Climate 411

New EPA Guidance Will Help Companies, States Find Cost Savings under Greenhouse Gas Permits

Yesterday E.P.A. issued guidance documents for the greenhouse gas permitting which will begin for the largest new or modified emissions sources in January. The feedback so far from the environmental community has been overwhelmingly positive.

On the New York Times Green blog, there is a great article about the guidance and initial reactions from state and local governments, environmental and industry groups. Mark MacLeod, director of special projects at Environmental Defense Fund, had this to say about the EPA guidance documents:

“Energy efficiency is one of the best ways to reduce pollution and save money, particularly in the manufacturing sector…Today’s guidance will prepare companies for the permitting process and help them find ways to cut pollution while saving money for themselves and their customers.”

Coming next on Climate411…what the guidance means for bioenergy.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Comments are closed

New Poll Shows Americans are More Likely to Vote for Candidates Who Support Clean Energy Legislation

Yesterday NRDC Action Fund released a new poll showing, once again, that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of clean energy legislation. The NRDC Action Fund polled voters in 23 close Congressional races and found they were far more likely to vote for candidates who support clean energy legislation.

Heather Taylor-Miesle of NRDC explains:

“In fact, a majority of voters (almost 53% on average) in tight races around the country said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports a climate bill.”

For a compelling and detailed analysis of the polling data, please read Heather’s blog.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Read 1 Response

Countdown to Better Consumer Labeling for New Cars

(Just posted on our sister blog Way2Go by Kathryn Phillips)

Car Lot

Photo by Alex92287

The 60-day countdown for submitting your vote online about the best car label design has officially begun. Today the federal register published the official notice inviting comment on the government’s proposed changes to the information labels posted on new cars. The agency has also scheduled two public hearings to collect opinions about the labels—in Chicago on October 14 and in Los Angeles on October 21.

As we reported about three weeks ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has offered up two new designs to replace the old fuel economy label. The new designs reflect the most significant change in the 30 years since automakers began attaching the information labels to new cars.

Both of the proposed designs still have fuel economy information. But they both also have something new: details about how much greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution will be generated by the auto or light truck on which the sticker is affixed. For the first time ever, consumers living all over the country will be able to easily, while on the car lot shopping, compare the environmental impact of vehicles. It makes shopping greener simpler.

The two label options are not entirely equal, though. One option provides a bit more information about fuel costs and savings, and it includes a letter grade.

The grade has been drawing a lot of attention and there have been some confusing explanations in the press about how it works. So here are two important things to know about the letter grade:

  1. The grade reflects a vehicle’s standing on a scale set according to a combination of fuel economy and how much greenhouse gas emissions a vehicle spews. So basically, a car or light truck that gets a B grade produces fewer GHGs and gets better fuel economy than a car or light truck that gets a D grade.
  2. Every car and light truck has a fair shot at a good grade. When EPA compared its grading scale against the 2010 fleet (see page 36 of the proposed rule document), a lot of SUVs received B grades, and a lot received C grades. A lot of small cars received B grades and a lot received C grades. The difference was that the B vehicles, not matter the vehicle size, were engineered to get better fuel economy and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the C vehicles. The grade system helps highlight that the engineering exists to make vehicles less polluting—it’s just up to the automakers to do it.

EPA conducted a lot of market research, including focus groups with consumers. The consumers emphasized that they wanted a label that was simple and quick to understand. Hence, the letter grade on one of the proposed options. 

The auto industry and some pundits don’t like the letter grade. They say it’s intrusive and unnecessary. I say that providing product information in a format that everyone can understand at a glance—and without needing bifocals—is a public service.

So go online now and  let EPA know which version you think makes most sense. And while you’re at it, let us know what you think about the labels, too.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Comments are closed

Reflections from the Leader of our National Climate Campaign

This week, Steve Cochran took a moment to share his thoughts on the recent developments in the Senate with EDF supporters and activists.

He discusses some of the frustrations and some of the challenges ahead, such as protecting California’s climate change law from a hostile ballot initiative in November’s election.

He also looks at bright spots, such as the growing support for climate action within the business community. He closes by putting this moment in a historical context:

“You know, I read history and I’m getting old enough to have lived some of it, and the hard truth is that nothing, almost nothing important — and certainly nothing big — is ever easy to do. It just isn’t.

… But, when you do begin to turn the corner, things often happen much more quickly than you think.”

It’s heartening to see all the comments from people who share Steve’s dedication and determination to keep working toward solutions.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Authors: / Comments are closed

The Consequences of Inaction on Climate Change

What a long, hard road it has been getting Congress to pass a strong climate and energy bill. I regret to say that the news is not especially good, though the door is not yet completely closed.

After weeks of intense negotiations among EDF and other environmental organizations, Senate leaders, the White House, and some sympathetic members of the utility industry, we are still several votes short of the 60 required to break a Senate filibuster.

Because of this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that the Senate will not take up a limit on global warming pollution before the August recess, though it “may” consider it in September.

With a crowded Congressional calendar, and time running out, this announcement is discouraging. Will the Senate decide to take any meaningful steps? Right now it’s a long shot, but we’ll continue to work doggedly for a good Congressional outcome.

Consequences of Climate Inaction

While the politics are uncertain, the science is not. The consequences of Senate inaction are real and serious.

To name a few:

The Crisis Isn’t Going Away: 2010 is on pace to become the warmest year on record, following the warmest decade on record: 2000-2009. Glacial and polar ice continues to melt at astonishing rates, worsening the threat of sea level rise, coastal flooding, and threatening the supply of drinking water for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Year by year and decade by decade, these and other very serious trends will get worse and worse with no end in sight.

Squandering the House-Passed Bill: To pass legislation, you need to move bills through both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives has already cast a clear, solid vote on this. If the Senate fails to act now, all that hard work will have been wasted and we’ll have to start from scratch next year with a new Congress likely to be less inclined to act responsibly.

Inaction Now Only Makes It Harder Later: Science, not politics, is ultimately in charge of this crisis. And the science is very clear. We must begin cutting our emissions now to avoid even more dramatic cuts later. A delay of two or three years only makes the necessary pollution cuts all the more severe and disruptive to our economy and way of life.

I could go on, but the point is clear. Senate inaction will have very serious consequences for our environment, our economy, and, ultimately, our entire civilization.

That’s the message we will continue to deliver to Senate leaders and the White House. And we will continue to let you know how you can help us in August and September as we continue to push forward.

One other thing is clear: Whatever the Senate decides in the coming days and weeks, we aren’t going anywhere.

Global warming is the most serious environmental threat facing the planet and will remain our top organizational priority, one which we will continue to take on in a variety of ways, including:

  • Promoting local and state actions;
  • Getting our national policies right;
  • Working directly with businesses to improve efficiency and cut emissions; and
  • Negotiating internationally for global pollution limits.

Wherever there is a serious effort to cut global warming pollution, we will be there, fighting for the strongest possible solution.

The hour is late and the window for Senate action this year is closing. But, whatever the future holds, we will continue to fight to prevent the catastrophic threat of run-away global warming.

What a long, hard road it has been getting Congress to pass a strong climate and energy bill.

As someone who has fought with us for landmark legislation, you deserve to know where things stand. I regret to say that the news is not especially good, though the door is not yet completely closed.

After weeks of intense negotiations among EDF and other environmental organizations, Senate Leaders, the White House, and some sympathetic members of the utility industry, we are still several votes short of the 60 required to break a Senate filibuster.

Because of this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that the Senate will not take up a limit on global warming pollution before the August recess, though it “may” consider it in September.

With a crowded Congressional calendar, and time running out, this announcement is discouraging. Will the Senate decide to take any meaningful steps? Right now it’s a long shot, but we’ll continue to work doggedly for a good Congressional outcome.

Consequences of Climate Inaction

While the politics are uncertain, the science is not. The consequences of Senate inaction are real and serious.

To name a few:

The Crisis Isn’t Going Away: 2010 is on pace to become the warmest year on record, following the warmest decade on record: 2000-2009. Glacial and polar ice continues to melt at astonishing rates, worsening the threat of sea level rise, coastal flooding, and threatening the supply of drinking water for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Year by year and decade by decade, these and other very serious trends will get worse and worse with no end in sight.

Squandering the House-Passed Bill: To pass legislation, you need to move bills through both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives has already cast a clear, solid vote on this. If the Senate fails to act now, all that hard work will have been wasted and we’ll have to start from scratch next year with a new Congress likely to be less inclined to act responsibly.

Inaction Now Only Makes It Harder Later: Science, not politics, is ultimately in charge of this crisis. And the science is very clear. We must begin cutting our emissions now to avoid even more dramatic cuts later. A delay of two or three years only makes the pollution cuts we need to reach needed reduction targets all the more severe and disruptive our economy and way of life.

I could go on, but the point is clear. Senate inaction will have very serious consequences for our environment, our economy, and, ultimately, our entire civilization.

That’s the message we will continue to deliver to Senate leaders and the White House. And we will continue to let you know how you can help us in August and September as we continue to push forward.

One other thing is clear: Whatever the Senate decides in the coming days and weeks, we aren’t going anywhere!

Global warming is the most serious environmental threat facing the planet and will remain our top organizational priority, one which we will continue to take on in a variety of ways, including:

  • Promoting local and state actions;
  • Getting our national policies right;
  • Working directly with businesses to improve efficiency and cut emissions; and
  • Negotiating internationally for global pollution limits.

Wherever there is a serious effort to cut global warming pollution, we will be there, fighting for the strongest possible solution.

The hour is late and the window for Senate action this year is closing. But, whatever the future holds, we will continue to fight to prevent the catastrophic threat of run-away global warming.

We will keep you fully posted on events as they develop.

Thank you for your continued activism and support,

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 3 Responses

From the blogosphere: the latest on the climate bill

Not surprisingly, a number of blogs today talked about Senator Reid’s (D–Nev.) statement that he’ll move forward with a somewhat scaled-back energy bill. The legislation is slated to include a response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and energy efficiency incentives, but omit a carbon cap or many of the broader climate change measures that were part of the House version of the bill. For the state of play, CleanTechies includes a helpful bulleted list of “highlights of legislation introduced in the Senate that may contribute language to the final package.”

The Vine questions the political strategy of splitting a response to the oil spill from a broader energy and climate bill while acknowledging that an oil spill response is far more likely to receive the bipartisan support necessary for passage. Post Partisan regrets that the Senate is passing on what it calls “the most efficient policy available – placing a price on carbon.” On Firedoglake, David Dayen says the oil spill response must move, irrespective of the fate of the larger climate and energy bill.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Comments are closed