[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Carbon emissions]
Alaskan senator seeks to block EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases
Lisa Murkowski pledges to use obscure measure in attempt to strip powers from the Environmental Protection Agency
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 January 2010 22.39 GMT Article history
Barack Obama faced a direct challenge to his government's powers to curb global warming pollution today, just 48 hours after an election upset put the rest of his agenda at risk.
In a speech to Congress, a Republican senator from Alaska announced she would use an obscure and rarely used measure to try to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a dangerous pollutant.
"We cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose back-door climate regulations," Lisa Murkowski told the Senate in prepared remarks. Murkowski's motion of disapproval, though unlikely to become law, is widely seen as a barometer for the chances of getting a climate change bill through the Senate this year.
In an ominous sign for supporters of a climate law, she had the support of three Democratic Senators, further underscoring the unease in Obama's own party in enacting legislation to tackle global warming.
Delivering new laws to tackle global warming was not just a key pledge of Obama's, but is being closely watched around the world as global climate change negotiations struggle to recover from the disappointment of the UN summit in Copenhagen. An environment official in the European Union said: "It's clearly a setback."
Murkowski's move, brought under the Congressional Review Act, would remove the Obama administration's "Plan B" for dealing with climate change, resorting to the EPA to curb greenhouse gas emissions if Congress fails to act.
The motion of disapproval, called the "nuclear option" by environmentalists, would also ban the administration from drafting any new regulation that would be substantially the same. That would make it even more difficult for any US government to regulate power plants and other big emitters.
Environmentalists say the proposal is unlikely to pass, but ensuring its defeat could require a new round of partisan warfare that could be damaging for Democrats and Obama's agenda.
In her speech, Murkowski argued that giving the EPA the authority to act on global warming would cost jobs and hurt the economy: "Under the guise of protecting the environment, it's set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy."
She said she supported efforts to get a climate change law, but said: "This command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions."
Murkowski has tried to cast herself as a moderate Republican who would be prepared to act on climate change. But she has voted against such legislation in the past, and has been criticised this week by environmentalists for her links to the energy industry.
According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, Murkowski, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, has received $244,000 (£151,205) in campaign funds from oil and gas companies since 2005, and consulted two energy industry lobbyists before launching today's proposal.
Even before the upset in Massachusetts, Democrats in the industrial heartland and from oil and coal states were wary - or in some cases flatly opposed - to action on climate change.
Murkowski was joined today by Mary Landrieu, a Democratic Senator from Louisiana who has repeatedly expressed concern for her state's oil refining business; Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Murkowski also claimed support from governors of her home state of Alaska, Mississippi and West Virginia as well as business organisations. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, has also expressed support for Murkowski.
But there has also been a strong push back against Murkowski from environmental organisations and other business groups. A coalition of 80 companies from Virgin America to eBay wrote to Obama today urging action on climate change.
The Alaskan's resolution would overturn the EPA's finding last month that greenhouse gas emissions were a public health threat. The so-called endangerment finding compelled the agency under the Clean Air Act to introduce regulations for the pollutant.
Murkowski's strategy hinges on using the Congressional Review Act, a law used for the first time in the early days of the George Bush era to throw out new ergonomic standards for workplaces passed under Bill Clinton. The measure would require only 51 votes for passage and the Senator is confident of signing up all 40 Republicans as well as some Democrats.
The White House, the EPA, and even the Democratic leadership in Congress have all said they would prefer to have climate change legislation from Congress rather than resorting to the agency's regulatory powers. But the prospect of EPA regulation had been seen as an important nudge to get the Senate to act.
The House of Representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but progress in the Senate has stalled. An effort led by Democrat John Kerry to craft a bill that could pull in Republican support has yet to produce a draft proposal.
The move by Murkowski brought a furious response from Democratic leaders and a coalition of environmental, business and religious organisations. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat said blocking the EPA was a radical move that would expose Americans to public health risks from global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists said it was an assault on science, and California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, wrote a letter asking his fellow Republicans to let the EPA do its work.
[Environment > Marine life]
Thames eel populations crash by 98% in five years, scientists warn
Concerns grow over dramatic drop in numbers of mysterious creatures that migrate across the Atlantic
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 January 2010 17.34 GMT Article history
Eel populations in the river Thames have crashed by 98% in just five years, scientists warned today.
The eel, which has been a traditional east London dish for centuries, now appears to be vanishing from the capital's river, according to researchers from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).
Each year, ZSL's Tidal Thames Conservation Project places eel traps in a number of the river's tributaries, to catch the fish and allow scientists to record numbers before setting them free.
While 1,500 were captured in the traps in 2005, just 50 were recorded last year.
The eels are thought to take up to three years migrating as larvae from the Sargasso Sea to European rivers, where they spend up to 20 years before making the 4,000-mile return journey across the Atlantic to spawn and die.
But conservationists are concerned the species is not returning to the Thames, or is facing problems in the river and its tributaries.
European eels and flounders were the first species to recolonise the Thames estuary after it was considered "biologically dead" in the 1960s, and there are fears the rapid collapse of the eel population could have knock-on effects for other species in the still-fragile ecosystem.
Other rivers in the UK are also seeing declines in eel populations, ZSL said.
Dr Matthew Gollock, tidal Thames conservation project manager, said: "Eels are mysterious creatures at the best of times but we are very concerned about the rapid disappearance in the Thames.
"It is difficult to say what is going on ┄ it could be due to a number of potential factors including changes in oceanic currents due to climate change, man-made structures such as dams and the presence of certain diseases and parasites."
And he said there was a need to find out why the declines were happening, in order to save the eels and help other species in the estuary's food web who would be affected by its disappearance, such as birds which feed on it.
"Time appears to be running out for eels in the river Thames and this could have a domino effect on other species in the Thames," Gollock said.
"The Thames is a very urban, developed estuary. It's much healthier than it was 50 years ago, but there is constant pressure on it.
"It's quite a precarious ecosystem and the fast removal of any species ┄ whether it is a fish or a plant - is going to upset the balance," he said.
[Environment > Carbon emissions]
Alaskan senator seeks to block EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases
Lisa Murkowski pledges to use obscure measure in attempt to strip powers from the Environmental Protection Agency
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 January 2010 22.39 GMT Article history
Barack Obama faced a direct challenge to his government's powers to curb global warming pollution today, just 48 hours after an election upset put the rest of his agenda at risk.
In a speech to Congress, a Republican senator from Alaska announced she would use an obscure and rarely used measure to try to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a dangerous pollutant.
"We cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose back-door climate regulations," Lisa Murkowski told the Senate in prepared remarks. Murkowski's motion of disapproval, though unlikely to become law, is widely seen as a barometer for the chances of getting a climate change bill through the Senate this year.
In an ominous sign for supporters of a climate law, she had the support of three Democratic Senators, further underscoring the unease in Obama's own party in enacting legislation to tackle global warming.
Delivering new laws to tackle global warming was not just a key pledge of Obama's, but is being closely watched around the world as global climate change negotiations struggle to recover from the disappointment of the UN summit in Copenhagen. An environment official in the European Union said: "It's clearly a setback."
Murkowski's move, brought under the Congressional Review Act, would remove the Obama administration's "Plan B" for dealing with climate change, resorting to the EPA to curb greenhouse gas emissions if Congress fails to act.
The motion of disapproval, called the "nuclear option" by environmentalists, would also ban the administration from drafting any new regulation that would be substantially the same. That would make it even more difficult for any US government to regulate power plants and other big emitters.
Environmentalists say the proposal is unlikely to pass, but ensuring its defeat could require a new round of partisan warfare that could be damaging for Democrats and Obama's agenda.
In her speech, Murkowski argued that giving the EPA the authority to act on global warming would cost jobs and hurt the economy: "Under the guise of protecting the environment, it's set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy."
She said she supported efforts to get a climate change law, but said: "This command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions."
Murkowski has tried to cast herself as a moderate Republican who would be prepared to act on climate change. But she has voted against such legislation in the past, and has been criticised this week by environmentalists for her links to the energy industry.
According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, Murkowski, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, has received $244,000 (£151,205) in campaign funds from oil and gas companies since 2005, and consulted two energy industry lobbyists before launching today's proposal.
Even before the upset in Massachusetts, Democrats in the industrial heartland and from oil and coal states were wary - or in some cases flatly opposed - to action on climate change.
Murkowski was joined today by Mary Landrieu, a Democratic Senator from Louisiana who has repeatedly expressed concern for her state's oil refining business; Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Murkowski also claimed support from governors of her home state of Alaska, Mississippi and West Virginia as well as business organisations. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, has also expressed support for Murkowski.
But there has also been a strong push back against Murkowski from environmental organisations and other business groups. A coalition of 80 companies from Virgin America to eBay wrote to Obama today urging action on climate change.
The Alaskan's resolution would overturn the EPA's finding last month that greenhouse gas emissions were a public health threat. The so-called endangerment finding compelled the agency under the Clean Air Act to introduce regulations for the pollutant.
Murkowski's strategy hinges on using the Congressional Review Act, a law used for the first time in the early days of the George Bush era to throw out new ergonomic standards for workplaces passed under Bill Clinton. The measure would require only 51 votes for passage and the Senator is confident of signing up all 40 Republicans as well as some Democrats.
The White House, the EPA, and even the Democratic leadership in Congress have all said they would prefer to have climate change legislation from Congress rather than resorting to the agency's regulatory powers. But the prospect of EPA regulation had been seen as an important nudge to get the Senate to act.
The House of Representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but progress in the Senate has stalled. An effort led by Democrat John Kerry to craft a bill that could pull in Republican support has yet to produce a draft proposal.
The move by Murkowski brought a furious response from Democratic leaders and a coalition of environmental, business and religious organisations. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat said blocking the EPA was a radical move that would expose Americans to public health risks from global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists said it was an assault on science, and California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, wrote a letter asking his fellow Republicans to let the EPA do its work.
[Environment > Marine life]
Thames eel populations crash by 98% in five years, scientists warn
Concerns grow over dramatic drop in numbers of mysterious creatures that migrate across the Atlantic
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 January 2010 17.34 GMT Article history
Eel populations in the river Thames have crashed by 98% in just five years, scientists warned today.
The eel, which has been a traditional east London dish for centuries, now appears to be vanishing from the capital's river, according to researchers from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).
Each year, ZSL's Tidal Thames Conservation Project places eel traps in a number of the river's tributaries, to catch the fish and allow scientists to record numbers before setting them free.
While 1,500 were captured in the traps in 2005, just 50 were recorded last year.
The eels are thought to take up to three years migrating as larvae from the Sargasso Sea to European rivers, where they spend up to 20 years before making the 4,000-mile return journey across the Atlantic to spawn and die.
But conservationists are concerned the species is not returning to the Thames, or is facing problems in the river and its tributaries.
European eels and flounders were the first species to recolonise the Thames estuary after it was considered "biologically dead" in the 1960s, and there are fears the rapid collapse of the eel population could have knock-on effects for other species in the still-fragile ecosystem.
Other rivers in the UK are also seeing declines in eel populations, ZSL said.
Dr Matthew Gollock, tidal Thames conservation project manager, said: "Eels are mysterious creatures at the best of times but we are very concerned about the rapid disappearance in the Thames.
"It is difficult to say what is going on ┄ it could be due to a number of potential factors including changes in oceanic currents due to climate change, man-made structures such as dams and the presence of certain diseases and parasites."
And he said there was a need to find out why the declines were happening, in order to save the eels and help other species in the estuary's food web who would be affected by its disappearance, such as birds which feed on it.
"Time appears to be running out for eels in the river Thames and this could have a domino effect on other species in the Thames," Gollock said.
"The Thames is a very urban, developed estuary. It's much healthier than it was 50 years ago, but there is constant pressure on it.
"It's quite a precarious ecosystem and the fast removal of any species ┄ whether it is a fish or a plant - is going to upset the balance," he said.
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます