Today, environmentalists, climate change activists and Americans who want legislation to control carbon pollution were cheered to see climate action take another step forward.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Clean Energy Jobs for American Power Act, meaning the full Senate will now get to debate the bill which aims to put America on a clean energy path. (Other Senate committees will add components before a complete bill is assembled.)

This isn’t quite like being a gladiator pushed into the Coliseum to meet the lions. But the hotly fought bill is expected to get full scrutiny, and climate change deniers were gathering stones within minutes of the bill’s committee unusual passage.

Typically bills in committee are voted upon by all members. In this case, though, Republicans had boycotted the hearings this week, saying they wanted another analysis of the bill’s effects by the Environmental Protection Agency. Democrats felt the bill had been vetted enough, and one EPA official testified that the requested additional analysis would have delayed the process by another five weeks, effectively killing action on the bill for 2009.

Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) appealed to Republicans to participate in the process, reaching out to ranking minority member Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Inhofe, who has famously denied that globally warming exists, rebuffed the invites, saying that the bill is too costly.

Other Democrats also called on Republicans to get involved and debate the merits of  the legislation in committee.

“The party of no has now devolved into the party of no show and I hope they will reconsider their strategy,” noted Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) on Wednesday.

Finally, Boxer broke the boycott, calling for a vote on Thursday, and passing what’s known as the Kerry-Boxer climate action bill on a vote of 10-1 with all those in favor being Democrats. The seven Republican committee members declined to register a yea or a nay.

Afterward, Inhofe accused Boxer of violating rules that require two minority party members to be part of the vote; but Boxer told Politico that the rules also allow for passage with a simple majority. (See Inhofe’s complaints on this YouTube video of an interview with Fox News.)

The bill calls for a reduction in greenhouse gases of 83 percent by 2050, a level that scientists around the world agree should help steer the planet clear of disaster.

Now if the climate bill can just steer its way through the U.S. Senate.

• (While environmentalists are happy with this progress, some experts consider it faint effort in the face of a large foe, with the bills in both the US House and Senate containing far too many concessions to entrenched industries and polluters. For this  analysis from the peanut gallery see the Institute for Policy Studies.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The EPA announced this week that it is moving closer to a new global agreement to lessen ship pollution within 200 miles of American shores.

The U.S., along with Canada, has asked the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to create an emissions control area around the countries’ coastlines. Under the new proposal, U.S. and foreign-flagged ships will be required to use cleaner fuel and more effective pollution controls for their engines.

“This is an important and long overdue step in our efforts to protect the air and water along our shores and the health of the people in our coastal communities,” says EPA chief Lisa P. Jackson.

Once this is put into effect, the proposal should significantly improve air quality in port communities, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The battle for better standards in regard to large diesel-fueled, ocean-going ships has been going on for years. Rich Kassel, director of the NRDC’s Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, says he personally has been involved in diesel-related vehicles since the mid ’90s.

“I started with a local campaign to clean up New York City buses, which hit close to home since I used to ride a bicycle to work down Fifth Avenue,” he says. “Little did I know that 17 years later, that campaign would lead to a national regulatory program for first, buses, then farm engines and eventually locomotives and marine vessels.”

The EPA proposal follows an international agreement made last year that adopted new emissions standards for these ships. The agreement stated that nations can petition the IMO to create “Emission Control Areas” off their coasts. In these areas, large ships would have to use fuel that is made up of 98 percent less sulfur than the current global cap. They would also have to install pollution-cutting equipment to reduce nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, particulate matter by 85 percent and sulfur oxides by 95 percent – compared to current emission levels.

Kassel applauds the EPA’s proposal.

“Dirty diesel pollution from ships is a serious, but solvable, problem. EPA’s proposal is an important step towards curbing ship pollution on our coasts,” he says. “Taking the sulphur out of diesel fuel is like taking the lead out of gasoline. It opens the door to cleaner air.”

The proposal is especially important to the people who live along the coasts, he says. “Port communities around the nation have waited for years to see coordinated federal action to reduce ship pollution in their backyards. Cleaner ships will mean cleaner air for anybody who lives downwind from our ports.”

EPA’s Jackson says the stricter standards could save as many as 8,300 American and Canadian lives annually by 2020.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a longtime advocate for stronger pollution standards for ships and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, says, “We have known for a long time that our families that live around ports have a higher rate of respiratory illness, including cancer. EPA’s announcement is music to my ears because it means the United States is stepping forward to take a strong leadership role on clean air around ports.”

In 2007, Boxer and fellow California senator Dianne Feinstein co-sponsored the Marine Vessel Emission Act. It was designed to create leverage for a global agreement on ship pollution. The act didn’t become law, but did send a message to the global community that the U.S. would move forward on its own even if other countries didn’t join in.

The Boxer-Feinstein act also gave momentum to the shipping industry to unite under one set of standards, so that there wouldn’t be a patchwork of laws governing their business.

“Some countries like Denmark, the United States and Canada can move faster with cleaning up emissions,” says Kassel, “but at least now, they all have to do so in the same way.”

“[This week’s proposal] states that the United States and Canada will act together to remove sulfur from diesel fuel by 2015. By taking it out, this opens the door to new technology which will reduce emissions by 80 to 90 percent,” says Kassel.

“And it won’t take until 2015,” he says. “We’ll see cleaner vessels much sooner. It’s not like a light switch. Ships will start to get retrofitted soon, especially in places like Long Beach, Ca.” Many of the California coastal communities have been clamoring for pollution controls on ships due to the health issues they have experienced.

Interestingly enough, as cars, buses and trucks have gotten cleaner, ship pollution has increased, says Kassel.

The reason? Container shipping is growing, he says. “We’ve seen a trend that manufacturing and goods production has moved offshore. Consumption goes up with economic growth ,” says Kassel, who says despite the current economic downturn, long term trends haven’t really changed.

Take for example, a T-shirt that is made in Asia, he says. “Today it would probably go by boat to California, then by train or truck to New York. After 2015, when the Panama Canal is deepened, the T-shirt would stay on the ship all the way to New York. “

“We expect to see larger ships in the future, but not more ships,” says Kassel. “From a climate perspective, this is better. The most efficient way to transport a box is to keep it on one ship. But from a health perspective, it’s not better due to pollution.”

This is why, he explains, “it’s so important to get this program in place.”

“This is doable,” Kassel says. “We’re not talking about installing solar panels and windmills on ships. We’re talking about tested technology that’s already in place on land, and in some cases on sea.” Copenhagen-based Maersk Shipping is already using low-sulfur fuel.

These changes are feasible and cost-effective,” says Kassel, “but, they won’t happen without a law in place.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

For years, California has been a leader of environmental policy — writing it’s own stricter rules for pesticide controls, air pollution and waste disposal as it sees fit, regardless of whether the nation is following along.

In the 1990s, the state pushed the leading edge of a technology that many of us wish had been pursued more aggressively when it hosted a test of modern electric cars, a fairly successful experiment that was regrettably  shoved into neutral by U.S. automakers.

Lately, California state legislators have attacked air pollution by attempting to set greenhouse gas emissions limits, aiming to push automakers to meet higher mileage standards. Several other states followed with their own laws, though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has blocked action, saying that states cannot regulate GHGs.

The day is coming though that California’s leadership may enjoy fewer roadblocks. The new Congress, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who clearly wants a green agenda front and center,  will have Henry A. Waxman , at the helm of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (Elected in 1974, Waxman’s institutional memory includes the 70s energy crisis and being from the LA area, he’s got intimate knowledge of clean air issues.)

In the Senate, longtime advocate for the environment, children and the elderly, Barbara Boxer, (D-Calif.), will chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. A former U.S. Representative elected to the senate in 1992, Boxer has gone to bat against EPA chief Stephen Johnson, arguing that the EPA has no right to exempt carbon emissions from the Clean Air Act.

And there’s more: Steven Chu, the Bay Area scientist, and Nancy Sutley, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles, have been nominated to be energy secretary and the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, respectively, in the Obama Administration.

The list goes on. For additional details on the Golden state’s band of green-leaning leaders, see the Washington Post story Californians Shape Up as Force on Environmental Policy.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media