Senator Joe Manchin gets more messages, does he listen?

Press Release from Gary Zuckett, WV Citizen Action & Morgan King, WV Rivers Coalition, July 15, 2022

Charleston, W.Va.– Senator Joe Manchin announced that he wants to delay a plan to use the money that wealthy corporations owe to pay for desperately needed projects to help our climate and workers.

In response, the West Virginia Climate Alliance submitted a letter to Senator Manchin. When the letter was sent, the Alliance requested an in person meeting with Senator Manchin, noting they had not been able to meet with the Senator in over a year to discuss grassroots concerns about climate impacts in the state.

“Every day that we delay taking action on the climate crisis makes our weather more extreme and the implementation of solutions even more challenging. The country, and indeed the planet, need Senator Manchin to negotiate in good faith on a bill addressing the climate crisis with the goal of keeping global warming below an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Passage of this bill should not be contingent on a one month inflation report,” said Perry Bryant, founder of the WV Climate Alliance.

Manchin’s move comes just one day after more than 100 homes, roads and bridges in McDowell County, WV were damaged from climate-related flooding. The Climate Alliance representing dozens of regional groups underscores the urgency of the climate crisis; and, a rally at Manchin office took place on Monday, July 18th.

The Rev. Jeffrey Allen, executive director of the West Virginia Council of Churches, stated, “Climate change is a crisis of today. It’s flooding in West Virginia and Virginia; fires in the West; and drought here and abroad. There is an enormous cost that we already bear due to our lack of action and it’s a cost being borne by our neighbors. Passing climate change legislation is as local as it gets. This legislation is not only for our neighbors, but for all of those people who we care deeply about. For their sake, we cannot afford to delay any longer.”

Karan May, Sr. Campaign Representative, Sierra Club: “Folks in Appalachia are among the hardest hit by the effects of climate change. West Virginians are paying the price for poor health outcomes from pollution; here and in Kentucky and Southwest Virginia, year after year, we are paying the enormous price for catastrophic flooding. Senator Manchin has the opportunity to facilitate meaningful change for his constituents and, yet, is choosing to walk away from legislation that could help alleviate this suffering. We will continue to fight for policy that will address the climate crisis, while also putting money back into our communities with investments in clean energy and sustainable economic development.”

Linda Frame, President of the WV Environmental Council, said “After a year of good-faith discussions with Senator Manchin and his team it’s hard not to be deflated by this latest delay. We continue to urge Senator Manchin to seize this opportunity to do the right thing for our state, our country, and our planet because the alternative is unthinkable.”

Eve Marcum-Atkinson, Comms. Coord. For WV Citizen Action Group said that “The overall cost of building climate change resilient infrastructure, as well as the transition to a clean energy economy, can be paid for now. Tax minimums for millionaires and the elimination of zero-tax-paying loopholes for corporations are how we do this. They have financially benefited from our people’s labor, our nation’s infrastructure, and our economy. We need them to pay their fair share to help us all, as we continue to struggle with the effects of rising prices, increases in dangerous storms, record temperatures, drought, flooding, and more. We need Senator Manchin to fully embrace this now, as climate change is a now issue, a global issue. It’s not going away.”

Dana Kuhnline, Campaign Manager for ReImagine Appalachia said that “No matter our race or income, we want to live and raise our families in healthy and safe communities. Done right, the reconciliation bill is an opportunity to create bridges across our differences rather than making them deeper. Appalachia has been hit hard both by climate change impacts and global energy shifts – with Black and brown communities seeing disproportionate impacts. At the same time, we have an incredible opportunity to mitigate the climate crisis by investing in the communities hardest hit. Appalachian communities need action from Congress, this delay on key climate provisions not only hurts communities struggling with flooding and job loss due to the downturn of the coal industry, it pushes back other urgent actions we need to see from Congress.”

Morgan King, climate campaign coordinator of WV Rivers Coalition said that “Promoting good energy legislation is part of Senator Manchin’s role as chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We call on him to not further delay action on the issues he proclaims to champion. It’s past time to listen to the science that shows a transformational clean energy transition will mitigate climate change while saving lives and creating new jobs.”

###

FOUNDED in 2020, the WEST VIRGINIA CLIMATE ALLIANCE is a broad-based coalition of almost 20 environmental organizations, faith-based, civil rights and civic organizations, and other groups with a focus on climate change. Members of the Alliance work together to provide science-based education on climate change to West Virginia citizens and policymakers.

FOR MORE ON THE CLIMATE ALLIANCE, VISIT: WVClimateAlliance.org

US Senators generally support corporate interests rather than environmental quality

From an Article by Mark K. Mathews, E&E News, March 6, 2019

Senators Lisa Murkowski (R–AK, right) and Joe Manchin (D–WV, left), the senior members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, confer during a hearing yesterday on climate change.

It’s been some time since the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held a hearing on climate change, so naturally its top two lawmakers felt compelled to get a couple of things out of the way during yesterday’s roughly two-hour meeting.

Global warming is “directly impacting our way of life,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who leads the panel.

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the top-ranking Democrat, added, “There’s no doubt that humans have made a tremendous impact on what we’re dealing with.” It’s a baseline of understanding that, by now, seems obvious to most climate scientists. But it was a milestone moment for the Senate panel.

Manchin said yesterday was the first time since 2012 the committee had held a hearing on climate change. (In response, a Republican aide pushed back with the argument that climate change is a frequent topic of discussion on the panel.)

Irrespective of the timeline, Manchin and Murkowski both represent states that lean heavily on the energy industry, and their simple acknowledgement of the climate crisis yesterday was enough to draw small applause from some corners.

“It is significant that we even had the hearing—particularly when you have two leaders on the committee, both of whom come from fossil fuel states,” Sen. Angus King (I-ME) said in an interview afterward. “There were some differences on the level of urgency, but I think the underlying premise is that this is something we have to deal with.”

Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C., had a similar takeaway. The “hearing was notable because it actually occurred,” she said. “It is a good day when a Republican-led committee actually listens to experts about real climate impacts, clean energy and innovation.”

But Pierce added this caveat: “This wasn’t revolutionary in terms of setting an agenda for bold action, but it was a start.”

Indeed, the committee mostly skimmed over potential solutions—touching on ideas such as microgrids, carbon capture technology and better energy efficiency for buildings. As the main thrust of the hearing was about climate change and the electricity sector, Murkowski made sure to note also that a reduction in carbon emissions is only part of her committee’s responsibility.

“As more renewables come online … our committee will focus on maintaining grid reliability and resiliency,” she said. “We’ll prioritize keeping energy affordable, [and] we’ll be working to advance cleaner energy technologies that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Manchin wanted to make clear, too, that he was skeptical of efforts to dramatically shrink the United States’ carbon footprint in the near future. “Solutions must be grounded in reality, which requires the recognition that fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere anytime soon,” he said.

At another point in the hearing, he noted the vast reserves of natural gas beneath his home state. “We have an ocean of gas under us in West Virginia—an ocean of gas,” he said.

Neither of these comments is likely to assuage the concerns of climate hawks, but they do suggest there could be a window for Congress to make small changes to energy policy in the short term.

“Responsible Republicans and Democrats are considering realistic, durable solutions to the issue,” said Alex Flint, executive director of the conservative Alliance for Market Solutions in Washington, D.C., which backs the idea of using a carbon tax to fight global warming. “They represent the evolving state of climate change politics.”

It’s unlikely, however, that any recommendation from the Senate committee will approach the scale of something like the Green New Deal, which supporters argue is the only way to head off the worst effects of climate change.

Murkowski said, “We do have a considerable role to play in developing reasonable policies that can draw bipartisan support that I think will be a pragmatic contribution to the overall discussion.”

She specifically cited topics such as new research and energy efficiency. “I think you’ll likely see these as subjects of further discussion,” she added.

NASA conducts global studies of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

By Ted Barrett and Daniella Diaz, CNN Report, April 18, 2018

(CNN) — The Senate deadlocked 49-49 for about an hour Wednesday on a vote to break a filibuster of Rep. James Bridenstine, R-Oklahoma, to be the next NASA administrator until Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, returned to the floor and switched his vote to yes.

The motion then passed on a partisan 50-48 vote. Flake, a vocal critic of the President’s, had been the only Republican to vote against Bridenstine.

Typically, when a vote like this is tied, Vice President Mike Pence would come to the chamber and break it. But he was in Mar-a-Lago with the president making that an impractical alternative.

Both Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, who is ill, and Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who just had a baby, were absent.

The party-line vote against Bridenstine reflects the steep opposition from Democrats about President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the space agency, who they believe is not a “space professional” in the words of Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat. One Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, had previously expressed concerns about Bridenstine but voted for him in the end.

Democrats also complained about his views on climate change.

“NASA is one of the few remaining areas that has largely avoided the bitter partisanship that has invaded far too many areas of government and our society today,” Nelson said in a floor speech.

When he was nominated, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called Bridenstine a “strong, principled and effective leader” who will “work hard to advance our national space policy goals, expand human space exploration and secure America’s leadership in space.”

A final confirmation vote for Bridenstine is expected Thursday.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NASA-led Study Solves a Methane Puzzle

From an Article by Carol Rasmussen, NASA’s Earth Science News Team, January 3, 2018

A new NASA-led study has solved a puzzle involving the recent rise in atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas, with a new calculation of emissions from global fires. The new study resolves what looked like irreconcilable differences in explanations for the increase.

Methane emissions have been rising sharply since 2006. Different research teams have produced viable estimates for two known sources of the increase: emissions from the oil and gas industry, and microbial production in wet tropical environments like marshes and rice paddies. But when these estimates were added to estimates of other sources, the sum was considerably more than the observed increase. In fact, each new estimate was large enough to explain the whole increase by itself.

Scientist John Worden of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and colleagues focused on fires because they’re also changing globally. The area burned each year decreased about 12 percent between the early 2000s and the more recent period of 2007 to 2014, according to a new study using observations by NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer satellite instrument. The logical assumption would be that methane emissions from fires have decreased by about the same percentage. Using satellite measurements of methane and carbon monoxide, Worden’s team found the real decrease in methane emissions was almost twice as much as that assumption would suggest.

When the research team subtracted this large decrease from the sum of all emissions, the methane budget balanced correctly, with room for both fossil fuel and wetland increases. The research is published in the journal Nature Communications.

>>> Atmospheric methane concentrations are given by their weight in teragrams.
>>> One teragram equals about 1.1 million U.S. tons — more than the weight of 200,000 elephants.
>>> Methane emissions are increasing by about 25 teragrams a year, with total emissions currently around 550 teragrams a year.

Most methane molecules in the atmosphere don’t have identifying features that reveal their origin. Tracking down their sources is a detective job involving multiple lines of evidence: measurements of other gases, chemical analyses, isotopic signatures, observations of land use, and more. “A fun thing about this study was combining all this different evidence to piece this puzzle together,” Worden said.

Carbon isotopes in the methane molecules are one clue. Of the three methane sources examined in the new study, emissions from fires contain the largest percentage of heavy carbon isotopes, microbial emissions have the smallest, and fossil fuel emissions are in between.

Another clue is ethane, which (like methane) is a component of natural gas. An increase in atmospheric ethane indicates increasing fossil fuel sources. Fires emit carbon monoxide as well as methane, and measurements of that gas are a final clue.

Worden’s team used carbon monoxide and methane data from the Measurements of Pollutants in the Troposphere instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer instrument on NASA’s Aura to quantify fire emissions of methane. The results show these emissions have been decreasing much more rapidly than expected.

Combining isotopic evidence from ground surface measurements with the newly calculated fire emissions, the team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year. The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year — the same as the observed increase.

Worden’s coauthors are at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado; and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research and University of Utrecht, both in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Prof. James Van Nostrand, WVU Director, Center for Energy & Sustainable Development

WVU professor tells U.S. Senate to stop ‘War on Coal’ talk

From an Article by Karen Kidd, WV Record, October 21, 2016

Morgantown, WV – A West Virginia University law professor hopes members of a U.S. Senate subcommittee who heard his testimony earlier this month will stop talking about the so-called “War on Coal” and concentrate instead on West Virginia’s economic good.

“It is time to move beyond the tiresome complaints about the ‘war on coal’ and focus on the real drivers of the decline in the coal industry in West Virginia,” James Van Nostrand, a WVU College of Law professor and director of its Center for Energy and Sustainable Development, said during an email interview with The West Virginia Record. “We are not going to be successful in addressing the problem if we are not correctly identifying the causes of it.”

Earlier this month, Van Nostrand testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee about stimulating West Virginia’s coal industry in reference to the Clean Power Plan, an Environmental Protection Agency and Obama administration initiative to reduce carbon pollution from power plants in response to global climate change.

“Our efforts would be far better served by one, creating an environment that is going to stimulate innovation, and two, positioning the state for participating in the new energy economy by adopting public policies that encourage the development of renewable energy resources and energy efficiency within the state,” Van Nostrand told the The West Virginia Record. ”The ‘currency’ of the new energy economy are carbon credits [i.e., emissions allowances that are generated by zero- or low-carbon resources], and we currently have no policies in place that will position us to succeed in those markets.”

Without those policies, Van Nostrand said, not only will the state’s cost for complying with the Clean Power Plan go much higher but West Virginia will lose a huge opportunity to stimulate its economy and provide broad economic benefits for its residents. To do that, the era of laying blame must end, he said.

“Continuing to blame the EPA for the decline in the coal industry in West Virginia does nothing to improve our prospects and, in fact, raises false hopes that defeating the Clean Power Plan or dismantling the EPA will solve our problems,” Van Nostrand said. “It is about economics, which is driven by technology and innovation. That’s how we succeed in this game, not by misguidedly blaming the EPA.”

Van Nostrand testified before the U.S. Senate panel Oct. 5, the same day three West Virginia lawmakers, U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R), U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins (R), also testified about how the Clean Power Plan affects the nation’s hard-hit, coal-producing region.

Capito is chairwoman of the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee, which traveled to Logan for the hearings. It heard from an emotional unemployed coal miner, Jimmy Dale “Bo” Copley II, a coal union lawyer and a coalfields county commissioner who had been invited by the state’s GOP majority.

Van Nostrand was among the speakers invited by the state’s Democrat minority. Despite the high-profile testimony, Van Nostrand said he is not hopeful that it will make any difference whatsoever.

“But I think it is worth pointing out what I believe to be a disservice to the citizens of West Virginia to continue to shake our collective fist at Washington, D.C., and to create the false impression that everything will be fine in the coal industry if the EPA would just leave us alone,” he said.

“EPA regulations have played a contributing, but not leading, role in the decline of the coal industry in West Virginia. It is all about economics [cheap natural gas displacing coal-fired generation], geology and the impact on demand for coal created by concerns about climate change.”

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Aaron Mair versus Senator Cruz

How to win a debate when you don’t know what you are talking about

>>> Commentary by S. Tom Bond, Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV >>>

First watch this exchange between Sen. Ted Cruz and Aaron Mair on climate change:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=84&v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

Now, here are two guys who wouldn’t know the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current from the Circumpolar Current or a Hadley Cell from a Polar Vortex. Neither has the background to understand, let alone to contribute to research. You’d just as well have two 5th graders arguing.

Then, Cruz is a lawyer. I learned long ago that law is a sort of fundamentalism which argues to text and precedent. When you are unfortunate enough to go to court, you hope the verbal map of legal “reality” matches the physical world reality in which your incident happened. Often it doesn’t. We hear about people being absolved of crimes years after being convicted. Doubtless there are many innocent that are never absolved. Of course we never hear about them!

A lawyer is trained to serve the best he can the person who pays him, defense or prosecution. Justice is what we hope for, but not what the lawyer argues for. He argues to win. How it comes out depends on the judge, who tries to fit the lawyer’s work to the legal map of “reality.”

Let’s not talk about who pays Senator Cruz and how – you know anyway, since he wants to be President. Real high stakes!

Mr. Mair is obviously used to gentleman debate of academics, where you are supposed to use experts for things you don’t research yourself and specify where your claims come from. Go for the jugular is not his thing. Being right is more important than wining on points.

The video is not even a classy debate. Sen. Cruz may not be aware how much he looks like a bully. But some love that, just like they love to see a hero beat up the bad guy. This video went wild in Right-leaning circles.

The following is this author’s comment on the transcript from here:

Sen. Cruz:. “. . is this a frequent practice of the Sierra Club to declare areas of science not up for debate, not up for consideration of what the evidence and data show?”

Comment: Strong frontal attack, the appropriate answer: “NO! But we depend on expert opinion.”

Mair: “If you are relying on the evidence and data, the science, the preponderance of the evidence, are there.”

Comment: Correct, but not assertive.

Cruz: “But that’s a different thing than saying we should not debate a question, that the Sierra Club has declared this scientific issue resolved, and there should be no debate.”

Comment: Better answer: “Not so fast, Senator. What we say is that the experts have decided. And it is not appropriate for those of us who are not familiar with all the evidence, terms and all the data to cherry pick the little we have heard.”

Mair: “Based upon the preponderance of the evidence the science is settled. But the thing is that anything is up for debate, Senator. We can debate anything.”

Comment: Gentlemanly, but not long on points.

Cruz: “Well, I would note that even the phrase “preponderance of the evidence,” having been a practicing lawyer for many years, means 51%, that means 49 . . . at least 51% is what the preponderance means. You know, I would ask, for example, if you want to end debate, if you don’t want to address the facts, how do you address the fact that the last 18 years the satellite data show no demonstrable warming whatsoever?”

Comment: Better answer: “The fact is 97% of the people with the education, access to the tools and a lifetime invested have that view, That is a preponderance of evidence.”

Mair: “Sir, I would rely upon the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would rely on the evidence, again, of our own NOAA officials, the data are there.”

Comment: Cruz ignores this key statement and instead goes on the attack with another assertion.

Cruz: Is it correct that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?

Mair answered: “No.”

Comment: Here Mair made a big mistake. No such data exist, it is a very serious mistake for Mair not to have called him on it. His experts behind him, who he whispered to, apparently did not know, either.

Cruz: “How is it incorrect?’

Mair: [Confers with staff.] Based upon our experts, it’s been refuted long ago, and there is no longer, it’s not up for scientific debate.

Comment: A firm assertion “that data doesn’t exist” would have set Cruiz back on his heals. Mair’s experts should have known this, even if he didn’t. They improvised and the rout began. If Cruz denied their assertion that it didn’t exist, all they would have had to do is ask him for the name of the study or the scientists. In fact, even if the study had existed, subsequent studies disproving it could have been cited.

Further down Mair: “But Senator, 97% of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming, and anthropogenic impact with regards to global warming.”

Cruz: “The problem with that statistic that gets cited a lot is that it’s based on one bogus study. And indeed your response . . . I asked about the science and the evidence, the actual data, we have satellites, they’re measuring temperature . . .

Comment: This was not a “bogus” study. Cruz claim must have been taken from the right-wing myth makers. The research on acceptance of climate scientists is here. It was published by NASA. It involves 18 American scientific societies and over 200 worldwide! It shows the “Temperature Anomaly” graph with figures from four of the most prestigious scientific bodies on earth in climate studies. There simply is no anomaly!

So, the only “science” Cruz brings up is one claim he got out of climate change denier literature. That seems to be his source and his limit.

As for the right wing sounding board, I used to go into a store which had a cartoon on the wall. It said “Never argue with a fool, bystanders don’t know the difference.”

P.S. Don’t miss all the good stuff at the bottom of the last reference!

# # # # # # # # # #

NOTE: GOP Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) of South Carolina on Climate Change

Senators Whitehouse & Manchin at National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV

Sen. Whitehouse Proposes Carbon Tax to Repay Citizens for Pollution Costs

From an Article by Anstasia Pantsios, EcoWatch.com, October 29, 2014

Delivering a keynote address at the New York University Institute for Policy Integrity’s fall conference, in which he noted “The world has just set some dubious records. 2014 is on pace to tie or become the hottest year on record,” U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse announced that he plans to introduce legislation creating a carbon pollution fee next month. He said he will reveal details in the next few weeks.

It was an appropriate announcement to make at the conference whose theme this year was “The Future of U.S. Climate Policy: Coal, Carbon Markets and the Clean Air Act.”

“Pollution-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our infrastructure and harms public health,” he told his audience. “However, none of these costs are factored into the price of the coal or oil that’s burned to release this carbon. The big oil and coal companies have offloaded those costs onto society.

Economics 101 tells us that’s a market failure; in the jargon, that negative externalities are inefficient. If a company participates in an activity that causes harm, it should have to compensate those harmed.”

“By making carbon pollution free, we subsidize fossil fuel companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually,” he continued. “By making carbon pollution free, we fix the game, favoring polluters over newer and cleaner technologies that harvest the wind, sun and waves. Corporate polluters, not bearing the costs of their products, are in effect cheating their competitors.”

The Rhode Island Democrat, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, has long been an advocate for climate change action. His official website features a page called “Climate Change: Time to Wake Up” and he has made more than 85 speeches in the Senate on the topic, giving one per week.

Whitehouse praised the Obama administration’s limit on carbon emissions from power plants, announced in June, saying “It will change the way polluters think.” But he’d like to take the next step of making polluters pay for their cost to society. He said that not only would it reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality, it would generate significant new revenue for the federal government, perhaps as much as two trillion dollars in the first decade.

He pointed to some of the positive uses that money could be applied to, including cutting taxes, relieving student debt, increasing Social Security benefits and providing transition assistance to workers in fossil fuel industries.

“It’s win-win-win,” he said. “We can use this revenue to do big things; repair a marketplace failure; and guide the economy toward lower emissions, enhanced productivity and a sustainable future.”

Whitehouse also drew a direct line between the Republican party’s increasingly stubborn climate denier stance and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed a gusher of corporate money into campaigns.

“Not long ago, Republicans joined Democrats in pushing for action on climate,” Whitehouse said. “Leading Republican voices agreed that the dangers of climate change were real. Leading Republican voices agreed that carbon emissions were the culprit. And leading Republican voices agreed that Congress had the responsibility to act. Then the heartbeat flatlined. Republican calls for climate action fell silent.

Something happened, right around 2010. It was the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—one of the court’s most disgraceful decisions. Improper fact-finding by the five conservative activists on the Supreme Court concluded that corporate spending could not ever corrupt elections—just couldn’t do it. By some magic, it’s pure.”

He says that although his Republican colleagues represent many states ravaged by its effects, “Most won’t even utter the words ‘climate change’ on the floor of the Senate at all. It’s not safe to, ever since Citizens United allowed the bullying, polluting special interests to bombard our elections with their attack ads and their threats.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Senator Manchin Hosts Tour of WV Energy Facilities for Senator Whitehouse

From a Press Release, U. S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 22, 2014

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) hosted Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) in West Virginia to continue their ongoing discussions about finding meaningful solutions to balancing our nation’s energy needs with our environmental concerns. Senator Manchin emphasized the importance of developing new fossil fuel technology to continue producing affordable and reliable electricity, while steadily reducing carbon emissions and addressing the adverse effects of climate change. Senator Manchin toured several coastal areas of Rhode Island on October 10.

Due to inclement weather, travel restraints required the day’s agenda to be slightly readjusted. Senator Manchin and Senator Whitehouse toured the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to gather information about the facility’s development of groundbreaking energy projects, including details on how to operationalize carbon capture and storage.

Then, they traveled to Longview Power to learn about the advanced technologies at their coal-fired power plant. They also attended a briefing led by officials from Dominion Energy, American Electric Power and FirstEnergy to discuss the utility companies’ actions to produce cleaner power from their coal facilities and the impact stricter environmental regulations have on their ability to ensure reliable and affordable electricity throughout the region and this country. Finally, they met with officials from PJM Interconnection to hear about the importance of reliability to our nation’s electrical grid.

“It has been a pleasure showing Senator Whitehouse a few of our innovative energy facilities in West Virginia and continuing our discussions about the importance of investing in innovative technologies that can produce clean power while also making sure Americans are guaranteed affordable, reliable electricity,” Senator Manchin said. “We agree that we must face the reality of climate change without delay, but we also agree that fossil fuels will be a vital part of our energy portfolio for decades to come. Working together, I hope that we can find that balance and show not only America, but the world, that we can look past our differences to better this planet now and for our future.”

“I thank Senator Manchin for hosting me in the Mountain State today and for showing me the innovative work being done here to minimize carbon pollution from fossil fuels,” said Senator Whitehouse. “From improving energy efficiency and increasing renewable energy use to investing in technologies to capture and recycle carbon pollution, there is much we can do that will benefit both coastal states like Rhode Island and fossil-fuel-producing states like West Virginia. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Manchin on these issues.”

Once Congress returns from its recess after the election season, Senators Manchin and Whitehouse will continue to work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to ensure its available $8 billion in loan guarantees and $1.7 billion in available advanced fossil grants are used to invest in innovative technologies, including those that capture, utilize, and sequester carbon dioxide.

Who is protecting the Earth?

Former EPA administrators testify on Climate Change at US Senate

From an Article by Kate Sheppard, Huffington Post, June 18, 2014

WASHINGTON -– Four Republican former administrators of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had a message for the Senate on Wednesday on climate change: It’s real, it’s bad and the United States should do something about it. But their fellow Republicans at the hearing largely ignored that position, instead repeating a variety of arguments about why the U.S. should not address the greenhouse gas emissions causing the planet to warm up.

The hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety focused on new EPA standards for reducing emissions from power plants. The standards, released on June 2, have been a major point of contention for congressional Republicans. “We believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change, but no legitimate debate over the facts of the earth’s warming or over man’s contribution,” said William Ruckelshaus, who served as the EPA administrator under both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Christine Todd Whitman, who served as the agency’s administrator during the first years of George W. Bush’s presidency, expressed frustration at critics who argue the EPA doesn’t have authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions. “The issue has been settled. EPA does have the authority,” Whitman said. “The law says so, and the Supreme Court has said so twice. The matter should be put to rest.”

Lee Thomas, who served as administrator during Reagan’s second term, and William Reilly, who served under George H.W. Bush, also testified at Wednesday’s hearing. The four penned an op-ed together last year for the New York Times called “The Republican Case for Climate Action.” On the new power plant rule, the administrators expressed support for the action the EPA has taken under President Barack Obama. “My sense is they’ve built in as much flexibility as possible,” Thomas said in the meeting.

During the hearing, the subcommittee’s Republicans raised a range of challenges to the EPA rules. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) argued that the rules would have “serious economic consequences” while providing “no measurable impact on climate change.” He also said he’s “frustrated” by the “cartoonish” and “outlandish” claims that proponents of climate action make to dismiss critics of the science. Vitter has previously called evidence cited to support climate change “ridiculous pseudo-science garbage.”

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) criticized “expensive, big-government, left-wing climate policies.” Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) accused the EPA of trying to “force Americans to live out the president’s green dream.” Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) challenged the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. “I would say CO2 is a different kettle of fish,” said Sessions. “It’s plant food. It’s not a pollutant in any normal definition.”

The Republicans called three witnesses for the hearing: a biologist who argues that climate change is not significantly affected by human activity; the attorney general of Alabama, who has fought other EPA actions in court; and an economist who criticized cap and trade (a policy previously debated in Congress to address climate change, but not, in fact, the policy that the EPA has put in place).

Although they engaged with their witnesses, Republican subcommittee members mostly ignored the former EPA administrators. For visual effect, the hearing room was also filled with coal miners from Alpha Natural Resources and Murray Energy, who had been bussed into town overnight from West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania for the hearing.

Before the hearing, the former administrators expressed optimism about getting more people in their party to back action on climate change. “We feel strongly that something should be done, and we ought to get on with it,” said Ruckelshaus.

Following the hearing, Reilly didn’t seem too taken aback by the Republican response. “I wasn’t surprised by their positions. I am surprised at the continued refusal to believe that the science is as it is claimed to be by 11 national academies of science,” said Reilly. “If you don’t like the IPCC, there are many other choices for authoritative science. … When I was in office I made it a rule to follow the science. Well, the science is pretty clear.”

Evan Hansen at US Senate

Hearing on Preventing Potential Chemical Threats and Improving Safety:

Oversight of the President’s Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security

Testimony of Evan P. Hansen, Downstream Strategies, Morgantown, WV

Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, US Senate, March 6, 2014, as reported by WV Public Broadcasting.

Panelists included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Chemical Safety Board as well as authorities from communities that have witnessed recent chemical strife.

Evan Hansen, president of the Morgantown-based environmental consulting firm Downstream Strategies, spoke about the water crisis in West Virginia where a chemical leak into the Elk River recently polluted the drinking water of some 300,000 residents in the Kanawha Valley.

Hansen made some recommendations:

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I am president of Downstream Strategies, an 11-person environmental consulting firm based in West Virginia. Since 1997, we have offered environmental services that combine sound interdisciplinary skills with a core belief in the importance of protecting the environment and linking economic development with natural resource stewardship. Our projects typically include elements of science and policy related to our Water, Energy, and Land Programs. Our tools include Geographic Information Systems, Monitoring and Remediation, and Stakeholder Involvement and Perspectives.

A summary of recommendations:

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Counter (SPCC) measures as they exist for oil containment, should be extended to chemical storage facilities.
• Develop safe drinking water laws. Public water systems should create protection plans, and both the assessment reports and the protection plans should be periodically updated as well as accessible to all downstream water systems.
• Make individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for chemical facilities mandatory within zones of critical concern (above drinking water intakes).

Hansen also took advantage of the opportunity to point out that weaknesses in enforcement undermine any meaningful regulations.

Chairwoman Barbara Boxer—a democrat from California—stressed the importance of new legislation in the process of being drafted, saying that a bill to address new chemical concerns brought to light by the chemical spill in West Virginia was forthcoming.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WV Senate Bill 373 Passes Out of the Legislature in the Last Hours of the 2014 Regular Session

WV Senate Bill 373 has now been approved by the WV Legislature.  It originated in the Senate and was significantly amended in the House of Delegates.  This updated version passed the Senate shortly after 10 pm on March 8^th. SB 373 now goes to the Governor, who must sign it before it becomes law in West Virginia.

A major theme of SB 373 is for the regulation and inspection of above-ground chemical storage tanks, with the greatest emphasis being those tanks within the critical zone of concern for drinking water intake ports.

The bill includes the long-term medical study of the 300,000 residents affected by the chemical spill of crude MCHM into the Elk River on January  9, 2014. The medical monitoring study would fall on the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to conduct.

Also, all public water utilities in the State serving more than 100,000 customers will be required to install and monitor for containments by the same detection capabilities utilized by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, i.e. gas chromatography.  (When MCHM and PPH was leaked into the river, it traveled downstream to Cincinnati where they were able to shut off their intake and prevent the chemical from entering their facility.)

[Note that small drinking water systems which predominate throughout the State will be at some risk, given all the diverse sources of water pollution that can contribute both toxic organic compounds and concentrated metallic “salts”, such as chlorides, bromides, and sulfates.]

The Joint Select Committee on Marcellus Shale is scheduled for meetings Monday at 8 a.m. and Thursday at 3 p.m. during the November interim sessions, according to Co-Chairs Tim Manchin (Delegate-Marion) and Douglas Facemire (Senator-Braxton). This committee is currently working on four amendments that still remain pending for proposed regulation of the industry.

According to the state legislative Web site, four amendments to the Marcellus shale legislation are still pending while more than 20 have already been adopted. The four amendments remaining for consideration are (a) inspector qualifications, (b) karst (limestone) formations, (c) permit considerations, and (d) surface owner issues.