ALEC Environmental Justice

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/6/2019 ALEC Environmental Justice

    1/7

    Model State Resolution - Environmental JusticeWHEREAS, (INSERT STATE) believes all citizenshave a right to equal protection under law withoutregard to racial or economic makeup, and therefore,federal and state laws must always be applied andenforced equally; andWHEREAS, (INSERT STATE) frilly supports theimplementation of environmental programs to protectthe health of all citizens and the environment in amanner that fully complies with T itle VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964; andWHEREAS, citizens, and local governments should beinformed of, risks to human health and the environmentfrom any permitted facilities in their communities; andWHEREAS, state agencies and the private sector havea responsibility to enter into a dialogne with citizensand local government regarding the permitting of allfacilities; andWJrIElREAS, inadequate protections for citizens wouldbe a breach of the public trust, the construction andengineering standards requisite to the environmentalpermitting process must reflect protections necessaryfor the heath and safety of citizens; andWHEFCEAS, the President adopted Executive Order12898 affirming this nations commitment toenvironmental justice in every community across thenation; andWJIEREAS, the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (U.S. EPA) has proposed interimguidance intended to provide a framework toinvestigate Title VI administrative complaintschallenging permit applications on environmentaljustice grounds; andWHEREAS, the Interim Guidance imposes additionaland complex procedures on the permitting processwithout providing clear standards for those seeking orgranting permits, or clear expectations forenvironmental improvements which may be sought bythe community; and

  • 8/6/2019 ALEC Environmental Justice

    2/7

    WHEREAS, the U.S. EPAs interim guidance can beapplied to industries who are in compliance withxisting laws, statutes and regulations and suchcompliance will not ordinarily be considered asubstantial, legitimate justification for issuance of apermit when a Title VI complaint has been Sled, andWHEREAS, the Interim Guidance contains manyundefined terms that invite and encourage unfoundedclaims for mitigation and could result in delays forotherwise properly approved and needed developmentprojects; andWHEREAS, the Interim Guidance Document wouldconflict with state and local land use policies, and theAdministrations stated policies, including, but notlimited to: brownfields cleanup and redevelopment,urban and rural revitalization efforts, and job creationin low income areas; andWHEREAS, environmental, land use and developmentpermits are the proper domain of state and localgovernment; this guidance would create another levelof review and shift permit decision-making to thefederal government, and would work against efforts toachieve environmental protection and promotedevelopment; and.THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that (INSERTSTATE) reaffirms its commitment to the fair andequitable application of environmental laws to allcitizens; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, (INSERT STATE!)urges the U.S. EPA to withdraw the Interim Guidanceand replace it with a guidance document that is craftedin conjunction with state and local governments andstakeholders through a formal public process; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any federalguidance concerning existing laws and regulationsshould embrace the following principles:Should not increase the complexity of renewing orobtaining permits,Should provide adequate and definite time frames andappropriate thresholds for accepting administrativecomplaints and avoid creating unnecessary delays in

  • 8/6/2019 ALEC Environmental Justice

    3/7

    the environmental permitting process;Should provide a clear process early in theenvironmental permitting procedure to encourage andallow for public participation and dialogue and for stateand local governments to factor environmental justicequestions and concerns into environmental decisionmaking and ensure that Title VI concerns are addressedin a timely manner at the state and local level, andShould resolve conflicts with other laws, programs, andpolicies, including but not limited to: local zoninglaws, brownfields cleanup and redevelopmentprograms, urban and rural revitalization efforts,greenfield preservation efforts, development activities,and pristine area designations under the Clean Air Actand other environmental statutes.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of thisresolution will be distributed to the President, theAdministrator of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, all Governors and members of the U.S. Senateand the U.S. House of Representatives.Approved by ALEC BoardJanumy 1, 1999

    Copyright 0 19Y8. 1999, 2000 A.L.E.C.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.All trademarks mentioned herein belong to their respective ownem

  • 8/6/2019 ALEC Environmental Justice

    4/7

    State Responses to Kyoto Climate Change ProtocolA BillIN THE [HOUSE/SENATE] OF [STATE]Au Act prohibiting the proposal or promulgation ofstate regulations intended to reduce emissions ofgreenhouse gases, prior to ratitication ofthe Kyotoclimate change protocol by the United States Senateand enactment of implementing legislation by theUnited States Congress.An Act Concerning the Kyoto Climate ChangeProtocolShort Title: This act may be referred to as the KyotoProtocol Act of 1998.Section 1. Findings and PurposesThe [House/Senate] of [State] hereby finds that:(a) The United States is a signatory to the 1992 UnitedNations Framework Convention on Global ClimateChange (FCCC);(b) A protocol to expand the scope of the FCCC wasnegotiated in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan (KyotoProtocol), requiring the United States to reduceemissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxideand methane by seven percent from 1990 emissionlevels during the period 2008 to 2012, with similarreduction obligations for other major industrialnations;(c) Developing nations, including China, India,Mexico, Indonesia, and Brazil, are exempt fromgreenhouse gas emission limitation requirements in theFCCC;(d) Developing nations refused in the Kyotonegotiations to accept any new commitments forgreenhouse gas emission limitations through the KyotoProtocol or other agreements;(e) With respect to new commitments under the FCCC,President William Clinton pledged on October 22,

  • 8/6/2019 ALEC Environmental Justice

    5/7

    1997, that The United States will not assume bindingobligations unless key developing nations meaningfullyparticipate in this effort;(f) On July 25, 1997, the United States SenateResolution No. 98 by a vote of 95-0, expressing theSense of the Senate that, inter alia, the United Statesshould not be a signatory to any protocol to or otheragreement regarding, the Framework Convention onClimate Change...which would require the advice andconsent of the Senate to ratification, and which wouldmandate new commitments to mitigate greenhouse gasemissions for the Developed Country Parties, unlessthe protocol or other agreement also mandates specificscheduled commitments within the same complianceperiod to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions forDeveloping country Parties;(g) The Kyoto Protocol fails to meet the testsestablished for acceptance of new climate changecommitments by President Clinton and by U.S. SenateResolution No 98;(h) Achieving the emission reductions proposed by theKyoto Protocol would require more than a 35 percentreduction in projected United States carbon dioxideand other greenhouse gas emissions during the period2008 to 2012;(i) Developing countries exempt from emissionlimitations under the Kyoto Protocol are expected toincrease their rates of fossil fuels use over the next twodecades, and to surpass the United States and otherindustrialized countries in total emissions ofgreenhouse gases;(j) Increased emissions of greenhouse gases bydeveloping countries would offset any potentialenvironmental benefits associated with emissionsreductions achieved by the United States and by otherindustrial nations;(k) Economic impact studies by the U.S. Governmentestimate that legally binding requirements for thereduction of U.S. greenhouse gases to 1990 emissionlevels would result in the loss of more than 900,000jobs in the United States, sharply increased energyprices, reduced family incomes and wages, and severelosses of output in energy -intensive industries such asaluminum, steel, rubber, chemicals, and utilities;(1) The failure to provide for commitments by

  • 8/6/2019 ALEC Environmental Justice

    6/7

    developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol creates anunfair competitive imbalance between industrial anddeveloping nations, potentially leading to the transferofjobs and industrial development from the UnitedStates to developing countries;(m) Federal implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, ifratified by the United States Senate, would entail newCongressional legislation whose form and requirementscannot be predicted at this time, but could includenational energy taxes or emission control allocation andtrading schemes that would preempt state-specialprograms intended to reduce emissions of greenhousegases;(n) Piecemeal or other uncoordinated state regulatoryinitiatives intended to reduce emissions of greenhousegases may be inconsistent with subsequentCongressional determinations concerning the KyotoProtocol, and with related Federal legislationimplementing the Kyoto Protocol;(0) individual state responses to the Kyoto Protocol,including the development of new regulatory programsintended to reduce greenhouse emissions, arepremature prior to Senate ratification of that Protocol,m ns current or amended form, and Congressionalenactment of related implementing legislation;(p) There is neither Federal nor [State] statutoryauthority for new regulatory programs or other effortsintended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions forpurposes of complying with or facilitating compliancewith the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.Section 2. Restrictions on State Regulations Relatedto Greenhouse Gas Emissions(a) Effective immediately, the[Secretary/Administrator/Director] of the [State][Department/ Agency of Environmental Protection orany appropriate agency] shall not propose orpromulgate any new regulations intended in whole orin part to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, assuch gases and emissions are defined by the KyotoProtocol, from the residential, commercial, industrial,electric utility, transportation, agriculture, energy, ormining sectors;(b) In the absence of a resolution or other act of the[House/Senate of 1 approving same, the

  • 8/6/2019 ALEC Environmental Justice

    7/7

    [Secretary/Adminisator/I)irector] of the [State],[Department/Agency of Environmental Protection orother appropriate agency] shall not submit to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency or to any otheragency of the Federal Government any legallyenforceable commitments related to the reduction ofgreenhouse gases, as such gases are defined by theKyoto Protocol;(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit orto impede state or private participation in any on-goingvoluntary initiatives to reduce emissions of greenhousegases, including, but not limited to, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agencys Green Lightsprogram, the U.S. Department of Energys ClimateChallenge program, and similar State and Federalinitiatives relying on voluntary participation;(d) This Act shall remain in effect until repealed by anAct of the Legislature of the [State/Commonwealth] of[State], or until ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by theUnited States Senate and enactment of Federallegislation implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

    Copyright Q 1998, 1999, 2000A.L.E.C.ALL RIGHTSRESERVED.AN trademarks mentioned herein belong to their respective owners.