Politics

On April 29^th, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt announced that the deadline on the final regulation controlling mercury emissions from power plants would be extended to March 15, 2005 from Dec. 15, 2004.  The Natural Resources Defense Council, which obtained the initial deadline as part of a lawsuit settled by the Clinton administration, offered the extension so that EPA could conduct more analysis on the rule and solicit additional public comment.  Leavitt said EPA would conduct whatever analysis is necessary to ensure the right decision is made and meet the goal of protecting public health in the most effective way possible.

 Leavitt has proposed a mercury trading system, but earlier this month 45 Senators urged him to drop this strategy in favor of a new rule that uses the Clean Air Acts Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) provisions.  This would require state-of-the-art pollution controls on all of the nations 1,100 coal- and oil-fired utilities.  John Kerry was among the 45 senators who asked Leavitt to drop the trading proposal.  With a desire to stick to his plan, Leavitt has rejected this request and, when asked, stated that the presidential elections implications on the regulation would be minimal as [EPA is] moving toward concluding [the] decision in an even-handed and proper way.

 EPAs top air pollution official, Jeff Holmstead, has stated that the technologies needed to meet MACT provisions will not be commercially available by the deadline for utilities to reduce emissions.  Accordingly, Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said his group would remain committed to working with EPA to highlight the need for realistic assumptions about the current state of mercury control technology.  An inflexible mercury control program can result in unacceptable fuel-switching from coal to natural gas, hurting American consumers, the elderly, and industrial workers. 

 On the other hand, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said that he would continue to call on EPA to drop its trading plan.  Extending the deadline on this deeply flawed rule moves us back for now from the brink of getting this indefensible plan, but what Administrator Leavitt still needs to do is to withdraw this proposal and produce a new one, grounded in science and in the public’s interest, Leahy said.  We need a mercury plan that honors instead of insults the Clean Air Act. (Greenwire, April 30).

The European Parliament agreed April 20 to the directive expanding the scope of the new emissions trading scheme within the EU from January 1, 2005. 

EUpolitix.com reported, A full sitting of MEPs has backed a report on emissions trading which would mean heavily industrialized EU countries could pay the developing world to pass on its CO₂ quotas, dictated by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.  And, according to amendments made by parliament, the scheme would be compulsory even if the international Kyoto agreement never enters into force.

 Alexander de Roothe Dutch MEP responsible for the proposal in parliamentargues that such a move is necessary for industry to learn how to fight climate change, even without the Russian ratification necessary to make Kyoto legally binding.

 De Roo also commented on a notable omission, Emissions rights from nuclear activities are explicitly excluded.  This legislation is ever greener than the Kyoto Protocol.

 EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom argued that the directive would be good for business:  The linking of the Kyoto mechanisms to our emissions trading scheme… will reduce costs for the companies participating in emissions trading and provide investors in green technology with the certainty they need.

 In related news, Irish electricity prices are expected to rise by 6 percent initially as a result of the new trading scheme.  According to Ireland.com (Apr. 17), the Irish electricity supply company ESB, has warned of significant rises in electricity prices because of new requirements on carbon dioxide emissions.  The company has claimed that its quota allocation under the proposed CO₂ emissions trading system for Ireland will cause its power generation costs to rise by up to 40 percent.

 This would in turn result in domestic prices rising by up to 20 percent if the increased costs of production are passed on in full.  Electricity industry sources have indicated a probable rise for consumers of six per cent in the coming years.

A press release issued by NGO Carbon Trade Watch on April 19 called for the closure of one of the first funds set up to help developing countries cope with the costs of fighting global warming.  The release read, More than 50 environmental and social justice NGOs and other groups have sent a letter of protest to the World Bank calling for the closure of its new emissions trading fund, The Prototype Carbon Fund.

 In the year of the World Banks 60th anniversary and in the run-up to intense protests in Washington, D.C. at their annual meeting this month, the groups state that the Banks new fund is destructive greenwash and has in fact created extra problems for communities and the environment.  The fund was set up in 1999 to facilitate the new trade in greenhouse gases created under the Kyoto Protocol.  The groups state that so far the fund has exacerbated existing human rights violations and furthered environmental destruction.

One of the funds model projects is located in Brazil and involves the expansion of monoculture eucalyptus plantations owned by the corporation, Plantar.  The plantations were originally established by forcibly evicting geraiszeiros peoples from the land and since then the plantations owners have been accused of creating slave-like conditions.  Furthermore, the plantations have heavily polluted surrounding water sources, thus devastating the livelihoods of local farmers and fisher-folk.

The World Bank will fund the expansion of these plantations in order to generate carbon credits for the international trade in greenhouse gases.  However, on top of the impacts upon the local environment and peoples, there is no guarantee that the project will actually have a permanent positive effect on the climate. 

 Marcelo Calazans from local Brazilian NGO, FASE-ES, states, This and many other projects have terrible negative impacts on local people and environments and it is still unclear if there is any real benefits for the climate.  We believe that the Prototype Carbon Fund should cease operations and close down immediately.

Lord Lawson, a former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the opportunity of an April 21 debate in the United Kingdoms House of Lords to accuse the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of operating an environmentalist closed shop that is unsullied by any acquaintance with economics, statistics or, indeed, economic history.  The debate was initiated by Lord Taverne, a former minister in previous Labour governments, who asked the government whether they were satisfied by the economic and statistical work of the IPCC.   

Lawson said that Taverne had put his finger on what is potentially a major scandal.  The basis for this assessment is the criticism made by Ian Castles and David Henderson of the economic assumptions used by the IPCC (see lead story).  This view is upheld by a new report from the International Policy Network, which assesses the way in which the IPCC predicts future climate change. 

 According to the IPN report, the IPCC appears to have exaggerated its estimates of temperature increases by using highly implausible scenarios of future growth in emissions of greenhouse gases.  It has done so by underestimating technological advancement and greatly overestimating gains in economic growth.  In order to gain credibility, the report argues that the IPCC should rely more heavily on the work of economic historians and statisticians.  (International Policy Network, Apr. 23).

In a peculiar echo of the Duke of Wellingtons famous remark that the railways were a bad idea because they let the poor move around the country, Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley suggested on April 15 that something had to be done about poor and middle class Britons flying too much. 

She wrote, And yes, it would meancharging the real environmental cost of cheap air travel, either levied on airports or aviation fuel, or both.  We should recognise that this reduces human happiness for the millions who benefit from it.  As with the congestion charge, we should accept that this would hit some poorer people’s mobility, stealing a recent freedom away from them.  But we should remember that the boom in air travel is mainly fuelled by middle-class people flying more frequently.

The UKs Friends of the Earth has taken up the challenge, pointing out that the poor flying abroad for holidays is not necessary.  Richard Dyer told the BBC (Apr. 27), The vast majority of flights are discretionary, for leisure.   These are not essential.