WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration has warned it could use the Environmental Protection Agency to help cut carbon emissions if Congress drags its heels, but legal and logistical problems could thwart that strategy.
A Senate climate bill unveiled last week faces slim odds of being passed and signed into law soon, with the U.S. economy shedding jobs and coal-dependent states fearing it would raise prices for electricity and steel and hurt manufacturing.
The delay in the United States, which has emitted more greenhouse gas pollution than any other country, is being closely watched by rich and developing countries seeking a lead on how to tackle global warming.
Some 190 nations due to meet in Copenhagen in December to thrash out a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol want to see that the United States is serious about fighting climate change before committing to share the burden of slowing global warming.
The administration has always said it prefers legislation over action by the EPA. But to prod business to support efforts in Congress, and to show the world Washington is taking action on climate change, the administration has also pressed the EPA to take early steps on regulating greenhouse gases.
The same day the senators unveiled the bill, the EPA proposed a rule, that would narrow the scope of the Clean Air Act, to force new factories and power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, Carol Browner, the administration's climate and energy coordinator, and a former administrator of the EPA, said last week that if Congress does not pass the bill the agency could work with U.S. states that have already formed cap-and-trade markets to expand them.
Environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, and legal experts, such as those at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, have said the EPA could get around Congress and create a national cap-and-trade market on the emissions.
EPA VULNERABLE TO LITIGATION
"I would question the ability of the EPA to follow through with that," said Divya Reddy, a Washington-based analyst at the Eurasia Group. Nearly any action the EPA takes would be "extremely vulnerable" to litigation and congressional intervention, she said.
Many of the troubles with EPA acting by itself on climate have to do with the sheer size of the potential U.S. carbon market.
If the EPA were to impose a national cap on carbon pollution, it would create credits worth hundreds of billions of dollars for the right to emit greenhouse gases, said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator.
That's about 10 times the size of previous emissions programs on acid rain that the agency has helped run.
Another likely problem is that the EPA would have trouble dictating how the states should distribute the permits and spend profits from their sale.
"LOTS OF WORK FOR LAWYERS"
Analysts say legislation by Congress would be more acceptable politically because it would represent a compromise between various political interests rather than a ruling imposed from above by one agency.
And if an EPA program works poorly, opponents would point the finger at the administration, not the entire Congress.
"Bottom line is EPA may have a lot of authority but you can bet the opponents of action are going to sue on every single thing EPA does," said Frank O'Donnell, the president of activist group Clean Air Watch.
Holmstead said any attempt to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, the law that empowers the EPA to protect air quality, would "create lots of work for lawyers."
One congressional aide, who asked not to be identified, was more blunt about any attempt to change the Act: "EPA would be attempting to rewrite legislation. They don't do that. Congress does."
Lawmakers too could continue to try to chip away at EPA rules. Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the senior Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, already has sought a one-year delay on the proposed EPA smokestack rule. She says it would hurt the economy.
The Senate squashed the attempt last month, but Murkowski may try again. "She is continuing to look for opportunities," Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the senator, said on Wednesday.
(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Xavier
The Rest @ Reuters
Showing posts with label N- News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label N- News. Show all posts
Friday, 9 October 2009
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
EPA Sends Draft CO2 Exemption Rule Change to OMB
I Neither agree nor disagree with the commentary below; Iam still reveiewing Marlo Lewis's calims, but the controversy illustrates the issues that will emerge soon, no matter what happens. In short, the EPA is about to declare four green house gases as air polutants. This will bring everyone who emmits 250 tons or CO2 a year under the regulation of under the Clean Air Act of 1978, which so far has been left to industrial air poluters in the past.
Marlo claims that the EPA sent a draft rule over to the Office of Management and Budget which will select 250,000 tons as the threshold for C02.
The reason for this, imho, is that this will cost the American economoy less, and might be more palatable.
....in any case, here is Marlo Lewi's post:
- Editor
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a draft proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would exempt small emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) from Clean Air Act (CAA) pre-construction permitting requirement, Greenwire reports.
The proposed rule, as described in Greenwire, is blatantly illegal. It is a tacit admission that the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA set the stage for an economic disaster. It is additional evidence that Mass v. EPA was wrongly decided. It confirms CEI’s warning that the Court’s ruling imperils a core constitutional principle — the separation of powers.
In Mass. v. EPA, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, decided that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are “air pollutants” within the meaning of CAA, and gave EPA three options: (1) issue a finding that GHG-related “air pollution” “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” (2) issue a finding of no endangerment, or (3) provide a “reasonable explanation” why the agency cannot or will not exercise its discretion to make such a determination.
The Court further held that if EPA makes a finding of endangerment, then it has a duty, under CAA Sec. 202, to develop and adopt GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
EPA picked option (1), and last month, it sent OMB a draft proposed rule to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
Although the Court majority asserted that an endangerment finding could not lead to “extreme measures” and would only require a cost-constrained adjustment of existing federal fuel-economy standards (see. p. 28 of the decision), in fact the endangerment finding will trigger a chain reaction throughout the CAA — a regulatory cascade potentially exceeding in cost, scope, and intrusiveness the Kyoto Protocol and many other GHG-control schemes Congress has never seen fit to pass.
For starters, establishing GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles will by definition make CO2 a CAA-regulated air pollutant. As such, CO2 would automatically be ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Under the CAA, any firm that plans to build a new “major” stationary source, or modify an existing major source in a way that would significantly increase emissions, must first obtain a PSD permit from EPA or a state environmental agency.
A PSD source is “major” if it is in one of 28 listed categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of an air pollutant, or if it is any other type of establishment and has a potential to emit 250 TPY.
And there’s the rub. Whereas only large industrial facilities have a potential to emit 250 TPY of air contaminants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, an immense number and variety of entities – office buildings, hotels, big box stores, enclosed malls, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens – have a potential to emit 250 TPY of CO2. A September 2008 report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that 1.2 million buildings and facilities – most of them currently unregulated under the CAA – actually emit 250 TPY of CO2. All would be vulnerable to new PSD regulation, controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.
To obtain a PSD permit, firms must document their compliance with ”best available control technology” (BACT) standards. Even apart from any technology investments needed to comply with BACT, the PSD permitting process is costly and time-consuming. In a recent year, each permit on average cost $125,120 and 866 burden hours for a source to obtain, EPA estimates. No small business could operate subject to the PSD administrative burden.
The costs, uncertainties, and delays from applying PSD and BACT to CO2 would have a chilling effect on economic development and construction activity. It would turn the CAA into a gigantic Anti-Stimulus Package in a period of financial crisis and high unemployment. Definitely not something the Obama administration wants on its record in the 2010 election season.
EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) outlined several administrative remedies to shield small entities from PSD requirements, all of doubtful legality. But if the Greenwire article is accurate, EPA is opting for the most brazenly illegal option of all. It proposes to revise, on its own authority, the PSD threshold from 250 TPY to 25,000 TPY.
Now friends, under the 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron v. NRDC, EPA has considerable discretionary authority in interpreting the CAA where the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.” But there is nothing ambiguous about the number 250. No matter how you squint at the page, 250 is 100 times smaller than the threshold EPA proposes to put in its place.
According to Greenwire, Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder, a counsel for petitioners in Mass. v. EPA, “said the rule would also deflect claims from Republican lawmakers and industry groups that the Obama administration is seeking to regulate small emission sources such as doughnut shops, schools, and nursing homes.” But the Obama administration’s intent is not the issue. The issue is whether EPA, as a matter of law, must apply PSD requirements to doughnut shops, etc. once it starts regulating CO2 under Sec. 202.
Greenwire then quotes Bookbinder: “Putting this rule in place deflates a lot of political rhetoric about regulating CO2.” Well, I hope industry and the GOP are not so naive as to put their trust in an illegal rule. A rule that flouts clear statutory language of the CAA can provide no durable protection from the regulatory cascade that an endangerment finding and EPA adoption of motor vehicle GHG emission standards would unleash.
EPA’s proposed draft rule is a tacit admission of what CEI has said all along: EPA cannot regulate CO2 under the CAA without endangering the U.S. economy unless EPA plays lawmaker, amends the Act, and violates the separation of powers. When the Supreme Court handed down the Mass. v. EPA decision, it set the stage for a constitutional crisis.
Of course, the bigger constitutional crisis stemming from Mass. v. EPA is that we could end up with an energy suppression regime far more costly than Kyoto or Waxman-Markey, yet without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it.
For the gory details, see my blog post on MasterResource.Org and my comment on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding.
by Marlo Lewis
September 02, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
The Rest @ OPen Market
Marlo claims that the EPA sent a draft rule over to the Office of Management and Budget which will select 250,000 tons as the threshold for C02.
The reason for this, imho, is that this will cost the American economoy less, and might be more palatable.
....in any case, here is Marlo Lewi's post:
- Editor
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a draft proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would exempt small emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) from Clean Air Act (CAA) pre-construction permitting requirement, Greenwire reports.
The proposed rule, as described in Greenwire, is blatantly illegal. It is a tacit admission that the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA set the stage for an economic disaster. It is additional evidence that Mass v. EPA was wrongly decided. It confirms CEI’s warning that the Court’s ruling imperils a core constitutional principle — the separation of powers.
In Mass. v. EPA, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, decided that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are “air pollutants” within the meaning of CAA, and gave EPA three options: (1) issue a finding that GHG-related “air pollution” “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” (2) issue a finding of no endangerment, or (3) provide a “reasonable explanation” why the agency cannot or will not exercise its discretion to make such a determination.
The Court further held that if EPA makes a finding of endangerment, then it has a duty, under CAA Sec. 202, to develop and adopt GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
EPA picked option (1), and last month, it sent OMB a draft proposed rule to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
Although the Court majority asserted that an endangerment finding could not lead to “extreme measures” and would only require a cost-constrained adjustment of existing federal fuel-economy standards (see. p. 28 of the decision), in fact the endangerment finding will trigger a chain reaction throughout the CAA — a regulatory cascade potentially exceeding in cost, scope, and intrusiveness the Kyoto Protocol and many other GHG-control schemes Congress has never seen fit to pass.
For starters, establishing GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles will by definition make CO2 a CAA-regulated air pollutant. As such, CO2 would automatically be ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Under the CAA, any firm that plans to build a new “major” stationary source, or modify an existing major source in a way that would significantly increase emissions, must first obtain a PSD permit from EPA or a state environmental agency.
A PSD source is “major” if it is in one of 28 listed categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of an air pollutant, or if it is any other type of establishment and has a potential to emit 250 TPY.
And there’s the rub. Whereas only large industrial facilities have a potential to emit 250 TPY of air contaminants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, an immense number and variety of entities – office buildings, hotels, big box stores, enclosed malls, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens – have a potential to emit 250 TPY of CO2. A September 2008 report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that 1.2 million buildings and facilities – most of them currently unregulated under the CAA – actually emit 250 TPY of CO2. All would be vulnerable to new PSD regulation, controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.
To obtain a PSD permit, firms must document their compliance with ”best available control technology” (BACT) standards. Even apart from any technology investments needed to comply with BACT, the PSD permitting process is costly and time-consuming. In a recent year, each permit on average cost $125,120 and 866 burden hours for a source to obtain, EPA estimates. No small business could operate subject to the PSD administrative burden.
The costs, uncertainties, and delays from applying PSD and BACT to CO2 would have a chilling effect on economic development and construction activity. It would turn the CAA into a gigantic Anti-Stimulus Package in a period of financial crisis and high unemployment. Definitely not something the Obama administration wants on its record in the 2010 election season.
EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) outlined several administrative remedies to shield small entities from PSD requirements, all of doubtful legality. But if the Greenwire article is accurate, EPA is opting for the most brazenly illegal option of all. It proposes to revise, on its own authority, the PSD threshold from 250 TPY to 25,000 TPY.
Now friends, under the 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron v. NRDC, EPA has considerable discretionary authority in interpreting the CAA where the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.” But there is nothing ambiguous about the number 250. No matter how you squint at the page, 250 is 100 times smaller than the threshold EPA proposes to put in its place.
According to Greenwire, Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder, a counsel for petitioners in Mass. v. EPA, “said the rule would also deflect claims from Republican lawmakers and industry groups that the Obama administration is seeking to regulate small emission sources such as doughnut shops, schools, and nursing homes.” But the Obama administration’s intent is not the issue. The issue is whether EPA, as a matter of law, must apply PSD requirements to doughnut shops, etc. once it starts regulating CO2 under Sec. 202.
Greenwire then quotes Bookbinder: “Putting this rule in place deflates a lot of political rhetoric about regulating CO2.” Well, I hope industry and the GOP are not so naive as to put their trust in an illegal rule. A rule that flouts clear statutory language of the CAA can provide no durable protection from the regulatory cascade that an endangerment finding and EPA adoption of motor vehicle GHG emission standards would unleash.
EPA’s proposed draft rule is a tacit admission of what CEI has said all along: EPA cannot regulate CO2 under the CAA without endangering the U.S. economy unless EPA plays lawmaker, amends the Act, and violates the separation of powers. When the Supreme Court handed down the Mass. v. EPA decision, it set the stage for a constitutional crisis.
Of course, the bigger constitutional crisis stemming from Mass. v. EPA is that we could end up with an energy suppression regime far more costly than Kyoto or Waxman-Markey, yet without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it.
For the gory details, see my blog post on MasterResource.Org and my comment on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding.
by Marlo Lewis
September 02, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
The Rest @ OPen Market
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
EPA to Impose Cap Whether Bill Passess or Not
EPA Uses ‘Endangerment Finding’ Stick to Spur Climate Change Legislation
The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to declare carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant in the upcoming months may help push climate-change legislation as top senators delay plans until late September to set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. The House narrowly passed an energy and climate-change bill in June.
On Aug. 31, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said a formal “endangerment finding,” which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act even if Congress doesn’t pass a final climate-change bill, probably would “happen in the next months,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
In April, the EPA proposed to regulate carbon dioxide along with five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize public health and welfare.
If Congress fails to pass a climate change bill by the end of the year, the EPA is ready to mandate limits on carbon emissions, reports Reuters.
But for now, the fate of U.S. climate change legislation is in the hands of the Senate where several legislators including California Democrat Barbara Boxer, are making “tweaks” to the bill, reports Reuters.
There is speculation that Boxer might opt for a slightly higher goal for reducing carbon emissions such as 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the 17 percent in the House bill, and Senator John Kerry wants stronger controls to deter abusive financial market speculation on trading of pollution permits, reports Reuters.
In addition, there are a host of scenarios for deal-making among the senators that range from a lower target — 14 percent — for reducing emissions and more breaks for coal states to passing legislation already approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity by 2021 from renewable sources like solar and wind power, according to Reuters.
Outside of government discussions, some corporations are using scare tactics to influence consumers against a climate-change bill that significantly reduces carbon emissions.
As an example, San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. is posting signs at its gasoline stations warning customers about the projected price hike in fuel if the House-approved bill on carbon cap-and-trade becomes law, reports the Houston Chronicle.
Valero, the largest U.S. independent refining company, said its costs for carbon emissions would total $6 billion to $7 billion a year, depending on the auction costs of the permits, reports the Houston newspaper.
The Rest @ Environmental Leader
The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to declare carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant in the upcoming months may help push climate-change legislation as top senators delay plans until late September to set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. The House narrowly passed an energy and climate-change bill in June.
On Aug. 31, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said a formal “endangerment finding,” which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act even if Congress doesn’t pass a final climate-change bill, probably would “happen in the next months,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
In April, the EPA proposed to regulate carbon dioxide along with five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize public health and welfare.
If Congress fails to pass a climate change bill by the end of the year, the EPA is ready to mandate limits on carbon emissions, reports Reuters.
But for now, the fate of U.S. climate change legislation is in the hands of the Senate where several legislators including California Democrat Barbara Boxer, are making “tweaks” to the bill, reports Reuters.
There is speculation that Boxer might opt for a slightly higher goal for reducing carbon emissions such as 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the 17 percent in the House bill, and Senator John Kerry wants stronger controls to deter abusive financial market speculation on trading of pollution permits, reports Reuters.
In addition, there are a host of scenarios for deal-making among the senators that range from a lower target — 14 percent — for reducing emissions and more breaks for coal states to passing legislation already approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity by 2021 from renewable sources like solar and wind power, according to Reuters.
Outside of government discussions, some corporations are using scare tactics to influence consumers against a climate-change bill that significantly reduces carbon emissions.
As an example, San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. is posting signs at its gasoline stations warning customers about the projected price hike in fuel if the House-approved bill on carbon cap-and-trade becomes law, reports the Houston Chronicle.
Valero, the largest U.S. independent refining company, said its costs for carbon emissions would total $6 billion to $7 billion a year, depending on the auction costs of the permits, reports the Houston newspaper.
The Rest @ Environmental Leader
Sunday, 16 August 2009
What Attorneys Say About GHG Magnagement
The following is a quote from a statemtn from The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel suggesting what should be done in anticipation of coming changes in Green House Gas Emisions.
-Editor
"The foregoing questions highlight uncertainties in potential GHG regulation. In light
of contingent liabilities that may arise out of new legal requirements, and in order for firms
to transition proactively while these and other issues are sorted out, corporate managers
Should implement a GHG compliance program that targets the following objectives:
-Editor
"The foregoing questions highlight uncertainties in potential GHG regulation. In light
of contingent liabilities that may arise out of new legal requirements, and in order for firms
to transition proactively while these and other issues are sorted out, corporate managers
Should implement a GHG compliance program that targets the following objectives:
- Identify and report GHG emissions and associated material risks in compliance with applicable securities laws and best practices;
- Mitigate GHG levels by, for example, improving energy efficiency, using alternative
fuels and renewable energy, investing in carbon capture and sequestration technology,
and considering climate risks in project finance and corporate transactions."
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Wal-Mart's Supplier Sustainability Assessment Program - Workshop
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. suppliers grappling with ways to meet the retail giant's new sustainability mandate can attend a workshop that will help the companies set environmental goals and benchmarks.
The event will be led by Paul Baier, vice president of consulting for Groom Energy and Tim Greiner, managing director of Pure Strategies. Baier and Greiner are also co-authors of a recently released report titled "Enterprise Carbon Accounting: An Analysis of Organizational-Level Greenhouse Gas Reporting and a Review of Emerging GHG Software Products."
Wal-Mart's Supplier Sustainability Assessment Program will measure the environmental cost associated with products that Wal-Mart sells and report on each product's rating.
Green Tech Media
The Rest @ Industry Week
- Groom Energy Solutions and Greentech Media will offer a supplier sustainability assessment program Sept. 16 1p.m. to 6 p.m. in Boston at the Mystic Ballroom of the Embassy Suites Hotel at Logan Airport.
- Admission is $495 for the workshop and $999 through Sept. 1 for attendees of the Greening the Supply Chain Conference on Sept. 17th.
- A free dial-in number for the Q & A session with Wal-Mart will be offered to attendees of the conference unable to attend the workshop.
The event will be led by Paul Baier, vice president of consulting for Groom Energy and Tim Greiner, managing director of Pure Strategies. Baier and Greiner are also co-authors of a recently released report titled "Enterprise Carbon Accounting: An Analysis of Organizational-Level Greenhouse Gas Reporting and a Review of Emerging GHG Software Products."
- The merits of programs such as the Carbon Disclosure Project and green product certifications will be covered.
- The workshop with conclude with a free Q & A call-in session led by Wal-Mart senior director of sustainability and packaging Sean Stephan, who is also on the agenda to present in the afternoon.
Wal-Mart's Supplier Sustainability Assessment Program will measure the environmental cost associated with products that Wal-Mart sells and report on each product's rating.
- In its first phase, Wal-Mart has initially required some of its 60,000 suppliers to answer a series of questions intended to assess their relative environmental maturity by Oct. 1 with expanded mandatory supplier participation in the future.
- Using the results of the query, Wal-Mart will then calculate sustainability ratings for each supplier.
Green Tech Media
The Rest @ Industry Week
Thursday, 13 August 2009
US Airlines First Industry to Be Regulated by Europe's Cap & Trade
Allan Bedwell of Cantor CO2e Says that the U.S. Airlines Will Be First U.S. Industry Regulated to Reduce GHG Emissions
The US Airline industry will be the first to have its GHG emissions capped by government under EU regulation. Over 700 airlines will be subject to the cap and trade requirements under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Those airlines will be formally identified this month by the EU for regulation under Phase III of the EU ETS. All large U.S. carriers flying into Europe are expected to be on the EU’s list later this month. Many US carriers are concerned about a potential for “double jeopardy” if the U.S. Congress passes a federal cap and trade program or the U.S. EPA establishes a low-carbon fuel standard.
While some legal experts raise international law, treaty and sovereignty issues, the EU ETS is expected to move forward. Here in the US, the EPA has been petitioned to domestically regulate airline emissions. EU ETS studies on airplanes indicate they generates almost 3% of the EU’s carbon emissions, with emissions expected to increase to 5-6% by 2018. Airlines failing to meet the caps can purchase carbon offsets. Litigation over the rule is expected.
The Rest @ CO2e
The US Airline industry will be the first to have its GHG emissions capped by government under EU regulation. Over 700 airlines will be subject to the cap and trade requirements under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Those airlines will be formally identified this month by the EU for regulation under Phase III of the EU ETS. All large U.S. carriers flying into Europe are expected to be on the EU’s list later this month. Many US carriers are concerned about a potential for “double jeopardy” if the U.S. Congress passes a federal cap and trade program or the U.S. EPA establishes a low-carbon fuel standard.
While some legal experts raise international law, treaty and sovereignty issues, the EU ETS is expected to move forward. Here in the US, the EPA has been petitioned to domestically regulate airline emissions. EU ETS studies on airplanes indicate they generates almost 3% of the EU’s carbon emissions, with emissions expected to increase to 5-6% by 2018. Airlines failing to meet the caps can purchase carbon offsets. Litigation over the rule is expected.
The Rest @ CO2e
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Coca Cola Sets Goal to Reduce Carbon FootPrint
ATLANTA, GA - July 23, 2009 - Coca-Cola Enterprises (NYSE: CCE) announced today that it has set goals for its five strategic Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CRS) focus areas and has committed to achieving these goals by the year 2020 - what the company is calling "Commitment 2020."
"Even during difficult economic times, our commitment to CRS has never been stronger, and our quantifiable Commitment 2020 goals demonstrate the progress we are making on our journey," said John F. Brock, chairman and chief executive officer. "We have been recognized as a CRS leader in the global Coca-Cola system, and by embedding CRS into every aspect of our business, we are working to meet or exceed the expectations of our retail customers and consumers."
CCE also reiterated its participation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders program, an industry-government partnership that works to develop comprehensive climate change strategies. As a partner in the EPA Climate Leaders, CCE has pledged to reduce its company-wide greenhouse gas emissions and will annually report its progress to the EPA.
Commitment 2020 Goals
CCE's Commitment 2020 goals for its five strategic CRS focus areas are:
Energy Conservation/Climate Change: Reduce the overall carbon footprint of our business operations by 15 percent by 2020, as compared to our 2007 baseline.
Water Stewardship: Establish a water-sustainable operation in which we minimize our water use and have a water-neutral impact on the local communities in which we operate, by safely returning the amount of water equivalent to what we use in our beverages and their production to these local communities.
Sustainable Packaging/Recycling: Reduce the impact of our packaging; maximize our use of renewable, reusable, and recyclable resources; and recover the equivalent of 100 percent of our packaging.
Product Portfolio/Well-Being: Provide refreshing beverages for every lifestyle and occasion, while helping consumers make informed beverage choices.
Diverse and Inclusive Culture: Create a culture where diversity is valued, every employee is a respected member of the team, and our workforce is a reflection of the communities in which we operate.
CRS Report
CCE's fourth company-wide CRS Report provides a comprehensive look at the company's commitment to being a sustainable business partner in the communities in which it operates. To access CCE's Report online, please visit the company's website at http://www.cokecce.com/assets/uploaded_files/FINAL_CCE_2008_CRSReport_lowres.pdf. Comments and feedback related to the Report are welcome at crs@cokecce.com.
CCE's CRS reports have garnered several awards in the past few years, including two Golden Peacock Awards (corporate social responsibility reporting) and two CorporateRegister.com awards (creativity in communications, best overall report runner-up). This Report achieves B-level compliance with the G3 guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
CRS Report Highlights:
Reduced beverage calories in U.S. schools by 58 percent since 2007. The American Beverage Association's School Guidelines support the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a partnership between the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association.
Measured the global and individual country carbon footprints of the company's operations in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. CCE's efforts to measure and reduce its carbon footprint have resulted in a seven percent reduction in energy use from 2006 to 2008.
Created the first certified product carbon footprint of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Coke Zero and Oasis in Great Britain and Dasani in the United States.
Saved 301 million liters of water through water efficiency initiatives, further reducing the company's water use ratio from 1.82 to 1.73 liters of water to produce one liter of product in the last three years. CCE has one of the lowest water use ratios in the global Coca-Cola system.
Recovered and reused approximately 125,000 metric tons of packaging materials through internal programs and Coca-Cola Recycling's work to increase opportunities for consumer recycling in the marketplace and at large-scale events.
Continued support of the United Nations Global Compact by endorsing the CEO Water Mandate, which recognizes the impact companies have on the world's water supply.
Coca-Cola Enterprises is the world’s largest marketer, producer, and distributor of bottle and can liquid nonalcoholic refreshment. CCE sells approximately 80 percent of The Coca-Cola Company's bottle and can volume in North America and is the sole licensed bottle for products of The Coca-Cola Company in Belgium, continental France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Monaco, and the Netherlands. For more information, please visit http://www.cokecce.com/.
The Rest @ CSRwire
"Even during difficult economic times, our commitment to CRS has never been stronger, and our quantifiable Commitment 2020 goals demonstrate the progress we are making on our journey," said John F. Brock, chairman and chief executive officer. "We have been recognized as a CRS leader in the global Coca-Cola system, and by embedding CRS into every aspect of our business, we are working to meet or exceed the expectations of our retail customers and consumers."
CCE also reiterated its participation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders program, an industry-government partnership that works to develop comprehensive climate change strategies. As a partner in the EPA Climate Leaders, CCE has pledged to reduce its company-wide greenhouse gas emissions and will annually report its progress to the EPA.
Commitment 2020 Goals
CCE's Commitment 2020 goals for its five strategic CRS focus areas are:
Energy Conservation/Climate Change: Reduce the overall carbon footprint of our business operations by 15 percent by 2020, as compared to our 2007 baseline.
Water Stewardship: Establish a water-sustainable operation in which we minimize our water use and have a water-neutral impact on the local communities in which we operate, by safely returning the amount of water equivalent to what we use in our beverages and their production to these local communities.
Sustainable Packaging/Recycling: Reduce the impact of our packaging; maximize our use of renewable, reusable, and recyclable resources; and recover the equivalent of 100 percent of our packaging.
Product Portfolio/Well-Being: Provide refreshing beverages for every lifestyle and occasion, while helping consumers make informed beverage choices.
Diverse and Inclusive Culture: Create a culture where diversity is valued, every employee is a respected member of the team, and our workforce is a reflection of the communities in which we operate.
CRS Report
CCE's fourth company-wide CRS Report provides a comprehensive look at the company's commitment to being a sustainable business partner in the communities in which it operates. To access CCE's Report online, please visit the company's website at http://www.cokecce.com/assets/uploaded_files/FINAL_CCE_2008_CRSReport_lowres.pdf. Comments and feedback related to the Report are welcome at crs@cokecce.com.
CCE's CRS reports have garnered several awards in the past few years, including two Golden Peacock Awards (corporate social responsibility reporting) and two CorporateRegister.com awards (creativity in communications, best overall report runner-up). This Report achieves B-level compliance with the G3 guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
CRS Report Highlights:
Reduced beverage calories in U.S. schools by 58 percent since 2007. The American Beverage Association's School Guidelines support the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a partnership between the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association.
Measured the global and individual country carbon footprints of the company's operations in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. CCE's efforts to measure and reduce its carbon footprint have resulted in a seven percent reduction in energy use from 2006 to 2008.
Created the first certified product carbon footprint of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Coke Zero and Oasis in Great Britain and Dasani in the United States.
Saved 301 million liters of water through water efficiency initiatives, further reducing the company's water use ratio from 1.82 to 1.73 liters of water to produce one liter of product in the last three years. CCE has one of the lowest water use ratios in the global Coca-Cola system.
Recovered and reused approximately 125,000 metric tons of packaging materials through internal programs and Coca-Cola Recycling's work to increase opportunities for consumer recycling in the marketplace and at large-scale events.
Continued support of the United Nations Global Compact by endorsing the CEO Water Mandate, which recognizes the impact companies have on the world's water supply.
Coca-Cola Enterprises is the world’s largest marketer, producer, and distributor of bottle and can liquid nonalcoholic refreshment. CCE sells approximately 80 percent of The Coca-Cola Company's bottle and can volume in North America and is the sole licensed bottle for products of The Coca-Cola Company in Belgium, continental France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Monaco, and the Netherlands. For more information, please visit http://www.cokecce.com/.
The Rest @ CSRwire
Saturday, 1 August 2009
First Solutions Certified as a Validation and Verifying Body
Boonton, NJ - January 8, 2009 With so much confusion regarding the validity of carbon credits here in the United States, First Environment recently completed a program to standardize the process for documenting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions.
Working with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), First Environment has been accredited as a Validation and/or Verification Body (VVB). This program will facilitate the true reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the environment.
ANSI coordinates development and use of voluntary consensus standards in the United States, and represents the needs and views of U.S. stakeholders around the globe.
ANSI launched this pilot accreditation program in early 2008. Lane Hallenback, ANSI Vice President of Accreditation Services said, “This program marks a significant step forward in assuring integrity and consistency in emission reporting and reduction projects across industry sectors and geographical borders. The institute is pleased to join in strengthening consumer confidence and promoting best practices for the validation and verification of GHG emissions.”
As a result of ANSI’s accreditation, The Climate Registry and The California Climate Action Registry recognize First Environment as an accredited 3rd party verifier. In addition, First Environment is accredited for emission reduction projects under the Voluntary Carbon Standard and is the only verification body in the United States accredited for Chicago Climate Exchange.
The benefit of this program is that buyers and sellers of carbon credits can be sure that firms verifying emission reductions possess the technical qualifications to perform such an audit. This will bring order to the marketplace of companies who are claiming to offer the technical expertise to document and reduce the six greenhouse gases that are the primary cause of climate change.
Tod Delaney, President of First Environment says, “We have been working in the industry for 30 years and are pleased to be recognized for our commitment to assuring the integrity and consistency in emission reporting. Standardizing this process and making sure it is transparent is critical to the success of any government regulatory scheme or marketplace driven solution that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
First Environment offers engineering design and implementation services to meet your company’s environmental and sustainability goals. Established in 1977 we are an international leader in emerging environmental standards and have built award-winning Environmental Management Systems for the Westchester County Airport as well. Email Bob Previdi at rwp@firstenvironment.com and for more information about ANSI go to http://www.ansi.org/.
The Rest @ First Environment
Working with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), First Environment has been accredited as a Validation and/or Verification Body (VVB). This program will facilitate the true reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the environment.
ANSI coordinates development and use of voluntary consensus standards in the United States, and represents the needs and views of U.S. stakeholders around the globe.
ANSI launched this pilot accreditation program in early 2008. Lane Hallenback, ANSI Vice President of Accreditation Services said, “This program marks a significant step forward in assuring integrity and consistency in emission reporting and reduction projects across industry sectors and geographical borders. The institute is pleased to join in strengthening consumer confidence and promoting best practices for the validation and verification of GHG emissions.”
As a result of ANSI’s accreditation, The Climate Registry and The California Climate Action Registry recognize First Environment as an accredited 3rd party verifier. In addition, First Environment is accredited for emission reduction projects under the Voluntary Carbon Standard and is the only verification body in the United States accredited for Chicago Climate Exchange.
The benefit of this program is that buyers and sellers of carbon credits can be sure that firms verifying emission reductions possess the technical qualifications to perform such an audit. This will bring order to the marketplace of companies who are claiming to offer the technical expertise to document and reduce the six greenhouse gases that are the primary cause of climate change.
Tod Delaney, President of First Environment says, “We have been working in the industry for 30 years and are pleased to be recognized for our commitment to assuring the integrity and consistency in emission reporting. Standardizing this process and making sure it is transparent is critical to the success of any government regulatory scheme or marketplace driven solution that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
First Environment offers engineering design and implementation services to meet your company’s environmental and sustainability goals. Established in 1977 we are an international leader in emerging environmental standards and have built award-winning Environmental Management Systems for the Westchester County Airport as well. Email Bob Previdi at rwp@firstenvironment.com and for more information about ANSI go to http://www.ansi.org/.
The Rest @ First Environment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe
Posts
All Comments