Our World and Everything in It

I can’t believe it. The Bush administration hasn’t exited yet and things are changing for the environmental good already. According the Environmental News Service today, Feb. 8th, 2008, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia “vacated two rules issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that failed to set strict limits on mercury emissions from power plants.” Vacated, I can’t believe it. That means “No Way!”

· The EPA’s cap and trade program was thrown out the window by the court.
· Then the court told the EPA how they “erred by taking power plants off the list of hazardous pollution sources when it issued its Clean Air Mercury Rule” that advocated the cap and trade program.
· The article went on to say, “the EPA now has two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants.”

The Clean Air Mercury Rule was an attempt by the EPA to limit the amount of mercury discharged by industry. There were two caps. The first was to be 38 tons of emissions reduced by first getting rid of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide called “co-benefits” by the rule. The rule suggests mercury reductions are achieved by doing this. But mercury is a chemical element. It is what it is. It is not sulfur and nitrogen. They are what they are. Granted they’re bad for the respiratory system, but what about the mercury? The court obviously got tired of this nonsense too and told the EPA to get on the ball. There was also an obvious problem with this little statement in the Clean Air Mercury Rule: “”…and because recent information demonstrates that it is not appropriate or necessary to regulate coal and oil-fired utility units under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.” What?

I griped about all of this in another blog when DTE (Detroit area energy provider) announced they were installing scrubbers for sulfur and nitrogen on their Monroe coalburner. Whoopty Doo. Scrubbers do nothing about the mercury, but today the courts sure did. I also predicted that  utility companies would continue too long on their same course and then whine about the cost to reverse things and comply with new clean air policy. How soon before we hear the sob stories?  So predictable. When companies have a big lobby, they throw all foresight to the wind.  They don’t need to stay on the ball. They pay to change the play instead.  And the taxpayer bears the brunt. Read about that again: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/?m=200701.

This ruling comes on the heals of the June 2007 edict by the Court of Appeals that vacated the EPA’s Incinerator Rule. The court blasted the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act for relaxing limits on emissions of smog-forming compounds from large power plants, factories, and other industrial sources,” according to Chemical and Engineering News. Smog and smoke have always been pretty self explanatory to me. If you can see it in the air, it’s substantial, and you probably shouldn’t be breathing it. As a result of the court’s ruling, chemical plants, refineries, and other industrial facilities that burn the waste they generate in on-site incinerators must comply with the law’s most stringent rules governing hazardous air pollutants. So what about Holcim Cement?

As I sit in a county with the nation’s second largest coalburner that sits on Lake Erie, and a Holcim cement plant that’s big on incinerating and has racked up big fines for doing it, it’s going to be real interesting how the court’s rulings play out.

The announcement of the court ruling today: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-08-01.asp.
The June, 2007 ruling about incinerators: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i25/8525news7.html.
The EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule that is defunct as of today: http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm.
A disturbing report about mercury hot spots: http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Fort-Wayne-Indiana-Mercury11jan04.htm.
 

Get a load of our democratic process with this latest veto out of Washington. The Bush EPA nixed California’s proposed emission standards for the state that targeted the trucking, shipping, cement, semiconductor and consumer product industries. Instead Bush signed into law a new energy bill that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent by 2009 and by 40 percent by 2020. The EPA said this covers the issue of emissions, end of story. Was that apples to apples?

Sixteen other states have already approved emissions laws and were waiting for this waiver by the EPA too. The EPA is supposed to have sole authority to make pollution rules, but our Federal Clean Air Act allows states to create their own rules with an EPA-approved waiver. The waiver was nixed today. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of 12 states that sued the same EPA for dragging their feet about CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court had to tell the EPA that greenhouse gases can be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and they were in violation for not regulating them. And today the EPA blocked California and the other states from doing what should have been the EPA’s job and substituted with Bush’s flimsy energy bill. 

So the states go through a lot of effort for nothing. The emission laws were part of California’s “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The NRDC and many public interest groups co-sponsored it. California committed to reducing overall global warming pollution by 30% by 2020. They figured on new technologies as well as pollution cutting strategies to meet these goals. They sought the help of E2, “a national network of business people who work with the NRDC to champion the economic benefits of good environmental policy” and “who built a solid case for the ways in which curbing global warming could actually benefit California’s economy” (Nature’s Voice Newsletter by the NRDC Jan/Feb 2008). Just what I thought. Green is good for the economy.

I was intrigued by E2 and read on that they argue, “that clean technologies would create jobs and attract new companies to the state…supported by the fact that clean tech now ranks third in venture capital investment in North America.” Told ya so Michigan. Clean technology isn’t likely to coexist alongside coalburners and refineries. They showed that California would save “barrels” of money by reducing dependence on fossil fuel. It also stated that it took 124 meetings at the state capital by E2 volunteer members to “present their business-based argument.” They worked hard to come up with legislation that protects the environment and creates economic opportunity. They believe global warming controls will spur economic prosperity. This was a great program, until the automobile lobby got involved. Yeah, another lobby.

According to our own Detroit News:

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California’s request, according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.
While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

California filed a lawsuite challenging the EPA’s denial of the waiver. And there is a House Committee investigating the agency’s decision to deny it also. This is getting good.

.
Read more about the veto at: http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/epa-nixes-states-plan-to-limit-greenhouse-gases/#comment-285.

Read more about E2: http://www.e2.org/jsp/main.jsp.

About the Supreme Courts decision: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june07/emissions_5-29.html.

The Detroit News article about the auto lobby: http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070705/AUTO01/707050350/1148.

The Free Press had an article about Representative Dingell wanting constructive input from citizens about his proposal to issue a carbon emissions tax to polluters. I already put my 2 cents in. Join me if you have some good ideas at: http://www.house.gov/dingell/contact.htm.

I wrote that I don’t want to see just a carbon emissions tax. We need to start cleaning up our mess. Everyone should be included in a tax on air, water, and land pollution. I know that scares some people because of the threats by companies like Holcim lately that are bullying us with demands to either let them pollute or they will close their doors. But, think about it if we put aside any and all fines to be used as incentives to invite new green industry here?

Holcim paid over $550,000 in fines for polluting at that small, 350 employee Dundee plant. They’ve got thousands of dollars in fines across the states, and the world. Scotland called them “planet trashers.” The head of Holcim, Schmidheiny, formed a council, The Business Council for Sustainable Development that pushes the idea of self-regulation, citing that governmental agencies often fall short. Companies would do a much better job of policing themselves. If you saw the trail of violations and pollution Holcim leaves behind, then his statement is literally about the fox watching the henhouse.

Add to that millions in lobby money thrown at Washington by Holcim every year to keep polluting, and you know where Holcim is coming from. Our federal EPA, which is smaller all the time, issued them a violation at the Dundee plant last year. They don’t just pollute. They polluted 7.5 times over allowable levels there.

My suggestions consider that companies like these bullies can pay fine after fine and still afford lobby money. So why not create a fund with that fine money to use as incentives for new green industry in Michigan. It will create the competition needed to set the bullies packing or complying. Think about Holcim who threatens 350 jobs who wouldn’t be so smug doing so if their violation money had enticed a brand new ethanol  or bio-diesel plant into their location, something that offers a future for generations of workers to come with good wages, decent benefits, and job security for even more than 350 people.

If we continue to support polluters, we’re going to miss out on that green industry for Michigan and succumb to more demands with threats to leave. Case in point, Indiana may loose BP energy because BP decided to scuttle their special permit to pollute Lake Michigan more. So 2300 jobs may be lost. Bad for Indiana, yeah but, Indiana has landed the countries largest bio diesel plant with two more on the way, along with 6 new ethanol plants. That more than makes up for BP. Add the Cummins, Honda, and Toyota plants and Indiana hedges that threat by BP to leave. Michigan needs to start thinking about the future and quit paying the past to stay.

BP says it will stick to the limitations in its former permit for wastewater emissions at its Whiting Refinery in Indiana. This comes after pressure from environmentalists in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois that were joined by politicians. BP will try to redo the plans for its new expansion to accommodate that former permit, but said if they can’t, and the material costs go too high, they may have to scrap the expansion in Indiana.

This is another example of a company waving pollution vs. jobs again, like the Holcim plant in Dundee. BP claims to be putting millions into alternatives for the environment in its commercials, but are only giving-in now due to the large outcry and publicity over their newly won permit. The new permit would have allowed 54% more ammonia, and 34% more sludge into Lake Michigan.

I could see if there were absolutely no other alternatives for BP but there are filtration systems used by other refineries that double filter the water to counteract unnecessary pollution. Why didn’t BP do that in the first place if they claim to be so environmental? Costs?  They worry about money! How much more can they possibly want? While BP isn’t Exxon Mobil, they’re close enough. Exxon Mobil made $75,000 per minute last year. The Holcim plant that threatens to close its doors is the same way. A billion dollar company and it won’t put 6.5 million into finally cleaning up its act. It spends every bit as much to lobby every year to get its way and pollute.

I don’t like the spin of pollution vs. jobs. It’s dangerous and usually based in greed. It’s also unnecessary, when there are all sorts of jobs to be had in a green economy too. The Eco Tech series on the Science Channel thought upwards of 250,000 jobs would be created with green business. It’s waiting to happen if we can get  fossil fuel people to move over. It would do our world and everything in it a whole lotta good. 

Read more about BP:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=43729&newsdate=16-Aug-2007 http://www.takingdownwords.com/taking_down_words/2007/08/make-it-go-away.html