Hundreds Speak Out In Support of EPA Global Warming Rule

This is a guest post by Greg Haegele, deputy executive director of the Sierra Club, who has a regular weekly column on Treehugger.com.


Sierra Club's Mary Anne Hitt, Carl Pope and Lyndsay Moseley (R to L) stake out the front row of the Arlington EPA hearing.

This week we saw some amazing public action as part of the two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearings on its proposed tailoring rule, which we call the "Big Polluters" rule.

Right now only a handful of pollution sources, including coal-fired power plants, are responsible for more than half of all of the global warming pollution in the United States. Cleaning these up is a large step towards stopping global warming, so EPA is proposing a new rule to start cleaning up these Big Polluters under the Clean Air Act. By targeting the worst offenders, the Big Polluters rule is an important step that will cut global warming pollution while still helping our economy grow.

EPA held a public hearing on this Big Polluters rule in Arlington, Virginia, on Wednesday, and then another in Chicago, Illinois, on Thursday. The Sierra Club got the word out, and that resulted in great crowds at each hearing who testified in support of this rule that marks one of EPA’s most important commitments yet to moving us toward a clean energy economy and away from dirty power sources like coal.

LiveBlog: Big Polluters EPA Hearing, Chicago

Our folks are on the ground Tweeting from the EPA's second hearing on their proposed "Big Polluters" rule that would regulate pollution from large polluters - in Chicago, Il. You can contribute to the discussion through Twitter using the hashtag #bigpolluters

Home Energy Efficiency: Cash for Caulkers

 This post was written by Jeff Speir, apprentice for the Sierra Club Clean Energy Solutions Campaign.

Following in the wake of the consumer, economic, and environmental success of the "Cash for Clunkers" program this summer, the Obama administration is considering using stimulus cash to fund another ambitious, rewarding "Cash for" project. This time? Caulkers.

Though conveniently coined with a consistent catchphrase, the program would involve much more than just caulking. The program would provide funding for homeowners to contract energy auditors and construction workers to assess areas for energy efficiency improvement in their homes. These points of air infiltration and "exfiltration," such as leaky doors, windows, and ducts, dramatically increase the amount of heated or cooled air that is necessary to make a home livable. After the assessment, construction workers would conduct an energy efficiency upgrade of the home by installing insulation, replacing inefficient windows, and sealing leaky breaches of the home's overall envelope (like the door-frame sealing in the photo above, or the insulating of hot water pipes in the photo below).

 As a result, less energy would be needed to make a home comfortable, thereby reducing energy consumption and cutting energy bills. The program would also create good jobs with skills that are transferable to a wide variety of applications in the green economic recovery. In addition to helping consumers and creating jobs, the program would also help the environment.

Studies estimate that improving the energy efficiency of a home can reduce energy consumption by 28%, energy that comes largely from polluting coal-fired power plants. As the New York Times reports, this kind of reduction of energy usage is equivalent in magnitude to the carbon emissions from half of the vehicles in the country on the road today.

Want to learn more about what you can do to increase the energy efficiency of your home? Check out the Sierra Club Cool Cities Checklist of Home Energy Solutions.

Brief Update from Today's EPA Big Polluters Rule Hearing

That's a photo of Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope (left) testifying at today's Environmental Protection Agency public hearing on the Big Polluters rule. We'll have more of a wrap-up blog post tomorrow, once the Chicago hearing is complete (today's hearing was in Arlington, Virginia), but I thought I'd give a very brief recap on how today's went.

Carl testified second and was excellent - especially after listening to the nay-saying negativity of Howard Feldman of the American Petroleum Institute (on the right in the above photo). You see, EPA brought up two speakers at at time. Carl and Howard started the hearing off well as far as seeing very different sides of the argument.

We also had quite a few great volunteers there to testify in support of this EPA rule. The testimony I saw was overwhelmingly in favor of the EPA rule, with only a couple of polluting industry-folks there to whine and complain and use words like "absurd," "flawed," and "unnecessary." 

Sierra Club volunteer Bob Pearson (green blazer) testifies in favor of the Big Polluters rule.

Our volunteers and other fantastic regular ol' members of the public used words like "necessary," "stop global warming," and "this rule is common sense." They also frequently pointed out that unlike the industry folks, no one paid them to be there - they came because they see how important this rule is in the fight to stop global warming and clean up the biggest polluters in the US.

More to come tomorrow! And don't forget, if you aren't able to attend these hearings in person, you can send in your comments online.

 

Carl Pope talks to reporters at the hearing.

LiveBlog: Big Polluters Hearing - Virginia

Our folks are on the ground Tweeting from the EPA's first of two hearing on their proposed "Big Polluters" rule that would regulate pollution from large polluters. You can contribute to the discussion through Twitter using the hashtag #bigpolluters

Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters

This is the weekly post from Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.

Wednesday and Thursday of this week are big days if you live in Arlington, Virginia, or Chicago, Illinois. Those are the two days of public hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Big Polluters” rule. But of course, this whole issue is huge whether you live in Virginia, Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. – it affects everyone.

Right now only a handful of pollution sources, including coal-fired power plants, are responsible for more than half of all of the global warming pollution in the United States. Cleaning these up is a large step towards stopping global warming, so EPA is proposing a new rule to start cleaning up these Big Polluters under the Clean Air Act. By targeting the worst offenders, the Big Polluters rule is an important step that will cut global warming pollution while still helping our economy grow.

That’s why we’ve helped organize crowds of folks to turn out to the Wednesday and Thursday hearings: These mega-polluters should be held responsible for their share. (You can also check in on the hearings by following the #bigpolluters hashtag on twitter. We’ll have lots of folks tweeting from inside the hearing rooms)

This rule will bring the most bang for the buck—resulting in real pollution reductions and helping spur growth and development of clean energy technologies.

And forget the nay-sayers spreading false information about the government trying to regulate churches, hospitals, schools and Dunkin Donuts (why do they always bring up Dunkin Donuts?): The rule would only apply to offenders emitting at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases each year, exempting small businesses, churches and apartment buildings, while addressing the bulk of the nation’s global warming pollution.

Under the Big Polluters rule, big new facilities that would create large amounts of global warming pollution—like new coal plants—would have to install technology to clean up their carbon emissions. These safeguards would also be required for large existing facilities when they are expanded or modified.

Again, this proposed EPA rule uses the time-tested Clean Air Act, which has already succeeded at cleaning up other sorts of pollution all over the country, to help control global warming pollution. 

To provide a little more detail about EPA’s proposal: The Clean Air Act requires all new ‘major emitting facilities’ – big sources – to use the ‘best available control technology’ to limit their emissions.  Existing polluters that make big physical changes to their plants and increase their emissions in the process have to update their controls to meet this standard, too. 

This best available control technology requirement has been used for decades to reduce many other types of air pollution. EPA must consider the “energy, environmental, and economic impacts” before deciding on the right controls for any particular plant.  There are a number of simple, proven methods for controlling global warming pollution, including using energy more efficiently, replacing old equipment, or burning cleaner fuels.

The sources that EPA will focus on under this rule already have decades of experience with this process.  Having used best available control technology to reduce many other types of pollution, they have the engineering expertise to work with EPA and community groups to select appropriate, cost-effective controls.

Global warming pollution controls will also reduce emissions of other pollutants, including those that cause smog, heart attacks, and lung disease. 

By focusing on these big sources, EPA is spending its resources wisely.  Although global warming pollution comes from many places, EPA can cut down on the lion’s share by taking on the largest sources first. 

The Big Polluters Rule marks one of EPA’s most important commitments yet to moving us towards a clean energy economy and away from dirty power sources like coal.

If you can’t make it in person to the hearings Wednesday and Thursday, you can still send in your comments to EPA on this important rule – simply use our Big Polluters website:

And don’t forget to follow along with the #bigpolluters hashtag on Twitter for tweets from inside the hearing.

For a recap of how these hearings went, be sure to check in on my colleague Greg Haegele’s column later this week for photos and a wrap-up.

Energy & Global Warming News Round-Up

Time again for a round-up of energy and global warming news from the past few days.

First up, this weekend we heard the news that for the upcoming major international climate talks in Copenhagen slated for December, there will be no legally-binding treaty created. Rather, the countries will create a politically-binding agreement that sets out a timeline for a legally-binding agreement. This is not bad news - check out this Climate Progress blog post from Joe Romm about how this agreement bodes very well for an international climate treaty.

Second, according to a new a report from three universities, "...U.S. renewable energy policies could create as many as 1.9 million new jobs around the country. In addition, the study shows that those policies would account for an increase in annual household income of more than $1,000 and that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could increase $111 billion by 2020."

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a new web tool today that will help consumers make their homes cleaner and greener - which will lower energy bills and help the environment. Check out EPA's Green Homes site to learn more.

And look at the good work coalitions can do - last week the Sierra Club Cool Cities program and the U.S. Green Building Council announced a new partnership called "Green Buildings for Cool Cities." The purpose of the partnership is to bring together local Cool Cities activists with local USGBC members to advocate together on bringing practical and cost-effective green building administrative policies to Cool Communities across the country.

If you want to help out with this new partnership, you can take part in a conference call this week for activists wanting to start a green building movement in their communities. Learn more about the call here.

Finally, Forbes launched a new online map this week that show's the world's 200 dirtiest power plants.

Climate Change, Politics and a Treaty in Copenhagen

By:Julian Carmona, Intern for the Global Warming and Energy Team

The time to act on climate change is running out. The time to act on climate change is running out (yes, I wrote it twice). While the Senate is navigating itself through the intricacies of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the international community is negotiating the nuanced details of a possible agreement in Copenhagen. The United States must demonstrate leadership in the Copenhagen talks, though whether or not it will have something to show in December when the talks begin is very unclear. While the negotiations happen, the world continues to warm and feel the affects of climate change.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their 2009 World Energy Outlook report this Tuesday (11/10). The conclusion of the 28-nation organization was that governments needed to act immediately to stem the affects of global warming or face costs of $500 billion per year going forward. The report reiterated that the main drivers of global warming are the burning of fossil fuels and the increased demand for those fuels in order to meet higher energy consumption. The report also mentioned that if we continue on our current path, we would see an increase on our dependence on fossil fuels, higher greenhouse emissions, and a decrease in availability of technology for the developing world and a decline in global security. The report recommended that we can keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius by focusing on renewable energy technology (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.) and energy efficiency. Most importantly, the report stressed the importance of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen.

Green Building = Jobs

A report out this week from the U.S. Green Building Council says that "(d)espite a challenging economic outlook, green building will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump $554 billion into the American economy – including $396 billion in wages – over the next four years (2009-2013)..."

Phew! The report has many good stats in it besides that.

The economic impact of the total green construction market:
• Contribution to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)
    o 2000-2008: $173 billion
    o 2009-2013 forecast: $554 billion
• Jobs created or saved (includes direct, indirect and induced jobs)
    o 2000-2008: 2.4 million
    o 2009-2013 forecast: 7.9 million
• Wages
    o 2000-2008: $123 billion
    o 2009-2013 forecast: $396 billion
• Energy savings
    o 2000-2008: $1.3 billion saved
    o 2009-2013 forecast: $6 billion saved

The economic impact of LEED-specific spending (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design):
• Contribution to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)
    o 2000-2008: $830 million
    o 2009-2013 forecast: $12.5 billion
• Jobs created or saved (includes direct, indirect and induced jobs)
    o 2000-2008: 15,000
    o 2009-2013 forecast: 230,000
• Wages
    o 2000-2008: $703 million
    o 2009-2013 forecast: $10.7 billion
• Energy savings
    o 2000-2008: $281 million saved
    o 2009-2013 forecast: $4.8 billion saved

Read more in the press release (PDF) and download the full report here.

Rally at Penn State: Students Taking Lead on Clean Energy

This post was co-written by Kim Teplitzky, field coordinator for the Sierra Student Coalition

Today at Penn State University, dozens of students, faculty, and community members rallied in front of university’s coal plant, calling on the university to move beyond coal to clean energy solutions.

“Young people have been at the forefront of the greatest social movements in history, including the fledgling environmental movement that brought us Earth Day and put out flaming rivers,” said Penn State junior Chris Billman, who spoke at the event.  “We’re working to continue that legacy of creating a better future and the most important thing we can address right now is our dependence on coal. We can’t have a clean energy future without moving beyond coal.”

Many find it strange that the Nittany Lions still rely on coal despite the university’s other strides toward clean energy. “The biggest surprise to people is how much we rely on coal,” said sophomore Rose Monahan, a leader with Penn State Beyond Coal. “They know we use it, but they didn’t know that we get 80% of our energy from coal-fired power plants.”

And yet Penn State has made some progress. For example, Penn State is a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Sustainability Partnership Program, which has the school committed to reducing its global warming pollution 17% by 2012.

University clean energy student groups have praised the administration for its commitment to sustainability and for initiatives the school has already undertaken to reduce carbon emissions.  According to the College Sustainability Report Card, Penn State purchases 20% of its power from renewable sources.

Students and faculty are now calling on the school to commit to developing a plan and timeline for phasing out the school’s 80-year-old on-campus coal plant. 

Thankfully, there is some progress on that end at Penn State. University President Graham Spanier has agreed to meet student leaders this semester to discuss the topic. 

“This is an enormous opportunity for Penn State,” said Monahan.  “We’re looking forward to working with President Spanier, the rest of the administration, faculty, and students to expand Penn State’s reputation for leadership and excellence to the clean energy movement.”

Penn State Geography Professor Brent Yarnal, who has spearheaded regional and national greenhouse gas inventories and climate change impact assessments, also spoke at today’s rally and praised the students for understanding the urgency of climate change and for wanting their school to lead the movement.

We agree: With some of the world’s leading climate scientists on faculty and a history of student activism, Penn State should be a leader for Pennsylvania and all the large, public university systems in the nation.

Monahan echoed that sentiment.

“People are finally really start to talk about (clean energy),” said Monahan. “They realize how big an issue it’s going to be. Penn State is worried about carbon emissions, but we could definitely go bigger.

“If there’s any school that can step up to address the enormous challenges associated with coal reliance, it’s Penn State.  As President Spanier says, Penn State thinks big.  Coal is too dirty for our school—we’re better than that.”

Learn more about how coal is Too Dirty For College