An agreement will come…but will it be (soon) enough?

Andy is a friend from Poznan. He is a Fulbright Fellow and was at the UNFCCC conference on behalf of Civic Exchange, a Hong-Kong based NGO, where he is a researcher. He wrote the following article reflecting on the December negotiations. I think is a wonderfully succinct statement of what was(n't) accomplished in Poland, the timbre of current conversations in Washington about climate change, and what it all means for Copenhagen.



By Andy Stevenson

As a long-time follower but first-time observer of the UNFCCC negotiating process, I came to Poznan excited about promoting my organization’s work and meeting thousands of other ‘climate nerds’, but also aware that a number of factors would likely slow to a crawl ‘measurable, reportable, and verifiable’ progress on a future agreement.

During my first few days in Poznan the more pessimistic side of my brain was clearly winning. As expected, there was a lot of discussion about the global financial crisis.

‘If the US Congress (and other western countries) can mobilize 700 billion dollars overnight to bailout the banking industry, why does it take them two years to pass climate legislation, and why does the Adaptation Fund have only 100 million dollars?!’ was the exasperated cry from many Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and other Least Developed Countries (LDCs). It was hard not to agree with them, but equally difficult to find signs that their message was being heard.

Although work plans were agreed upon and assembly documents of proposals were put forward, it is hard to find optimism in the progress on the Bali building blocks. There were still substantial gaps between developed and developing countries in all four areas, including interim targets, the framework for technology transfer and financing, and the nature of MRV commitments from developing countries. It seemed hard to believe that some developing countries were asking that they only be required to measurably, reportably, and verifiably spend all the money they are given. Thankfully more reasonable proposals such as a registry of national mitigation actions seemed to gain consensus.

Another expected stumbling block was the ‘lame-duck’ role of the US negotiators. Many observers had correctly recognized, however, that the change in administration on January 20^th is far less important than gauging the mood in the US Senate (and House). Several congressmen and staffers were in attendance and presented at side events on the status of legislation. It should be a promising sign that these were among the most well attended events in Poznan, but many observers walked away disappointed that very, very few specific details were given about what to expect over the coming year.

The staffers worked hard to temper sky-high expectations under the Obama administration, arguing that an agreement in Copenhagen could be reached even without a comprehensive climate bill passing before December, which seems unlikely. The tricky point here is that action in Congress will be proceeding along two interconnected fronts: a domestic cap-and-trade and renewable energy plan, and the ratification of the international treaty that binds the US to its commitments in Copenhagen.

The former will be relatively easy to come by, as it will be framed in terms of reducing dependence on foreign oil and include a number of goodies such as tax breaks and subsidies for burgeoning green industries. In addition, most of the key committees in congress for climate legislation will be taken over by ‘climate hands’ in the new administration. On the other side, staffers in Poznan pointed out that the treaty ratification will require convincing 67 of 100 Senators across party lines (it’s often extremely difficult to secure the 60 required for most legislation) that China and India are doing their fair share as well. The failure of Bill Clinton to secure this support before signing Kyoto was cited as a mistake that cannot be repeated.

This led me to ask the (seemingly very important) question ‘What specific type of commitments are most Senators looking for from developing countries?’ Although Chatham House rules prevent me from publishing their responses, they reminded me of the cryptic line from the US film ‘Field of Dreams’: ‘if you build it [China and India], they will come [the US]‘. While this may work in Hollywood, it will be a hard sell in Copenhagen. The message that I took away is that instead of a bold resolution from China or the US cementing the deal, it will be a tense back-and-forth, give-and-take negotiating process that will likely have the world on its toes right up to December 18^th next year.

My final note of pessimism came from the lack of connection between rhetoric and reality in the area of science. Although it was being repeated often in the corridors (including an inspiring event and publication by the Tallberg Foundation) the message that science has become even more serious than the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was not getting reflected in the text, aside from some promising discussion of new insurance and risk management mechanisms. I was disappointed by the lack of connection with or even mention of science (aside from dismissing its impracticality for governments) in several high-level reports. Although there are no easy answers, giving the ‘Voice of the Planet’ a stronger place at the negotiating table will be imperative going forward.

Despite these challenges, I couldn’t help but leave Poznan with a vague sense of optimism that is hard to pinpoint or define. Perhaps it was the frequent battle cry of ‘We must view the financial crisis as an opportunity, a chance to think even bigger, and not a setback!’ that finally seemed to be gaining some traction among several countries (including my own). In addition there was the ever-present, highly energized, and inspiring youth delegations. In Poznan I moved somewhat awkwardly between the more activist youth organizations (where I fit in terms of age) and the academic circles (where I fit in terms of experience). With the rapidly growing and highly credible international youth movement on climate and sustainability issues, the only question seems to be, will they (we) grow up and take power soon enough to solve this crisis?

Finally, having lived in China for the past 15 months, I (as well as many other delegates) couldn’t help but feel a sea change in the attitude of the Chinese government and negotiators, although it was not fully reflected in their official statements or positions. Through their presence at certain events and the seemingly increased freedom for Chinese academics to present innovative proposals, they seemed to be preparing to take on a stronger role in negotiations and actions (as they are with many international issues). The challenges will be to communicate with the rest of the world the significant steps China is already taking, and, through the international agreement, support their committed goals for energy efficiency and sustainable development.

Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation

By SHAILA DEWAN

Published: January 6, 2009

The coal ash pond that ruptured and sent a billion gallons of toxic sludge across 300 acres of East Tennessee last month was only one of more than 1,300 similar dumps across the United States — most of them unregulated and unmonitored — that contain billions more gallons of fly ash and other byproducts of burning coal.

Like the one in Tennessee, most of these dumps, which reach up to 1,500 acres, contain heavy metals like arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium, which are considered by the Environmental Projection Agency to be a threat to water supplies and human health. Yet they are not subject to any federal regulation, which experts say could have prevented the spill, and there is little monitoring of their effects on the surrounding environment.

In fact, coal ash is used throughout the country for construction fill, mine reclamation and other “beneficial uses.” In 2007, according to a coal industry estimate, 50 tons of fly ash even went to agricultural uses, like improving soil’s ability to hold water, despite a 1999 E.P.A. warning about high levels of arsenic. The industry has promoted the reuse of coal combustion products because of the growing amount of them being produced each year — 131 million tons in 2007, up from less than 90 million tons in 1990.

The amount of coal ash has ballooned in part because of increased demand for electricity, but more because air pollution controls have improved. Contaminants and waste products that once spewed through the coal plants’ smokestacks are increasingly captured in the form of solid waste, held in huge piles in 46 states, near cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Tampa, Fla., and on the shores of Lake Erie, Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River.

Numerous studies have shown that the ash can leach toxic substances that can cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems in humans, and can decimate fish, bird and frog populations in and around ash dumps, causing developmental problems like tadpoles born without teeth, or fish with severe spinal deformities.

“Your household garbage is managed much more consistently” than coal combustion waste, said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who testified on the health effects of coal ash before a Congressional subcommittee last year. “It’s such a large volume of waste, and it’s so essential to the country’s energy supply; it’s basically been a loophole in the country’s waste management strategy.”

As the E.P.A. has studied whether to regulate coal ash waste, the cases of drinking wells and surface water contaminated by leaching from the dumps or the use of the ash has swelled. In 2007, an E.P.A. report identified 63 sites in 26 states where the water was contaminated by heavy metals from such dumps, including three other Tennessee Valley Authority dumps. Environmental advocacy groups have submitted at least 17 additional cases that they say should be added to that list.

Just last week, a judge approved a $54 million class-action settlement against Constellation Power Generation after it had dumped coal ash for more than a decade in a sand and gravel pit near Gambrills, Md., about 20 miles south of Baltimore, contaminating wells. And Town of Pines, Ind., a hamlet about 40 miles east of Chicago, was declared a Superfund site after wells there were found to be contaminated by ash dumped in a landfill and used to make roads starting in 1983.

Contamination can be swift. In Chesapeake, Va., high levels of lead, arsenic and other contaminants were found last year in the groundwater beneath a golf course sculptured with 1.5 million tons of fly ash, the same type of coal ash involved in the Tennessee spill. The golf course opened in 2007.

State requirements for the handling of coal ash vary widely. Some states, like Alabama, do not regulate it at all, except by means of federally required water discharge permits. In Texas, the vast majority of coal ash is not considered a solid waste, according to a review of state regulations by environmental groups. There are no groundwater monitoring or engineering requirements for utilities that dump the ash on site, as most utilities do, the analysis says.

The lack of uniform regulation stems from the E.P.A.’s inaction on the issue, which it has been studying for 28 years. In 2000, the agency came close to designating coal ash a hazardous waste, but backpedaled in the face of an industry campaign that argued that tighter controls would cost it $5 billion a year. (In 2007, the Department of Energy estimated that it would cost $11 billion a year.) At the time, the E.P.A. said it would issue national regulations governing the disposal of coal ash as a nonhazardous waste, but it has not done so.

“We’re still working on coming up with those standards,” said Matthew Hale, director of the office of solid waste at the E.P.A. “We don’t have a schedule at this point.”

Last year, the agency invited public comment on new data on coal combustion wastes, including a finding that the concentrations of arsenic to which people might be exposed through drinking water contaminated by fly ash could increase cancer risks several hundredfold.

If such regulations were issued, the agency could require that utilities dispose of dry ash in lined landfills, considered the most environmentally sound method of disposal, but also the most expensive. A 2006 federal report found that at least 45 percent of relatively new disposal sites did not use composite liners, the only kind that the E.P.A. says diminishes the leaching of cancer-causing metals to acceptable risk levels. The vast majority of older disposal sites are unlined.

Most coal ash is stored wet in ponds, like the one in Tennessee, almost always located on waterways because they need to take in and release water. But scientists say that the key to the safe disposal of coal ash is to keep it away from water, by putting dry ash into landfills with caps, linings and collection systems for contaminated water.

Environmentalists, scientists and other experts say that regulations could have prevented the Tennessee spill. Andrew Wittner, an economist who was working in the E.P.A.’s office of solid waste in 2000 when the issue of whether to designate coal ash as hazardous was being debated, said the agency came close to prohibiting ash ponds like the one at Kingston. “We were going to suggest that these materials not be wet-handled, and that existing surface impoundments should be drained,” Mr. Wittner said.

If storing coal ash were more expensive, environmental advocates say, utilities might be pushed to find more ways to recycle it safely. Experts say that some “beneficial uses” of coal ash can be just that, like substituting ash for cement in concrete, which binds the heavy metals and prevents them from leaching, or as a base for roads, where the ash is covered by an impermeable material. But using the ash as backfill or to level abandoned mines requires intensive study and monitoring, which environmentalists say is rarely done right.

The industry takes the position that states can regulate the disposal of coal ash on their own, and it has come up with a voluntary plan to close some gaps, like in the monitoring of older disposal sites.

“There probably isn’t a need for a comprehensive regulatory approach to coal ash in light of what the states have and our action plan,” said Jim Roewer, the executive director of the Utility Solid Wastes Activity Group.

Mr. Roewer said there was a trend toward dry ash disposal in lined landfills, though that trend was not identified in the 2006 federal report on disposal methods.

Environmentalists are skeptical of the industry’s voluntary self-policing plan and the states’ ability to tighten controls.

“The states have proven that they can’t regulate this waste adequately, and that’s seen in the damage that is occurring all over the United States,” said Lisa Evans, a former E.P.A. lawyer who now works on hazardous-waste issues for the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice. “If the states could regulate the industry appropriately, they would have done so by now.”

Utility companies are often aware of problems with their disposal system, Ms. Evans said, but they put off improvements because of the cost.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which owns the Kingston Fossil Plant, where the Tennessee spill occurred, tried for decades to fix leaks at its ash pond. In 2003, it considered switching to dry disposal, but balked at the estimated cost of $25 million, according to a report in The Knoxville News Sentinel. That is less than the cost of cleaning up an ash spill in Pennsylvania in 2005 that was a 10th of the size of the one in Tennessee.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 7, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.