Mon 2 Feb 2009
First 100 Days Energy and Environmental Policy
Posted by admin under Environment
[6] Comments
by the Eco-Action Committee
The Green Party Platform:
Ecological and Energy Sustainability
The human community is an element of the Earth community, not the other way around. All human endeavors are situated within the dynamics of the biosphere. If we wish to have sustainable institutions and enterprises, they must fit well with the processes of the Earth. The ideology of industrialism, in both capitalist and communist countries, insists that modern society lives on top of nature and should rightly use and despoil the rest of the natural world as we desire—because any loss of the ecosystems is merely an “externality” in economic thought and because any problems can be addressed later by a technological fix. We are now living through the painful consequences of that arrogant, ignorant perspective. Many of our children suffer from accumulations of mercury and other toxins in their neurological systems, environmentally related cancer is on the rise, and our air and water are increasingly polluted. Meanwhile, our ecosystems are being compromised by the spreading presence of genetically engineered organisms.
Our houses and buildings, manufacturing processes, and industrial agriculture were all designed with the assumption of an endless supply of cheap and readily available fossil fuels. Pollution and despoiling the land were not part of the thinking. The Green Party, however, is optimistic about the alternatives that now exist and that could be encouraged through tax policy and the market incentives of fuel efficiency. We also challenge the grip of the oil, automotive, and automobile insurance industries that have managed to block or roll back progress in public mass transit. The gutting of subsidies for the railroads has meant not only fewer passenger routes but also the addition of thousands of large freight trucks on our highways, decreasing public safety and increasing pollution. We are committed to extending the greening of waste management by encouraging the spread of such practices as reduce, return, reuse, and recycle. We strongly oppose the recent attempts to roll back the federal environmental protection laws that safeguard our air, water, and soil.
The Solutions:
The President will implement the following plan within the first 100 days in office:
Energy: Rule making
The President will instruct the EPA to place a moratorium on new permits for coal fired-power plants, and will instruct the NRC that there will be no new nuclear power plants in the future. Existing nuclear plants will be decommissioned as expeditiously as possible, starting with the oldest plants, or plants with the most consistent violations first.
The President will instruct the EPA to enact rules which will:
- Quickly, reduce by 90% the mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants by 2012.
- Make rules reducing CO2 and SO2 emissions by 80% by the year 2020.
- Regulate the disposal of coal-fired power plant wastes in a manner that will protect human health and the environment.
EPA will be instructed to impose a moratorium on new permits for mountain top coal removal, while the Administration works to ban the process. EPA, through rule making, will ban the dumping of mountain top removal wastes in stream beds and valleys.
NASA and other agency scientists will be encouraged to provide agency heads, and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality with the new data regarding climate change and environmental quality issues so that the President may inform the public and put in place policies to address new findings. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory will be funded to assist with a fast paced technology development project for the production of renewable energy sources.
Congressional Bills:
The President will send to Congress a bill which will end gov’t subsidies to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries. These funds will be quickly diverted to development of mass transit systems on national, regional and local levels. In addition, the bill will create greater incentives for industry and citizens to reduce energy use through conservation and generate more renewable energy sources. The Bill will require that, on a national level, there will be a mandatory 25% renewable energy mix in the national grid by 2015. All states will be assisted (from oil and
nuclear subsidy funds) to do the same; including, encouraging local generation as much as feasible.
President will send to Congress a bill to increase CAFÉ standards to 60 mpg for cars and 45 mpg for light trucks by 2012.
Agriculture: Rule making
The President will instruct the EPA to set a national phosphorus standard for all waters of the U.S. that will protect our steams from nutrient growth. Bacteria standards will be made stricter in order to protect human health. In states that have not set Total Maximun Daily Load (TMDL) standards (as required under the Clean Water Act since 1984), for impaired water bodies, the EPA will set deadlines for taking such action, or states will face the loss of primacy under the Clean Water Act.
The USDA will make rules requiring labels of imported foods, foods with growth hormones, and foods produced by CAFOs.
Bills:
1. The President will send a bill to Congress which will stop export of any technology abroad for projects that involve fossil fuel or deforestation.
Toxics: Executive Order
In order for Tribal governments to utilize the availability of assistance and funds from the federal agencies to manage environmental issues and natural resources on their lands, the President will issue an Executive order that continues the Order originally issued by President Clinton, requiring that all federal agencies continue their policy of direct negotiation with Indian tribes on a government to government basis.
Bills:
The President will require Congress to initiate a Superfund Tax Reauthorization Act in order to comply with the Superfund Authorization and Re-authorization Act of 1986 as amended to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.
The President will send a bill to Congress which will codify the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12,898, defining and protecting the rights of EJ communities to be free from new proposals for permits that would potentially increase their burden of toxic contamination, and prioritize these communities for cleanup.
6 Responses to “ First 100 Days Energy and Environmental Policy ”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
[…] essayist proposed The President will instruct the EPA to place a moratorium on new permits for coal fired-power […]
I read through this rather quickly, but it’s very exciting to see everything that I want bundled into writing. I was wondering as to how one would get the President, no matter how Green some of his ideas might be, to consent to this with all the corporate involvement there is… just saying. I would definitely love to see this pushed forward as hard as possible, however, and am very excited to see what comes of it.
“I would like to be optimistic that we’ll survive, but I’ve got no good reason to be,” says Paul Crutzen. “In order to be safe, we would have to reduce our carbon emissions by 70 per cent by 2015. We are currently putting in 3 per cent more each year.”
An update to the urgent and immediate need to become a carbon-neutral economy comes from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html
“Even so, the most terrifying prospect of a world warmed by 4 °C is that it may be impossible to return to anything resembling today’s varied and abundant Earth. Worse still, most models agree that once there is a 4 °C rise, the juggernaut of warming will be unstoppable, and humanity’s fate more uncertain than ever.
“The good news is that the survival of humankind itself is not at stake: the species could continue if only a couple of hundred individuals remained. But maintaining the current global population of nearly 7 billion, or more, is going to require serious planning.
Four degrees may not sound like much – after all, it is less than a typical temperature change between night and day. It might sound quite pleasant, like moving to Florida from Boston, say, or retiring from the UK to southern Spain. An average warming of the entire globe by 4 °C is a very different matter, however, and would render the planet unrecognisable from anything humans have ever experienced. Indeed, human activity has and will have such a great impact that some have proposed describing the time from the 18th century onward as a new geological era, marked by human activity. “It can be considered the Anthropocene,” says Nobel prizewinning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
A 4 °C rise could easily occur. The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose conclusions are generally accepted as conservative, predicted a rise of anywhere between 2 °C and 6.4 °C this century. And in August 2008, Bob Watson, former chair of the IPCC, warned that the world should work on mitigation and adaptation strategies to “prepare for 4 °C of warming”.
A key factor in how well we deal with a warmer world is how much time we have to adapt. When, and if, we get this hot depends not only on how much greenhouse gas we pump into the atmosphere and how quickly, but how sensitive the world’s climate is to these gases. It also depends whether “tipping points” are reached, in which climate feedback mechanisms rapidly speed warming. According to models, we could cook the planet by 4 °C by 2100. Some scientists fear that we may get there as soon as 2050.
If this happens, the ramifications for life on Earth are so terrifying that many scientists contacted for this article preferred not to contemplate them, saying only that we should concentrate on reducing emissions to a level where such a rise is known only in nightmares.”
Making rules reducing CO2 and SO2 emissions by 80% by the year 2020 simply does not reflect the latest science pointing to a more urgent and immediate need to become a carbon-neutral economy.
“I would like to be optimistic that we’ll survive, but I’ve got no good reason to be,” says Paul Crutzen. “In order to be safe, we would have to reduce our carbon emissions by 70 per cent by 2015. We are currently putting in 3 per cent more each year.”
from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html
“Even so, the most terrifying prospect of a world warmed by 4 °C is that it may be impossible to return to anything resembling today’s varied and abundant Earth. Worse still, most models agree that once there is a 4 °C rise, the juggernaut of warming will be unstoppable, and humanity’s fate more uncertain than ever.
“The good news is that the survival of humankind itself is not at stake: the species could continue if only a couple of hundred individuals remained. But maintaining the current global population of nearly 7 billion, or more, is going to require serious planning.
Four degrees may not sound like much – after all, it is less than a typical temperature change between night and day. It might sound quite pleasant, like moving to Florida from Boston, say, or retiring from the UK to southern Spain. An average warming of the entire globe by 4 °C is a very different matter, however, and would render the planet unrecognisable from anything humans have ever experienced. Indeed, human activity has and will have such a great impact that some have proposed describing the time from the 18th century onward as a new geological era, marked by human activity. “It can be considered the Anthropocene,” says Nobel prizewinning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
A 4 °C rise could easily occur. The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose conclusions are generally accepted as conservative, predicted a rise of anywhere between 2 °C and 6.4 °C this century. And in August 2008, Bob Watson, former chair of the IPCC, warned that the world should work on mitigation and adaptation strategies to “prepare for 4 °C of warming”.
A key factor in how well we deal with a warmer world is how much time we have to adapt. When, and if, we get this hot depends not only on how much greenhouse gas we pump into the atmosphere and how quickly, but how sensitive the world’s climate is to these gases. It also depends whether “tipping points” are reached, in which climate feedback mechanisms rapidly speed warming. According to models, we could cook the planet by 4 °C by 2100. Some scientists fear that we may get there as soon as 2050.
If this happens, the ramifications for life on Earth are so terrifying that many scientists contacted for this article preferred not to contemplate them, saying only that we should concentrate on reducing emissions to a level where such a rise is known only in nightmares.”
Making rules reducing CO2 and SO2 emissions by 80% by the year 2020 simply does not reflect the latest science pointing to a more urgent and immediate need to become a carbon-neutral economy. “I would like to be optimistic that we’ll survive, but I’ve got no good reason to be,” says Paul Crutzen. “In order to be safe, we would have to reduce our carbon emissions by 70 per cent by 2015. We are currently putting in 3 per cent more each year.” from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html “Even so, the most terrifying prospect of a world warmed by 4 °C is that it may be impossible to return to anything resembling today’s varied and abundant Earth. Worse still, most models agree that once there is a 4 °C rise, the juggernaut of warming will be unstoppable, and humanity’s fate more uncertain than ever. “The good news is that the survival of humankind itself is not at stake: the species could survive w/ 200
I was told about 8 years ago that it’s common for transit inventors to take their work with them to the grave.
My bucket list is a new low price standard in home heating and greenhouse heating (my 2nd prototype is going up), $2/gallon biodiesel (not far behind), $.02/kwh electricity (I have little money and I’m not an insider, so America and the world can forget it), $.10/passenger-mile, disability-friendly transit (very high research cash outlay, forget it), environmentally safe geoengineering of the Arctic climate (shockingly cheap, but there’s no money at all so forget it), reduce NASA/s per-mission carbon footprint by 50% (oddly enough, NASA has no money for simple prototyping and I’m not an insider).
In most cases it’s the government that fails. It’s the planet that cooks. I imagine a green party government saying, “Time’s a-wasting!” in each of these cases.