HughBartling.com

Jake Schmidt at the National Resources Defense Council reports that Secretary of State Clinton has appointed Todd Stern to be the chief US climate change negotiator in the State Department. This quick appointment is a good move, suggesting that the administration recognizes the accelerated timetable of international negotiations and the need to be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive global emissions treaty by year’s end.

Domestically, the New York Times has a good story on the impending Congressional efforts to write cap-and-trade legislation. The article highlights the geographic fissures in the Democratic party, with delegations from the northeast and west more supportive of aggressive approaches towards reducing emissions while their midwestern colleagues are more hesitant. Key committees in the House and Senate, however, are controlled by two Californians–Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer–giving the more ambitious proponents a procedural advantage.

Interestingly, the article quotes Obama’s chief of staff as saying that Waxman’s desire to have a bill passed by the House by the end of May is “realistic.” This suggests climate change remains relatively high on the Obama agenda.

The New York Times is reporting that President Obama is asking his EPA Administrator to move quickly on California’s application for regulating tailpipe emissions.

Under the Clean Air Act, California can ask the feds for authority to set their own emissions standards–as long as they are more stringent than federal standards.  Other states can follow the lead of either California or the federal government.

California has been pushing this for months and the Bush Administration had bascially stonewalled the application.  The state has an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction plan and has targeted tailpipe emissions as a way to pressure the auto industry to produce more energy efficient cars.

At least 13 other states have indicated that they want to adopt California’s regulations, so the national implications of this move are significant.

When people have questioned some of Obama’s cabinet picks for holding views and having experience that appear to be problematically conventional, the President-elect has responded by saying that “change comes from me.”

Given the sheer size of the federal bureaucracy and the breadth of the federal government’s policy influence, insuring that his subordinates follow a vague vision of “change” will be challenging. It seems important to choose good people with reformist visions hardwired in their character.

Thus, it is not a good sign that Obama’s transition team had to force his pick for Transportation Secretary to refrain from attending a lobbyist-sponsored inaugural ball. LaHood’s name was on the program and apparently didn’t think twice about the fact that the entire affair is sponsored by lobbyists and corporations–many of which may have an interest in decisions he will make as a cabinet secretary.

I posted yesterday about how LaHood canceled his appearance after the Wall Street Journal questioned the transition team about the issue. Today, the Galesburg Register-Mail quoted LaHood as saying: “We were told by the transition (that) because there are lobbyists funding the event that we could not go.”

The Washington Post published a story last week about LaHood’s connections with lobbyists in the road building industry and an indicted associate of impeached Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. If LaHood needs to be told by the transition the no-brainer that he should avoid attending corporate lobbyist events during this high-profile week, what kind of judgment can we expect from him once the media glare subsides and the Department of Transportation moves back into relative obscurity?

First the Washington Post revealed links to a road builder under indictment for corruption in Illinois, next the Senate Commerce and Transportation Committee delayed his confirmation hearings due to “paperwork” issues.

Now it appears that Obama’s pick for Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, is changing his plans to attend the Illinois State Society’s Inaugural Ball on Monday night after the Wall Street Journal revealed that lobbyists [including the American Road and Transportation Builders Association] and corporations are paying thousands of dollars to mingle with him and other Illinois big-wigs.

I still have no idea what Obama was thinking when he tapped this guy to become Transportation Secretary.

Yesterday was the last official working day for the Bush Administration and environmentalists were looking to see what sorts of rules and regulations would be issued by various agencies on their way out the door.

According to the Washington Post, the EPA issued a Provisional Health Advisory [.pdf] for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) yesterday.

PFOA is a chemical commonly found in plastic coatings, such as Teflon [produced by DuPont] and is known to cause cancer and reproductive problems.  The EPA advisory lists an exposure standard at 0.4 parts per billion–which was roundly criticized as extremely weak by environmentalists.

The good news is that incoming EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, had issued  restrictions on the chemical that were 10 times as stringent when she was head of New Jersey’s state EPA.  Obama’s transition team has stated numerous times that it would review last-minute rules & regulations issued by the Bush Administration.
The Charleston Gazette has a great article on the issue of PFOAs including DuPont’s efforts to weaken regulatory action both at the national and state levels.

I normally proceed with caution when comparing the US political system with those of other countries.  However, given the connections that many US conservatives have cultivated with UK conservatives over the years,  I think it may be useful to acknowledge efforts on the part of the current Tory leader, David Cameron, to “out-Green” his Liberal counterparts.

Most recently, Cameron, has proposed spending £1bn to develop a smart grid for the country’s electricity system that would install interactive meters in British households.  The meters would allow consumers to shift usage to maximize the system’s capacity.  He is also proposing £6,500 for each British homeowner to use for efficiency improvements.

The extent to which Cameron’s green stance should be attributable to simply being in the opposition is a good question.  Is this merely posturing?  Or does it represent an actual shift in a more progressive policy stance by the Tories?  In some sense, the fact that Cameron thinks of this issue as one he can leverage is significant.

British environmental journalist/activist, George Monbiot, has a pretty good assessment of the Tory shift in the Guardian.  He approaches the Tory plans with a dose of healthy skepticism, but asserts that “there is plenty here that thrills.”

From this side of the Atlantic, it is interesting to see the rhetorical shift in Conservative politics.  After John McCain’s humiliating defeat in last year’s elections, it is clear that the Republican party needs to re-think their fundamental positions on issues in order to be competitive in the near term.  Obviously, the fact that McCain had to follow in the wake of Bush’s disastrous term wasn’t helpful.  Yet, much of his problem was self-inflicted by running to base issues of anti-intellectualism and intolerance.

It will be interesting to see if Republicans might drift to green issues as a way to steady their ship in the next few months.

I have posted on “cash for clunkers” schemes in the past.  A couple of articles published this week suggest that the idea may be getting some support in the US Congress.  Senator Diane Feinstein has a run down of the proposed legislation at her website, and it looks promising.

The idea behind it is creating an incentive for retiring older, high-emission cars.  Depending on the age and fuel efficiency profile of the car, consumers would have their car scrapped.  In exchange they will get up to $4,500 for the purchase of a vehicle with high fuel economy.  They could also opt to get a smaller subsidy for public transit.

While I am generally hesitant to endorse subsidizing automobiles, this scheme is pretty sensible and politically pragmatic.  Taking older cars off the road results in lower greenhouse gas emissions and better air quality.  Furthermore, offering a significant transit benefit may get a number of people to give up automobile ownership altogether.  In an ideal world, the incentive would just be limited to rewarding transit for scrapping the car; but the purchase of new cars will also help the beleaguered auto industry and provide incentives to build fuel efficient vehicles.

Canada has just initiated a similar scheme–however, theirs does not have the transit benefit.  This scheme is no substitute for a carbon tax in terms of reducing emissions, but it would likely have some impact.

The great work of the Illinois Local and Organic Food and Farm Task Force got some nice coverage by Chicago’s ABC affiliate.

The Task Force was established by the Illinois legislature last year to explore ways to enhance a regional and healthy food system in the state.  Their final report will be presented to the General Assembly next month and should contain an innovative set of suggestions for policy reform.

Congressional Democrats have just released some detailed numbers that will form the basis of economic stimulus legislation that Obama wants to sign into law by mid-February. It will be interesting to see the reactions from reform groups, like those associated with Smart Growth America, who have likely been directly involved in Congressional discussions.

Nonetheless, here are some initial impressions about the transportation element.

Highway Infrastructure: $30 billion for highway and bridge construction projects. It is estimated that states have over 5,100 projects totaling over $64 billion that could be awarded within 180 days. These projects create jobs in the short term while saving commuters time and money in the long term. In 2006, the Department of Transportation estimated $8.5 billion was needed to maintain current systems and $61.4 billion was needed to improve highways and bridges.

The devil, of course, is in the details. It appears that the $64 billion figure for “shovel ready” projects comes from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. I am not familiar with their study, but some of the statements coming from AASHTO officials suggest that highway expansion and new roads are heavily weighted in this figure. As Transportation for America implies, maintenance money for bridges and highways should be prioritized over new road and highway construction. Using the stimulus package to exacerbate sprawl will simply cause further air quality and carbon emissions further down the line.

Transit: Public transportation saves Americans time and money, saving as much as 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline and reducing carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons each year.

· New Construction: $1 billion for Capital Investment Grants for new commuter rail or other light rail systems to increase public use of mass transit and to speed projects already in construction. The Federal Transit Administration has $2.4 billion in pre-approved projects.

· Upgrades and Repair: $2 billion to modernize existing transit systems, including renovations to stations, security systems, computers, equipment, structures, signals, and communications. Funds will be distributed through the existing formula. The repair backlog is nearly $50 billion.

· Transit Capital Assistance: $6 billion to purchase buses and equipment needed to increase public transportation and improve intermodal and transit facilities. The Department of Transportation estimates a $3.2 billion maintenance backlog and $9.2 billion in needed improvements. The American Public Transportation Association identified 787 ready-to-go transit projects totaling $15.5 billion. Funds will be distributed through the existing formulas.

Amtrak and Intercity Passenger Rail Construction Grants: $1.1 billion to improve the speed and capacity of intercity passenger rail service. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General estimates the North East Corridor alone has a backlog of over $10 billion.

On the transit/Amtrak side, we continue to see lack of parity with regard to highway financing–approximately $10 billion. What is interesting is to note the disparities between the demand for financing and what is proposed in the bill. Whereas the bill gives about half of the financing needed for highway projects, in the areas of transit upgrade/repair and Amtrak, the proposed federal contributions are rather minimal.

It is also interesting to note that the $10 billion figure is significantly lower than what Rep. James Oberstar–head of the House Transport Committee–had been calling for in recent days. He called for $12.5 billion for transit, $3.4 billion for high speed rail, and $1.5 billion for Amtrak.

It appears that this document is from the House side–it remains to be seen what the Senate will come up with.

I didn’t get a chance to watch the Senate hearings yesterday for Obama’s EPA nominee, Lisa Jackson, and Council on Environmental Quality head, Nancy Stuckey, but the press accounts indicated that we are likely to see a significant change in orientation toward environmental policy with the new administration.

While asserting that science will once again be brought to the center of decision making at EPA, Jackson played her cards close to the chest on the controversial prospect of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But she apparently was positive about granting a waiver to California and other states to institute their own, more stringent, CO2 tailpipe emissions standards. Auto companies have been battling this decision for months, arguing that it is too expensive to meet multiple standards nationwide. Bush’s EPA administrator, Steven Johnson, consequently sat on the request.

Granting the waiver would be quite significant given the fact that several other states have signed on to the proposed California standards. Unlike a change in the national automobile fuel efficiency standards that would take an act of Congress to modify, the EPA administrator has the sole authority to grant the California waiver.

On the issue of coal ash regulation–which gained greater urgency due to last month’s disaster in Tennessee–Jackson said she would immediately look at the issue of federal regulation. It is pretty clear that EPA has the authority to define coal ash as a hazardous waste; but up until now each state has been responsible for regulation which some critics argue results in lax enforcement and an enhanced possibility for hazardous spills.

On the coal ash front, yesterday West Virginia Democratic Congressman Nick Rahall introduced a bill that would require federal standards for coal sludge storage ponds. This doesn’t get at the issue of regulating the ash as a hazardous waste, but it would contribute to greater standardization of storage practices.

One of the amusing things about watching Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings is to see what kind of craziness Oklahoma senator and climate-change denier James Inhofe comes up with. It seems that he was relatively calm merely asking Jackson to read one of his speeches.

After Jackson’s questioning, Nancy Sutley appeared. She is the nominee for the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality–which basically entails being the top environmental adviser in the White House. There did appear to be some legitimate questioning about how her role will be affected by Obama’s plan to have Carol Browner be the “climate czar.” The current CEQ head, James Connaughton, has basically directed climate change policy for Bush. Sutley was actually a top deputy to Browner when she ran the EPA under Clinton, so it is hoped that they would have a cooperative relationship. A larger question is what power Browner will actually have in the absence of being the head of a large bureaucracy. There is a tendency for “czars” to fall through the organizational cracks unless they have continual access to the President.