Search

Results

Time to toughen up

01 Feb 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

"If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts," the psalmist this Sunday urges listeners. When it comes to hardening automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, however, President Barack Obama believes it's a good idea, and on Monday he directed federal regulators to move swiftly to allow states to do just that. Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its rejection of an attempt by the State of California to impose new emissions regulations which are significantly more restrictive than federal standards. California has for years had tougher standards, and 12 other states follow its lead. U.S. automakers began fighting the rejected rules before they were even written, claiming they would require a wholesale downsizing of the U.S. automobile fleet. But the cash-strapped automakers took a U-turn on Monday and said they welcomed Obama's move and hoped it will free up research funds and simplify a patchwork of U.S. regulations. "Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry; it is to help America's automakers prepare for the future," Obama said. "As we move forward, we will fully take into account the unique challenges facing the American auto industry and the taxpayer dollars that now support it. "For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in his first formal event in the East Room of the White House. "It will be the policy of my administration," he said, "to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs." Source: Articles by John M. Broder and Peer Baker for the New York Times, Ben Feller for the Associated Press, and Agence France Presse

barack obama california automobile emissions fuel efficiency environmental protection agency environmental policy
Partisan politics leads to heated climate-bill debate

08 Nov 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Because of their pretentiousness, the scribes will receive "severe condemnation," Jesus warns in this Sunday's gospel. Republican senators who oppose climate-change legislation working its way through the U.S. Congress condemned it in the strongest way possible Tuesday by refusing to show up for a committee hearing on the bill. Only one of the seven Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee--Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio--showed up for the panel's opening session. He then left the meeting after delivering an opening statement. Committee rules require at least two minority party members to be present to reach a working quorum. An exception, however, could allow the committee to proceed without any Republicans, according to committee staff members. Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for the committee's Republicans, warned that applying the exception would be a "nuclear option" on the part of Democrats that would worsen the panel's already strained political climate. In his remarks Voinovich asked the committee to hold off its debate until getting a full Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis of a bill that he said would affect every American. Committee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) responded that the panel had held dozens of hearings on the issue and that she had taken the unprecedented step of scheduling a session with EPA experts later Tuesday to answer any questions by committee members. When the hearing proceeded, Voinovich exited the room, leaving only Democratic members at the table. Boxer said the panel would continue to meet, including the session with the EPA representatives later in the day. "We're going to just be here every day until they join us," Boxer said. She criticized the Republican boycott, saying, "The reason they give to not work on it just doesn't hold up to the light of day in fairness and objectivity." Source: An article by Lesa Jansen, Evan Glass, and Tom Cohen for CNN

senate republicans democrats legislation climate change environmental protection agency congress
Climactic moment on climate change?

13 Dec 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

"What then should we do?" was the question on the minds of John the Baptist's listeners we learn in this Sunday's gospel. It is also the question at the forefront of the debate over global warming. Political leaders and scientists gathered in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit some dub the world's "last chance" to control warming. At the same time the conference was getting underway the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Monday that greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated. The move puts pressure on Congress to act on stalled climate legislation. The ruling paves the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries, and other major sources. Industry groups quickly criticized the decision, saying that the regulation of carbon dioxide would be legally and technically complex and would impose huge costs across the economy. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said that the finding was driven by the weight of scientific evidence that the planet was warming and that human activity was largely responsible. Jackson waded into the current dispute over leaked e-mail messages from a British climate research group that have stirred doubts among some people about the integrity of climate science. "We know that skeptics have and will continue to try to sow doubts about the science," she said. "It's no wonder that many people are confused. But raising doubts--even in the face of overwhelming evidence--is a tactic that has been used by defenders of the status quo for years." Worldwide the vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India. But those countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what wealthier countries do first. That puts a spotlight on the U.S. in Copenhagen, observers said, and the EPA announcement was timed to boost the Obama administration's case that the U.S. is indeed taking action to combat global warming even though Congress has yet to act. In conjunction with the Copenhagen summit churches around the world this Sunday will ring their bells as part of what is being called "Hopenhagen," a call to action and prayer in response to climate change. Source: Articles by John M. Broder for the New York Times, Dina Cappiello and H. Josef Herbert for the Associated Press, Jeffrey Ball and Charles Forelle for the Wall Street Journal, and Ecumenical News International

china carbob dioxide emissions climate science lisa jackson summit copenhagen greenhouse gases climate change india global warming environmental protection agency hopenhagen
Court clears the air on EPA regulations

04 May 2014 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The reading from the First Letter of Peter this Sunday describes God as one “who judges impartially according to each one’s works.” By a wide margin, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted impartially and reasonably in requiring 28 states to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which can lead to soot and smog.In doing so the justices upheld a federal regulation requiring states to limit pollution which contributes to unhealthy air in neighboring states, reversing a lower court ruling and handing a victory to President Barack Obama.Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the EPA rule a cost-effective way to allocate responsibility for emission reductions among so-called upwind states, and that the EPA need not consider each state's proportionate responsibility for the emissions in question.She also called the rule a "permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation" of the "good neighbor" provision of the federal Clean Air Act. This provision limits cross-border emissions that make it harder for downwind states to comply with federal air quality standards.Obama has promised to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels and has used EPA's clean air regulations to help achieve that goal. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Supreme Court win validated the agency's broader efforts to protect national health."Today's Supreme Court decision is a resounding victory for public health and a key component of EPA's efforts to make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe," McCarthy said in a statement.Homily hint: The air we breathe is so essential to life that its contamination can be viewed in one sense as a violation of a basic human right. While we all rely on industry, industry produces waste and pollution, and regulations are essential to keep the damage limited. The Spirit may blow where it will, but pollution should not! Source: An article by Lawrence Hurley for Reuters

environmental protection agency supreme court pollution ruth bader ginsburg emissions epa
New push for pollutant limits

08 Jun 2014 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The Spirit of the Lord goes out to renew the face of the earth, the psalmist says in the readings this Sunday, while also pointing out that if God takes away the breath of God’s creatures, they perish. In an effort to help renew the environment and preserve breath for future generations, the Obama administration unveiled a plan Monday aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly a third over the next 15 years.Though it sets the deadline for some states to begin complying until long after Obama leaves office, the 645-page plan, expected to be finalized next year, amounts to one of the most significant U.S. actions on global warming and is designed to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.Already, however, there has been pushback. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday introduced a bill that would try to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s rules unless proof was provided that the regulations will not threaten electric reliability, raise electricity prices, or cost jobs.McConnell, a Republican who represents Kentucky—a major coal-producing state which is also reliant on coal for electricity generation—faces a tight reelection battle in November and has been campaigning on a promise to protect the state's ailing coal sector. The EPA has assigned Kentucky one of the least stringent goals of reducing the carbon intensity of its power plant fleet, giving the state a chance to shift away from its coal-dominant energy mix over several years. On Monday two House lawmakers from the coal-producing state of West Virginia said they also plan bipartisan legislation to stop the EPA's power plant rules.McConnell said the U.S. labor secretary would need to certify that the EPA rules will not lead to job losses, the Congressional Budget Office would need to prove they would not harm economic growth, and the Department of Energy's statistics arm would need to show they will not raise electricity prices. Otherwise his bill would prevent the EPA from proceeding.The proposal will undergo at least four months of public comments. States, which can comply with individually set goals using a range of actions, must submit their plans to the EPA by June 2016.Homily hint: In the another Preaching the News item this week about immigration, a letter from U.S. Catholic leaders says in part, "Legislative obstruction in the face of preventable suffering . . . is not only a failure of leadership. It is immoral and shameful.” Encourage your elected leaders to consider the common good, not narrow political interests, when making policy decisions, especially about something as important as the future of the environment. Sources: Articles by the Associated Press and Valerie Volcovici, Ros Krasny, and G. Crosse for Reuters

environmental protection agency global warming mitch mcconnell carbon emissions coal epa power plants