The chief executive of Exelon announced his company was leaving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, making it the third utility in a week to quit the group over the Chamber’s opposition to climate legislation.  The Chicago-based utility has been a major supporter of capping carbon dioxide emissions to address global warming.

CEO John Rowe announced that Exelon would not renew its membership to the Chamber. Previously, PG&E and PNM Resources announced they were quitting the Chamber over its opposition to the cap-and-trade climate bill being considered by Congress.

Excelon is one the nation’s largest electric and gas utilities.  Exelon’s corporate goal is to reduce, offset or displace more than 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2020.  So far, it has advanced about one-third of way towards its  goal by eliminating nearly 6 million metric tons of emissions, which is equivalent to taking 1 million cars off the highway. 

God bless the corporate folks at Excelon for taking a stand on this issue.

Atmospheric CO₂ reached 389.47 parts per million (ppm) in the month of April 2009, according to scientific data released earlier today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the United States.  At the same monitoring location, the Mauna Loa Observatory, atmospheric CO₂ was 387.18 ppm in April 2008.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the chief greenhouse gas that results from human activities and causes global warming and climate change. According to many leading scientists, the upper safety limit for atmospheric CO₂ is 350 parts per million (ppm).  

According to scientists, the rising level of CO₂ in our atmosphere is significantly higher than the natural range (~180 ppm to 300 ppm) that existed for at least 800,000 years before the start of the industrial revolution. 

During the industrial revolution, the industrial nations started burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases, including CO₂.

On March 10^th EPA announced that it is proposing a comprehensive national system for reporting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by major sources in the United States.  In developing the reporting requirements, EPA considered the substantial amount of work already completed and underway in many states, regions and voluntary programs.

The new reporting requirements would apply to suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals, manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines, as well as large direct emitters of greenhouse gases with emissions equal to or greater than a threshold of 25,000 metric tons per year. This threshold is roughly equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from just over 4,500 passenger vehicles. The vast majority of small businesses would not be required to report their emissions because their emissions fall well below the threshold.

Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by the burning of fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Approximately 13,000 facilities, accounting for about 85 percent to 90 percent of greenhouse gases emitted in the United States, would be covered under the proposal. The emission sources covered under the reporting requirement would include energy intensive sectors such as cement production, iron and steel production, and electricity generation, among others.

The first annual report would be submitted to EPA in 2011 for the calendar year 2010, except for vehicle and engine manufacturers, which would begin reporting for model year 2011.

EPA estimates that the expected cost to comply with the reporting requirements to the private sector would be $160 million for the first year. In subsequent years, the annualized costs for the private sector would be $127 million.

Never let science or learned reasoning get in the way of a decision.

U.S. EPA granted a petition for reconsideration of an EPA memo stating that carbon dioxide was not regulated under the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act. The memo, signed by then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in December 2008, addresses whether the PSD program applies to carbon dioxide, a chief greenhouse gas. Several major news sources reported that EPA’s interpretational memo was allegedly written by a White House staffer with close ties to the American Petroleum Institute at the direction of Office of the former Vice President.

The Sierra Club and other parties in early January petitioned EPA to reconsider the Johnson memorandum.  With Johnson gone, EPA will now review the memo to ensure that it is consistent with President Obama Administration’s climate change strategy and interpretation of the Clean Air Act.  In sharp contrast to the former Bush Administration, EPA will follow three core principles outlined by the new EPA Administrator: overwhelming transparency, adherence to the rule of law, and science-based policies and regulations.  

With the Bush Administration gone from power, U.S. EPA will now seek comment from the general public on this memo and its potential impact on life in America.  According to EPA, a new public comment period is consistent with the recommendations of the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) and allows for a measured, reasoned, inclusive approach to reviewing this memo. The EAB last year ruled that Bush’s EPA failed to explain why the PSD program did not apply to carbon dioxide emissions.

The action is the latest in a series of steps intended to right the agency’s course of conduct and ensure that EPA policies and procedures are consistent with EPA’s overall mission to protect human health and the environment.

EPA’s decision to revist the question of whether carbon dioxide should be regulated under the PSD program is  a refreshing breath of fresh air in stark contrast to the most inept U.S. presidential administration on record, the George W. Bush Administration. 

EPA’s response letter to the Sierra Club: http://www.epa.gov/air/nsr/guidance.html.

Published May 2008, the Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States is the most extensive examination of the impacts of climate change on important U.S. ecosystems undertaken to date. SAP 4.3 is one of a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products being produced under the auspices of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates the climate change research activities of U.S. government agencies.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the lead agency for this report, with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) managing the effort under a cooperative agreement with USDA.

This report identifies effects that are specific enough that they might be the subject of litigation, and the report was written by highly qualified scientists within the federal government.  Judging from my read of a highly interesting report and the many dire consequences predicted for our country’s future, it is a safe bet that White House staff members did not read or edit the report before its publication.  The report can be found at: http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/documents/

For those interested in veracity and validity in science and the law, the debate between politicians and scientists on climate change is incredibly frustrating to watch and listen to.   A good example on the subject is a transcript of a White House briefing by Scott McClellan that discussed George W. Bush’s administration’s involvement with editing scientific reports on climate change.  Phillip Cooney revised the scientific reports to add uncertainty to the issue of whether man-made emissions were a primary factor in causing global warming.  Specifically, Cooney unilaterally edited the reports in ways that cast doubt on the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising temperatures.  Trained as a lawyer, perhaps Cooney thought it was perfectly appropriate to edit expert reports to better advocate his client’s best interests.  The question is, however, who was Mr. Cooney attempting to represent, the American people or the petroleum industry, as a member of George W. Bush’s administration?  Without attempting to answer this question, this episode further erodes confidence in our country’s resolve to address, much less answer, questions of science in a truthful, straightforward, unbiased manner. Unfortunately, the federal government has lost most, if not all, of its credibility on scientific issues over the last eight years. 

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan faced a barrage of questions on Phillip Cooney’s editing of climate science documents on June 5, 2005.  On 8 June 2005, The New York Times reported that it had obtained internal White House documents which proved that Cooney had unilaterally edited the national climate change reports during 2002 and 2003 to water down its conclusions.  The newspaper reported that Mr. Cooney has no scientific training.

Phillip Cooney joined George W. Bush’s administration when he was appointed chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality.   Prior to working for the Bush administration, Cooney was a lawyer and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute (API), an industry group representing the American Petroleum Industry.  While never denying Cooney’s editing of the documents, the White House claimed that such changes were part of the normal adjustments in language to government documents and that the documents were passed through multiple agencies while editing the document.  In June 2005, Cooney resigned from his position in the Bush Administration and accepted a job at ExxonMobil.

Philip Cooney and his role in editing climate change reports were referenced in the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. During a March 2007 congressional hearing, Cooney conceded his role in altering reports to downplay the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet’s climate. “My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration,” he told the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  A transcript of McClellan’s briefing is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/print/20050608-2.html#d.  The transcript reads:

Q Scott, the Government Accountability Project, a private group, has obtained internal White House documents that show that a White House official that was formerly a lobbyist for the oil industry has doctored and edited administration scientific reports in ways that consistently emphasize supposed uncertainties about global warming — uncertainties that the vast consensus of science doesn’t think are that severe. And I wonder, does the President think that helps the credibility of the administration on scientific issues?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, first, I disagree with the characterization. I think that your characterization is contradicted by the scientific community. The National Academies of Science came out with a report in 2001 that was requested by the President; it took a look at science of climate change, and in that very report it talked about how there are considerable uncertainties. So some of the language that you referenced was based on the very report from the scientific community that the President had requested.

And in terms of this report that came out earlier today, let me just step back and talk to you a little bit about our interagency review process, because that’s all this is. We have an interagency review process when it comes to issues like climate change and the environment. There are some 15 federal agencies that are involved in that interagency review process. It includes policy people; it includes scientists. And when we’re getting ready to put out a report, it goes through that interagency review process so people can have their input into the report.

One of the very reports highlighted in the article today was the administration’s 10-year plan for climate science. And that plan was widely praised by the scientific community, including the National Academies of Science.

Q The person in question, Phil Cooney, does he have any scientific background at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, there are policy people and scientists who are involved in this process, in the interagency review process. And he’s one of the policy people involved in that process, and someone who’s very familiar with the issues relating to climate change and the environment.

Q Because of his work lobbying for the oil industry?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll be glad to get you his background, Terry. But he’s one of many people who are involved in the interagency review process, including those 15 federal agencies, and the White House offices like the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality. And the Office of Science and Technology Policy is very ably led by Dr. Marburger; he is a well-respected scientist. And they are very involved in that interagency review process. And that office not only is involved in the review process, but signs off on these reports before they go out. And they have signed off on these reports because they know that they are scientifically sound.

Q But administration scientists, Mr. Hansen at the Goddard Center in New York, a NASA scientist for 25 years, and others have come forward saying that the politicization of science in this administration — these are not democratic activists; this is a scientist who works for the government — has reached an extreme. And they point to instances like Mr. Cooney’s editing and doctoring of these summaries, scientific summaries as proof of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: I encourage you to go look at the reports, because one of the reports that you highlighted was widely praised by the scientific community, including the National Academies of Science. These reports should always be based on our scientific knowledge and what is the best available science. And that’s what we expect. And that’s what those reports are based on.

Q So the administration scientists who are saying you have politicized scientific research are just wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I — go back and look at what the scientific community said about that 10-year plan on climate science, and what the National Academies of Science said. And I point you back to the very first question you brought up when you talked about how there’s some dispute that there are uncertainties regarding the science of climate of change.

Q That they are serious, that there —

MR. McCLELLAN: Right —

Q — that there’s uncertainty about the fact of global warming, and that there’s a significant human component to it. The consensus is in.

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple things. The National Academy of Science report back in 2001 said there are considerable uncertainties about the science of climate change. Now, there are some things we do know. That report pointed out that surface temperatures are still rising, and that that is in large part because of human activity.

That’s why this President is not waiting for us to have the full knowledge of science, as it continues to come in and we continue to learn more. The President is acting. We are moving forward on the President’s initiative to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent come 2012. We are making steady progress. We are on track to meet that goal. We are moving forward on partnerships like the methane-to-markets initiative that the President outlined, and that the very individual you bring up was very involved in developing. This will help us produce cleaner burning electricity, and it will help capture a greenhouse gas emission and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

These are very important initiatives. We’re also leading the way, when it comes to research, around the world. We are providing more resources and funding into the research and development of new technologies, cleaner technologies, that will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Q But in every example that you’ve cited —

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, do you all want to —

Q In every example that we have seen, and Mr. Cooney’s emendations and deletions from these reports have been to the effect of making them less critical, less stringent, less apparently in need of immediate action. In other words, he’s done everything in the examples we’ve seen to pull back from worst-case scenario. He is not a scientist.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that’s your opinion, and I think your opinion is wrong.

Q No, no, no, it’s evident in the reading of it. He is not a scientist. It upsets the scientific community that non-scientists are doing this. That’s why they say that he has a political agenda. Why wouldn’t they think that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, let me repeat what I just said: This is not based on any one individual. This is an interagency review process, where everybody who is involved in these issues should have input into these reports. And that’s all this is. And if you go and look at the reports, namely the one I just referenced, the 10-year plan —

Q That’s the only one you can reference. There are others that you can’t reference because he changed them in a significantly different way.

MR. McCLELLAN: Where?

Q Well, right here, for example, in the October 2002 draft of Our Changing Planet. He says, “Many scientific observations indicate the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.” He made that, “may be.” He cut out a section of another document on — I can read that to you if you want, but you get the idea.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you’re selectively quoting things. I think you ought to go and look at some of the things he pointed out in his —

Q But the only thing you can point to is that one 2002 —

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just pointed to what Terry brought up, when he talked about serious uncertainties, or something to that effect, and that is language that was used in the National Academy of Science report. So, I mean, if you want to talk about the facts, I’m glad to do that, and I think the facts point out that our reports are based on the best scientific knowledge, and they’re based on the input —

Q But, Scott, you’re not talking about the same thing here.

MR. McCLELLAN: — they’re based on the inputs of scientists.

Q But, Scott, you’re clearly — I mean, the United States is — and I’m not making a judgment about this — is out of step with other countries in the world, in terms of the existence of climate change and the causes of it. That debate is clear. I mean, the President, just yesterday, when asked about this, said, the United States is spending millions of dollars —

MR. McCLELLAN: Billions.

Q — billions of dollars to research this issue, which is to say that he has not reached a conclusion yet. Fine. But —

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let me just correct you on that one point. It’s to say that there are still — there is still a lot of uncertainty when it comes to the science of climate change, and that’s pointed out in the National Academy of Science report that the President requested when he came into office.

Q Right, but there is other — there’s the body of opinion here that still works against that. The point is, if you go back to June of 2003, an EPA report on climate change had a whole section on climate change simply deleted out of it, and critics charged the very same thing, which is that — it’s not that the view — it’s not a judgment about the view, it’s that the process here, the science here is being overwhelmed by the politics. Is that not a fair criticism?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it has been contradicted by the scientific community, itself, when they look at these reports and they widely praise the report that I referenced. It was one of our major reports on climate change. It was our 10-year plan on climate science research. And that is an important undertaking that this administration led. And there’s an interagency —

Q There’s ample evidence that you guys are — that policy people are putting their own spin on the science.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I guess, David, you want to let me finish and respond. I’m trying to get you the information that you want, not that some people may want us to say, because that’s not the case. I’m going to tell what the facts are. And the facts are that there is an interagency review process with a number of agencies involved that are impacted by — or that are involved in these decisions, in these reports. And many people have input into that interagency review process.

Our reports are based on the best scientific knowledge. There are number of scientists involved in this. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is involved very much in this process, and the head of that office is a well-respected scientist. And he has signed off on these reports because they’re based on sound science. They’re based on the best available science.

Q Scott, there’s another player in all of this. It’s a fellow who has been held out as a whistle-blower essentially, who is accusing the administration more or less of basically not giving an honest assessment on the environment. What’s your take on him? Is he a whistle-blower? Does he have an axe to grind? To what extent can you weigh in on —

MR. McCLELLAN: Who is this individual?

Q The fellow’s name is Rick Piltz.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what’s his background?

Q He’s been held out by the Government Accountability Project as a government employee —

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, you might ask him —

Q — who, in fact, works for —

MR. McCLELLAN: You might ask him those questions.

Q He’s a senior associate for government climate change. So he’s in the office affected, and he’s the person making the assertions.

MR. McCLELLAN: And when did he come into that office and what was his background before that?

Q Well, he obviously left the office because he did not like the way these documents were being filtered. So are you not familiar with him? He was also mentioned in the article.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you might want to look into his background. I don’t know all the answers to that and why he has such motives. But that’s something for you to do, and to look at his background, why he came to these — or why he came to this. That’s not for me to do. I’m here to tell you what the facts are. And the facts are that our policies and our reports are based on the best available science, and that this administration is acting and leading the way when it comes to addressing the serious long-term challenge we face from climate change.

Q So you disagree with his assertions? You disagree with the notion that the administration is, in fact, making the assessment of —

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know what his assertions are. I saw them referenced in a report, but I haven’t heard exactly what his assertions are. That’s for you to ask him, and it’s for you to look at what his background is.