Companies Lie

A San Francisco Newspaper did some interesting research. They compared testimony given in hearings held by House Republicans with what they reported in their SEC filings. Every publicly traded company must file quarterly reports with the SEC, which then become a matter of public record. Testimony in hearings is also public record. Comparing the two depositories of public information, the enterprising reporter on this story discovered that companies were telling the House hearings that EPA regulations were going to kill jobs, and drive them out of business. (I exaggerated a little in that last sentence, but not by much.) But, when the same companies filed their quarterly reports with the SEC, sometimes within days of their House hearing testimony, they told their shareholders that their cashflow would not be impacted by proposed EPA regulations. Since they are persons now, these companies should be prosecuted either for contempt of congress or investor fraud.

Homework

San Francisco Newspaper Story of Companies Differing Stories

USDA  Looking at Local Foods

As consumers become aware of the impact of their carbon footprints on the health of the planet, they are increasingly turning to locally produced foods. This movement is relatively small in the world of agriculture, and data has not been systematically collected over time, but a recent USDA study found some interesting facts.

Marketing local foods grossed $4.8 billion in 2008.

Small farms, defined as those with gross revenues of less than $50,000 in annual sales, accounted for 81% of farmers reporting local food sales. They primarily sold their food at farmers markets and roadside stands. The average annual revenue from local food sales for these farms is $7,800.

Medium sized farms, defined as those with gross revenues of $50,000 to $250,000, represented 17% of  farmers reporting local food sales, using the same marketing channels as the small farmer. The average  revenue from local food sales for the medium sized farm is $70,000.

Farmers with gross revenues greater than $250,000 represented 5% of farmers producing local foods. They had $770,000 in average annual local food sales, using the same marketing channels. Because of their higher volumes of production, they accounted for 92% of the $4.8 billion.

The report issued by the USDA opines that there is too little data to know how the local foods movement is impacting local food systems, local economic development, or nutrition. They also say the jury is still out on the idea that local farms reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions.

Homework

Minnesota Newspaper Story of USDA's Look at Local Foods

USDA Report

A report, just issued by the Inspector General, about the review process used by the EPA in determining that “Six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations and greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare” found that the procedures were not up to standard.

It is important to note that the report is about the process used by the EPA to conclude that public health and welfare is endangered by greenhouse gasses, not about the validity of the conclusion. Yet, it is likely that the climate deniers will seize upon this opportunity to once again call for the demise of the EPA.

There is a bit of history leading up to this report being requested by a Senator. In October 1999, the EPA was petitioned to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. In 2003, the petition was denied by the EPA. The petitioner appealed the denial all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gasses are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, and that the Administration should figure out if exhaust from vehicles contribute to air pollution and thus endanger the health of citizens.

The history of the U.S. studying climate change goes back even further to 1988, when the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For those with tinfoil hats on their heads, just the mention of the UN is proof of a communist plot, further advancing my theory that this report will inspire new attacks on the EPA. In 2007, this Panel issued its fourth assessment, which was heavily relied upon by the EPA in the review process being evaluated. The panel is working on its fifth assessment, which will be available in parts starting in September 2013, and culminating in October 2014.

The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change involves scientific experts, relevant representatives of governments, and expert representatives from scientific organizations. Once a draft report is written, it is reviewed by governments. In the case of the US government and the most recent assesment, public comments were solicited through a Federal Register notice and 13 agencies and departments reviewed and consolidated the public comments before forwarding them to the Panel for inclusion in the assessment.

In 2010, the National Research Council issued a report, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, which concluded: “A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

Bottom line: Scientific peer reviewed reports, both world-wide and national in scope, have concluded that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to it. The EPA relied heavily on peer-reviewed, scientific studies in an internal process that only involved 12 scientists and one EPA representative. The Inspector General believes that the EPA did not implement all of their own rules during the internal review, which is the subject of the just released report. Nothing in the report does anything to change the conclusions drawn by international and national scientists in the reports they issued. None of which will make any difference to climate deniers.

Homework

Inspector General Report of EPA Review Process

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

National Research Council

The headline in a story in the New York Times this morning caught my attention. The headline was, “'Anti-Environmental' House Freshman Leads Charge Against Obama's Clean Water Agenda.” What’s wrong with this picture? We are told that someone is fighting against clean water and that’s a good thing? And what about clean water makes it “Obama’s Agenda” instead of America’s agenda? To be fair, the story isn’t really about not liking clean water, it is about an Ohio Representative who is a former hog farmer. This former farmer’s agenda is against regulations, not against clean water. But the net result of his actions will be that there is less clean water in the world. What is especially surprising is that Ohio is the site of the famous burning river of the late 1960’s that started the modern environmental movement. The planet is running out of fresh water. At what point do we, as a nation, decide that protecting the health of our eco-system, including the rivers that supply fresh water, is more important than the short term profits of industry? This anti-regulation mood, including the impulse to defund the EPA, is all about protecting profits. I’m sick to death of profits having priority over people. Do we really want to return to the days of burning rivers, not to mention water faucets that can be ignited? Back in 2009, a think tank in California coined a new term, “peak ecological water.” The idea is that there will be a point where there is insufficient clean water to sustain life on the planet. Right now humans use about ½ of the fresh water on the planet without realizing what their “water footprint” looks like. Industrial and agricultural usage is increasing, if for no other reason than the population of the planet is increasing. If that used water is returned to the eco-system loaded with pollutants, like chemicals from fertilizers, the result is less fresh water available—or more expensive fresh water as it becomes more expensive to remove the pollutants from the water. Even people who are concerned with peace on earth are concerned that future fresh water shortages will result in war. Today’s wars are about oil, tomorrow’s wars will be about water. Given that scenario, is it reasonable to continue to defund the one organization that is trying to keep water clean in America? Is it reasonable to put the profits of industry above the health of the planet and everyone and everything that lives on it? Homework:

New York Times Report About Freshman Lawmaker

The Planet Is Running Out of Water

The EPA has been quietly going about establishing the rules that should have been established years ago, but were blocked by the marinated in oil Bush/Cheney administration. The latest proposed rule regulates mercury emissions from coal fired power plants. The Clean Air Act of 1990 required that the EPA establish standards for power plant emissions, so this is only 21 years late.

Mercury from power plants tends to end up in our rivers and our fish. It is especially toxic to women and wildlife where it causes brain damage and can impact reproduction. About 50% of the mercury emitted in the US comes from power plants. There are some pretty big power plants in Texas, which probably explains whey Bush was so against regulating them. Some good ole boy thing.

This is going to cost the industry $10-billion to retrofit power plants with scrubbers that take out at least 90% of the toxic heavy metal from emissions. No wonder the industry lobbyists are trying to convince congress to defund the EPA. If they do their job, industry’s costs go up. In this case, the price of electricity is also expected to increase by $3 to $4 each month to pay for the increased production costs. James Inhofe (R-OK) is already claiming that this will force 20% of power plants to go out of business. Personally, I doubt that claim. Power plants will comply and pass the costs along to the consumer. And we’ll all breathe better.

Inhofe is also whining about this causing a loss of jobs. I’m scratching my head over that one. A bunch of power plants are going to invest in new equipment that must be manufactured and installed by somebody, or don’t those jobs count?

Homework

Story About Proposed Rule From Texas Newspaper

Same Story from Washington Post

Union of Concerned Scientists Story About Bush Blocking Regulations

EPA's Website About Clean Air Act

Years ago I travelled to Houston on business, and was surprised at how polluted the air was, especially after living in Denver for years and being painfully aware of that city’s “Brown Cloud.” Flying into and out of Salt Lake City over many years also highlighted for me how temperature inversions can impact air quality. There were days in winter when one could not see the beautiful mountains of Utah from the airport because the air simply was not clear enough. And then there was the year I lived in Mexico, and saw the same inability to see the mountains from the city because the air was so dense. Remember when China banned automobiles during their Olympics?

Houston, we’ve got a problem. I started with a mention of Houston because at the time of my visit, during the Bush administration, it was the most polluted city in America. Evidently Los Angeles and Houston regularly exchange top billing. According to NASA, which is studying Houston’s pollution, the causes are a large and increasing population, heavy automobile usage and multiple chemical industry and power plants.

President Bush exempted power plants from EPA pollution standards, and then went about trying to dismantle the EPA—something our US Representative Scott Tipton and our Colorado Representative Ray Scott have also vowed to accomplish. The problem is that in 2008 a federal court ruled that Bush was violating the law. Earlier the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses.

Yesterday Robert Waxman (D-CA) released a 2008 letter from the EPA to President Bush explaining that there was no question about the science of climate change, and that to ignore it was a security threat to our nation. The author of that letter has been testifying in committee hearings led by a Republican legislator who is determined to allow the oil and gas industry to have its way with our environment and our health. We need to make sure that the truth is told, and that we start protecting our environment or this planet will become uninhabitable.

Homework:

Bloomberg Article Re: Bush vs. EPA

NASA Story About Houston's Air Pollution

2008 Story About Court Ruling Bush in Violation of Law

Air Pollution in China

Air Pollution in Mexico City (and other world cities)

Republicans have been attacking the Environmental Protection Agency for years. Scott Tipton, Representative from Colorado’s Congressional District 3, has vowed to defund and dismantle the agency. This is not a new story.

One of the greatest environmental controversies coming out of the Bush Administration was its directive to close the EPA libraries. In fact, they closed the doors on some of the branches and started packing up books ostensibly to send them to an office where the collection would be digitized. When researchers and congress pushed back, the EPA was directed to come up with a reorganization plan, but funding was cut to the agency. The plan was due to be completed in Fiscal 2011.

Many people felt the Bush Administration wanted the EPA gone so that the oil and gas industry could thrive in an environment with no regulation. The EPA is at cross purposes with industry’s desire to maximize profits. There is no doubt that regulations increase company expenses. But regulations also fulfill the mission of the EPA as described at their website:

“The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

• all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
• national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
• federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
• environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
• all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
• environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
• the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.”

Homework

2006 Attempts to Dismantle EPA Library

2007 Article About Closing the EPA Libraries

2007 Report to Congress About EPA Libraries

2008 Article About Closing the EPA Libraries

2010 Article About Reorganizing the EPA Libraries

Laws Establishing the Authority of the EPA