Data: 16/03/2011 12:03
Por: Redação TN / Fabiano Ávila, Instituto CarbonoBrasil
Em uma decisão com alto poder simbólico, o subcomitê de Energia da câmara de deputados dos Estados Unidos aprovou a retirada da autoridade da Agência de Proteção Ambiental (EPA) de estabelecer regras para as emissões de gases do efeito estufa (GEEs) e também rejeitou o conceito de que o dióxido de carbono seja uma ameaça para a população. Agora, será a vez do Comitê de Energia e Comércio da Câmara votar, e com grande possibilidade aprovar, a mesma medida nas próximas semanas.
Tudo aponta para que o Congresso norte-americano, atualmente predominantemente republicano, deve mesmo reverter boa parte dos avanços climáticos nos Estados Unidos. Os republicanos, e alguns democratas, alegam que as decisões da EPA nada fizeram além de prejudicar a economia e afugentar indústrias para outros países.
“As regulamentações da EPA são tentativas de burocratas não eleitos pelo povo de implementar medidas impopulares como o mercado cap-and-trade, que já foi rejeitado pelo Congresso no ano passado”, afirmou o Fred Upton, presidente do Comitê de Energia e Comércio.
A EPA classificou em dezembro de 2009 os gases do efeito estufa como uma ameaça a saúde pública e o bem estar da população americana, o que permitiu que eles fossem incluídos no Clean Air Act. Dessa forma, a agência conseguiu chamar para si a responsabilidade de elaborar regras para controlar as emissões. O que foi aprovado pela Suprema Corte de Justiça dos Estados Unidos.
Uma das regras criadas prevê que a partir deste ano as indústrias e usinas de energia são obrigadas a obter permissões para a emissão de GEEs quando forem aumentar sua capacidade ou reequipar suas instalações. A EPA dará as permissões apenas para as empresas que demonstrarem que utilizaram as melhores tecnologias disponíveis na revitalização das unidades. Esta regra cobre grandes unidades industriais que são responsáveis por 70% das emissões provenientes de fontes estacionárias nos EUA.
Medidas desse tipo impulsionaram os opositores ao EPA a unir forças e agir para retirar da agência sua autoridade.Muitos republicanos alegam que o aquecimento global é apenas uma teoria e que nenhuma ação deveria ser tomada agora. Esta é a mesma posição dos inúmeros lobbies das indústrias de carvão, petróleo e de outros setores que vêm sendo afetados pelas decisões da EPA. Esses lobbies exercem grande influência nos congressistas e atuam abertamente para enfraquecer a agência.
Porém, para o deputado republicano Ed Whitfield, presidente do subcomitê de Energia, a questão principal não é a veracidade das mudanças climáticas e sim as ações da EPA.
“A nossa decisão não leva em conta se o aquecimento global é uma realidade ou não, apenas demonstra a insatisfação do Congresso com os rumos adotados pelo governo e principalmente pela EPA”, explicou Whitfield.
Faltou Coragem
As criticas à administração Obama não vem apenas dos republicanos, muitos aliados do governo acreditam que faltou empenho do presidente para fazer passar as leis climáticas e energéticas no ano passado ou ainda antes, quando ele tinha um grande apoio popular e contava com a maioria do Congresso.
“Nós nunca saberemos o que o presidente poderia ter conseguido...porque ele nem mesmo tentou!”, afirmou ao New York Times Joseph J. Romm, antigo oficial do Departamento de Energia e um dos mais influentes escritores sobre mudanças climáticas nos EUA.
Segundo Romm, Obama se tornou muito tímido com relação às políticas climáticas, o que fica claro nos atuais discursos do presidente, que raramente adotam as palavras “mudanças climáticas” ou “aquecimento global”. Obama prefere agora falar em “segurança energética”, “economia limpa” e “novas tecnologias”. Essa alteração de estratégia aconteceu depois do fracasso da legislação climática no ano passado. Obama passou de um ferrenho defensor de um cap-and-trade no estilo do mercado de emissões da União Européia, para apenas um incentivador de energias limpas.
Se a onda conservadora realmente conseguir retirar da EPA a independência de regulamentar as emissões de GEEs, nada poderá evitar que os Estados Unidos se tornem de uma vez por todas o grande obstáculo nas negociações climáticas internacionais que buscam um acordo global.
Mostrando postagens com marcador energy;carbon emissions;climate change;national cap-and-trade;energy efficient economy;epa. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador energy;carbon emissions;climate change;national cap-and-trade;energy efficient economy;epa. Mostrar todas as postagens
Sustainability: Carbon offsets /// Daily Sentinel
By Adele Israel
Monday, May 24, 2010
Ten months ago, I wrote about legislation in Washington that would bring about a clean energy economy.
Finally, the powers that be in D.C. are tackling the issue again with the American Power Act introduced in the Senate by Democrats John Kerry and Joe Lieberman on May 12.
That happened to be the very same day I attended a Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce Energy Briefing given by Michael Cot&233; of Ruby Canyon Engineering, which is on Horizon Court in Grand Junction.
Cot&233; and partner Ron Collings started their business five years ago and now employ a total of eight people.
Cot&233; spoke about “Turning Emissions into Assets” and explained how clients such as major industries, mining, oil and gas concerns, and even the Environmental Protection Agency are using carbon emissions to create power or trade in the carbon market. All this is before the federal government has even passed any climate legislation.
Companies purchase carbon offsets to help control their carbon footprint and be socially responsible, in response to pressure from stockholders, as part of product branding or just for good public relations.
According to Cot&233;, the most likely areas to be targeted for emission capping are electricity generation, transportation, industry and end-use extraction of natural gas.
Offsets can be achieved through soil management, as well as various forms of methane recapture, including landfills, coal mines, agricultural manure and anaerobic gas from wastewater treatment plants.
Cot&233; sees three main options regarding greenhouse gas emissions: regulation by the EPA, Cap and Trade legislation or maintaining the status quo.
The third option is unlikely since the EPA is poised to take action if Congress does not pass legislation soon.
There are good reasons for passing Cap and Trade laws, including energy and environmental certainty, government setting caps with market forces determining prices, encouragement of high-tech business and job opportunities and international opportunities, Cot&233; said.
In the voluntary carbon market, the United States plays a minor role, so there is much potential for rapid growth starting in 2013 with a noticeable increase by 2020. Carbon credits are currently about $4 per ton.
Colorado is host to a long list of large offset projects such as biomass generated electricity, Cameo’s co-generation facility, solar, wind, coal mine methane capture, agriculture sector manure treatment systems with methane recovery, U.S. Forest Service forestation projects, geological sequestration and New Belgium Brewery and Colorado Pork methane-to-energy projects.
In Mesa County, we have already started projects at the landfill and Persigo Wastewater Treatment facilities.
There are big opportunities for improvement at coal mines in Colorado. Right now, billions of cubic feet of carbon emissions are being vented into the atmosphere. If these emissions were harnessed, we could heat 50,000 homes. Many people are hard at work trying to get coal mine methane classified as a “renewable energy source” for tax credit and rebate purposes.
The EPA recently started the Natural Gas STAR program, which is “a flexible, voluntary partnership that encourages oil and natural gas companies — both domestic and abroad — to adopt cost-effective technologies and practices that improve operational efficiency and reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and clean energy source,” according to http://www.epa.gov/gasstar.
Ruby Canyon is working on a project in Inner Mongolia conducting a methane inventory of coal mines to explore developing methane for markets and energy. For additional information about the company go to http://www.rubycanyonengineering.com.
Back in Washington, the new version of the Cap and Trade bill includes many compromises, but has a whole slew of supporters.
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet stated: “A comprehensive energy and climate bill done right will create millions of new clean energy jobs and put America back in control of its own energy future. For the sake of our nation’s energy security, our economy and our environment, delay on this critical issue is not an option.”
The senator acknowledged Colorado has a head start on “renewable energy standards that promote greater use of wind, solar and biofuels and the recognition that responsibly developed natural gas is a key component of cleaner energy policy. Federal legislation should build on the successes that we’ve seen in communities across our state.”
Adele Israel is a Grand Junction writer who has been involved in sustainability efforts for some 20 years. Have a question or column idea for Adele? E-mail her at msdeli@bresnan.net
EPA finalises timeline for GHG regulation /// Point Carbon
13 May 2010 20:10
CET Last updated: 14 May 2010 05:27 CET
The EPA today unveiled its plan to eventually regulate 70 per cent of all US GHG output.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it will use a “phase-in” approach to bring power plants and oil refineries under the new regulations, which will require large emitters to obtain new GHG permits in order to operate their facilities.
The permit requirements will begin in January 2011, when facilities that already obtain Clean Air Act (CAA) permits for other pollutants such as lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, will be required to acquire the GHG permits.
The permits will be needed to demonstrate that a facility is using the best technology available to limit its GHG emissions.
In July 2011, the regulations will expand to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tonnes per year and modifications at existing facilities that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tonnes per year.
The permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies (Bact) to minimise GHG emission increases when facilities are constructed or significantly modified, the EPA said.
Bact will be determined on a "case-by-case basis", a spokeswoman for the EPA said.
Under the new emissions thresholds for GHGs that begin in July 2011, EPA estimates approximately 900 additional permitting actions covering new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year.
In addition, 550 sources will need to obtain operating permits for the first time because of their GHG emissions, the EPA said.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said emissions from small farms, restaurants and all but the "very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by the programme at this time".
In 2011, the EPA will undertake another rulemaking process to determine what action should be taken regarding GHG emissions from smaller sources, but Jackson said permits will never be required of facilities that emit less than 50,000 tonnes a year.
She added that no requirement for smaller sources will take effect until at least 30 April, 2016.
Politics
The EPA says it has no choice but to move forward with regulations of GHGs after a 2007 Supreme Court decision, which found that GHGs represent a danger to the public health and welfare, even though doing so is not popular with many members of the business community and many in Congress.
The climate legislation introduced yesterday by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman would bar the EPA from implementing their regulations in full.
Kerry said his bill represents the last good chance to avoid EPA regulations, and encouraged senators to vote for it.
"The Obama administration has again reminded Washington that if Congress won’t legislate, the EPA will regulate," he said.
“Those who have spent years stalling need to understand: killing a Senate bill is no longer success."
epublican Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced a disapproval resolution that would halt the EPA from moving forward with its plan.
She is expected to call for a Senate vote on her resolution in the coming weeks.
By Rory Carroll – rc@pointcarbon.com
CET Last updated: 14 May 2010 05:27 CET
The EPA today unveiled its plan to eventually regulate 70 per cent of all US GHG output.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it will use a “phase-in” approach to bring power plants and oil refineries under the new regulations, which will require large emitters to obtain new GHG permits in order to operate their facilities.
The permit requirements will begin in January 2011, when facilities that already obtain Clean Air Act (CAA) permits for other pollutants such as lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, will be required to acquire the GHG permits.
The permits will be needed to demonstrate that a facility is using the best technology available to limit its GHG emissions.
In July 2011, the regulations will expand to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tonnes per year and modifications at existing facilities that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tonnes per year.
The permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies (Bact) to minimise GHG emission increases when facilities are constructed or significantly modified, the EPA said.
Bact will be determined on a "case-by-case basis", a spokeswoman for the EPA said.
Under the new emissions thresholds for GHGs that begin in July 2011, EPA estimates approximately 900 additional permitting actions covering new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year.
In addition, 550 sources will need to obtain operating permits for the first time because of their GHG emissions, the EPA said.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said emissions from small farms, restaurants and all but the "very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by the programme at this time".
In 2011, the EPA will undertake another rulemaking process to determine what action should be taken regarding GHG emissions from smaller sources, but Jackson said permits will never be required of facilities that emit less than 50,000 tonnes a year.
She added that no requirement for smaller sources will take effect until at least 30 April, 2016.
Politics
The EPA says it has no choice but to move forward with regulations of GHGs after a 2007 Supreme Court decision, which found that GHGs represent a danger to the public health and welfare, even though doing so is not popular with many members of the business community and many in Congress.
The climate legislation introduced yesterday by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman would bar the EPA from implementing their regulations in full.
Kerry said his bill represents the last good chance to avoid EPA regulations, and encouraged senators to vote for it.
"The Obama administration has again reminded Washington that if Congress won’t legislate, the EPA will regulate," he said.
“Those who have spent years stalling need to understand: killing a Senate bill is no longer success."
epublican Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced a disapproval resolution that would halt the EPA from moving forward with its plan.
She is expected to call for a Senate vote on her resolution in the coming weeks.
By Rory Carroll – rc@pointcarbon.com
Nike said to be quitting Chamber of Commerce post over climate controversy/The Guardian
As Exelon becomes the latest energy firm to quit the business group over its anti-climate legislation stance, pressure mounts on Nike to follow suit. From BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network.
From BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk
The US Chamber of Commerce's controversial calls to put the latest climate science "on trial" as part of its campaign to block proposed carbon legislation could yet prompt another high-profile walk out, after reports emerged that Nike was to quit it's post on the trade group's board.
According to reports on the Politico blog, the company is to release a statement relinquishing its board position at the Chamber in protest at the group's lobbying against tougher US climate change legislation. However, it will stop short of leaving the group altogether so that it can "advocate for climate change legislation" from within the group.
The news comes after shareholder groups yesterday wrote to Nike calling on the sportswear giant to quit the trade group.
According to reports, three socially responsible investor groups - Green Century Funds, Newground Social Investment and the Basilian Fathers of Toronto - have written to the company arguing that it is no longer in the firm's interest to be associated with a group that is lobbying to block US climate change legislation.
In an open letter to Nike chief executive Mark Parker, Kristina Curtis, president of Green Century Equity Fund, said that the investment firm was "dismayed that Nike has not taken a more aggressive stance" against the Chamber, particularly given that it has been a vocal supporter of tighter climate change legislation through its position as a founding member of the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy group.
Curtis added that the decision last week by US energy firms Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG &E) and PNM Resources to leave the Chamber of Commerce over its climate change stance had set a "new standard for corporate responsibility in the face of profoundly unsustainable actions" that Nike should now follow.
Earlier this month, the Chamber's vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times in which he called for a series of public hearings on the science the EPA used to justify its recent decision that carbon dioxide represents a health risk and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Likening the proposed hearings to the 1920s Scopes Trial on evolution, Kovacs said that the hearings would represent the "science of climate change on trial" .
The Chamber has since tried to soften its stance slightly, arguing that the analogy was "inappropriate" and that it is simply calling for hearings on the extent to which global warming poses a threat, rather than on climate science itself.
But the move has still prompted a flurry of high-profile walk outs from firms lobbying for more ambitious action on climate change. In the latest development, US nuclear energy giant Exelon this week announced that it will join PG&E and PNM Resources in not renewing its membership.
Speaking at a meeting of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Exelon chairman and chief executive John W. Rowe said that the company had left the chamber as a direct result of its "stridency against carbon legislation", adding that putting a price on carbon emissions through a national cap-and-trade scheme was "essential" to tackling climate change.
• This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network
link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/01/nike-chamber-commerce
From BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk
The US Chamber of Commerce's controversial calls to put the latest climate science "on trial" as part of its campaign to block proposed carbon legislation could yet prompt another high-profile walk out, after reports emerged that Nike was to quit it's post on the trade group's board.
According to reports on the Politico blog, the company is to release a statement relinquishing its board position at the Chamber in protest at the group's lobbying against tougher US climate change legislation. However, it will stop short of leaving the group altogether so that it can "advocate for climate change legislation" from within the group.
The news comes after shareholder groups yesterday wrote to Nike calling on the sportswear giant to quit the trade group.
According to reports, three socially responsible investor groups - Green Century Funds, Newground Social Investment and the Basilian Fathers of Toronto - have written to the company arguing that it is no longer in the firm's interest to be associated with a group that is lobbying to block US climate change legislation.
In an open letter to Nike chief executive Mark Parker, Kristina Curtis, president of Green Century Equity Fund, said that the investment firm was "dismayed that Nike has not taken a more aggressive stance" against the Chamber, particularly given that it has been a vocal supporter of tighter climate change legislation through its position as a founding member of the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy group.
Curtis added that the decision last week by US energy firms Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG &E) and PNM Resources to leave the Chamber of Commerce over its climate change stance had set a "new standard for corporate responsibility in the face of profoundly unsustainable actions" that Nike should now follow.
Earlier this month, the Chamber's vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times in which he called for a series of public hearings on the science the EPA used to justify its recent decision that carbon dioxide represents a health risk and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Likening the proposed hearings to the 1920s Scopes Trial on evolution, Kovacs said that the hearings would represent the "science of climate change on trial" .
The Chamber has since tried to soften its stance slightly, arguing that the analogy was "inappropriate" and that it is simply calling for hearings on the extent to which global warming poses a threat, rather than on climate science itself.
But the move has still prompted a flurry of high-profile walk outs from firms lobbying for more ambitious action on climate change. In the latest development, US nuclear energy giant Exelon this week announced that it will join PG&E and PNM Resources in not renewing its membership.
Speaking at a meeting of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Exelon chairman and chief executive John W. Rowe said that the company had left the chamber as a direct result of its "stridency against carbon legislation", adding that putting a price on carbon emissions through a national cap-and-trade scheme was "essential" to tackling climate change.
• This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network
link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/01/nike-chamber-commerce
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Informação & Conhecimento