regulation - The Environment Report

Interview: EPA’s Lisa Jackson

Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

Some members of Congress feel they’re being coerced into approving a Climate Change bill that would force industry to reduce greenhouse gases. Republicans and some Democrats feel the Obama Administration is telling Congress to either approve legislation or the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority to restrict greenhouse gases. Lester Graham spoke with the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, about that perception:

Transcript

Some members of Congress feel they’re being coerced into approving a Climate Change bill that would force industry to reduce greenhouse gases. Republicans and some Democrats feel the Obama administration is telling Congress to either approve legislation or the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority to restrict greenhouse gases. Lester Graham spoke with the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson about that perception.

Administrator Lisa Jackson: They want to say that it’s EPA’s action that’s compelling them to be forced to address energy and climate change legislation. I certainly hope that’s not the case. We are actually in a race here to move to a greener energy economy. And the rest of the world is certainly doing it. And I always tell people that if you don’t want to do it for the environmental reasons, you need to look at the economics and where the world is going, and realize we need to break our dependence on fossil fuels that come from out of our country. We need to move to clean energy. That should be the imperative. I hope it becomes the imperative.

Lester Graham: There’s a new treaty coming up to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Climate Change Conference will meet in Copenhagen in December for a new climate change agreement – if Congress does not pass climate change legislation by that point, how will it affect the standing of the United States in those talks?

Administrator Jackson: Well, certainly it’s fair to say the eyes of the world are upon us, to some degree. Each country is dealing individually with their own situation on energy and climate, and then obviously those are big multi-lateral talks. But I do think people are watching to see if the United States is in this game of clean energy and addressing carbon.

Graham: If Congress does not pass a measure this year before that conference, but there’s a likelihood of it passing next year, will that change – I’m just trying to figure out how we enter into those negotiations if we don’t have a solid plan for reducing greenhouse gasses.

Administrator Jackson: I know lots of people are trying to figure out whether or not the United States will be at the table and in a big way. It certainly is the most important thing to be able to say to the rest of the world, is that not only President Obama is clearly behind this, but the Congress representing the people of the United States has moved to embrace new energy policy, and clean energy, and low-carbon. We’re not there yet, obviously. I’m still optimistic, despite all the other discussions going on, because I know that there’s been real progress made to date.

Graham: You’re just a few months into the job, and already seeing a little heat from Congress and big, big challenge – how do you feel about the job and what do you hope to accomplish in the first year?

Administrator Jackson: I already know that it’s the best job I’ll ever have. I understand that the push and pull of the system is that we’re going to have some dialogue on issues that are of great concern to members of Congress, to the American people, to various stakeholders, and I’m eager to have those conversations. And I think as long as we keep in mind that we’re going to follow the best science we can, we’re going to follow the law, we’re going to be honest, we’re going to be transparent, we’re not going to hold information back. You know, I think that was the most damning criticism of EPA – that there was information out there that might have protected the environment or the American people that was held back. And that time and trust, we have to now re-earn. So that’s what we’re about.

Graham: Administrator Jackson, thanks for your time.

Administrator Jackson: Thank you so much, Lester. Nice talking to you.

Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. She spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham.

Chairman Criticizes Climate Change Bill

Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Collin C. Peterson from Minnesota (Photo courtesy of the House Committee on Agriculture)

A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:

Transcript

A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:

Conventional wisdom in Washington these days is: it’s not a good idea to use food for fuel, so corn ethanol should be replaced by cellulosic ethanol – made from crops such as switchgrass.

The chairman of the Ag Committee, Democrat Collin Peterson, believes the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are putting rules and legislation in place to put corn ethanol at a disadvantage to cellulosic ethanol.

He says they’re forcing changes on corn ethanol makers and farmers that could ruin the future of the bio-fuels industry.

“They are setting this up to guarantee there will never be second-generation ethanol or bio-diesel.”

Congressman Peterson says the Climate Change bill is just more of the same. He says he won’t vote for it and he doesn’t think any of the 46 members of the House Agriculture committee will either.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Senator Exposes Smoking Gun?

Senator John A. Barrasso from Wyoming (Photo courtesy of the United States Congress)

Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:

Transcript

Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:

During a hearing Republican Senator John Barrasso waved around a memo he said was proof the Obama administration was moving ahead with the regulation of global warming gases without having the science to back it up.

“It’s here, nine pages. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings are political not scientifica (sic) — not scientific.”

The memo was part of a larger document from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

It’s routine to get opinions about potential regulations from different agencies.

We called the Office of Management and Budget repeatedly, asking which agency wrote the unsigned memo. No one would go on tape, but instead referred us to their blog – which basically said: this opinion is not a big deal; the EPA is operating under the law, and the science backs up any potential regulation of greenhouse gases.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Gasoline Goes Low-Carbon

Today almost everything that goes into your car's gas tank started as oil (Photo by Shawn Allee)

How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:

Transcript

Today almost everything that goes into your car’s gas tank started as oil. But in the future it could be very different.

“The fuels that we will be moving towards are electricity, biofuels and hydrogen mostly.”

Daniel Sperling is a member of the California Air Resources Board which voted in the new rule.

Sperling says the goal is to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle fuels. That could mean oil companies might even have to buy credits from power companies for electric cars.

“You start transforming the oil industry, getting off of oil. I mean that’s what we talk about and this is a policy that will actually do it.”

The California rule even looks at how much greenhouse gas pollution goes into making corn ethanol.

Oil companies say fuel prices will definitely go up in California.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Gas Tax vs. Efficiency Standards

Some think that a gas tax is the only way to get consumers to buy fuel efficient cars (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

Some in the auto industry are proposing a hike in the gasoline tax. The idea is this: if you want people to buy small cars, make gasoline more expensive. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Some in the auto industry are proposing a hike in the gasoline tax. The idea is this: if you want people to buy small cars, make gasoline more expensive. Lester Graham reports:

Car dealers and manufacturers say a higher gas price is the only thing that gets people buying more fuel efficient cars. So, a tax hike makes sense.

But, a guy who has a lot of sway on the idea of a gas tax hike is not going there.

Congressman Ed Markey chairs a House subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.

At a forum at MIT he said the plan is to stick with CAFÉ — the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards – to get better mileage cars.

“That’s the route that we’re taking rather and an increase in the gasoline tax. We’re moving towards a mandate and 35 miles per gallon is the minimum that we intend on reaching by 2020.”

And under the stimulus package, new tax credits amounting to thousands of dollars get kicked-back to anyone buying a fuel efficient car.

The more efficient, the more you get back.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

The Push for Offshore Wind Farms

The government is trying to reel in the red tape that is keeping offshore wind farms, like this one, from being built in the US. (Photo by Les Salty, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

The biggest obstacle to putting wind turbines offshore – out of sight of the shoreline – is not technology. It’s not money. It’s government red tape.

Now, the federal government says it wants to streamline the permitting process. Mark Brush reports the goal is to get offshore wind turbines off the drawing boards and into the oceans:

Transcript

The biggest obstacle to putting wind turbines offshore – out of sight of the shoreline – is not technology. It’s not money. It’s government red tape.

Now, the federal government says it wants to streamline the permitting process. Mark Brush reports the goal is to get offshore wind turbines off the drawing boards and into the oceans:

There are several states that are hoping to build the country’s first big offshore wind farm.

The government says sighting wind farms in the ocean is a great idea. It’s windy. And the giant wind turbines could provide power in places where it’s needed most – to the big cities off the nation’s coasts.

But there’s some fighting going on between government agencies. And that’s been tripping up permits for these wind farms.

Ken Salazar is the Secretary of the Interior. He recently spoke to a Senate committee about the infighting:

“There has been a jurisdictional feud that has gone on for quite awhile – unresolved – between FERC and the Department of Interior relative to the sighting of renewable energy facilities in the Outer Continental Shelf.”

Salazar says the agencies have now reached an agreement. So there shouldn’t be any more delays at the federal level.

But offshore wind farms face a lot of hoops at the state level as well. So it still could be awhile before the country’s first big offshore wind farm goes up.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Coal Ash Controversy

A broken dam caused this cement-like sludge to spill into the Emory River in East Tennessee. The coal ash sludge could dry out, putting toxic dust into the air. (Photo by Matt Shafer Powell)

This past December a sludge of coal ash broke out of an impoundment at a power plant in
Tennessee. It destroyed homes. It devastated a section of river. And it set off a firestorm
about the problem of coal ash disposal. Now two US Senators and a bunch of environmental
groups are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash. Tamara
Keith has the story:

Transcript

Coal ash is byproduct produced by coal burning power plants and it’s stored at more than 500
sites around the country.

Anti-coal activist Dave Cooper signed onto a letter this week with more than 100
environmental groups telling the EPA it’s time to get involved.

“What we want is for the EPA to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.”

But Dave Goss with the American Coal Ash Association says safe storage is an issue, but a
lot of the ash is actually recycled into things like concrete and wallboard.

“If you stigmatize it by giving it some sort of a classification such as hazardous, that’s going
to have a dramatic impact on the ability to re-use the materials.”

The EPA has been studying this issue for years, and hasn’t responded to the latest calls for
regulation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Paint Regs Better for Environment?

Most paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds (Source: DanielCase at Wikimedia Commons)

When it’s time for a new
coat of paint, you might want a paint
that doesn’t smell so bad that it
leaves your head spinning. More states
are shaking up paint laws – and forcing
companies to roll out paints that aren’t
as bad for the environment. But some
people question if they will work as well
as the old stuff. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Matt Testa started painting for his family’s real estate
business when he was a kid. He remembers his parents
worrying that all the chemicals in the paint would ignite a fire
– so they turned off appliance pilot lights before painting a
kitchen.

(sound of painting)

Today, as a builder and general contractor, Testa says most
paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds.
Even though a lot of people don’t like it.

“Well, when we’ve used some high VOC products, of course
there’s occasional dizziness on large commercial jobs.
We’ve had to clear buildings at times because of people
reporting headaches and other things with the fumes that
were being given off.”

Testa says you can almost taste those chemicals in your
nose and mouth hours after painting. But the VOCs don’t
just affect painters. When you open a can of paint, or
primer, or wood stain, the chemicals get into the air – and
cause ozone pollution, which contributes to smog.

“When you do the math, they’re talking about a quarter
pound per gallon. And you think of the millions and millions
of gallons of paints that are used, you’re talking about a
huge amount of VOCs.”

In recent years, states on the east and west coasts have
started cracking down on paint makers. Smoggy southern
California has the toughest laws against VOCs in paints.
The Northeast has also forced manufacturers to reduce their
chemical load.

And now tougher paint laws are spreading to states in the
middle of the country. Ohio, for instance, has had a tough
time meeting federal clean air standards. It’s hoping that
stirring up the paint laws will make a difference.

(sound of paint store)

That’ll mean changes at the store. When you buy paints,
primers, stains – they will be based less on oil – and more
on water.

Steve Revnew is marketing director for Sherwin Williams –
and its 3,300 stores nationwide. Walking around one of his
Ohio stores, he says they have to roll out a new line of
products.

“For example, some of the oil based stains, wiping stains
that you traditionally would use on your wood work and
those types of things, as they’re known today, that
technology will no longer be available.”

Companies such as Sherwin Williams have seen the
chemical limits coming for many years. Revnew says
they’ve developed new stains, paints and enamels with
fewer harsh chemicals – using new resin and polymer
technology.

He picks up a can of enamel – “In 2009, we’ll be introducing
a whole new product line that is VOC compliant. It will still
provide you the hard, durable finish for metal, wood,
concrete – those types of things. Only it will be VOC
compliant.”

The changes have some professional painters in the store
concerned. They worry that water-based paints and stains
won’t coat as well or last as long as the oil-based coatings.

Now that contractor Matt Testa has kids of his own, he’s glad
VOCs are being brushed aside. But if reducing the
chemicals means things need to be re-painted more often,
he says the changes won’t do anything to improve air
quality.

“Yeah, if you have to go back and repaint it, you’re really
going to leave a bigger footprint environmentally from the
truck trips, the amount of the paint you put back up, all the
delivery of that paint, etc.”

Testa says consumers will have to see for themselves if
these new, environmentally friendly products work as well as
the higher VOC paints.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Makeover for Cosmetics Industry?

Makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny under the Obama administration. (Source: Lupin at Wikimedia Commons)

The cosmetics industry is bracing for some changes under the new Congress and Obama administration. Julie Grant reports that makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny:

Transcript

The cosmetics industry is bracing for some changes under the new Congress and the Obama administration. Julie Grant reports that makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny.

(sound of a store)

Claudia Lamancusa has been selling high end cosmetics at the mall for more than thirty years.

She says they recently started making a line of more natural powders, blushes and eye liners – because it’s what customers want.

“Well, I think they’re asking for them. They see it a lot on television and so the trend is going toward more mineral-based and natural products.”

And now the cosmetics industry is expecting the government ask more questions about what’s in makeup and perfumes.

Cosmetics makers already have to test products to make sure they’re safe for people to use. But they don’t have to test the environmental impacts of the chemicals in their products.

Industry officials expect that to change if Congress overhauls the Toxic Substances Control Act. They say that would mean makeup makers will have to start reporting to a new, tougher Environmental Protection Agency.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour

Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are packing up, there's not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Transcript

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through
rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Critics say President George W. Bush is doing a lot of last minute shopping for his
friends in big industries.

“What’s happening in Washington right now is a really quiet sneak attack on a lot of
fundamental protections that Americans enjoy under the law.”

That’s John Walke. He’s a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He says these last minute Bush rules are not good for the environment – and they’re not
good for people.

“It’s important to realize we’re talking here about midnight de-regulation. These are
actions that are removing safeguards and protections of public health, and public welfare,
and the environment, and giving industry the permission to commit those harmful acts.”

So what kind of harmful acts is he talking about? Here are just some of the more than 60 rules and
regulations the Bush Administration is working on or have finalized.

A rule that makes it easier for coal mining companies to dump their waste into nearby
creeks and streams.

A rule changes that would allow older coal burning power plants to pump out more air
pollution without having to install clean up equipment.

A rule that would allow large dairies or livestock farms to police pollution from their own
operations.

And a rule that would make it more difficult to protect workers from toxic chemicals.

It’s a long list. But the main philosophy of the Bush Administration is that big industries
need a break from government regulations.

The Administration says they’ve been working on these rules for a long time. But
they’ve waited until the last minute to finalize a lot of them.

Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are
packing up, there’s not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. Your party
lost the election. So why not? Jimmy Carter’s administration was famous for it. The
term ‘midnight regulation’ was coined when Carter kicked last-minute rule making into
high gear. And every president since then has had his own last-minute rule changes.

The incoming Obama Administration is promising to go through these rules. Jon Podesta
is with Obama’s transition team. And he talked about that on Fox News Sunday.

“As a candidate, Senator Obama said that he wanted all the Bush executive orders
reviewed, and decide which ones should be kept, which ones should be repealed, and
which ones should be amended.”

Overturning some of these rules won’t be easy. Joaquin Sapien is a reporter for
ProPublica. He’s been following these midnight regulations closely. He says what
makes the end of this administration different is how it planned for the end. Last May,
White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten contacted all the federal agencies.

“What they did was they sent out a memo saying, ‘get your work done on these
regulations by November the first.’ So that would give these agencies plenty of time to
get them in effect before the next administration takes over, thereby limiting what the
next administration could do about some of these rules.”

Once the rules are finalized – they become effective in thirty to sixty days. And once that
happens – Sapien says it’s pretty much a done deal.

“And so, if a rule is in effect by the time the Obama Administration takes over, there’s
really very little he can do.”

For every rule that has gone into effect, it would take a lengthy rule-making process to
overturn it – a process that can take months and more likely years to complete.

There is another option. Congress can review the rules – and stop them before they’re
enforced. But with all the attention on the financial crisis, and with the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, experts think Congress won’t do that. And that these last minute rules will
be government policy for awhile.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Tag: regulation

Interview: EPA’s Lisa Jackson

Transcript

Related Links

Chairman Criticizes Climate Change Bill

Transcript

Related Links

Senator Exposes Smoking Gun?

Transcript

Related Links

Gasoline Goes Low-Carbon

Transcript

Related Links

Gas Tax vs. Efficiency Standards

Transcript

Related Links

The Push for Offshore Wind Farms

Transcript

Related Links

Coal Ash Controversy

Transcript

Related Links

Paint Regs Better for Environment?

Transcript

Related Links

Makeover for Cosmetics Industry?

Transcript

Related Links

Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour

Transcript

Related Links