and could just be the beginning of these state vs. federal government disputes, depending on the results of the presidential election.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Governmental Regulations, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Industrial Development, Los Angeles, New York, Politics, San Francisco, Transportation | 1 Comment »
Friday, July 11th, 2008
From around the web:
- “This comes down to the closest thing to war, while not having war.” -T. Boone Pickens
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Energy, General, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles, Politics | No Comments »
Tuesday, April 15th, 2008
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a case involving utility company efforts to overturn an environmentally friendly holding by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The dispute in the case involves an EPA regulation that permitted energy companies to avoid the most costly technologies (closed-cycle cooling systems) that protect aquatic life in rivers and lakes surrounding power plants. The harm at issue stems from the process by which power plants take water from surrounding sources in order to cool the plant’s operations. Unfortunately, without this costly technological feature, this process does substantial damage to the aquatic life.
The Bush Administration put in place a rule that allowed these companies to undertake a case-by-case cost-benefit analysis in determining to what extent the damage to aquatic life should be mitigated by technology. Environmental groups sued, claiming that the Clean Water Act requires the use of the more expensive and effective technology, and the Circuit Court agreed—specifically holding that it was not clear that the costs of this technology could not be reasonably borne by the industry.
Although the Supreme Court will consider overruling this decision when the case comes before it, if the next president disagrees with this Bush Administration pro-business policy, the issue could quickly become moot, as the regulation could be overturned by the EPA.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Energy, General, Governmental Regulations, Water Pollution | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 11th, 2008
As was widely reported this week, the Associated Press recently released the results of an investigation indicating that pharmaceutical drugs are at detectable levels in most municipal fresh water supplies. Although the drug levels are well below those used for medical purposes, it was reported that they are high enough to potentially cause health problems in humans. Interestingly, the United States is not the only country to face this problem. Similar studies have shown traces of pharmaceuticals in the water supplies of other developed nations, including Japan, Germany and Canada, among others. (Since the more wealthy a country, the more likely they are to have access to pharmaceuticals.)
The source of these drugs is believed to be human urine. Apparently, when people take pharmaceuticals, there are parts of the drugs that are not completely broken down by the body, which are then removed by the kidneys, released into the toilet and then flushed back into the world. Because municipal water treatment plants fail to remove these traces from their reservoir water, it then is re-introduced into humans via centrally supplied drinking water.
Senators Boxer and Lautenberg, of California and New Jersey (Dems), respectively, have both called for hearings on this matter. The EPA’s spokesman indicated that “we encourage all Americans to be responsible when disposing of prescription drugs.” This response seemed a little odd given the fact that the drugs are apparently released through urine rather than improper garbage disposal. We wonder what exactly the EPA wants individuals to do other than pressure their local water plants to more thoroughly purify the water supply?
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in General, Water Pollution | No Comments »
Monday, March 3rd, 2008
Sticking with our California vs. the federal government theme, the EPA released a “final decision” on Friday stating that California cannot regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles more strictly than the system set up by the federal government.
The head of the EPA, in ignoring the advice of his senior staff, ruled that since the purpose of the proposed state law was to address global warming and that since the consequences of global warming were not unique to California, that the proposed law must be preempted by the EPA’s own set of rules which are much more relaxed. (Apparently under the federal Clean Air Act, a state must have “compelling and extraordinary conditions” in order to permit an environmental law to be more stringent than the parallel federal regulation.)
Not surprisingly, the National Automobile Dealers Association fully supports the EPA’s ruling, issuing the following statement: “Any regulation of motor vehicle greenhouse gases should be done at the federal, not state, level.” (more…)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation | No Comments »
Monday, February 11th, 2008
On Friday a federal appellate court overturned a Bush administration plan to change the way mercury emissions from power plants are regulated. Basically, the issue was about whether these emissions would be regulated under a cap-and-trade or a hard cap system. Previously, the Clinton administration had found that mercury emissions were a “hazardous air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act which lead to mandatory caps on their release into the environment. However, coal burning utilities (a major source of mercury pollution) lobbied the Bush administration to instead impose a cap-and-trade system, which they felt would allow them to more economically reduce emissions.
While cap-and-trade systems are very effective in reducing the release of greenhouse gases, which impact the environment on a global scale, the problem with mercury is that it effects the environment on a local level. A cap-and-trade system for mercury emissions would allow energy companies to continue to release high levels of mercury at certain locations, as long as that amount was offset by a decrease in emissions at a different plant. However, this would allow for concentrated levels of mercury to be released at local levels, which would present a serious health and environmental issue. With the court’s ruling, the EPA will now be prevented from pursuing this policy.
Photo by Daniel Shea
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Energy, General, Politics | No Comments »
