Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources committee and the former chair of the disbanded Global Warming and Energy Security committee, has applauded the decision to drop the “bad idea” of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have made the United States a “middleman” for the “dirtiest oil on the planet”:

The Keystone pipeline was never and will never be a key part of U.S. energy policy, and has instead become a distraction from real attempts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This pipeline would have taken the dirtiest oil on the planet, sent it snaking across the Midwest in an already-leaky pipeline, only to be exported to foreign markets once it reached the Gulf Coast.

The United States shouldn’t be used as a middleman between the dirtiest Canadian oil and the thirstiest foreign markets, when what the American people get in return is environmental risk and higher gas prices. This pipeline was a bad idea from the start, and this is the correct decision in the end.

As Markey mentions, the main effect for Americans of the Keystone XL pipeline would have been higher gas prices as Canadian oil was diverted to the international market.

Spurred by a challenge from Ralph Nader, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) plan to debate global warming. Tulsa World’s Jim Myers reports that Inhofe accepted Nader’s challenge to discuss the science of climate change with another member of Congress. Markey, the former chair of the House Select Committee on Global Warming, agreed to debate Inhofe, who continues to insist that global warming is an international “hoax,” even though his state has been wracked by record heat waves, storms, and drought. Inhofe “would welcome the opportunity to debate,” he said:

I would welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of global warming with Congressman Markey. In fact, I would enjoy the company: since the failure of global warming alarmism and the complete collapse of the Kyoto process, the only one talking about global warming in Washington these days has been me.

As is typical of Inhofe, little of what he said had any bearing on reality. Americans are increasingly concerned that global warming is driving extreme weather, climate negotiators successfully extended the Kyoto process at Durban, and thousands of people in Washington continue to fight for climate action against fossil-fuel interests. Inhofe ignored recent speeches on the Senate floor by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on the urgency of the climate threat. Thousands of people in Washington are working every day to fight climate change, from Northrup Grumman scientists to FEMA officials.

”Congressman Markey would gladly discuss with Sen. Inhofe the over 100 years of science that proves carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are raising the temperature of the earth and changing the chemistry of the oceans,” said Markey spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) is challenging the American Petroleum Institute to defend its claim that unregulated drilling would lead to a million-job bonanza. The ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee responded to recent API ads touting the promise of a “million jobs” if the oil industry gets to drill everywhere from the Arctic refuge to the Atlantic coast, and build tar sands pipelines from Canada to Texas like the Keystone XL project. Watch their ad:

API’s ads are based on a commissioned study by Wood Mackenzie that uses questionable methodology and unrealistic assumptions. Markey cited his office’s recent study that found from 2005 to 2010, Exxon, BP, Chevron, and Shell dumped 11,200 U.S. employees while raking in $546 billion in profits. With Big Oil’s record of destroying jobs even while drilling more, Markey asked why the future should be any different:

It appears the oil lobby got what they paid for: cooked numbers to justify their untenable policy positions. When the top five oil companies shed thousands of jobs over the last five years, and companies aren’t even taking advantage of most drilling opportunities offered to them, it seems to me creating a million jobs doesn’t even have a million-to-one chance of happening.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said in their most recent career guide that “[n]ew drilling and extraction techniques allow for more efficient production from a reduced number of drill sites. As a result, employment in oil and gas extraction is expected to decline by 16 percent through 2018.” There were 161,600 people employed in oil and gas extraction in 2008 — that is expected to decline to less than 136,000 this decade.

“Solar energy has doubled its American jobs in the last two years, going from 50,000 jobs in 2009 to 100,000 jobs in 2010,” Markey writes. “Wind energy now employs 75,000 American workers.”

Markey asked for answers to his questions from API by Dec. 1.

Other stories below: Morocco to Host Massive Solar Farm; Plummeting Clean Energy Shares Exaggerate Risk

China will phase out energy-draining light bulbs

China will phase out power-draining light bulbs within five years in a move to make the world’s biggest polluting nation more efficient but also certain to impact the global market.

China will ban imports and sales of 100-watt-and-higher incandescent bulbs from Oct. 1, 2012, in an attempt to save energy and curb climate change, China’s main planning agency said Friday.

Bans will also be imposed on 60-watt-and-higher bulbs from Oct. 1, 2014 and 15-watt-and-higher old-style bulbs from Oct. 1, 2016. The time frame of the last step may be adjusted according to an evaluation in September 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission statement said.

State-run Xinhua News Agency quoted Xie Ji, deputy director of the NDRC’s environmental protection department, as saying China is the world’s largest producer of both energy-saving and incandescent bulbs and so the plan will also “have a significant impact” in reducing the use of incandescents worldwide.

Last year, 3.85 billion incandescent light bulbs were produced in China and 1.07 billion of them were sold domestically, the agency said. Power consumption for lighting is estimated to be about 12 percent of China’s total electricity use, it said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

Our guest blogger is Kiley Kroh.

One day after the Interior Department formally issued citations to BP and its two main contractors, Halliburton and Transocean, for numerous safety and environmental violations connected to the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) referred to the fines as “nothing more than a slap on the wrist.”

At Thursday’s hearing on the official report on the disaster, Markey noted that the maximum penalty stemming from the citations would be a mere $21 million for BP – just seven hours of profit for the oil giant.

Even in a worst case scenario for BP, these violations that resulted in the nearly 5 million barrels of oil spilling into the gulf would cost the company a total of $21 million. Not billion, million. Considering what we know about what caused this disaster, BP should stand for “Bigger Penalties.” BP is on pace to make more than $25 billion this year — $21 million represents a little over seven hours of profits for the oil giant. That fine obviously does not even begin to approach the amount needed to be a deterrent against a repeat of this tragedy. That fine is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Watch it:

In a first step toward imposing civil penalties, on Wednesday Interior sent the companies formal notices that they violated multiple drilling safety regulations that were in place at the time of the spill. The government is accusing BP of violating seven regulations governing work on the outer continental shelf. Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and Halliburton, which performed cementing work at the site, are charged with four violations each. By law, each charge carries a maximum penalty of $35,000 per day. The notices are just the beginning of a long administrative process to determine civil penalties – which are separate from the Clean Water Act fines also facing the companies – and marks the first time the government has moved to sanction contractors in addition to the well operator. The companies now have 60 days to appeal the citations.

Read more

By Jessica Goad, manager of research and outreach, Public Lands Project, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Regions of United States covered by HR 1505. Pew Environment Group

Forty Republicans in the House of Representatives are promoting a bill that would allow the secretary of homeland security to permanently waive all or part of 36 laws on both public and private lands within 100 miles of any U.S. border or coast. Some of the laws waived by H.R. 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,” are strictly public health laws, like the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund law. Others are environmental, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Two-thirds of the American population lives in the areas covered by this bill, because most major cities are along the borders and coasts.

Further, H.R. 1505 could give the Department of Homeland Security complete authority over public lands across the entire United States. It would allow DHS to undertake any activities on public lands the secretary deems necessary for border security, such as building fences and roads, installing monitoring equipment, and instigating closures—all without any opportunity for public comment or judicial review.

During a press conference earlier this morning before a hearing on the bill, Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and John Garamendi (D-CA) spoke to the overreach of this bill:

This bill waives the Clean Water Act. We will not keep undocumented workers out of the country by letting pollution into our drinking water. The bill waives the Clean Air Act. We will not keep illegal drugs out of our country by letting smog into the lungs of children and the elderly in our country. The bill waives the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. We will not honor our national sovereignty by trampling the sovereign rights of native people to protect the grave sites of their ancestors. The bottom line is, we will not prevent illegal entry into this country by degrading the quality of life for nearly two-thirds of the people who already live here.

Watch it:

It’s unclear what exactly this bill would mean on the ground, because so much is left to the discretion of the secretary of homeland security. But it is almost certain that recreation activities on public lands—hunting, fishing, hiking, off-road vehicle use, beach access—etc. could be cut off without any notice on the whim of one agency. Many favorite places on public lands could be closed, like the Superior National Forest, Glacier National Park, and Cape Cod National Seashore.

Perhaps most astoundingly is that the Administrative Procedures Act could be rolled back for lands within the 100-mile zone. This act governs every administrative agency in our country, keeps agencies from enacting regulations that are arbitrary and capricious, and also allows for judicial review of regulations. Without this act in place, our country’s checks and balances system would be extremely compromised.

Real solutions to border security are complex and varied, but certainly mean ensuring a strong budget for security and border patrol. Republicans cut the budget for the Department of Homeland Security by 6.8 percent in their H.R. 1 spending bill, including a drastic 65 percent cut below the president’s request for state and local homeland security grant programs which fund disaster assistance, major emergencies, and first responders to terrorist attacks. Instead of funding these programs, conservative lawmakers in the House have offered a bill that Garamendi called “the epitome of stupidity” and former Solicitor (General Counsel) of the U.S. Department of the Interior John Leshy called “the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind I have ever seen.”