 |
| |
 |
Energy
Efficiency Tax Incentives
Between 1970 and 1998, global energy use rose by about 70 percent,
and demand for energy continues to rise at a rate of about two percent
each year. While energy use and resource extraction fuel the global
economy and development worldwide, they pose a serious environmental
hazard. Increases in energy use mean parallel increases in emissions,
including greenhouse gasses, which mean more smog, more global warming
effects, and more risks to human and environmental health. The federal
government has long utilized federal laws and executive orders to
increase energy efficiency standards in federal buildings. Today,
all U.S. federal agencies are required to use 30% less energy per
square foot in their buildings than they did in 1985, and 35% less
by 2010. To meet these goals, such facilities are using a variety
of methods, including energy-efficient lights and appliances, and
are required to purchase ENERGY STAR® appliances or those that
are in the top efficiency bracket where no label exists. ENERGY
STAR® and equivalent appliances use an average of 10-50% less
energy and water than standard models -- offering the consumer financial
savings while decreasing their environmental impact. Government-issued
tax credits and tax exemptions are a cost-effective way to encourage
the use of energy-efficient home and office appliances that may
initially cost more than their traditional counterparts, or promote
home efficiency improvements such as duct and insulation upgrades.
Tax incentive programs have a great track record of stimulating
consumer demand and, in turn, increasing supply while reducing upfront
costs. For more information on energy efficiency tax incentives,
visit: http://www.serconline.org/energytaxincentives.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
States
Protest Bush's Proposed Forest Rules (New York Times 7/13;
Oregonian 7/13; Denver Post 7/13)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/politics/13forest.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1089719722144960.xml
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2268723,00.html
Last Monday, July 12, the Bush administration issued proposals for
a new national forest program rule that would replace former President
Clinton's "roadless rule." Clinton's roadless rule made
nearly 60 million acres of national forest off-limits to logging,
mining, and other development by restricting logging in roadless
areas. The administration says that the new rules would clarify
development restrictions, balance competing interests, and help
clear up a series of legal challenges to the Clinton rules. The
Bush proposal would instead allow state governors to petition the
U.S. Forest Service to protect roadless areas in their state. The
Forest Service would then review proposals from each state and issue
a final decision after hearing from and weighing the interests of
environmentalists, energy companies, timber industry officials,
and others. States that do not submit a roadless plan for consideration
may see their lands opened for logging, mining, and other development.
In Oregon, where the new rules would affect about 2 million acres
of land, Gov. Ted Kulongoski and state environmentalists are disappointed
with the new proposal. Kulongoski is looking at ways for the state
to contest the new rules, and is not ruling out legal action. New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would support environmental
groups if they go to court to block the move. "The new process
by which state governors can submit new roadless area protection
plans will perpetuate the uncertainty associated with this issue,
and may lead to a substantial reduction in the level of protection
that roadless areas are afforded." said former senior Republican
Congressional staff member Jim Range. The proposal was published
in the Federal Register last week and will be open to public comment
for 60 days. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
ALEC's
Uniform Diesel Smoke Testing Act
Corporate America's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
is trying to get state legislators to introduce and pass the "Uniform
Diesel Smoke Testing Act." This legislation is a phony, industry-backed
remedy to the serious issue of diesel emissions, which cause health
problems ranging from asthma to cancer to birth defects. In reality,
passing this bill and its findings is more harmful than doing
nothing. Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the bill is that
it finds that heavy duty vehicles are "smokeless," and
therefore less harmful to humans. "Smokeless" diesel
vehicles emit smaller, more lightweight particles, which cannot
naturally be flushed from your lungs and lymph nodes. These particles
are actually more harmful to humans because they stay suspended
in the air longer and can potentially travel long distances. ALEC
understands that the reduction of diesel emissions is already
part of the environmental agenda. Consequently, they have introduced
preemptive model legislation to protect industry. Some of the
major components of the ALEC "Uniform Diesel Smoke Testing
Act" include: ensuring the potential for multiple citations
is reduced; exempting farm vehicles; exempting vehicles on classification
rather than on actual diesel emissions; prohibiting federal or
state funds for testing unless certain bureaucratic hurdles are
met using strict procedures -- including test standards designed
to ensure that no engine will fail; requiring that the only engines
tested are those which visibly emit black smoke; and, creating
a panel to advise on testing made up of members from the truck
and bus industries. A diesel smoke testing act was introduced
in Oregon in 2003, so if you value your air quality, look out
for this model legislation in your state. For more information
on ALEC's "model" bills, visit: http://www.serconline.org/alecIndex.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Environmental
Bills Stalled in New York (Albany Times-Union 7/16)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=266860&category=CAPITOL&BC
Code=CAPITOL&newsdate=7/16/2004
Last week, environmental groups gave New York lawmakers a
failing grade because five top environmental bills remain
stalled in the legislature. The issues include power plant
siting, expanding the state's bottle bill, and a ban on backyard
burning. One house did better than the other -- the Assembly
was given a "B+" for passing four out of five of
the environmental lobby's priority bills. The expanded bottle
bill, which would require deposits on noncarbonated beverages,
such as water and sports drinks, as well as funnel uncollected
deposits to the state and away from beverage companies, is
the only one that failed to make it to the floor for a vote.
"I'm hoping both houses will do something on the bottle
bill," said bill sponsor Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli.
"It's an important item that's been stalled in both houses."
The only high-priority bill the Senate moved on was a bill
to protect wetlands, which was voted out of the environmental
conservation committee but never brought to the floor for
a vote. That house was given an "F" by the five
environmental groups. The environmental advocates hope the
legislature will take up these issues when lawmakers return
to Albany next week. For more information on bottle bills,
visit: http://www.serconline.org/bottlebill/index.html
and,
for more information on protecting wetlands, visit: http://www.serconline.org/wetlands/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
California,
South Carolina Work to Cut Diesel Emissions (San
Francisco Chronicle 7/15; Post & Courier 7/16)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/15/MNG207LKII1.DTL
http://www.charleston.net/stories/071604/sta_16truck.shtml
California air quality regulators will vote next week on a
far-reaching measure that would put a five-minute limit on
the idling of hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks and buses
statewide. The proposed anti-pollution rule would apply to
about 409,000 heavy diesel vehicles on streets and highways,
including Greyhound and transit buses, food delivery trucks,
and garbage collectors, whether they are owned by public agencies
or private businesses. The first part of the proposed rule
applies to all diesel vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds
and the second part of the rule would bring the five-minute
idling limit to 67,000 sleeper trucks during rest periods
in 2009. In a similar move, South Carolina, along with areas
in Georgia and North Carolina, is providing 150 spaces for
truckers to plug in at truck stops along Interstate 85. In
an effort to reduce air pollution by getting truckers to turn
off their idling diesel engines, truckers will be provided
with a large hose that connects to their window and contains
a heating and air conditioning unit, several outlets, and
Internet access through a touch-screen computer for $1.25
per hour. About 20 other states have regulations on idling
time, more than two-thirds of them limiting idling to five
minutes or less. For additional information on how your state
can reduce its diesel emissions, visit: http://www.serconline.org/schoolbus/index.html
and http://www.serconline.org/dieselPortPollution.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
MT:
Repeal of Cyanide Mining Ban Qualifies for Ballot (Missoulian
7/15, Billings Gazette 7/16)
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/07/15/mtracker/news/78mining.txt
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/07/16/build/state/50-company-funds.inc
A proposal to repeal a 6-year-old ban on using cyanide in
new gold and silver mines has qualified for the November ballot.
Initiative 147 would overturn a cyanide ban approved by 52
percent of voters in 1998. The mining industry has long argued
it never had a fair chance to fight that initiative because
another law, overturned shortly before the election, prevented
corporations from spending money to support or oppose ballot
measures. An out-of-state mining company that is suing the
state over Montana's 1998 ban on cyanide leach mining continues
to be the major benefactor behind an effort to repeal the
ban this fall. Canyon Resources Corp. of Golden, Colorado,
has given more than $737,000 of the almost $764,000 total
war chest for the backers of Initiative 147. That's 97 percent
of all the money and services that the I-147 committee has
raised. Canyon Resources had hoped to build a large cyanide
leach mine near Lincoln when voters banned the practice in
1998. The company has been fighting the ban for years. Some
of Canyon's money and donations in the last month went to
pay people who gathered the necessary signatures to place
I-147 on the ballot. For more information on cyanide mining,
visit: http://www.serconline.org/mining/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
States
Want Regulations on Ballast Water (Detroit Free Press
7/15, Star Tribune 7/16)
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/bal15_20040715.htm
http://www.startribune.com/stories/122/4878678.html
Seven Great Lakes states launched a two-pronged, legal effort
to stop invasive mussels, fish, and other organisms from being
dumped into U.S. waters by oceangoing ships. Ballast water
releases have introduced dozens of exotic species over the
past several decades into the coastal waters of lakes and
oceans. In the Great Lakes, the result has been biological
chaos, with new creatures virtually wiping out many native
species and hurtling the ecosystem into a tailspin. The attorneys
general petitioned the U.S. Coast Guard to close a loophole
that allows most ships from abroad to enter the Great Lakes
without doing anything to remove or kill foreign species in
their ballast tanks. They also filed a friend-of-the-court
brief in support of a lawsuit filed in 2002 by conservation
and environmental groups against the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), which is seeking a judgment declaring ballast
water a biological pollutant subject to federal Clean Water
Act laws. If the groups prevail, the EPA would need to issue
permits and establish rules for ballast water as it does for
chemicals discharged by factories and wastewater treatment
plants. In a joint legal brief filed last week, the states
of New York, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
and Michigan will side with the environmental groups. Scientists
and natural resource officials have been documenting damage
from invasive species for years and calling for change, but
little has been done to prevent new arrivals. The attorneys
general said that, although their primary interest is protection
of the Great Lakes, the problem affects all major U.S. ports.
For more information on regulating ballast water, visit: http://www.serconline.org/ballast/index.html.
For more on how states are preventing the spread of invasive
species, visit: http://www.serconline.org/invasives/pkg_frameset.html
and http://www.serconline.org/aquaticInvasives.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
In
Maine, Controversy over Coyote Snaring (Boston Globe
7/15)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/07/15/attorney_general_state_
coyote_snaring_not_required_under_law/
Some in Maine, struggling under a tight state budget, are
questioning the need to maintain the state's coyote snaring
program that was created in the 1980s to protect the deer
population there. Opponents of the program, which pays citizens
who have snared a coyote, say that the program doesn't do
much for deer but does waste a large amount of the state's
money. In 2001, the last year for which complete numbers are
available, the state paid trappers $40,608. Last year, the
program was suspended under threat of a lawsuit due to a biologist's
study showing that snared coyotes often suffered a slow and
painful death. Meanwhile, Maine officials are awaiting a federal
permit, termed an incidental take permit, which would relieve
the state of liability if an animal on the federal endangered
species list were accidentally snared. Due to a long process
of public hearings, it is unlikely that the incidental take
permit would be issued by the end of this year. Some state
officials say that state law may require the state-sanctioned
coyote snaring but, in a recent letter, Maine Attorney General
Steven Rowe said that state law would not prohibit ending
the program. Inland fisheries spokesman Mark Latti said the
state intends to continue the snaring program as long as the
state receives the federal permit. |
| back
to top |
| |
New
York Law Bans Mercury (ENS 7/14)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2004/2004-07-14-09.asp#anchor3
Governor George Pataki signed a new law last week that bans
mercury-added novelty products in New York State and requires
new labeling and recycling of other mercury-added consumer
products. The new law also prohibits schools from using mercury
in the classroom. The law was passed in the wake of the recent
revelation that a "Spiderman 2" toy, found in some
Kellogg's cereal boxes, is powered by a battery that contains
mercury -- a toxic pollutant. The new law will ban the sale
or giveaway of such toy and novelty products once it takes
effect on January 1, 2005. The new law bans mercury-added
novelty products from being offered for sale, sold, or distributed
free of charge in New York State. Mercury fever thermometers
are also banned unless prescribed by a doctor. Primary and
secondary schools are prohibited from purchasing or using
elemental mercury in the classroom beginning in September.
The law requires manufacturers of mercury-added consumer products,
sold or offered for sale in New York State, to mark the products
with a warning label stating that mercury is present and that
the product cannot be disposed of as solid waste until the
mercury is removed and reused or recycled. The new law establishes
an Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution, appointed by the
governor and the state legislature. The committee will be
required to report on the extent and health effects of mercury
contamination, methods and costs associated with reducing
risks from mercury contamination, and other related topics.
For more information on how your state can reduce mercury
pollution, visit: http://www.serconline.org/mercury/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
Governor
Schwarzenegger Drops Environmental Impact Fees from Budget
(LA Times 7/14)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fees14jul14,1,2538576.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has dropped millions of dollars
in fees from his budget that were in place to protect forests,
and also said last week that he opposes regulatory fees that
protect the state's coastline, apparently abandoning the "green"
governor platform he touted when running for office. California's
$103 billion budget is already two weeks overdue, but some
lawmakers and business owners threatened to delay its passage
further unless the environmental impact fees were eliminated.
Legislators who were opposed to the cuts eventually relented
in a compromise with Schwarzenegger on other budget issues.
Among the fees that were cut from the plan, the Schwarzenegger
administration said it scraped a new fee on timber owners
that would have raised $10 million. The money would have been
used to cover costs borne by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection in reviewing and enforcing logging
plans. Schwarzenegger is also planning to roll back an existing
fee that would have collected about $103 million this year
(reflecting two years worth of assessments) to underwrite
firefighting on range land and brushland and in other parts
of California where fire protection is provided by the state.
Schwarzenegger is opposing other fees that are moving through
the legislature but were not included in his budget. One fee
would increase the cost of a permit for development along
California's coast. The existing fee nets about $500,000 a
year; the proposed fee would bring in an additional $2.3 million,
raising the total to a level that would cover half of the
California Coastal Commission's regulatory costs, according
to the legislative analyst's office. Underpinning many of
the fees is the notion that taxpayers are paying too much
of the cost of some government functions. An analysis by the
legislative analyst's office shows that, even if the firefighting
fees stood, they would pay only 9% of the forestry department's
fire protection costs, which total $590 million. |
| back
to top |
| |
Illinois
EPA May Revise Watershed Rules (Chicago Tribune 7/14)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0407140257jul14,1,1129941.story?coll=chi-newslocal-hed
Based on a recent report, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency may adopt new regulations in protecting state waterways.
Instead of fighting pollution on a pipe-by-pipe or discharge-by-discharge
basis, a 30-member Basinwide Management Advisory Group has
recommended addressing entire watersheds. Watershed plans
are believed to be a more effective tool in combating pollution
not flushed through a pipe, but that is washed by rain and
melting snow from parking lots, lawns, and farm fields, like
oil, fertilizers, and pesticides. The new rules would require
communities within various watersheds to alter their land
use plans to prevent developers from building parking lots
or other developments close to the water's edge and encourage
communities that reside within the same watershed to work
together in advancing a comprehensive water resource plan.
The rules stem largely from a decade-long state EPA battle
to get out of the business of approving changes in regions
served by municipal sewage treatment plants. The ability to
expand sewers has become a hot button issue as communities
across the state fight to attract business investment. The
state EPA has long believed that their job is ensuring state
water quality -- not overseeing annexation disputes between
municipalities. Watershed plans would remove this burden from
the state by establishing clear guidelines for communities
seeking change. Some environmentalists fear that the proposed
rules are too vague, and are wary of the state EPA removing
itself from sewer expansion as development across the state
continues. |
| back
to top |
| |
NJ:
Bill That Fast-Tracks Environmental Permits Draws Heavy Criticism
(New Jersey Star-Ledger 7/10)
http://www.nj.com/statehouse/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1089445987139970.xml
New Jersey Governor James McGreevey has privately signed a
bill that will fast-track environmental permits in the most
populous areas of the state. The governor's action has drawn
fire from state lawmakers as well as environmental and labor
organizations. Under the bill, S 1368, the state will have
to respond far faster than it currently does (in most cases,
within 90 days) to any request for an environmental approval
in a wide swath running largely from the northeastern to the
southwestern part of the state, known in the state plan as
Planning Areas 1 and 2. Private consultants will have the
power to issue permits in some cases. Applicants whose projects
are rejected will be able to appeal to a new one-judge court
that will have final say on the matter. A new "smart-growth
ombudsman" will be able to veto any state regulation
that he or she deems inconsistent with smart growth. Critics
say it would fast-track not just building permits, but also
approvals of toxic waste cleanups, chemical catastrophe prevention
plans, road construction projects, and a host of other approvals. |
| back
to top |
| |
Oregon:
Battle Bubbles Up on Property Rights (Corvallis-Gazette
Times 7/12)
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/07/12/news/oregon/monsta01.txt
Oregonians in Action, the state's leading property rights
group, recently submitted 146,000 signatures, well more than
the 75,000 required by state law, to put a land use initiative
on the fall ballot. The initiative would require state and
local governments to compensate landowners when regulations
reduce property values, or stop enforcing regulations on the
properties. Voters passed a similar proposal called Measure
7 four years ago by a narrow margin, but the state Supreme
Court struck down Measure 7 on a technicality, stating that
it contained too many changes to be rolled into one constitutional
amendment. Oregonians in Action has responded by converting
the initiative into a statutory change to bypass the court's
ruling on constitutional restrictions. Critics argue that
local governments will often decide they can't afford to pay
property owners if a land use regulation lowered the value
of their properties, and would instead choose not to enforce
that regulation. Opponents also assert that the initiative
would overburden state and local governments by forcing them
to analyze landowner claims to determine whether or not they
should be compensated or regulations enforced. Potentially,
they believe it could undermine state and local land use policies
because governments will not be able to afford the costs to
compensate property owners. Proponents of the measure contend
that the measure will bring new tax revenue to state and local
governments as people are freed to develop their property
as they intended when they purchased it. The cost of regulation
is then shifted from landowners to local and state governments.
It is unclear what the outcome of the ballot initiative will
be, but the ultimate choice will be left to Oregon voters
this fall. |
| back
to top |
|
|
