As The Music Stops For Superstorm Sandy Funding, NOAA Left Without A Chair

By Michael Conathan

Next week the Senate is expected to take up and pass the House's version of a disaster relief package for areas affected by Hurricane Sandy, which passed on January 15. The relief has been a long time coming: It has been nearly three months since the superstorm devastated coastlines from Maryland to Massachusetts.

First, action was stalled by November's election, and then House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) refused to bring a Senate-passed bill to a vote before the clock ran out on the 112th Congress, prompting highly critical responses even from members of his own party, such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY). Their anger was justified: By comparison, it took Congress just days to send emergency funding to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

But chronology and delays aside, the bill has plenty of flaws in its content as well. In particular, for a package intended to help coastal communities rebuild, it is remarkably light on funding for the federal agency most closely linked to our coastal communities: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The House disaster relief legislation actually came in two parts-an initial $17 billion outlay, which was then amended by adding a subsequent $33.7 billion package offered by Rep. Rodney Freylinghausen (R-NJ). His initial proposal wasn't all bad for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It included $476 million for the agency-just a bit less than the $486 million in the Senate-passed bill and the $493 million requested by the Obama administration. But after the House voted on amendments to Freylinghausen's bill, the agency's funding fell to just $326 million.

In the wake of a storm that shifted sands and wrecked infrastructure from Maryland to Massachusetts, rebuilding and even reconceiving management of coastal landscapes must be a priority. In fact, about 80 percent of the money the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration requested for Sandy relief was for coastal restoration and land acquisition.

After the Senate passed its bill, which included $150 million for coastal restoration and another $47 million for land acquisition under the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Conservation Program, Rep. Freylinghausen put $150 million into his bill for coastal restoration efforts. But instead of following the lead of the Senate and funneling the money through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, he eliminated all funding for land acquisition and designated the restoration funding specifically for "regional ocean partnerships"-collaborative coalitions of neighboring states that help coordinate and streamline management of their shared ocean space and resources.

So now, unless the Senate opts to delay the bill's passage further by amending it and sending it back over to the House, the Sandy relief package that lands on President Obama's desk will include not a penny for the programs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration identified as its highest priorities.

Rep. Freylinghausen's decision to reallocate the Senate's $150 million landed this funding squarely in the crosshairs of a coalition of Republicans who have made great political hay by lambasting the Obama adminstration's National Ocean Policy, implemented by executive order in 2010. And despite the fact that many of these organizations were actually created during the Bush administration, regional ocean partnerships have come to be viewed as an integral part of President Obama's ocean priorities.

Many regions of the country-including the Northeast and mid-Atlantic areas affected by Sandy-are energized and eager to participate in these partnerships. And granting the money to these bodies would actually give states a greater say in how their coastal restoration funds were spent. Yet despite this clear desire on the part of the states to participate in such programs, conservatives in Congress, led by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA), have made the National Ocean Policy a poster child for government overreach. Conveniently ignoring their well-established commitment to states' rights, Hastings and his allies falsely decry the National Ocean Policy as a bogeyman likely to spawn "job-killing regulations" rather than an opportunity for states to play a greater role in managing their own affairs.

Playing right along, Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), whose amendment successfully stripped funding for the National Ocean Policy from the House version of a 2013 appropriations bill, filed an amendment to the Sandy relief bill proposing to eliminate all funding for the regional ocean partnerships. His amendment passed overwhelmingly-though advocates for the National Ocean Policy should take some consolation that his margin of victory was 23 votes smaller this time around.

Whether by ignorance, hubris, or calculated machinations, Rep. Freylinghausen's decision to peg this funding to the regional ocean partnerships ensured the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would not receive a dime of funding to restore shorelines devastated by superstorm Sandy.

With Senate passage of the House version of this legislation all but assured, it appears the window has closed for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to receive any additional funding for coastal restoration. And that is a financial and environmental disaster adding insult to injury in a region desperate for relief.

Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/25/1496361/as-the-music-stops

Panasonic: We'll save Earth by turning CO2 INTO BOOZE

Scrub air of greenhouse gas, get plastered to celebrate

Electronics giant Panasonic is showing off its ambitious attempt to slow global warming - with a plant-like machine that uses light to scrub CO₂ from the atmosphere....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/photosynthesis_machine_panason

Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE

Doubled CO₂ means just 1.9¬∞C warming, says Norwegian gov

New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker

Changing climate change debate to a risk analysis debate

There's a big debate going on about the reality of climate change, and whether it is human-caused or what. The debate is delaying effective action to mitigate climate change, because of the doubts being raised.&nbsp...

https://www.examiner.com/article/changing-climate-change-debate-to-a-r

Obama administration focusing on tech solution to climate change, not carbon tax

Monday's inaugural address by President Obama raised the hopes of environmentalists around the world by promising to take serious action about climate change. However, by Wednesday his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, was deflecting questions...

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-administration-focusing-on-tech-

President Obama Vows Action on Climate; Latino Groups Support Swift Action

Adrianna Quintero, Senior Attorney, Director, La Onda Verde de NRDC, San Francisco

In his second inaugural speech yesterday, President Obama presented his vision for the future of our country, calling on us to seize the moment and highlighting the strength of our country's diversity. For Latinos across the nation there was much to cheer for, and much to hope for.

Answering the concerns of so many families, the President affirmed his commitment to ease the path to citizenship for immigrants, improve outdated education programs, and create greater equality in our workforce. And in a bold pledge to protect the health of our families and communities, President Obama declared that his administration would work to address climate change--a commitment strongly supported by Latinos nationwide.

With communities still recovering from the flooding and devastation left by Hurricane Sandy, the President's call for action to curb climate change could not come soon enough. 2012 saw thousands of records broken in the U.S. for heat, rain, and snow across the country, with American families suffering the consequences. From devastating droughts in the Midwest that ruined crops and the livelihoods of American farmers, to violent storms that left thousands without power or water along the East Coast, 2012 proved to be a shockingly dangerous--and deadly--year of extreme weather events.

Ready or not, our climate is changing, and we're witnessing the consequences in our backyard. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded in the continental United States. A warmer climate fuels more heat waves, downpours, floods, fires, and other extreme weather events--just what we've seen across the country over the past few years.

The President got it right when he stated that we will all be affected by a changing climate. As the President stated, "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms."

We can't afford to wait any longer. That's why leading Latino groups, along with small business owners and environmental organizations, are urging President Obama to act quickly to address the growing climate threat. In a new letter to the President, Voces Verdes, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and over a dozen other leading Latino organizations, called on President Obama to curb harmful carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants.

The President has already acted to reduce pollution from new power plants. But we can't stop there. Coal-fired power plants are the nation's largest source of global warming pollution. Implementing new standards for existing power plants will put us on a path toward climate stability, unleash investment in new clean energy technologies, and help stem the devastating storms, droughts, and floods worsened by climate change. And, even while Congress remains gridlocked, the President can act now to implement these new standards, using the authority already given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up our air.

For Latino communities, action on climate change now means a healthier and more prosperous future for our children. Half of all U.S. Latinos live in places where air pollution often makes the air unsafe to breathe. Cutting pollution from existing power plants will not only clean up the air in communities near the plants, but will also help reduce the health impacts of climate change--like increased asthma attacks that come with warmer air. And with unemployment still hovering around 10% for Latinos, jobs in areas like construction, home weatherization, solar panel installation, and energy efficiency retrofits, will help get our workers back on their feet.

President Obama faces a long, difficult road in his second term, but his commitment to confront climate change could be a defining part of his legacy. The President has the opportunity now to drive global action on climate change, showing that we are committed to creating a healthier environment for all.

As President Obama outlined in his inaugural address, "America cannot resist this transition. We must lead it." Mr. President, the Latino community, and Americans across the nation, stand ready to support your actions to respond to the threat of climate change and protect our children and future generations.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aquintero/president_obama_vows_actio

Time to Dump Dirty Diesels Worldwide

Peter Lehner, Executive Director, New York City

When I took over the environmental prosecution unit of the New York City Law Department in 1990, I conducted an informal survey of everyone I knew, asking: What's the worst environmental problem in New York City? By a big margin, people said it was the black smoke coming out of trucks and buses, emitted from a tailpipe at the same level as kids' heads.

Today, few people would even mention it. Real change happened here, and relatively quickly. Ducking to avoid a smelly cloud of toxic, cancer-causing diesel exhaust is a reflex that New Yorkers need rarely call upon, thanks to clean air laws and strict emission standards on diesel. When the last of the dirty diesels are phased out across the country, around 2030, we'll be saving about 26,000 lives each year.

Diesel pollution from buses in Jakarta (courtesy Asian Development Bank via Flickr)

In the developing world, however, diesel is still a killer. (Diesel emissions certainly played a role in China's recent off-the-charts smog.) Dirty diesel engines, along with power plants and traditional cookstoves, are major generators of particulate matter--more commonly referred to as soot--which is responsible for 3.2 million premature deaths each year, worldwide.

Diesel engines are also a major contributor to climate change. At the heart of every diesel soot particle lies a light-absorbing, heat-emitting core of what's called black carbon. According to a major new study published last week, black carbon is the second largest human-made contributor to global warming. It has twice the global warming impact previously thought. And diesel engines are responsible for 20 to 25 percent of the world's black carbon emissions.

So diesel exhaust is not only a deadly public health risk, but a powerful agent of global warming as well. Yet we know from experience that we can slash diesel pollution, quickly and effectively.

In the United States, programs to clean up diesel have been remarkably effective. When New York City got rid of its dirty diesel buses (in response to a campaign spearheaded by NRDC), particulate emissions from the fleet dropped 97 percent. Black carbon emissions were likely cut by a similar amount through that effort. In California, total black carbon emissions have fallen nearly 50 percent in the past 25 years, largely due to strict diesel emission standards.

New diesel engines in this country are now 90 to 95 percent cleaner than engines that were sold just a few years ago, thanks to a national low-sulfur fuel standard and emissions standards that have made new filter technologies standard equipment on all new trucks and buses. America's clean diesel programs are expected to prevent 26,000 premature deaths every year.

Similar programs around the world have the potential to save millions of lives--and can also help put the brakes on global warming in the short term. Unlike carbon dioxide, black carbon is a short-lived climate pollutant. It takes effect quickly, and wears off quickly. When we pump less of it into the atmosphere, the benefits are almost immediate.

Diesel vehicles in developing nations burn high-sulfur fuel and lack even the most basic emissions controls, exposing people to nearly 100 times as much toxic pollution, while also generating tons of global warming pollution. Because diesel pollution occurs in densely populated areas, right at breathing level, it has an outsized impact on human health, making diesel a critical target in the fight for clean air. And because diesel exhaust produces black carbon, which has now been confirmed as a major global warming pollutant, it's also a critical target in the fight to curb climate change.

NRDC, a founder of the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, has been working on cleaning up diesel pollution throughout the developing world.

Through the partnership, countries around the world have started working toward creating a standard for ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. This fuel is already available in some major world cities, including Delhi, Hong Kong, Mexico City, and Beijing, but its use is not widespread, and certainly not standard.

The partnership's previous success in eliminating lead from gasoline worldwide-a move that is expected to generate $2.4 trillion in health, social, and economic benefits--lends hope that it could achieve similar success with diesel. Cleaning up diesel worldwide would prevent millions of premature deaths from cancer, heart attacks, and lung disease. It would also help to quickly reduce global warming pollution. Along with our efforts to counter the long-term, potent effects of carbon dioxide, it makes eminent sense to tackle short-acting pollutants like black carbon as well. Dumping dirty diesel is an excellent way to start.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/time_to_dump_dirty_diesels_w