EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

FW: EPA announces coal ash rule today!
by Grubb, Karen 04 May '10

04 May '10

Should we do a future Convio on this topic? -----Original Message----- From: Announcements from the National Coal Campaign team. [mailto:COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Lyndsay Moseley Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:39 PM To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: EPA announces coal ash rule today! All: EPA finally proposed new safeguards for toxic coal ash today! After a quick review, EPA has proposed two options for regulation of coal ash under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and is seeking public comment on both options. The first option designates coal ash as a "special waste" under Subtitle C of RCRA and would provide the kind of federally enforceable safeguards we've been advocating for to adequately protect the public from toxic coal ash. The other option regulates coal ash under Subtitle D of RCRA and the other treats toxic coal ash (which contains potentially dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals) less stringent than household garbage. Both the science and past failures of the patchwork of state-based regulations call for the stronger, federal protections. There will be a 90-day public comment period during which Sierra Club will be working hard to call on EPA to adopt the most protective safeguards. Stay tuned! Here is a link to the proposed rule: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-rul e-prop.pdf Best, Lyndsay Lyndsay Moseley Washington Representative Sierra Club, Beyond Coal Campaign 408 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 tel: 202-548-4581 fax: 202-547-6009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

2 1

Fwd: WVNS story: When Out-Of-State Companies Drill For Gas, What Does WV Get?
by Paul Wilson 03 May '10

03 May '10

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:58 AM Subject: WVNS story: When Out-Of-State Companies Drill For Gas, What Does WV Get? To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Public News Service-WV May 03, 2010 When Out-Of-State Companies Drill For Gas, What Does WV Get? CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Workers and residents are asking how much West Virginia is getting out of the drilling boom in the huge Marcellus Shale natural gas field. Three union locals - operating engineers, pipeline welders and laborers - are picketing a Marshall County processing station. Donnie Huff with Local 132 of the *International Union of Operating Engineerssays* says it's part of an enormous pipeline system being built by a Texas company, Caiman Energy, along the Ohio valley. It's supposed to employ thousands, but so far, Huff says, the jobs are going to workers from Texas and Oklahoma. "Like the timber industry, they raped West Virginia, exported everything. Same thing happened with the coal industry - 90 percent of it is going out of state. It's time West Virginia gets something for our natural resources." An official with a natural gas trade group says many of the Marcellus jobs are going to West Virginians, and that Caiman has used West Virginia contractors in the past. But in some cases, he says, the jobs require special skills that the local workforce lacks. Huff disagrees, saying highly skilled local workers could fill all the jobs. "Pipeline welders, UA tradespeople, pipeline operators, station operators, building trade operators - yeah, we could man all their work." The gas drilling boom also strains resources in rural counties, and it's unclear how much it adds to the tax base. Ray Renaud, with the *Wetzel County Action Group*, is also a volunteer firefighter. He says they've had good results talking to Chesapeake Energy about some transportation issues, but the boom definitely adds to the need for emergency services. "Now, our call volumes have increased rather dramatically. With all this road volume, our accident rates are very high and there are also accidents on well sites that we have to respond to." Caiman Energy did not return a call requesting comment. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/13747-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/13747-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: Miners Claim Massey Safety Priority is "The Big Lie"
by Paul Wilson 29 Apr '10

29 Apr '10

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:57 AM Subject: WVNS story: Miners Claim Massey Safety Priority is "The Big Lie" To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Public News Service-WV April 29, 2010 *Miners Claim Massey Safety Priority is "The Big Lie"* CHARLESTON, W.Va. - A member of the Massey Energy board of directors says the charge that the company trades safety for profit is "the big lie" being told by unions and trial lawyers. But in the month since 29 miners died in Massey's Upper Big Branch mine, dozens of current and former company employees have criticized the company in the press and in testimony to Congress. Many have refused to give their names, but some, like former Massey miner Chuck Nelson of Glen Daniel, are speaking publicly. Nelson worked at six different Massey mines over seven years, and he says safety practices were the same in all of them. "They broke every law in the book. They kept their men in a dead run to produce as much coal as they could. It was always production first, and safety, I would rate it way down the line." Mine safety officials say methane probably played a part in the Upper Big Branch explosion. Nelson claims he was regularly told to dismantle ventilation controls used to reduce methane concentrations. "Every day, first thing that we did was we destroyed our ventilation system by taking our line curtain down, what directs the air flow up to the miner. If you have a concentration of methane, that's what that air's for." Some miners say Massey punishes those who speak up about safety issues, which is why they refuse to give their names when speaking to reporters. Nelson confirms what they say. "Workers not allowed to complain about safety issues? That's a very accurate statement. If they do speak out, there will be repercussions took against them." Massey spokesmen insist the company emphasizes safety and follows all regulations, but figures show that in the last decade, the company has had more than twice as many fatal accidents as any other mine operator. Massey has not responded specifically to Nelson's allegations. A *West Virginia News Service* reporter first spoke to Nelson about the breaking of black lung rules on Dec. 9, 2009. A copy of that story is available at www.publicnewsservice.org<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/11703-1>. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/13708-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/13708-1> --- -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

NYTimes: Failure Is Not an Option
by William DePaulo 29 Apr '10

29 Apr '10

From The New York Times: OP-ED COLUMNIST: Failure Is Not an Option While our lawmakers in Washington are stalling on a bipartisan climate/ energy/jobs bill, Beijing is celebrating. http://nyti.ms/aT0U6i Get The New York Times on your iPhone for free by visiting http://itunes.com/apps/nytimes William V DePaulo, Esq 179 Summers Street #232 Charleston WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Vivian Stockman vs. Don Blankenship on MTR
by Frank Young 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

I am not sure when this took place. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zshEKrYkC3Y Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgcqAZpc_3c Peace, Maria Gunnoe HELP NOW @ www.mtrstopshere.com www.ohvec.org www.southwings.org www.goldmanprize.org www.ilovemountains.org "Contemplating the use of mountains and hillsides as symbols in Holy Scripture, underscores what a special gift our mountains are for the people of West Virginia. Majestic, inspiring, and, at times, intimidating, our mountains remind us of the glory of the view after the challenge of the climb. Perhaps that is why West Virginians retain a stalwart and independent character, always inspired by possibilities and undaunted by difficulties." Robert C. Byrd

1 0

DEP News: Console monitoring of golden algae
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

============================================================ Wednesday, April 28, 2010 @ 10:59 AM ============================================================ The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has issued an order to Consolidation Coal Company (Consol) that establishes guidelines for how the company is to manage its Blacksville #2 and St. Leo discharges through the summer and fall. The order is a follow-up to an order issued to the company in December, which expires April 30. Under the new order, Consol is required to reduce its discharge at the St. Leo facility by 50 percent; monitor for chlorides, total dissolved solids, selenium and specific conductivity twice a month and report results to the DEP; and adhere to chloride limits of either 230 or 860 mg/l, based on stream flow. The company will continue to monitor for golden algae weekly at 16 different sampling sites and if the algae is detected, the company is to notify the WVDEP as soon as it obtains the results, and the sampling frequency shall increase to twice per week, with results provided to the WVDEP within 4 days of sampling. “This order is written in such a way that the agency can change the parameters if the algae appear to be blooming,” said Scott Mandirola, director of the Division of Water and Waste Management. “Rather than water temperature being the variable that triggers adjustments to this order, as was appropriate during the winter months; water flow and the presence of golden algae will be the triggers that require the company to make changes during the summer and fall.” In addition, Consol is required to continue development of an enhanced wastewater treatment facility and maintain an accounting system to track the volume and disposal of all reject water generated by the reverse osmosis pilot treatment project it began under the previous order. The order is effective from midnight Friday night to October 31, 2010.

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: UMWA: Non-Union Miners 1/3 As Safe, 70% At Upper Big Branch Wanted Union Vote
by Paul Wilson 22 Apr '10

22 Apr '10

good story from WV Public News Service. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:58 AM Subject: WVNS story: UMWA: Non-Union Miners 1 3 As Safe, 70% At UBB Wanted Union Vote To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Public News Service-WV April 21, 2010 UMWA: Non-Union Miners 1 3 As Safe, 70% At UBB Wanted Union Vote CHARLESTON, W. Va. - Fatal mine accidents like the one that killed 29 two weeks ago are much less likely at union mines. While 30 percent of coal miners are *United Mine Workers of America* (UMWA) members, union miners account for only ten percent of coal mine fatalities. Phil Smith, UMWA communications director, cites safety provisions in their contracts – including job protection for miners who refuse unsafe work, and union members accompanying government inspectors – as some of the reasons for the two-thirds difference. "Workers who work in union mines are statistically less likely to be involved in fatal accidents than workers who are in a non-union situation." There also is mounting evidence that Massey Energy's fight with the UMWA could have figured into the conditions at Upper Big Branch. Smith says it was a union mine before Massey bought it, but the company ran what he calls "a difficult union-busting campaign," after which the UMWA lost a tie vote. When Massey took over the mine, Smith says, seven out of ten miners there favored a union vote. He believes if the Employee Free Choice Act now being debated in Congress had been law, it would have been sufficient for the company to force recognition of the union. "With over 70 percent signed up on cards, that would have more than met the tests of the Employee Free Choice Act, by a long shot." More details are emerging about Massey's financial dealings as well. Ted Boettner, executive director of the *West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy*, says over the last three years, the company was in the 35 percent tax bracket for federal corporate income taxes, but actually paid a little less than six percent. "The high profits and low taxes paid by Massey Energy are difficult to reconcile with their inability to create a safe mine." Massey did not return repeated calls for comment. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/13555-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/13555-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

More public parks in state opened to gas drilling
by Frank Young 22 Apr '10

22 Apr '10

Blank The Marion County Commission approved a lease agreement with Chesapeake Energy on Wednesday that allows the company to drill at the Poor Farm/BMX track and on a hillside by Curtisville Lake. http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201004220242

2 1

Fw: We Can't "Just Trust" Coal Companies
by Jim Sconyers 20 Apr '10

20 Apr '10

Carbon capture rule needs your support. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Club <membership.services(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Club <membership.services(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: We Can't "Just Trust" Coal Companies To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Date: Monday, April 19, 2010, 9:42 PM Sierra Club #yiv1989451034 #yiv1989451034 .normal, #yiv1989451034 , #yiv1989451034 p, #yiv1989451034 td, #yiv1989451034 tr, #yiv1989451034 h1, #yiv1989451034 h2, #yiv1989451034 h3, #yiv1989451034 h4, #yiv1989451034 h5, #yiv1989451034 h6, #yiv1989451034 ul, #yiv1989451034 li, #yiv1989451034 div, #yiv1989451034 input, #yiv1989451034 textarea, #yiv1989451034 option, #yiv1989451034 select { font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-style:normal;} #yiv1989451034 .normal, #yiv1989451034 , #yiv1989451034 p, #yiv1989451034 td, #yiv1989451034 tr, #yiv1989451034 li, #yiv1989451034 div, #yiv1989451034 input, #yiv1989451034 textarea, #yiv1989451034 option, #yiv1989451034 select {font-size:12px;} #yiv1989451034 .normal {color:#000000;} #yiv1989451034 {background-color:#ffffff;} #yiv1989451034 #yiv1989451034 a {color:#333366;} #yiv1989451034 a:visited {color:#666666;} #yiv1989451034 a:hover {color:#3333ff;} #yiv1989451034 #yiv1989451034 .blackborder {border-color:#000000;} #yiv1989451034 #yiv1989451034 .smalltext {font-size:10px;} #yiv1989451034 .verysmalltext {font-size:9px;} #yiv1989451034 #yiv1989451034 H1, #yiv1989451034 .header { font-size:14px;color:#000000;font-weight:700;} #yiv1989451034 .issueheader { margin-bottom:5px;color:#669900;} #yiv1989451034 #yiv1989451034 H2, #yiv1989451034 .subtitle { font-size:12px;color:#669900;font-weight:700; } View a web version of this email. Jim, Ask the EPA to Carefully Monitor Leaks from CSS Operations. If we're going to fight global warming pollution, we first need to know where it's coming from. The EPA took a huge step towards holding big polluters accountable when it finalized the first greenhouse gas reporting requirements in October. Now it's time to finish the job. Send a public comment and help the EPA take on big polluters by closing loopholes that could allow coal plants to hide their emissions. Coal is dirty. There is no getting around this simple fact. But the industry wants you to believe that it can reduce its global warming impact by pumping emissions underground and keeping them there through a process called carbon capture and sequestration (CSS). CSS is expensive and largely untested. But if someone does try it, it is vital that we know whether or not the system is leaking. Tell the EPA that it's not enough to just trust that coal plants are cleaning up their act; we must monitor leaks from underground greenhouse gas storage. Under President Obama's direction, the EPA is taking a Big Picture approach to fighting global warming by bringing together the various pieces necessary to create a thorough strategy to tackle climate change. The first step was simply acknowledging the problem after eight years of inaction. Now we need to give the EPA the tools it needs to monitor large sources of global warming pollution. Knowledge is power. Show your public support for a reporting system that will give the EPA the information it needs to fight climate change. Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment. Mary Anne Hitt Sierra Club Big Picture Campaign P.S. Please forward this message and help spread the word to your friends and family! If you do not wish to receive future emails like this, click here to be removed from this type of email contact. Update My Profile | Manage My Email Preferences | Update My Interests Sierra Club 85 Second St. San Francisco, CA 94105

1 0

Fwd: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Senators consider gasoline tax as part of climate bill
by James Kotcon 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

Some very interesting arguments below. I think Ned Ford makes some very credible arguments when he says that we need to talk about spending realistic amounts of money and that such spending should be discussed in the context of how much money it saves comparted to doing nothing. I also think we need to continue talking about how to end burning of coal for electricity within 20 years, and end natural gas within 5 years after that. When we make that argument, the concept of investing in energy infrastructure (power plants, transmission lines, scrubbers, etc.) that is dependent on fossil fuels makes little sense. We need to be planning for the relatively near-term shut-down of these plants, rather than investing to keep them open longer. Enjoy. JBK >>> Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> 4/16/2010 11:30 PM >>> Hi Dave, If you're hung up on a tax that is large enough to cause behavior change, I think you are going to have a long wait. If we separate the two unrelated concepts - a tax large enough to cause behavior change - from a tax large enough to solve global warming - we begin to have options that might really pass Congress. I can't imagine how the United States would arrive at a political decision on how to spend $500 billion per year. We only spend about a trillion dollars per year on energy - given that it can rise to almost $1.5 trillion based on the wild movements of gas or oil prices. We don't need half of that per year to eliminate fossil fuel use. Nor is there a chance that such a large amount of money could be spent responsibly. Look at how much trouble they are having spending the stimulus money. We need to spend about $18 billion on electric efficiency, which will generate about $54 billion in savings. Then we need to spend about $18 billion of those savings to supplement the $20 billion or so we are already spending on electric renewables. (We're already spending $5.4 billion on electric efficiency, and saving about $16 billion as a result, but hardly anyone knows that). That puts us on track to end coal in 20 years and natural gas five years later. We need to spend about $12 billion per year on natural gas efficiency, and work like hell to get zero energy buildings to be the standard in as few years as possible. That puts us on track to end natural gas use for heating in about forty or fifty years - we might have to use renewable electricity to heat some older buildings which can't be retrofit. We can have the highest efficiency vehicles and as many electric cars as possible, and we will still be using about half as much petroleum as we are using now. There are probably other solutions that we can develop in ten or twenty years, but I'm not sure what they are. That's about $50 billion per year. The concrete limits on rate - things like the rate of building new buildings and retrofitting old ones, the rate at which we can build wind turbines and replace lightbulbs, and much more, all create absolute limits to how much can be done in a given time period. Tossing out large numbers sounds powerful, but it departs from political reality. To get a solution we need to emphasize that it saves money compared to doing nothing, And we do need some influences on behavior, but those are better achieved through standards than taxes. No matter what the economists think, efficiency programs work better than high prices. The efficiency programs are proven. The high prices are not. (When I make this argument, people talk about gas taxes in Europe. But which came first, the high energy taxes or the infrastructures in European cities which promote walking, public transit, and the traditions of living close to work?) No one really knows how effective energy taxes are in causing behavior. The best indicator we have is the effect of gas prices on consumption, and that's not very promising. - Ned David Simons wrote: 15 cents per gallon is nowhere near enough to influence people's behavior or purchasing, e.g. more efficient cars. Nor is it enough to significantly finance the energy transition we so desperately need, that must happen rapidly. Even $1 per gallon would not be enough. We should be looking at and promoting a carbon tax evenly applied to all sources, capable of producing maybe $500B per year, to address the oncoming crisis adequately. Maybe 20% of that could subsidize low income people. 80% should be invested in the deployment of clean energy technologies, with a small portion put into R&D. The benefits to society at large and to the economy would be enormous. From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> ( mailto:Ned.Ford@FUSE.NET ) To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Fri, April 16, 2010 1:18:40 PM Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Senators consider gasoline tax as part of climate bill This is really important. It would work. 15 cents per gallon would raise about $23 billion per year, which would more than double the new wind installed last year. It would be the largest and most effective carbon reduction strategy I can think of that the petroleum sector could fund. Anything else that was economically and carbon-comparable could be funded too, if wind was the benchmark. I know the public doesn't like taxes, and gas prices are going up, but sell it as a package to reduce the cost of driving. The wind would cut the cost of electricity for the electric car, cut the cost of electricity for everyone (since the total construction of the new wind would be funded independently, and we could link it to things like free air at gas stations and a push for higher tire inflation to save more gas than the tax costs. I'm sure there are other petroleum measures which this could be coupled with that would make this easier to sell and accomplish more. - Ned Carolyn Chase wrote: Senators consider gasoline tax as part of climate bill http://www.ab32ig.com/inthenews.htm#clip1 The Los Angeles Times Estimates put it in the range of 15 cents a gallon. Some oil companies are on board with the plan because it would cost them far less than other proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Jim Tankersley - Los Angeles Times -- April 14, 2010 Leading voices in the Senate are considering a new tax on gasoline as part of an effort to win Republican and oil industry support for the energy and climate bill now idling in Congress. The tax, which according to early estimates would be in the range of 15 cents a gallon, was conceived with the input of several oil companies, including Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips, and is being championed by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. It is shaping up as a critical but controversial piece in the efforts by Graham, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to write a climate bill that moderate Republicans could support. Along those lines, the bill will also include an expansion of offshore oil drilling and major new incentives for nuclear power plant construction. Environmental groups have long advocated gasoline taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption; the oil industry has spent heavily in recent years to fight taxes, which it says would harm consumers. In this case, though, several oil companies like the tax because it figures to cost them far less than other proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including provisions in the climate bill the House passed last year. The Senate bill's sponsors appear to want the revenue raised from the tax to fund a variety of programs that would lower industrial emissions, including helping manufacturers reduce energy use or boosting wind and solar power installations by electric utilities. But the tax has encountered stiff behind-the-scenes resistance from some Democrats, who fear the political specter of increasing gasoline prices as the national average cost of gasoline is expected to crest $3 a gallon this summer. And no other Republicans have publicly announced support for the framework legislation that Graham and the others are circulating on Capitol Hill. Attracting significant Republican support for a bill featuring a tax increase would run counter to historical political trends and to the anti-tax outrage percolating among the "tea party" activists in the GOP base. Sources say the resistance extends to some Obama administration officials. In a statement, White House spokesman Ben Labolt said only that President Obama was "encouraged by the work of Sens. Kerry, Lieberman and Graham to move forward bipartisan, comprehensive energy and climate legislation" and that "we look forward to reviewing the details of the legislation when they are finalized." Some industry analysts and environmentalists question how much a tax would do to reduce emissions from gasoline, particularly if the extra cost to motorists is measured in cents, not dollars. Proponents call the tax approach under consideration a "linked fee," because it links the extra cost for gasoline to the average cost of greenhouse gas emission permits created through a so-called cap-and-trade system for electric utilities. That system would set a declining limit on emissions from power plants and force utilities to buy permits, on a trading market, to emit heat-trapping gases. Under the linked-fee proposal, gasoline taxes would rise in tandem with the prices of industrial emission permits, or fall if the price of permits declines. As negotiations build toward a scheduled unveiling of the bill next week, it's still unclear whether major oil companies and their trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, will explicitly endorse the legislation or at least agree not to fund an ad campaign opposing it. Proponents of a climate bill say such backing would be a major coup. "Getting major oil companies to truly and aggressively support a specific bill mandating greenhouse gas emissions limits and a carbon price would be a significant political accomplishment," said Paul W. Bledsoe, a former Clinton administration official now with the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. Other analysts wonder whether increasingly populist Republicans would follow the industry and support the bill. "It's not clear that a linked fee creates a path to 60 votes" to overcome Senate procedural hurdles, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm in Washington who represents utilities and refiners on climate policy. Unquestionably, Big Oil can be a formidable opponent: The petroleum institute recently spent millions on ads blasting an Obama proposal to end some industry tax breaks. The group is currently neutral on the linked-fee plan. It needs to see details on the full climate bill and an Energy Information Administration analysis of its effects before taking a position, said Lou Hayden, its senior director for federal relations. If oil companies do back the bill, climate activists will find themselves joining forces with an industry they've long demonized. The tax could also put senators who vote for the bill at the mercy of election attacks if gas prices spike before November -- even though the tax would probably not kick in for several years. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC