Climate Law Update: Climate Change & Sustainable Energy News : Thelen Reid Law Firm : Renewable Energy, Construction, Project Finance Lawyers & Attorneys

Theoretically, an eventual placement of the animals on the list could lead to restrictions on a number of the local activities, as well as adding the agency as a regulatory player in combating climate change. The endangered species law contains provisions mandating that “federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this act.”

Under the law, regulators throughout government are supposed to consider potential impacts on endangered species when carrrying out their duties. That means, for one, consulting with colleagues in the wildlife regulatory agencies. It's a wide net that environmentalists believe should be used to cover government activities such as issuing permits for power plants or new highway construction.

Cummings said the seals face a "double-barreled threat" both from local development, such as oil and gas projects, and from greenhouse gas-related global warming. He noted that new threats to the animals might also develop as the ice disappears, allowing for shipping lanes to open and for additional fisheries to develop.

"It's being viewed as the new gold rush," he said. A listing of the seals would give the creatures some additional protections if the new developments occur.

But he said there would also have to be efforts to curtail emissions of greenhouse contributors such as carbon and methane.

"If we don’t stop global warming, there’s not much we can do for these species,” said Cummings, whose office is in Joshua Tree, California. He noted, for instance, that unlike some other marine mammals such as the walrus that can use dry land as a habitat of last resort, the ribbon seal is never seen on land.

In addition, he said other issues need to be examined “pro-actively,” including the impacts of an ocean fishery that may be shifting geographically northward along with warming waters.

A listing by the fisheries service would also engage an agency, which is housed in the U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that the environmental group feels has been historically more responsive to endangered species considerations than its sister bureaucracies. That latter category includes the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service, with which the organization has repeatedly tangled.

Part of the goal, Cummings said, is to “get [the fisheries service] involved in species management in a changing climate.”

Doug Mecum, acting administrator for the fisheries service’s Alaska region, was reluctant to predict what would result if the seals were to be listed.

“We’re kind of a long ways away from determining what, if anything, might be done,” he told Climate Law Update. He acknowledged, however, that “it’s kind of mind-boggling given the potential scope” of actions that theoretically could be implicated.

At the same time, Mecum suggested his agency’s specific authority had limits.

“I think that first and foremost you look at things under your immediate control,” he said. For example, the agency has since the early 1990s listed some part of the Stellar sea lion population as threatened and others endangered, and officials have identified threats to animals as  diverse as killer whales because of climate change and issues related to the commercial fishing industry. He said the agency has little it can do about the first two and so it has concentrated on regulation related to the fisheries (see recovery plan here).

When it comes to the seals, he said, one thing to look at would be finding ways to mitigate the impact of oil and gas development in their habitat.

On the larger issue of how multiple government agencies would deal with species found to be threatened by climate change, Mecum said he “wouldn’t hazard a guess” about what the future holds.

“This is pretty much new ground we’re breaking here,” he said.      

Clearly, organizations such as Cummings’ intend to press the issue. The Center for Biological Diversity has targeted global warming’s alleged effects on a number of cold-climate animals, including the polar bear and the Pacific walrus, in addition to the seals. It recently joined with other environmental groups to sue the fish and wildlife service (see Climate Law Update story) to prod some action out of the agency on listing the bears. The group has also sent the agency a formal request (see press release and petition) to protect the walrus under the endangered species law.  Regarding more temperate regions of the world, the group successfully pushed the fisheries service into listing two species of Florida and Caribbean coral as threatened because of global warming, and designating "critical habitat" for the invertebrates (see press release).

But traditional wildlife agencies aren’t the only ones facing the group’s legal assault. Attorneys for the organization recently enlarged a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy regarding that agency’s designation of new power transmission line corridors. The lawsuit claimed officials allegedly failed to consider the impacts on endangered species, specifically by not going through the inter-agency consultation process (see lawsuit and Climate Law Update story). In addition, the environmental group in 2007 won a federal appeals court ruling against the U.S. Department of Transportation that just last week produced action to begin considering global warming when setting fuel economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles (see Climate Law Update story).

(Photo of ribbon seal courtesy of NOAA) 

Brendan Cummings, a California attorney for the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, which successfully sued the highway agency over the mileage standards, expressed some cautious support for the new development. But, he told Climate Law Update, “it shouldn’t have taken a lawsuit for the federal government to realize fuel economy standards are one of the best ways we can address global warming.” He said a “true analysis of the societal and environmental costs” of carbon emissions would lead to “much higher fuel economy standards.”

Noting that the Federal Register notice avoids any mention of greenhouse gases or global warming, Cummings said the agency still appeared to be “in denial or delusional or intentionally hiding the ball, or all three.”

Eric Bolton, a transportation department spokesman, referred questions about the Federal Register statement to the document itself.

“Everything is supposed to be in there,” he said.

The California air agency’s vote reduced to 7,500 cars the number of non-polluting vehicles that major automakers are supposed to sell in the state from 2012 to 2014. The previous requirement had been 25,000 but officials realized that development of qualifying vehicles appeared to be lagging. The board also established a requirement that could result in 58,000 new plug-in hybrids over that same period. However, if manufacturers produce 25,000 no-emission vehicles, there are no remaining plug-in hybrid requirements. 
 

In addition, the agency will move forward with plans to meld together its programs designed to cut smog-forming pollution, which was the original intent of the emissions standards, with those meant to curb greenhouse gases. Those latter standards have run into an obstacle at the federal level, where the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to grant the state a needed waiver to proceed (see previous Climate Law Update story). State officials have sued to overturn the decision.

“That’s to simplify the program and make it easier to understand,” said air board spokeswoman Gennet Paauwe. “What the board felt, it was time to overhaul the program.”

She said while the state awaits a resolution of the waiver issue it has to move forward with developing the regulations.

Nichols, in the air board’s statement issued Thursday, said the decision would lead to more green choices for consumers while continuing to pressure automotive engineers to make improvements.

“We must continue to push for all types of technologies – fuel cells, electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered cars – as we fight our duel battles against smog and global warming,” she said.

(Photo: California State University-Pomona)

Environmentalists were more split on the EPA study, however, with Environmental Defense saying it showed the economy could grow substantially while controlling emissions, and the Natural Resources Defense Council accusing the agency of hiding the key conclusions that demonstrated emissions reductions are affordable. 

Under the Lieberman-Warner bill, known as the Climate Security Act, greenhouse emissions from major economic sectors, including electric power, transportation, manufacturing and natural gas would be capped and gradually reduced. It also would establish a trading program for emissions credits. Backers of the legislation have estimated it would reduce emissions by as much as 66 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. The full Senate is expected to take up the bill, which some environmental groups want to strengthen, in June.

The EPA report also did not discuss the economic benefits of reducing emissions. But the other newly released government analysis suggested those could be substantial. The study prepared by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the U.S. Department of Transportation and made public earlier in the week (see press release here) predicted global warming could pose huge threats to the Gulf Coast region. Those included increased intensity of hurricanes, sea level increases of up to seven feet, endangering roads and other infrastructure and the inundation of a “vast portion” of the coast from Houston, Texas, to Mobile, Alabama. One group said the government appeared to be trying to release the report in a way to minimize public notice. The report noted that about two-thirds of the nation's oil imports pass through the region, and that it is home to the largest concentration of freight-handling ports in the country. It painted the threat to the region's transportation network in stark terms:

"Warming temperatures are likely to increase the costs of transportation construction, maintenance, and operations. More frequent extreme precipitation events may disrupt transportation networks with flooding and visibility problems. Relative sea level rise will make much of the existing infrastructure more prone to frequent or permanent inundation – 27 percent of the major roads, 9 percent of the rail lines, and 72 percent of the ports are built on land at or below 122 cm (4 feet) in elevation. Increased storm intensity may lead to increased service disruption and infrastructure damage: More than half of the area’s major highways (64 percent of Interstates; 57 percent of arterials), almost half of the rail miles, 29 airports, and virtually all of the ports are below 7 m (23 feet) in elevation and subject to flooding and possible damage due to hurricane storm surge."

The EPA's analysis of the climate change bill, which also did not factor in last year’s energy conservation legislation that, among other things, required better gas mileage in cars, some  impacts were potentially more significant than the business groups’ figures showed. The EPA compared a variety of scenarios to a baseline that assumed compliance with existing domestic and international policies but no new ones after 2007.

 According to the EPA, by 2030, the Liberman-Warner bill could reduce the nation’s GDP by as little as less than 1 percent to as much as nearly 4 percent, or $983 billion, compared to what it would be otherwise. The business groups’ report showed a maximum impact of about 2.7 percent by 2030.

On the other hand, the EPA report also predicted there might be no flight of emissions to other countries, known as “leakage,” as energy prices rise. It also predicts that the use of fossil fuels might peak as soon as 2010, followed by a slow decline to 2050. It also shows renewable sources, such as wind and solar, playing a “significant role” if the bill were enacted. Among other highlights of the report, which were also outlined in a letter to Lieberman from Robert J. Meyers, the EPA’s principal deputy assistant administrator, the bill could reduce emissions by up to 56 percent by 2050, a slightly lower estimate than that put forward by the legislation’s sponsors, and it cites the electricity sector as providing the greatest source of emissions reductions. The report also suggested that technology to capture and store carbon could deploy by as early as 2020.

Meyers' letter also promised that the EPA would issue a revised analysis in May or June, showing the effect of the new energy law. 

In a joint statement responding to the EPA’s analysis, the senators focused on findings under certain scenarios studied by the EPA that they said showed the economy would grow almost as fast with the legislation in place as without it, that greenhouse emissions would not be shifted abroad, and that that other benefits would occur, such as driving natural gas out of the electricity sector, to the benefit of manufacturers who use gas.  

“EPA’s detailed analysis indicates that the U.S. can curb global warming without sacrificing economic prosperity,” Lieberman said in the statement. “We will examine the results closely for improvements that they might suggest for the bill.”

Warner said the results also indicated that greenhouse gases could be controlled “in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers.”

(Wikipedia Photo: Hurricane Katrina damage to New Orleans)