air pollution

The Big Three attempt to persuade other states of the danger of fuel efficiency standards

Automakers are ramping up their PR effort to persuade states not to adopt California’s auto emission standards, which they fear will survive the Bush administration’s latest monkey wrench. But their arguments are as silly as ever: Dave McCurdy, chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers … said the California-inspired initiative would result in a […]

California mulls nation’s first feebate bill

Feebates are one of the most promising strategies for lowering vehicle fleet emissions. This week, the California Assembly will vote on the nation’s first feebate bill, the California Clean Car Discount Act. It would levy a fee of up to $2,500 on gas guzzlers, with commensurate rebates for fuel efficient cars. The L.A. Times has […]

Details on the EPA chief overruling his staff on California tailpipe emissions

We have known for weeks that the EPA administrator overruled his staff when announced late last year that the EPA was denying California's application to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions.

Now we have the details of the PowerPoint presentation that the EPA's legal and technical staff made to Johnson, thanks to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). At the end, I'll reprint a letter from the Terminator (and 13 other governors) sent to the EPA. As reported today by the S.F. Chronicle:

In the presentation last year, EPA staffers wrote that California could clearly demonstrate "compelling and extraordinary conditions" -- the legal definition under the Clean Air Act that requires EPA to approve regulations set by the state.

"California continues to have compelling and extraordinary conditions in general (geography, climatic, human and motor vehicle populations -- many such conditions are vulnerable to climate change conditions) as confirmed by several recent EPA decisions," the staff wrote.

The staffers also told Johnson that climate scientists at the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had concluded California was at greater risk from the impacts of global warming than other states, which could justify the tougher rules.

"California exhibits a greater number of key impact concerns than other regions," they wrote. The staffers listed all the risks that could prove the state's case -- from potential water shortages to rising sea levels affecting coastal communities to health threats from air pollution.

"Wildfires are increasing," which could "generate particulates that can exacerbate health risk," they wrote. "California has the greatest variety of ecosystems in the U.S.; and the most threatened and endangered species in the continental U.S."

Nice to see the EPA staff gets this issue, even if their boss and the White House don't. The story notes:

The best climate strategies don’t start in your backyard

In my line of work, one sometimes hears strange things. These include allegations that leaf blowers or pet manure should be high-priority targets for reducing climate emissions. I'm in a myth-busting mood today, so I am happy to report that leaf blowers don't really rate.

In the U.S., the emissions from all leaf blowers, both residential and commercial, for all of 2008 will be roughly equivalent to the emissions from driving that occurred between the arrival of the new year and 11:00 a.m. on January 1.

Add to that the entire year's worth of snowblowers, and you can equal the driving emissions up until 1:30 p.m. on the first.

Add in all lawn mowers, both residential and commercial, including the big riding and tractor-type units. Add in rototillers and other turf maintenance equipment. Add chainsaws, chippers, stump grinders, and shredders. Now add trimmers, edgers, brush cutters, and any other garden tool you can think of. The combined emissions from all of that racket-making equipment, for the entire year, is roughly equal to the driving that occurred before afternoon rush hour on January 6.

Of course, that's not really the whole story.

Boxer releases notes on secret EPA material

This just in: Sen. Barbara Boxer today released notes her staff took on some of the materials the Bush administration has tried to suppress regarding the decision to reject California's effort to enforce its greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles.

These documents back up published reports that EPA chief Steve Johnson rejected the advice of his staff. More here.

More shenanigans from the EPA on the Cali waiver

Thurday will be an interesting test of the ability of Congress to crack a Bush administration coverup of a rotten and likely illegal action: its decision to reject California's effort to enforce its greenhouse-gas standards for motor vehicles.

Sen. Barbara Boxer will put EPA Administrator Steve Johnson in the box to explore not only his indefensible decision, but his efforts to withhold information from Congress and cover up the truth about his pro-car company action.

You will recall that right before Christmas, Johnson nixed the California request in a hastily called news conference where he tried, dishonestly, to spin his way out of a looming Washington Post exclusive.

The lies continued last week as the EPA -- on the Friday of a holiday weekend, in an effort to minimize attention -- sent Boxer a letter and portions of various materials she sought. Boxer noted much of the relevant information was "whited out," as EPA Associate Administrator Christopher Bliley literally invoked the Nixon Watergate coverup as justification.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere exacerbates the effects of air pollution

The primary reason EPA head Stephen Johnson rejected California’s waiver request is that the state did not face "extraordinary and compelling conditions" as defined under the Clean Air Act. The idea is that CO2 affects the entire atmosphere equally, so California didn’t face any particular dangers from it. Turns out, not only is that shoddy […]

Can economic democracy make the global economy more sustainable?

Worried about more coal plants, carbon emissions from transportation, and a crumbling infrastructure? Evidence provided by several recent reports point to one of the least explored causes of these problems: globalization, that is, the transfer of manufacturing capacity from developed to developing countries, particularly China.

The mechanisms differ. The U.S. and Europe, which could manufacture using environmentally benign techniques, instead use old, polluting technologies that wreck China's environment and increase global carbon emissions. The 70,000 cargo ships that ply the seas moving all of the globalized goods emit more than twice as much carbon as all airline traffic. And because major corporations no longer feel tied to their local communities, they also no longer lobby governments for a world-class infrastructure.

Now, I recently proposed that it would be a good thing to manufacture locally (and Ryan Avent took me to task for saying so). But what I want to propose is not protectionism, but the idea that if local companies were employee-owned and -operated, the problems I describe in this post would go away -- as utopian as that may first sound.

But first to the NYT article, "China Grabs West's Smoke-Spewing Factories":

Clinton lobbied for tire burning near Granite State

With the New Hampshire primaries approaching, I thought I'd share this article about how Hillary Clinton's political style has directly affected New Hampshire voters in a way that might shed light on the kind of president she would be. The article was co-written with Friends of the Earth Action president Brent Blackwelder.

-----

New Hampshire has for decades struggled to keep its air clean. But during 2005 and 2006, Hillary Clinton's ambitions collided with New Hampshire's air quality, putting thousands of Granite Staters, and particularly children, directly in the line of a deadly cloud of toxic pollution.

At the time, of course, Clinton was hotly engaged in a campaign to increase her margin of victory in her bid for reelection in her New York Senate race. Her triumph was never in question: she faced only token Republican opposition in a heavily Democratic state. But she was desperate to prove that she could win with a big margin in more conservative areas of upstate New York so she could prove to Democrats that she would be viable in similar conservative areas around the country during her presidential bid.

That understandable political aspiration came head to head with New Hampshire children's health in 2005, when the International Paper logging company unveiled a proposal to burn tires at its Ticonderoga paper mill in upstate New York on the border with Vermont. Burning tires to power its operations would save IP money on its electricity bills, but it came with a heavy price.