DOCSLIB.ORG

Save Document As Question1 and Add Your Last Name Or Affiliation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Save Document As Question1 and Add Your Last Name Or Affiliation Additional Topics Submitter’s Name/Affiliation: William Prindle, Deputy Director, ACEEE If there is an additional topic related to the design of a mandatory market based program that you would like to address, please submit comments on this form. Why Energy Efficiency Requires Explicit Treatment in Climate Policy ACEEE wants to emphasize to the Committee the importance of engaging energy efficiency in any effective national climate policy. As the studies we have cited elsewhere in our responses to the Committee’s questions have shown, energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways to address carbon emissions, and it can lead to a climate policy that produces net economic benefits, not penalties, for the economy. Yet energy efficiency will not happen automatically through a broad, upstream cap-and-trade program, because efficiency occurs downstream, at the end-use level. This means that emissions traders typically will not accept emission reductions credits from energy efficiency as valid, because reductions in energy use do not assure upstream emission reductions. This is particularly problematic in the power sector. Our analysis leads us to the conclusion that to be engaged effectively in climate policy, efficiency requires two key policy commitments: 1. A direct allocation, or auction, of allowances to entities charged with acquiring energy efficiency and other clean energy resources. 2. Parallel, complementary policies outside the cap regime, which are designed to achieve targeted energy savings in the most cost-effective way. These include energy efficiency resource standards (EERS), public benefits funds (PBF), and appliance standards The Modeling of Climate Policy Must Better Address Efficiency’s Benefits We suggest that the climate science argument is largely completed. Virtually all serious analysts agree that carbon emissions are already creating serious climate problems, and that serious policy responses are needed. The zone of contention has now shifted to the world of economics, asking not whether we should reduce carbon emissions, but can we do it at an acceptable economic cost? ACEEE has reviewed the major economic modeling studies conducted to date on climate change policy, and we find a marked divide in their approaches. One school takes a highly aggregated view of the economy, applies the estimated effects of climate policy in a fairly simple and aggregated way, and produces findings that tend to show somewhat negative economic impacts. The EIA, MIT, and CRA international studies of the Climate Stewardship Act fall in this category1. 1 Energy Information Administration. 2003. Analysis of S.139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, SR/OIAF/2003-02). http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ml/pdf/sroiaf Sergey Paltsev et al.. 2003. Emissions Trading to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States: The McCain-Lieberman Proposal Cambridge, MA: Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 97. 1 Additional Topics Submitter’s Name/Affiliation: William Prindle, Deputy Director, ACEEE Another set of analyses tends to look in more depth at the technology and sector impacts that would result from climate policy, including shifts of capital, energy, and labor resources among various sectors of the economy. These more fine-grained studies tend to show that carbon emissions can be realized at much lower levels of economic impact, and indeed can produce positive net economic benefits.2 We urge the Committee and others in Congress to take a more intensive look at the economic modeling issues around climate change, especially those that involve energy efficiency. Having studied this topic, we offer two key observations: • Some macroeconomic models do not assess the economic effects of energy efficiency with any specificity. They tend to simply simulate energy price increases in the economy and assume that energy efficiency will occur through price elasticity effects. They tend to treat reduced energy expenditures simply as a reduction of output from a given sector, ignoring the inter-sectoral substitutions of capital, energy and labor that more detailed models capture. • Some models use a general equilibrium approach in which it is assumed that energy technology is optimally deployed in the economy. This means that any shift in the technology mix must, by the design of the model itself, impose costs on the economy. Yet ACEEE and others have amply documented that market barriers and other forces extensively limit the deployment of cost-effective technologies, meaning that a large measure of efficiency investment can occur at net savings to the economy. Given these limitations in some of the models used to assess the economic impacts of climate policy, we urge the Committee to conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, so that a more balanced picture can be developed of the likely economic impacts of climate policy. At the Anne E. Smith, Paul Bernstein, and W. David Montgomery. 2003. The Full Cost of S.139, With and Without Its Phase II Requirements Washington, D.C.: Charles River Associates. 2 Barrett, James, et al. 2005. Jobs and The Climate Stewardship Act. How Curbing Global Warming Can Increase Employment. Natural Resources Defense Council. Barrett, James and J. A. Hoerner, Clean Energy and Jobs: A Comprehensive Approach to Climate and Energy Policy (Washington, D.C.: Center for a Sustainable Economy and the Economic Policy Institute, 2002) Energy Innovations: A Prosperous Path to a Clean Environment (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), The Alliance to Save Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Tellus Institute, and Union of Concerned Scientists, June 1997) Florentin Krause et al., “Cutting Carbon Emissions at a Profit (Part II): Impacts on U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs,” Contemp Econ Policy, Volume 21 (2003) Hanson, Don, and Laitner, John A. “Skip”. 2004. “An integrated analysis of policies that increase investments in advanced energy-efficient/ low-carbon technologies”. Energy Economics 26 (2004) 739– 755. Hahneman, Michael, et al. Managing Greenhouse Emissions in California. The California Climate Center at UC Berkeley. 2006. Sanstad, Alan H., Stephen J. DeCanio, and Gale A. Boyd, “Estimating Bounds on the Macroeconomic Effects of the Clean Energy Future Policy Scenarios,” Energy Policy, Volume 29, Issue 14 (November 2001) 2 Additional Topics Submitter’s Name/Affiliation: William Prindle, Deputy Director, ACEEE moments, opponents of climate policy action have been able to use a few modeling approaches to claim that vigorous climate policy would exact a heavy toll on the economy. Yet at least as many analysts have found that climate policy, if studied in enough depth, can be shown to generate positive economic impacts. In the RGGI modeling process, the states used the REMI regional input-output model to assess economic impacts. REMI found that RGGI would create small but positive economic impacts, increasing regional output, employment, and personal income in the region. When an increased commitment to energy efficiency was modeled in RGGI, the economic benefits increased several fold. Consumer energy bills fell by up to $100 per year.3 These results suggest that Congress should take a harder look at the economic analyses conducted for the Climate Stewardship Act, and that for future consideration of climate policies, the Committee should seek a more balanced set of economic analyses. 3 Lisa Petraglia & Dwayne Breger. REMI Impacts for RGGI Policies based on the Std REF & Hi-Emission REF. Presentation to the RGGI Stakeholders meeting, November 17, 2005. 3 Design Elements of a Mandatory Market–based GHG Regulatory system Executive Summary Submitter’s Name/Affiliation: Gary L. Rainwater, Ameren Corporation Additional General Topics If there is an additional topic related to the design of a mandatory market based program that you would like to address, please submit comments. In evaluating the points in the White Paper, the absence of a specific legislative context and structure, such as a discussion draft or bill, makes it difficult to fully assess the relative importance of various design features. The possible importance of emissions trading and other design features such as banking, borrowing, offsets, baseline protection and credit for early action, allocation of allowances, compensating mechanisms, multi-year baselines and phased-in compliance would be highly dependent on the stringency of the targets and timetables and the availability of technologies to respond to such a program. The interrelationship of key design elements can only be seen within a specific legislative context or structure, not in isolation or even in series. Should the Committee draft or review a legislative proposal, we look forward to having the opportunity to review and comment on it before it is formally introduced. In the next few years, the combined carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of China and India are projected to surpass the U.S.’s CO2 emissions. This demonstrates the importance of considering global and multinational emissions of GHG in the cost effectiveness of any program, as well as ensuring the US economy is not harmed through commensurate trade agreements or loss of manufacturing jobs. 1 Design Elements of a Mandatory Market–based GHG Regulatory system Executive Summary Submitter’s Name/Affiliation: Gary L. Rainwater, Ameren Corporation While endorsing neither a mandatory regulatory regime nor any of the specific
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the News -- Jan. 29, 2007
    District likely to ask for extension to meet standard BY STACEY SHEPARD, Californian staff writer Bakersfield Californian, Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Valley air regulators will likely ask for a delay in meeting a federal air standard today. That's when the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District will release its latest draft plan for cleaning up ozone, the main ingredient in smog. The current deadline for reducing ozone to levels mandated by the federal government is 2013. "We really have a problem here that no one else in the country has to face," said Brenda Turner, a spokeswoman for the district. Ozone is created when nitrogen oxides -- emitted from vehicle tailpipes, factories and construction equipment -- react with sunlight. Increased ozone is known to aggravate lung disorders. Ozone tends to become trapped here because of the valley's shape, stagnant air and hot temperatures. To make the 2013 deadline, the valley must cut emissions by nearly 70 percent. To do that, the last version of the cleanup plan, released by the district in October, estimated it would take 7.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to fund incentive programs. Even if money weren't an issue, the district doesn't believe the technology is available yet to make the needed reductions by 2013, Turner said. That's why more time seems to be the only alternative. Potentially, the deadline could be extended out by 10 years to 2023. Doing so would drop the price to fund incentive programs to about $2 billion or less, air district officials have said. The state Air Resources Board decides whether to grant an extension.
    [Show full text]
  • HKS Communications Program Twitter: @Hkscommprog Common Challenge, Collaborative Response
    HKS Communications Program www.hkscommunicationsprogram.org Twitter: @hkscommprog Common Challenge, Collaborative Response A Roadmap for U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate Change January 2009 A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN: Center on U.S.-China Relations Asia Society Richard Holbrooke, Chairman Vishakha Desai, President Initiative for U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate A Partnership Between: Asia Society Center on U.S.-China Relations Orville Schell Arthur Ross Director Banning Garrett Director, Initiative for U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate Joanna Lewis Initiative Research Director Assistant Professor, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service Jonathan Adams Initiative Assistant Director and Pew Center on Global Climate Change Eileen Claussen President Elliot Diringer Vice President, International Strategies Project Co-Chairs Steven Chu Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Professor of Physics and Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California, Berkeley* John Thornton Chairman, The Brookings Institution; Professor, Tsinghua University; Board Member, Asia Society Senior Advisors Jon Anda Board Member, Asia Society; former Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator (D – Washington) Dianne Feinstein U.S. Senator (D – California) Henry Kissinger Former Secretary of State Gavin Newsom Mayor of San Francisco Lee Scott CEO, Wal-Mart Laura D’Andrea Tyson S.K. and Angela Chan Professor, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; former Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors *Co-chair until nominated by President-Elect Obama to be Secretary of Energy. 2 This project arose and evolved through collaboration that also included the following groups and individuals: The Brookings Institution: Kenneth Lieberthal and David Sandalow Council on Foreign Relations: Elizabeth Economy and Michael Levi Environmental Defense Fund: Peter Goldmark and David Yarnold National Committee on U.S.-China Relations: Steve Orlins and Jan Berris Contributors Jeffrey A.
    [Show full text]
  • President Trump's Campaign to Erase the Social Cost of Carbon
    Hidden Costs: President Trump’s Campaign to Erase the Social Cost of Carbon By Alison Cassady April 19, 2017 On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempts to upend critical components of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan.1 The sweeping executive order directs his Cabinet officials to review and potentially rescind several climate-related rules, including the Clean Power Plan, or CPP—which set the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants—and two rules establishing methane pollution limits for oil and gas drilling facilities. The order also ends a morato- rium on coal leasing on public lands, among other policy changes.2 Media coverage focused primarily on these significant rule reversals. But the executive order also rescinds what the chief economist of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors called the “the most important figure you’ve never heard of”—the social cost of carbon, or SCC.3 The SCC reflects the marginal economic cost of adding one ton of carbon pollution to the atmosphere or, conversely, the economic benefit of removing one ton. President Obama established an interagency working group to develop the SCC so that federal agencies had a sound basis from which to quantify the benefits of policies to cut carbon pollution and justify those policies relative to their costs. The SCC is currently set at $39 per metric ton in 2007 dollars. Because the SCC plays a key role in validating federal climate policies, fossil fuel interests and their allies in conservative think tanks—many of whom served on the Trump admin- istration’s transition team—have been pushing to eliminate or lower the SCC value.4 The executive order rescinds the current SCC and provides agencies with direction that could result in a SCC value that approaches zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Environment
    Energy and Environment FREE to PROSPER A Pro-Growth Agenda for the 117th Congress Energy and Environment REJECT THE GREEN NEW DEAL AND SIMILAR CENTRAL PLANNING SCHEMES The Green New Deal (GND), a nonbinding resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in February 2019, calls for “a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era.” The GND envisions a massive expansion of federal spending and regulation to decarbonize the economy while guaranteeing health care, affordable housing, higher education, job training, family-sustaining wages, and retirement security for all. The costs required to achieve that end point are unsustainably large, vastly exceed benefits, and are not scientifically justified. Congress should: ◆ Reject the Green New Deal and similar central-planning schemes. The GND would impose unsustainable costs on the U.S. energy sector, inflate energy prices, depress gross domestic product (GDP) growth, and impoverish American households. A March 2019 study by American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher estimates that “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” would cost $490.5 84 Free to Prosper: A Pro-Growth Agenda for the 117th Congress billion per year, or $3,845 per household. Factoring in the budget cost of the social spending programs required to sustain the pro-GND coalition in Congress and the deadweight loss of the associated tax hikes, Zycher estimates the total annual cost of the GND would be nearly $9 trillion.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Industry Amicus Brief
    Case: 09-17490 03/18/2010 Page: 1 of 23 ID: 7271263 DktEntry: 48 No. 09-17490 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIVE VILLAGE OF KIVALINA and CITY OF KIVALINA, Plaintiffs –Appellants, v. EXXONMOBILE CORPORATION; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL COMPANY; PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION; THE AES CORPORATION; AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICES CORPORATION; DTE ENERGY COMPANY; DUKE ENERGY CORP.; DYNEGY HOLDINGS, INC.; EDISON INTERNATIONAL; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS COMPANY; MIRANT CORPORATION; NRG ENERGY; PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION; RELIANT ENERGY, INC.; THE SOUTHERN COMPANY; and EXCEL ENERGY, INC. Defendants – Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division) BRIEF OF SOLAR INDUSTRY AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS NATIVE VILLAGE OF KIVALINA and CITY OF KIVALINA Sean H. Donahue Stephen F. Hinchman, Esq Sean H. Donahue Law Office 537 Fosters Point 2000 L St., NW, Suite 808 West Bath, ME 04530 Washington, DC 20036 (207) 837-8637 (202) 277-7085 Counsel for Solar Industry Amici Curiae Case: 09-17490 03/18/2010 Page: 2 of 23 ID: 7271263 DktEntry: 48 RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF THE SOLAR INDUSTRY AMICI CURIAE Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: Proposed amicus curiae Akeena Solar, Inc., states that no parent or publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of its stock. Proposed amicus curiae Petersen-Dean, Inc., states that no parent or publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of its stock.
    [Show full text]
  • (EPA) in Its Entire 47-Year History
    THE EPA UNDER SIEGE Trump’s Assault in History and Testimony Christopher Sellers Lindsey Dillon Jennifer Liss Ohayon Nick Shapiro Marianne Sullivan Chris Amoss Stephen Bocking Phil Brown Vanessa De la Rosa Jill Harrison Sara Johns Katherine Kulik Rebecca Lave Michelle Murphy Liza Piper Lauren Richter Sara Wylie EDGI June 2017 The Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) is an organization comprised of academics and non-prot employees that promotes open and accessible government data and information along with evidence-based policy making. The EPA Under Siege is the rst part of a multipart series o n the early days of the Trump administration. In this series, EDGI authors systematically investigate historical precedents for Trump’s attack on the EPA, consequences for toxic regulation and environmental justice, the inuence of the fossil fuel industry on the new administration, changes to the public presentation of climate change, and the new administration’s hostility to scientic research and evidence. For the rest of the series see: h ttps://100days.envirodatagov.org. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary 3 II. Introduction 6 III. Precedent #1: The Early-Reagan Attack on the Environmental State 9 IV. What Ended the Gorsuch Era 18 V. Precedent #2: The Harper Administration in Canada 26 VI. Just Before Trump: An Agency Already in Decline? 33 VII. The Trump Administration Compared 38 VIII. Can the EPA Survive? 56 IX. Appendix: Interview Compendium 59 The EPA Under Siege 2 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Trump administration currently poses the greatest threat to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its entire 47-year history.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics of Climate Change Belief
    editorial Politics of climate change belief Donald Trump’s actions during the election and his first weeks as US president-elect send a strong message about his belief in climate change, or lack thereof. However, these actions may reflect polarization of climate change beliefs, not climate mitigation behaviour. Earlier this year, Donald Trump appointed Trump’s strategy. However, it seems more Myron Ebell, a known climate science likely that Clinton’s explicit references to denier, to oversee the US Environmental climate change were designed to reach Protection Agency transition (he later young voters2 who are already concerned chose another sceptic, Scott Pruitt, to run about the environmental impacts of climate the agency), and said that he would ‘cancel’ change, rather than those who need to be the Paris climate agreement. By the end persuaded by economic arguments. One of his second week as president-elect, it could even speculate that merely saying was announced that under Trump funds “climate change” highlighted the political from NASA’s Earth Science Division would divide between these latter voters and be redirected to deep space exploration Clinton, something that this issue has come projects, effectively eliminating a world- to symbolize. renowned centre for climate change There is no doubt value in determining research (see ref. 1 for a complete overview how to better educate the public about of Trump’s actions). This is notable given climate science. However, interventions that, as discussed in our November News based on the assumption that informing the Feature2, climate change was not central to public about environmental consequences the US presidential campaigns, and is not will inspire pro-environmental behaviour an issue that motivates electoral decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Law in Warmer World
    Adapting to Climate Change: Environmental Law in a Warmer World Matthew D. Zinn* Climate change presents a choice for publicpolicy mitigate our con- tribution to it or attempt to adapt to a changing world. In its most radical form, adaptation accepts as a given fundamentalchanges to our environ- ment caused by a warming climate and consequently demands similarly fundamental adaptationsin our ways of life. Those adaptationscould en- tail widespread and severe environmental impacts, complementing and enhancing the primaryenvironmental consequences of climate change. While environmental law has, if haltingly, moderated our environ- mental impacts in the recent past, this Article suggests that we should not assume that its successes will be repeated in a warmer world. Climate change threatens to exacerbate some of the problems of capacity that have limited environmental law, particularlythe inability to plan com- prehensively to minimize environmental effects. Climate change may also undermine the public support that has been integral to the creation and sustenance of environmentallaw by reorientinghuman relationshipswith the natural world. The environmental changes caused by a warming cli- mate may convert "the environment" from an endowment to be pro- tected to a hostile and unpredictable force to be controlled and from which we demandprotection. Although pessimistic about the prospects for environmentalprotec- tion in a world of unchecked climate change, the Article concludes with some optimism about our ability to avoid the worst of adaptation'scon- sequences through a policy of climate change mitigation. Copyright © 2007 by the Regents of the University of California. Environmental Law Fellow, California Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Content and Programming Copyright 2004 MSNBC
    Content and programming copyright 2004 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 FDCH e-Media (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MSNBC SHOW: SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY 22:00 May 25, 2004 Tuesday TRANSCRIPT: # 052500cb.471 SECTION: NEWS; INTERNATIONAL LENGTH: 7717 words HEADLINE: SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY For May 25, 2004 BYLINE: Dana Kennedy; Joe Scarborough GUESTS: Lloyd Grove; Ana Marie Cox; Chaunce Hayden; Drew Pinsky; Megan Stecher; Michelle Stecher; Myron Ebell; Jack Burkman; Eric Alterman; Robert F. Kennedy Jr. [...] SCARBOROUGH: As Al Franken once said on "Saturday Night Live," the world comes to end. Details at 6:00. Well, that's what they say happens in "The Day After Tomorrow" movie. We're going to be talking to Robert Kennedy about that in just a second. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCARBOROUGH: Is Hollywood using its summer blockbusters to sway the next presidential election? Well, this Friday, "The Day After Tomorrow" opens. It's a $125 million movie that portrays a worldwide natural disaster that is brought on by global warning. MoveOn.org and Al Gore are even promoting what some are calling a presidential hit piece. Well, we've got Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's the senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance. We also have Dana Kennedy, no relation, I don't think, NBC entertainment editor. And Myron Ebell, he's the director of global warning policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Dana Kennedy, let's go to you. First Michael Moore at Cannes and now this movie. Is Hollywood going to actually take votes from George Bush this fall with these movies? DANA KENNEDY, NBC ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR: If I had to vote right now about these two movies—I haven't seen Michael Moore's documentary.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonpoint Source News-Notes, Issue 22, June/July 1992, (PDF)
    United States Office of Water (WH-553) EPA-841-N-92-003 Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 June-July 1992 Agency #22 &EPA News-Notes The Condition of the Environment and the Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution Two Commentaries .. • A Former County Ag Agent Revisits His Early Haunts. EDITOR'S NOTE: These reflections are those of Harold Owens, since Issue #1 a News-Notes editorial as­ sistant and writer. Harold spent 30 years with USDA's Cooperative Extension System, first as a county agent in DeKalb County, MO, and later in Washington, DC, where he ended his service as a national program leader in agronomy. We appreciate your thoughts, Harold. During a motor trip to central and north central Missouri in late April and early May-com-planting time on those fertile fields-I noticed a dramatic change in farming practices. Only a few years before, conservation tiIlage, mostly mulch tiIlage, was observed on only an occasional field. In fact, one had to hunt to find a conservation-tilled field. In nearly a complete switch, farmers are now leaving a covering of crop residue while preparing the soil for planting corn on most fields; only an occasional field had been moldboard plowed. Conservation tiIlage, of course, reduces soil erosion (and hence sediment delivery to waterbodies) by maintaining a covering of crop residue on the soil surface. Although conservation tillage may now be a routine practice on very erodible, sloping fields, farmers had also prepared Missouri River bottom-land fields the conservation tillage way, which in the past was often referred to by farmers as "trashy farming." Observing this dramatic switch to conservation tillage in my childhood community and surrounding Missouri farmlands was very exciting.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Plan of the US Climate Change Science Program (Final
    A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM and SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH James R. Mahoney Aristides Patrinos Department of Commerce Department of Energy National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Jacqueline Schafer Director, Climate Change Science Program U.S. Agency for International Development Chair, Subcommittee on Global Change Research Michael Slimak Environmental Protection Agency Ghassem Asrar,Vice Chair National Aeronautics and Space Harlan Watson Administration Department of State Margaret S. Leinen,Vice Chair National Science Foundation EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND OTHER LIAISONS James Andrews Kathie L. Olsen Department of Defense Office of Science and Technology Policy Co-Chair, Committee on Environment and Mary Glackin Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration David Conover Department of Energy Charles (Chip) Groat Director, Climate Change Technology Program U.S. Geological Survey Philip Cooney William Hohenstein Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture David Halpern Linda Lawson Office of Science and Technology Policy Department of Transportation Margaret R. McCalla Melinda Moore Office of the Federal Coordinator Department of Health and Human Services for Meteorology Patrick Neale Erin Wuchte Smithsonian Institution Office of Management and Budget This document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and information quality guidelines issued by the Department of Commerce and NOAA pursuant to Section 515 (<http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/iq.htm>). For purposes of compliance with Section 515, this climate change science research program is an “interpreted product,” as that term is used in NOAA guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Air District Will Pay You to Replace Gas-Burning Mower State Boards
    Air district will pay you to replace gas-burning mower Bakersfield Californian, Wednesday, June 8, 2005 On Saturday morning at Home Depot, your gas-burning lawn mower is worth $130. For each drained, gas-guzzling mower, the San Joaquin Valley air district will give out a voucher to buy a $230 Black & Decker MM875 corded electric mower for $100, plus tax. The limit is one voucher per person and supplies are limited, so arrive early. Individual gas mowers pollute as much as 40 cars driving simultaneously. Electric mowers don't pollute the air. Saturday's event will be at Home Depot, 2655 Mount Vernon Ave., from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. State boards want landfill cleaned up By MICHAEL G. MOONEY Modesto Bee, Wednesday, June 8, 2005 In the mid-1980s, state experts determined that the Bonzi Landfill on Hatch Road was polluting the air around it and the groundwater beneath it. Today, the 128-acre landfill — about three miles southwest of Modesto — continues to pollute the area's water and air, despite multiple cleanup orders issued by the state's Regional Water Quality Control and Integrated Waste Management boards. The latest cleanup order from the water board was issued at the end of April. The landfill also received violation notices from the water board in October 2003 and January 2004. A separate order, this one from the waste board, also demands the landfill solve its chronic landfill gas problem. Both orders set specific timelines — the waste board deadline is Sept. 30, the water board's is Nov.
    [Show full text]