| |
by Carolynn Race
The Climate Stewardship Act
On October 30th the United States Senate voted on the issue
of climate change for the first time since 1997. They voted,
43 to 55, to reject the Climate Stewardship Act (S 139). Sponsored
by Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Lieberman (D-CT), S 139 would
have imposed mandatory caps on emissions of carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping gases by utilities, major industries and
refineries. It would have reduced these emissions to 2000 levels
but would have allowed groups to buy pollution credits under
a 'cap-and- trade' system to meet target levels.
(In the Senate's 1997 vote, they rejected, 95-0, some elements
central to the Kyoto Protocol.)
The United States, though including less than five percent
of the world's population, accounts for 25 percent of the world's
carbon dioxide emissions. Sen. McCain vowed to continue to work
toward passage of legislation to reduce these emissions, and
said, "I want to assure my colleagues we will be back."
Supporters of the legislation noted that most scientists believe
that the billions of tons of carbon dioxide released into the
air since the Industrial Revolution are in part to blame for
the one-degree rise in global temperature over the last century.
Opposing the legislation were utilities, the auto industry,
the White House, and conservatives. Sen. Inhofe (R-OK), a Presbyterian
who led the opposition, noted, "The science underlying
this bill has been repudiated, the economic costs are far too
high and the environmental benefits are nonexistent."
Though this legislation did not pass, supporters were hopeful
that six Republicans joined 36 Democrats and one Independent
in support. In addition, a number of Senators representing states
with strong interests in opposing stricter emission standards
(including major coal-producing and car-making states) supported
the bill. Congress will consider similar legislation dealing
with climate change in the years to come.
Cleaning Up Power Plants
In the near future, the Senate is expected to deliberate on
multi-pollutant legislation, some versions of which could significantly
clean up emissions from power plants - including mercury (Hg),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and carbon dioxide
(CO2). What legislation will Congress likely consider, and how
can Presbyterians work to advocate for restoring God's creation-particularly
the air we breathe-for ecology and justice?
In 2002, the 214th General Assembly of the PC(USA) passed
a resolution "On Cleaning Up Power Plant Pollution."
It called on the church to educate Presbyterians about the environmental
and health consequences of pollution from outdated coal-fired
power plants, the benefits of ensuring that these plants adhere
to tighter air pollution limits, and the economic consequences
of such actions. Also, the General Assembly asked all Presbyterians
to exercise stewardship by urging government officials to support
federal policies and multipollutant legislation that will in
the most cost-effective way:
- Enforce current clean air laws by federal and state governments;
- Resist efforts to abolish or under- cut established clean
air programs;
- Enact new clean air laws for power plants that will significantly
reduce pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, respiratory
disease, mercury contamination, and global warming;
- End "grandfather" loophole that exempts older
coal-fired plants; and
- Encourage federal funding of technologies that facilitate
and cut the costs of these recommendations.
Though the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970, has led to reductions
in some major pollutants, the U.S. is still faced with serious
air quality problems. The EPA estimated that in 2001, approximately
133 million Americans (about half of the population), lived
and breathed in areas with unhealthy air. For humans, it can
aggravate respiratory problems, including asthma and emphysema,
and it can also lead to premature death. For our planet, unhealthy
air is destructive - causing ozone damage to vegetation, smog,
mercury contamination, acid rain, and global warming.
What causes this air quality damage? The EPA notes that emissions
from factories, electric utilities, oil refineries, waste incinerators,
smelters, dry cleaners, agricultural facilities, construction
equipment, woodstoves, slash pile burning, automobiles, trains,
and lawnmowers, among other sources, contribute to outdoor air
pollution. Of those, electric power plants, including the particularly
polluting old coal-fired power plants, are the single largest
industrial emitters of air pollutants, including:
- Mercury (the cause for mercury contamination in fish, which,
when consumed by humans, can cause neurological and developmental
damage and is particularly harmful to infants and children);
- Sulfur dioxide (when inhaled with other fine particulate
matters in pollution, SO2 has been linked to respiratory disease
and premature death, and is linked to acid rain);
- Nitrogen oxide (contributes to ozone or "smog"
pollution and exacerbates asthma and is linked to acid rain);
and
- Carbon dioxide (one of the main "greenhouse"
gases that causes global warming).
Clear Skies
When then-Governor Bush was campaigning for President, he
pledged to require reductions in emissions of "four main
pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon
dioxide." However, after he was elected, Bush told Congress
(in March 2001) that his administration would not impose mandatory
reductions on emissions of carbon dioxide on the nation's power
plants.
In a letter to a Senator expressing his revised position,
he noted that an Energy Department review had determined "that
including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple
emissions strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift
from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly
higher electricity prices compared to scenarios in which only
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were reduced." Bush
was lobbied heavily by the energy industry, who strongly oppose
carbon dioxide regulations. Environmentalists were dismayed
by this change of course, and the Sierra Club noted that the
President was bowing to "big business, rather than protecting
our children."
In February of 2002, President Bush announced his Clear Skies
initiative, which he says would cut power plant emissions by
70 percent. But his initiative-which has been offered in the
House and Senate as HR 999 (sponsored by Rep. Barton, R-TX)
and S 485 (sponsored by Sen. Inhofe, R-OK)-would only cap three
pollutants (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury), and
would not address carbon dioxide emissions.
Bush's plan would impose:
- A 2.1 million ton cap on NOx by 2008, reduced to 1.7 million
tons in 2018.
- A 4.5 million ton cap on SO2 would be imposed by 2010, reduced
to 3 million tons in 2018, and
- A cap on mercury of 26 tons per year by 2010 and 15 tons
per year by 2018, and sources would be able to avoid reduced
emissions by trading emission credits.
It would eliminate certain aspects of the Clean Air Act, including
visibility and interstate air pollution protections, as well
as repealing power plant air toxics controls.
Subcommittee hearings on S 485 have been held in the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. No action has been taken
on HR 999. The Senate Committee is expected to bring up this
legislation again early in 2004.
The Clean Power Act and The Clean Air Planning
Act
A number of legislators and advocates have criticized the
Bush proposal for not going far enough to curb power plant emissions.
In addition to excluding caps on carbon dioxide, critics have
raised concern that the Bush proposal will make too little of
a dent in cleaning up power plant pollution. Two proposals,
the Clean Power Act and the Clean Air Planning Act, would include
mandatory carbon dioxide caps in their legislation, and accelerate
emission reduction.
Senator Jeffords (I-VT) sponsored the Clean Power Act, S 366,
along with 19 co-sponsors, including Senators Lieberman (D-CT),
Collins (R-ME) and Snowe (R-ME). His proposal would accelerate
emission caps at a much faster rate than would Bush's proposal:
- For NOx, imposing a 1.51 million ton cap by 2009,
- For SO2, imposing a 2.255 million ton cap by 2009,
- For mercury, implementing a 5 ton cap by 2009, and
- For CO2, imposing a 2.05 billion ton cap by 2009.
S 366 was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works, which is chaired by Sen. Inhofe who, as the
sponsor of Clear Skies, is unlikely to allow a debate on the
Clean Power Act in committee.
Senator Carper (D-DE) introduced a third measure aimed to
clean up power pollution, the Clean Air Planning Act, S 843,
which, like the Clean Power Act, would call for mandatory reductions
of all four pollutants, but would move more slowly than the
Clean Power Act to curb emissions. This legislation is co-sponsored
by Senators Alexander (R-TN), Chafee (R-RI), and Gregg (R-NH).
Carper's bill would impose the following caps on emissions:
- NOx: a 1.51 million ton cap by 2009 and a 1.7 million ton
cap by 2013,
- SO2: a 4.5 million ton cap by 2009, a 3.5 million ton cap
by 2013, and a 2.25 million ton cap by 2016,
- Mercury: a 24 ton cap by 2009, and a 10 ton cap by 2013
- allowing limited emission trading and banking, and
- CO2: capping power plant emissions at year 2006 level for
calendar years 2009-2012, and capping emissions at year 2001
levels by 2013.
The EPA analyzed both the Clean Air Planning Act and Clear
Skies and found that, although the Clean Air Planning Act would
cost slightly more than Clear Skies, it would result in fewer
premature deaths. (The EPA has not released similar analysis
of the Clean Power Act.) In July 2003, Energy Daily reported
that EPA's analysis showed that Carper's bill would cost $89.9
billion for the period between 2005 and 2030, while Mr. Bush's
proposal would cost $65 billion over the same period. But, by
2020, Carper's bill would result in 17,800 fewer premature deaths
from power plant air pollution than would Mr. Bush's initiative.
EPA's data indicated that that would save $140 billion a year
in health benefits, about $50 billion more than Clear Skies.
New Source Review
The Bush Administration has also used administrative channels
to pursue its objectives concerning power plants. The administration
recently issued a final ruling to roll back the New Source Review
provision in the Clean Air Act. In August, they relaxed rules
which will allow thousands of industrial plants to make upgrades
without installing pollution controls, arguing that other regulations
were in place to reduce emissions. This rollback was sought
by utilities.
The administration's rule has many critics. Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
noted, "The result will be dirtier air, more childhood
asthma and an increase in respiratory disease." In addition,
The Wall Street Journal noted, "the utility-plant rule
change drew the strongest complaints in the Northeast, where
attorneys general in New York, Connecticut and Maine vowed to
go to court to block a change they argue will send more pollutants
to their states from power plants in the Midwest."
To learn more about New Source Review, refer to last year's
fourth SPL Environmental Quarterly update at http://www.pcusa.org/washington/issuenet/enviro.htm
Sources include Energy Daily, The Washington Post, The New
York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, The
National Academy of Sciences, www.epa.gov, www.abcnews.com,
www.cnn.com, www.whitehouse.gov, and thomas.loc.gov.
Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be
connected with your Senator(s) or Representative. Urge them
to help clean up the air by regulating 4 pollutants, including
carbon dioxide, in any legislation to clean up power plant pollution.
Tell them that the Clean Power Act (S 366) and the Clean Air
Planning Act (S 843) go further than President Bush's Clear
Skies proposal in cleaning up pollution and preventing premature
deaths.
Here is the roll call vote on the Climate Stewardship legislation,
S 139. Senate Vote 10/30/03: |
|
