Red Lodge Clearinghouse Blog has moved!

We have moved the Red Lodge Clearinghouse blog to our new website. Please visit our new blog!

Obama’s treatment of endangered species: too soft or just right?

Some have criticized President Obama’s snail’s pace when it comes to listing species as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.  So far, he is even behind Bush, who only listed 11 species in his two terms.  Also, Obama has not reversed President Bush’s decision to delist the gray wolf.  However, is this seemingly soft treatment of endangered species really a bad thing? 

Contrary to what this slow start suggests, the President seems to respect the Endangered Species Act.  While he has not listed many species, he has reversed a policy from the previous administration which allowed federal agencies to go forward with projects that would affect endangered species without consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.  This policy also specifically dismissed any connection between climate change and endangered species on the grounds that climate change occurs through global processes and cannot be reasonably predicted.  By reversing this policy, Obama has again made it possible for the government and citizens to use the ESA as a tool in regulating carbon.  Additionally, endangered species and compliance with the ESA has been an important issue to the President regarding the Gulf oil spill. 

Overall, Obama seems to be interested in increasing the overall strength of the Act, not necessarily the number of species that are listed.  At least in the first years of his presidency, this might be the most important thing.  By stressing energy, climate change, and ecosystem restoration in his environmental policy, the President is focusing on the big picture for environmental protection.  By increasing the strength of the Act, he has increased the protection to every species currently listed.  These broader goals are a prudent start for a president who wants to change and restore our nation’s attitude towards environmental protection.  After all, listing new species means nothing if the Act as a whole has been degraded into uselessness.  

_____________________________

Blog post by: Aubrey Coffey-Urban

The National Press Club was Wrong to Invite Don Blankenship to Speak

Don Blankenship, the CEO of Massey Energy Company, may have the right to vent his anti-environment, anti-government rhetoric at any venue that is willing to have him.  What I cannot fathom is why the National Press Club would offer this man a platform to speak.  He certainly has done nothing to earn this privilege.  Blankenship lacks even a modicum of credibility and his abysmal record of citizenship puts him in a league all his own. The list of particulars against Mr. Blankenship is long and sordid.  We know him best perhaps because of the recent disaster at the Upper Big Branch Coal Mine, where methane exploded and killed 29 miners.  Although still all too common in some developing countries, mine explosions had become a rarity in the United States because we know how to prevent them.  We are pretty good at ventilating mines and detecting methane build-up when it still occurs, and so we are quite capable of keeping miners safe.  Our record of preventing methane explosions at underground coal mines over the past several decades testifies to our success.  That it didn’t happen at the Upper Big Branch Mine is a testament to Blankenship and his willingness to sacrifice the health and safety of his employees for the sake of his company’s profits. 

At his National Press Club speech, Blankenship tried to shift fault for the accident from himself and his company to the federal regulators.  The government surely should have been more vigilant.  In the five years preceding the accident, the Upper Big Branch Mine had racked up well over 1,300 safety violations.  Given this record, it is fair to ask whether the federal government should have moved more aggressively against the operator.  But the idea that Blankenship and the anti-regulatory culture that he fostered within his workforce were not fundamentally responsible for what happened is as shameless as it is mendacious.   One hopes that the federal government will now do a better job of holding Blankenship to account, personally and perhaps criminally, for his role in this tragedy.

As horrific as the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster was, one might be more willing to accept Blankenship’s efforts to deflect criticism away from himself if this were an isolated incident.  On the contrary, however, the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster is part of a pattern that reveals Blankenship to be a mean-spirited person who cares only for the well-being of himself and his company.  This is a guy who time and again skirted labor laws by buying out union mines, shutting them down, only to reopen them soon thereafter as non-union mines that refused to employ workers who were previously members of the union.  (This short-sighted behavior is at least partially responsible for the lack of skilled workers at places like Upper Big Branch.) 

This is a guy who has bullied West Virginia officials for years into approving his plans to lop off mountain tops and plunder the West Virginia landscape.  Mountain top mining is, of course, allowed, under the federal mining laws.  But it was plainly intended to be allowed only in exceptional circumstances and then only when it could be done in full compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.  Thanks largely to Blankenship, and the other mining companies trying to emulate and compete with Massey, mountaintop mining has pretty much become the rule in West Virginia.  In the process, hundreds of miles of mountain streams have been buried under the rubble of West Virginia’s mountain tops, in shocking disregard of the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Finally, this is a guy who spent millions of dollars to defeat an incumbent judge on the West Virginia Supreme Court and have his own candidate installed in order to prevail in a bitter dispute with a rival company.  This was even too much for the U.S. Supreme Court, which demanded that Blankeneship’s judge recuse himself from the relevant case. 

Long before the tragic events at the Upper Big Branch Mine, Michael Schnayerson wrote a terrific book called Coal River, which describes in detail the many sins against humanity visited upon our world by Don Blankenship and Massey Energy.  It is well worth a read.  But you don’t need to know the details to know that what the National Press Club did in inviting Blankenship to speak was wrong.  The National Press Club serves as an important forum for debating public policy and it rightly solicits a range of views and perspectives in carrying out its mission.  But the civic-minded behavior – or the lack thereof – of any prospective speaker should surely be part of the calculus in any decision to extend an invitation.   Someone seems to have forgotten this when they invited Don Blankenship to the Club.

- Mark Squillace  

Global dirty energy subsidies total more than $550 BILLION!!!

I just read this article in the Financial Times (limited free subscription available), which previews a forthcoming report from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA is completing a study that should be an eyeopener to those "conservative" types who misguidedly believe they are champions of free-market capitalism.

The IEA estimates that in 2008, 37 large developing countries spent about $557 billion in energy subsidies devoted to oil, natural gas, and coal consumption, about 75 percent more than previously thought.

Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, and China are the top "subsidizers" of fossil fuel production, and while my choice of the term "conservative" (above) may suggest that I place the onus of this problem on those members of our US society who -- for some reason that continues to shake my understanding of the much heralded idea of "free-market capitalism" as well as the definition of the verb "conserve" -- seem to support these subsidies that place clean, alternative energy at a competitive disadvantage, I do not suggest that a global crisis like our fossil fuel addiction is one that the US or conservatives must address alone. The problem belongs to all of us, and so must any real solution. What really gets my goat is the unwillingness of profiteering fossil fuel executives and their government bedfellows to answer for or even admit to creating a problem for the entirety benefiting the few while assisting not at all in the development of a lasting solution.

BP has no right to destroy my Gulf and Massey Energy has no right to destroy my Appalachian Mountains. Likewise, they, aided by our elected government, have no right to cripple capitalism in ways that force the American economy toward dirty energy that continues to slowly make this planet uninhabitable to thousands of species who called it home long before we did.

Furthermore, these subsidies are a drain on our respective economies at a time when we can ill afford to be putting more money from the Treasury into the pockets of the Don Blankenships and Tony Haywards of the world.

I think some people need to go back to 6th grade Social Studies class and refresh themselves on the basic principles of capitalism. The rest of us need to get on with this revolution.

______________________

Judson Brehmer is the project manager of the Red Lodge Clearinghouse, a forum for citizen participation in natural resources policy. He holds a J.D. and a Certificate in Environmental Law from the University of Oregon and is a research faculty member with the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School.

Change we can believe in?

Even while BP's Deepwater Horizon well continues to fill the Gulf of Mexico with oil, and with no plan to stem the black tide, the Obama administration issued a new offshore drilling permit Wednesday to Bandon Oil and Gas for a well about 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana 115 feet below the ocean's surface.

What?!?! I thought there was a moratorium?

Apparently that moratorium only applies to offshore drilling in water deeper than 500 feet.

In the days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig (now SIX weeks ago) most of us didn't notice that while the MMS extended the moratorium on deepwater drilling, it allowed the moratorium on shallow water drilling to expire.

Apparently MMS plans to require operators of wells, even those like the Deepwater Horizon which are already enjoying categorical exclusions, to submit additional information about risks before being allowed to drill new wells.

Why do I feel like this is meaningless lip-service?

There are about 5000 offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. There is no doubt that this will happen again, if not in the Gulf, then in the Arctic. Besides that, we still don't know if/when this disaster will be stopped! Oil could gush from this well for years to come, spread to the Atlantic, and effect coastlines all over the world.

(Oh yeah, have we talked about mountaintop removal coal mining lately?)

When will the American people stand up and demand an end to our fossil fuel addiction?

It's time for an intervention.

_________________________________________________________________

Judson Brehmer is the project manager of the Red Lodge Clearinghouse, a forum for citizen participation in natural resources policy. He holds a J.D. and a Certificate in Environmental Law from the University of Oregon and is a research faculty member with the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School.

Kerry-Lieberman: Thoughts

Senator Graham pulled out, so it is no longer a tri-partisan effort, more like a Frankenstein of good intentions and unrealized ambitions. What was supposed to be comprehensive climate change legislation for the U.S. has turned into a joke. I mean, come on, the new Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill (The American Power Act) has provisions for expanding off-shore oil drilling. Really? I don’t know much about politics but even I can tell that will go over like a lead balloon in the Senate. With a BP rig in the Gulf of Mexico hemorrhaging 5000 barrels of oil a day, politicians want to include offshore oil drilling in a climate change bill. Really? And that begs the question as to why incentives for offshore oil drilling are in a climate change bill in the first place. Aren’t we supposed to find ways to wean ourselves off the teat of fossil fuels and carbon dependence? Also, Senator Graham cites the importance of the immigration debate as another reason for his withdrawal. All of this highlights the shortsightedness of American policy makers. Understandably, climate change deals in timelines that are more expansive than a single election cycle, or even the life of a single politician, but these are problems that need to be addressed now. We think the immigration debate is at a fever pitch right now, just wait until millions (if not billions) are displaced by rising tides and natural disasters. Climate change refugees on a global scale will make Arizona border jumping look like child’s play. I think that Senator Graham saw the writing on the wall and wanted his name off of this bill of concessions.

I am not saying that America needs its own private Kyoto, not even close. What it does need is an honest effort to address the problem. A problem that is not just America’s. We are starting to become the laughing stock of the world. And why not, I ask? When Fox News leads off its Earth Day coverage with the headline that insinuated that climate change was a hoax. There is no denying that climate change is upon us and that it is anthropogenic. Now the issue needs to be how to stop it. How to stop sea level rise, how to stop increasing storm intensity, how to stop ocean acidification, how to stop loss of biodiversity. The problem lies in the time horizon. A popular adage in the environmental community is that a good economy breeds green, and guess what… we are far from a good economy. Our focus now is on cheap energy, finding jobs, and immigration. We can’t even be bothered with fixing the mess BP has created in the Gulf. I am not saying we are approaching another era of flaming rivers, Love Canals and Silent Springs… I am saying that it could be worse.

Kerry-Lieberman claims to be THE comprehensive climate change bill, and they released it without Senator Graham. While this can be viewed as an act of defiance, it isn’t. It seems to be the fastest way to kill the bill. The target is 60 votes. That is not going to happen with a key Republican backing out of his own bill. What kind of message does that send? It sends the message that America has other concerns. Immigration. That America doesn’t want to play ball with the rest of the world. Byrd-Hagel. That America likes its oil.

Other stumbling blocks (besides the offshore provision that would essentially give states a 37.5% share in the revenues from drilling in Federal waters) in the Act are nuclear power, offsets, and allowance allocation. The problem with nuclear is that Kerry-Lieberman is for it, but not in a smart way. The Act has provisions that would expedite the permitting and construction of new nuclear plants. This is both dangerous and necessary. The last nuclear power plant built went online in 1996 and there have been no new orders for plants since the 1970s. This is a problem. Some European nations, such as France, are almost 80% nuclear. The Act also calls for billions in loan guarantees to build new plants. This is a problem because we still have no place to store the waste. Yucca Mountain is out—Harry Reid has made sure of that. So now we are looking at on-site storage and that is toxic for politicians. No one wants a potential nuclear accident in their state even if it means cheap, clean power.

Another problem is the offsets. If there is one adage in American environmental politics, it is don’t mess with agriculture. Kerry-Lieberman is yet another example of agriculture getting its way. It gets the offsets. To put a finer point on it, the USDA gets oversight over all offset crediting from agriculture and forestry. Also, the cap for offsets is set at 2 billion tons of carbon per year, which is way too high. Offsets are essential for a cap and trade system to work effectively and efficiently. They allow flexibility and allow covered entities to come into compliance in the cheapest manner possible- either clean up your act or pay for offsets. Simple. Except for the fact that these offsets can lack environmental integrity and to allow so many in could bust the cap and lead to no real reductions in CO2 levels. If the offsets come from projects that generate no reduction in carbon emissions, the integrity of the cap will be compromised. Kyoto has struggled with this, as has the European Union-Emission Trading System. It seems like we are next.

The last problem is that only 25% of allowances are to be auctioned. Ideally, 100% of allowances should be auctioned to send a proper price signals as to the true value of carbon in the market. As it is designed, the government gets to pick winners (utilities and heavy manufacturers). While this amounts to windfall profits to utilities, they are to pass on the benefits to consumers. This is a problem because it creates a perverse incentive for consumer to keep consuming. The goal seems to be cheap power, not clean power.

There are problems. Lots of them. Some that could be worked out in committee, others that might sound the death knell of the Act in its entirety. However, this should not mean that America isn’t ready for energy reform. We are. Past due, actually. Changes must be made and this is a notable step in the right direction, it just seems that something has gotten lost in translation. While there are aspects of the bill that are not ideal, I understand that politics is like sausage making. What you want is the end product, you don’t want to know how it’s made. Kerry-Lieberman may be like that. Lets see what we get when it gets out of committee. Hold your breath (just because soon you wont be able to breathe the air).



For more information on Kerry-Lieberman see:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/kerry-lieberman-short-summary/

or

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/kerry-lieberman-american_n_572963.html

Kagan’s Stance on Environmental Issues Uncertain but Promising

President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens has generated the usual questions from both sides the political spectrum, often raising more questions than answers. Kagan’s views on environmental issues will be particularly important, because as the government acts to increasingly regulate greenhouse gas emissions and institute cap-and-trade programs in the coming years, legal challenges to such issues will reach the Supreme Court with increasing frequency. As far as her stance on these issues is concerned, Kagan hasn’t expressed a clear view in favor of upholding environmental regulation, but her actions as dean of Harvard Law School should give environmentalists hope.

During her nearly six years as dean, Kagan brought Harvard’s Environmental Law program from relative obscurity to its current position as one of the best in the country. She started the school’s environmental law program in 2005, and created its environmental law clinic. In what was seen as one of the most prominent hires of her time as dean, Kagan persuaded Jody Freeman, an expert on environmental policy who served as the White House Counselor for Energy and Climate Change, to leave UCLA in order to head the program. While these actions don’t give a clear answer to how Kagan would decide important environmental issues, they do show at least a general support of environmental protection.

Kagan further showed her understanding of environmental issues in a letter in the summer 2008 Harvard Law Bulletin. In the letter she spoke favorably of moving past litigation to an interdisciplinary approach to combat what she called “the growing perils posed by greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.” This way of thinking could hopefully turn into support for a broad range of measures to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Although Elena Kagan is undoubtedly not an outspoken advocate for environmental protection, her limited record should at least provide a sense of optimism. She seems to understand the importance of climate change regulation to the future of our country, and her moderate approach to the issue could help gather the five votes needed to sustain any environmental regulation that reaches the Supreme Court.