President Trump's proposed EPA budget would slash the agency's budget more than 31%. As parents, we cannot stand to see an agency that keeps our children and families safe go under attack. MCAF. C3. Regional.

President Trump's proposed EPA budget would slash the agency's budget more than 31%. As parents, we cannot stand to see an agency that keeps our children and families safe go under attack. MCAF. C3. Regional.

Written by Dominique Browning

When an editor at the New York Times Book Review contacted me to review a Young Adult novel, I thought she might have confused me with someone else. But of course, I never say no. And then I read one of the most beguiling novels I’ve had the joy of picking up this year, Wishtree, by Katherine Applegate. The book is narrated by a tree—hence, the connection with me; because of the garden and great outdoors books I review for the Times, I’m kind of a resident tree-hugger.

When I finished Wishtree, which I read through in one go, I had my own wish: that all across this country, libraries and schools and nursing homes and television stations and government offices would sponsor Read-Ins with the novel.

This wish is even more vivid today, because of what feels to me like a cruel, sour decision to throw the lives of 800,000 young people, brought to this country in the arms of their parents, into disarray.

What does any of this have to do with protecting our children’s health from climate change and air pollution? Lots. Leaving aside the brilliant work of each and every tree we plant in sucking up carbon and returning it to us in more usable form—the extreme weather that is hitting our cities and towns with more frequency and power disproportionately threatens this vulnerable community, intertwining with the roots of our mission.

Note how many families along the Texas coast had no flood insurance, no home insurance. When you get right down to it, families torn apart, threats to children’s health and well being—whether by the heavy weather or hurricanes, or politics—is what we are all about.

Here’s the link to my review. I hope you enjoy Wishtree.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

These EPA programs are key to hurricane relief efforts. Now Congress wants to cut them?

Editor’s note: This post was updated Sept. 22, 2017

There is a jarring disconnect in Washington as the Trump administration continues to push for cuts that will hamper the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s disaster response work – just as millions of Americans struggle to recover from hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

That’s right: Congress is getting ready to vote on bills that would directly affect the EPA’s ability to address urgent health and environmental impacts from major storms.

In the coming weeks, lawmakers  will be voting on EPA’s annual budget for the new fiscal year. The final budget deal will likely be done behind closed doors, and that’s where President Trump and his allies on Capitol Hill are planning to try to eviscerate the agency’s budget.

Tell Congress to reject these EPA cuts

When disasters strike, states desperately need sufficiently staffed and effective federal agencies by their side to deal with petrochemical spills, leaking sewage, flooded Superfund sites, asbestos-containing building debris and a slew of other health threats.

But many EPA programs that help communities deal with such challenges are now on the chopping block. Here are a few:

EPA Homeland Security services: 40% cut

These programs assess public health risks posed by major infrastructure and industrial facilities damaged by wind, flooding or other emergencies. The EPA coordinates closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and state authorities to work fast and efficiently in these situations.

EPA Superfund and Brownfield programs: 30% cut

Old and often-toxic industrial sites can leak hazardous contamination into nearby neighborhoods when flooded. These programs monitor and address such threats and help with long-term cleanup.

They also take stock of chemicals and the risks they present, put measures in place to protect people from exposure, and hold polluters accountable when chemicals are released.

EPA air quality monitoring: 30% cut

This work helps communities know when disaster and fires have released hazardous chemicals into the air, which was a concern with the Arkema plant near Houston.

In addition, it provides major financial support to help communities nationwide monitor air quality year-round and warn citizens about Code Red unhealthy air days and other dangers that trigger asthma attacks and other lung problems.

EPA Public Water System Supervision: 30% cut

This program allows the EPA to play a major role organizing water quality safety and mounting responses to disasters, including raw sewage spills and other waterborne hazards that are common after storms.

In Houston, for example, health experts are now warning of E. coli and other bacteria in water-logged neighborhoods, problems that can have profound health effects unless properly monitored.

Of course, these are just a handful of the many programs slated for reduction or elimination under President Trump’s proposed budget for the new fiscal year.

In all, the president is requesting a massive 30-percent cut to the EPA, a budget reduction greater than any other department or agency is facing. It would return the EPA’s real budget to where it was 40-plus years ago. In addition to hampering our ability to help communities devastated by storms, such a cut would have a dramatic impact on public health and the environment everywhere.

Is this what America needs right now?

EDF Action: Tell Congress to reject these EPA cuts krives September 7, 2017 - 06:23

See comments

I along with almost everyone else want to end or at least control pollution. It is also a fact EPA needs to be reformed. Much of what EPA is doing was never authorized by law and is simply overreach. Much of what EPA is trying to do is an unnecessary duplication of what other agencies have been doing. EPA needs to be responsible.

Charles Pollman September 8, 2017 at 4:36 pm

These EPA programs are key to hurricane relief efforts. Now Congress wants to cut them?

Editor’s note: This post was updated Sept. 22, 2017

There is a jarring disconnect in Washington as the Trump administration continues to push for cuts that will hamper the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s disaster response work – just as millions of Americans struggle to recover from hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

That’s right: Congress is getting ready to vote on bills that would directly affect the EPA’s ability to address urgent health and environmental impacts from major storms.

In the coming weeks, lawmakers  will be voting on EPA’s annual budget for the new fiscal year. The final budget deal will likely be done behind closed doors, and that’s where President Trump and his allies on Capitol Hill are planning to try to eviscerate the agency’s budget.

Tell Congress to reject these EPA cuts

When disasters strike, states desperately need sufficiently staffed and effective federal agencies by their side to deal with petrochemical spills, leaking sewage, flooded Superfund sites, asbestos-containing building debris and a slew of other health threats.

But many EPA programs that help communities deal with such challenges are now on the chopping block. Here are a few:

EPA Homeland Security services: 40% cut

These programs assess public health risks posed by major infrastructure and industrial facilities damaged by wind, flooding or other emergencies. The EPA coordinates closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and state authorities to work fast and efficiently in these situations.

EPA Superfund and Brownfield programs: 30% cut

Old and often-toxic industrial sites can leak hazardous contamination into nearby neighborhoods when flooded. These programs monitor and address such threats and help with long-term cleanup.

They also take stock of chemicals and the risks they present, put measures in place to protect people from exposure, and hold polluters accountable when chemicals are released.

EPA air quality monitoring: 30% cut

This work helps communities know when disaster and fires have released hazardous chemicals into the air, which was a concern with the Arkema plant near Houston.

In addition, it provides major financial support to help communities nationwide monitor air quality year-round and warn citizens about Code Red unhealthy air days and other dangers that trigger asthma attacks and other lung problems.

EPA Public Water System Supervision: 30% cut

This program allows the EPA to play a major role organizing water quality safety and mounting responses to disasters, including raw sewage spills and other waterborne hazards that are common after storms.

In Houston, for example, health experts are now warning of E. coli and other bacteria in water-logged neighborhoods, problems that can have profound health effects unless properly monitored.

Of course, these are just a handful of the many programs slated for reduction or elimination under President Trump’s proposed budget for the new fiscal year.

In all, the president is requesting a massive 30-percent cut to the EPA, a budget reduction greater than any other department or agency is facing. It would return the EPA’s real budget to where it was 40-plus years ago. In addition to hampering our ability to help communities devastated by storms, such a cut would have a dramatic impact on public health and the environment everywhere.

Is this what America needs right now?

EDF Action: Tell Congress to reject these EPA cuts krives September 7, 2017 - 06:23

See comments

I along with almost everyone else want to end or at least control pollution. It is also a fact EPA needs to be reformed. Much of what EPA is doing was never authorized by law and is simply overreach. Much of what EPA is trying to do is an unnecessary duplication of what other agencies have been doing. EPA needs to be responsible.

Charles Pollman September 8, 2017 at 4:36 pm

Governor Wolf claims he is protecting the health of Pennsylvanians and their environment, but his actions since taking office tell a different story. Regional. C4.

By Audrey Archer

Although milkweed contains toxins, it rarely poses any significant threat to people or animals. Grazing livestock generally avoid milkweeds when sufficient forage is available. (Photo credit: E. Dronkert)

A recent article called milkweed a “yield-robbing weed” for farmers.

Milkweed has a reputation for encroaching on cropland where it can compete with crops for soil and light. The plant can also create a nuisance on ranchlands, as cattle can be poisoned when poor foraging conditions lead hungry cows to milkweed-concentrated areas as a last resort.

This is why milkweed is difficult to find on most farms and ranches today. Along with climate change, it’s also a key reason why the beloved monarch butterfly population has declined by more than 90 percent in the last two decades.

The importance of milkweed

Milkweed is essential for monarchs, since butterflies need the plant to lay their eggs, and caterpillars exclusively feed on the milky sap-filled plant. It’s what makes monarchs poisonous to predators.

Increased herbicide application across the agricultural landscape, as well as mowing in roadside ditches and marginal areas, is eradicating milkweed from rural areas in the Corn Belt and other key regions of the monarch’s migration route.

In order to turn things around for the monarch, we need to change the incentive for landowners from spraying and mowing to protecting and restoring this vital habitat.

How two farmers are saving monarch butterflies by making room for milkweedhttps://edf.org/8DG
Click To Tweet

The opportunity for farmers and ranchers

The Monarch Butterfly Habitat Exchange works with private landowners to restore vital milkweed habitat across the agricultural landscape.

Analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey found that 1.8 billion new milkweed stems are needed to recover the monarch population and reverse losses.

Another recent study found that this goal cannot be achieved unless a substantial amount of acreage on farms is restored to monarch habitat that includes a diverse mix of milkweed and other wildflowers for nectaring.

Restoration efforts are being designed specifically for these working lands, targeting restoration projects for field edges, buffer zones and marginal lands that would not decrease the productivity of a farm or ranch.

In fact, restoring prairie habitat can increase productivity by improving pollination of crops, water filtration and carbon sequestration.

A farmer’s testimonial for planting milkweed

Kristin and Pat Duncanson of Duncanson Growers in Mapleton, Minnesota recognize the opportunity to improve pollinator habitat on their family farm.

“Farmers are naturally conservationists. We are the stewards of the land. This is an opportunity, but it’s also a responsibility – to leave the land, the animals we produce, in better shape than how we found them,” Kristin said.

Kristin Duncanson showing David Wolfe a monarch caterpillar found on her farm.

But that wasn’t always the case.

“My entire farming career up until about two years ago was getting rid of this weed,” Pat said. “We were too good at eliminating it and now we’ve maybe gone too far. There’s collateral damage.”

In addition to growing corn, soybeans and peas, and producing pork, the Duncansons have adopted a number of sustainable practices that include increasing fertilizer efficiency, reducing tillage where possible, rotating crops, and maintaining high quality habitat for monarch caterpillars and butterflies. These practices represent a larger industry shift toward more diverse farming systems that incorporate sustainability measures to improve the long-term health of the land.

With the willingness of farmers like Kristin and Pat to steward habitat for pollinators, we can bring milkweed and other native plants back to the landscape, and help put the monarch butterfly on the path to recovery.

Related:

How the Midwest can save the monarch >>

Monarchs still need milkweed, and farmers are growing it >>

How food companies can turn the pollinator emergency into a big opportunity >>

H.R. 3354 (the House spending bill) is a dangerous bill loaded up with loopholes (called "riders") that gut environmental funding and put our children's health at risk. Regional. C4.

By Jon Goldstein

Ozone pollution is a growing problem in Utah, both in the state’s urban areas and in largely rural regions where oil and gas development has been directly tied to unhealthy air.

That’s why new draft rules for oil and gas emissions released yesterday are a breath of fresh air for the Beehive State.

These new standards are designed to reduce the amount of smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) pollution emitted from both new and existing oil and gas sites across Utah. If strengthened and finalized as soon as possible, these rules will help limit Utah’s smog problem and protect Utah families from asthma attacks, respiratory problems and other health issues.

The rules — drafted by Utah’s Division of Air Quality and approved yesterday for public comment — are a strong start. However, key improvements are necessary if they will have the maximum benefit in cleaning up Utah’s smog problem. These include:

1. Improved leak detection and repair requirements without carve outs for lower producing sites. Numerous scientific studies have shown that frequent leak inspections are one of the best, most cost effective methods to limit oil and gas air pollution. Frequent inspection requirements are also currently the law of the land both federally (though subject to a great deal of uncertainty from the Trump administration) and in neighboring states. Utah’s air deserves a level playing field.
2. Broader applicability to limit “hydrocarbon” pollution more generally (and not just VOCs). By casting a wide net to limit all forms of hydrocarbon air pollution from oil and gas wells, Utah will stay coordinated with federal rules currently in force, help foster additional Utah jobs in the growing methane mitigation industry, increase revenue to the state by capturing more hydrocarbons currently being wasted, and demonstrate the state’s ability to lead as neighboring states like Colorado have done.

An infrared camera reveals leaking methane at an oil and gas facility in Utah's Uinta Basin.

With these new oil and gas rules Utah is joining a growing list of states including Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio that have stepped up to limit this source of pollution and better protect the health of area residents. This is a vitally important issue as the Trump Administration is fighting at every turn to weaken and water down recently enacted methane protections from both the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management.

If strong standards are implemented in Utah, it could deliver significant improvements to the state’s air quality, and reduce the number of asthma attacks and hospital visits that Utah residents undergo as a result of high ozone levels.

Reducing ozone levels is unquestionably a high priority for Governor Herbert and the state of Utah, and the DAQ is wise to make oil and gas emissions a part of that effort. As states like Colorado have shown, provisions that target total hydrocarbons and require frequent leak inspections are proven cost effective pathways to improving air quality and generating increased revenue from oil and gas development.

Image source: Aaron Gustafson, Flickr

By Jon Goldstein

Ozone pollution is a growing problem in Utah, both in the state’s urban areas and in largely rural regions where oil and gas development has been directly tied to unhealthy air.

That’s why new draft rules for oil and gas emissions released yesterday are a breath of fresh air for the Beehive State.

These new standards are designed to reduce the amount of smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) pollution emitted from both new and existing oil and gas sites across Utah. If strengthened and finalized as soon as possible, these rules will help limit Utah’s smog problem and protect Utah families from asthma attacks, respiratory problems and other health issues.

The rules — drafted by Utah’s Division of Air Quality and approved yesterday for public comment — are a strong start. However, key improvements are necessary if they will have the maximum benefit in cleaning up Utah’s smog problem. These include:

1. Improved leak detection and repair requirements without carve outs for lower producing sites. Numerous scientific studies have shown that frequent leak inspections are one of the best, most cost effective methods to limit oil and gas air pollution. Frequent inspection requirements are also currently the law of the land both federally (though subject to a great deal of uncertainty from the Trump administration) and in neighboring states. Utah’s air deserves a level playing field.
2. Broader applicability to limit “hydrocarbon” pollution more generally (and not just VOCs). By casting a wide net to limit all forms of hydrocarbon air pollution from oil and gas wells, Utah will stay coordinated with federal rules currently in force, help foster additional Utah jobs in the growing methane mitigation industry, increase revenue to the state by capturing more hydrocarbons currently being wasted, and demonstrate the state’s ability to lead as neighboring states like Colorado have done.

An infrared camera reveals leaking methane at an oil and gas facility in Utah's Uinta Basin.

With these new oil and gas rules Utah is joining a growing list of states including Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio that have stepped up to limit this source of pollution and better protect the health of area residents. This is a vitally important issue as the Trump Administration is fighting at every turn to weaken and water down recently enacted methane protections from both the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management.

If strong standards are implemented in Utah, it could deliver significant improvements to the state’s air quality, and reduce the number of asthma attacks and hospital visits that Utah residents undergo as a result of high ozone levels.

Reducing ozone levels is unquestionably a high priority for Governor Herbert and the state of Utah, and the DAQ is wise to make oil and gas emissions a part of that effort. As states like Colorado have shown, provisions that target total hydrocarbons and require frequent leak inspections are proven cost effective pathways to improving air quality and generating increased revenue from oil and gas development.

Image source: Aaron Gustafson, Flickr

By Jon Goldstein

Ozone pollution is a growing problem in Utah, both in the state’s urban areas and in largely rural regions where oil and gas development has been directly tied to unhealthy air.

That’s why new draft rules for oil and gas emissions released yesterday are a breath of fresh air for the Beehive State.

These new standards are designed to reduce the amount of smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) pollution emitted from both new and existing oil and gas sites across Utah. If strengthened and finalized as soon as possible, these rules will help limit Utah’s smog problem and protect Utah families from asthma attacks, respiratory problems and other health issues.

The rules — drafted by Utah’s Division of Air Quality and approved yesterday for public comment — are a strong start. However, key improvements are necessary if they will have the maximum benefit in cleaning up Utah’s smog problem. These include:

1. Improved leak detection and repair requirements without carve outs for lower producing sites. Numerous scientific studies have shown that frequent leak inspections are one of the best, most cost effective methods to limit oil and gas air pollution. Frequent inspection requirements are also currently the law of the land both federally (though subject to a great deal of uncertainty from the Trump administration) and in neighboring states. Utah’s air deserves a level playing field.
2. Broader applicability to limit “hydrocarbon” pollution more generally (and not just VOCs). By casting a wide net to limit all forms of hydrocarbon air pollution from oil and gas wells, Utah will stay coordinated with federal rules currently in force, help foster additional Utah jobs in the growing methane mitigation industry, increase revenue to the state by capturing more hydrocarbons currently being wasted, and demonstrate the state’s ability to lead as neighboring states like Colorado have done.

An infrared camera reveals leaking methane at an oil and gas facility in Utah's Uinta Basin.

With these new oil and gas rules Utah is joining a growing list of states including Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio that have stepped up to limit this source of pollution and better protect the health of area residents. This is a vitally important issue as the Trump Administration is fighting at every turn to weaken and water down recently enacted methane protections from both the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management.

If strong standards are implemented in Utah, it could deliver significant improvements to the state’s air quality, and reduce the number of asthma attacks and hospital visits that Utah residents undergo as a result of high ozone levels.

Reducing ozone levels is unquestionably a high priority for Governor Herbert and the state of Utah, and the DAQ is wise to make oil and gas emissions a part of that effort. As states like Colorado have shown, provisions that target total hydrocarbons and require frequent leak inspections are proven cost effective pathways to improving air quality and generating increased revenue from oil and gas development.

Image source: Aaron Gustafson, Flickr

Ozone pollution — also known as smog — is a growing problem in Utah, both in the state’s urban areas and in largely rural regions where oil and gas development has been directly tied to unhealthy air. That’s why new draft rules for oil and gas emissions released yesterday are a breath of fresh air […]

By Jon Goldstein

Ozone smog pollution is a growing problem in Utah, both in the state’s urban areas and in largely rural regions where oil and gas development has been directly tied to unhealthy air.

That’s why new draft rules for oil and gas emissions released yesterday are a breath of fresh air for the Beehive State.

These new standards are designed to reduce the amount of smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) pollution emitted from both new and existing oil and gas sites across Utah. If strengthened and finalized as soon as possible, these rules will help limit Utah’s smog problem and protect Utah families from asthma attacks, respiratory problems and other health issues.

The rules — drafted by Utah’s Division of Air Quality and approved yesterday for public comment — are a strong start. However, key improvements are necessary if they will have the maximum benefit in cleaning up Utah’s smog problem. These include:

1. Improved leak detection and repair requirements without carve outs for lower producing sites. Numerous scientific studies have shown that frequent leak inspections are one of the best, most cost effective methods to limit oil and gas air pollution. Frequent inspection requirements are also currently the law of the land both federally (though subject to a great deal of uncertainty from the Trump administration) and in neighboring states. Utah’s air deserves a level playing field.
2. Broader applicability to limit “hydrocarbon” pollution more generally (and not just VOCs). By casting a wide net to limit all forms of hydrocarbon air pollution from oil and gas wells, Utah will stay coordinated with federal rules currently in force, help foster additional Utah jobs in the growing methane mitigation industry, increase revenue to the state by capturing more hydrocarbons currently being wasted, and demonstrate the state’s ability to lead as neighboring states like Colorado have done.

An infrared camera reveals leaking methane at an oil and gas facility in Utah's Uinta Basin.

With these new oil and gas rules Utah is joining a growing list of states including Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio that have stepped up to limit this source of pollution and better protect the health of area residents. This is a vitally important issue as the Trump Administration is fighting at every turn to weaken and water down recently enacted methane protections from both the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management.

If strong standards are implemented in Utah, it could deliver significant improvements to the state’s air quality, and reduce the number of asthma attacks and hospital visits that Utah residents undergo as a result of high ozone levels.

Reducing ozone levels is unquestionably a high priority for Governor Herbert and the state of Utah, and the DAQ is wise to make oil and gas emissions a part of that effort. As states like Colorado have shown, provisions that target total hydrocarbons and require frequent leak inspections are proven cost effective pathways to improving air quality and generating increased revenue from oil and gas development.

Image source: Aaron Gustafson, Flickr

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This post was written by Melanie Houston for Ohio Environmental Council. It is Melanie’s testimony against EPA budget cuts. She delivered this at the Citizens Hearing on EPA Budget Cuts a few weeks ago:

Good evening. My name is Melanie Houston. I am a resident of Grandview Heights, a public interest advocate, a wife and a mother. My daughter Quinn is three, soon-to-be four years old and likes ice skating, swimming, and getting her face painted. Aside from my work in environmental advocacy, being a mother is the joy of my life. But it’s a hard job, especially in a day and age when there are so many challenges to keeping our children safe and healthy.

Every step of the way raising my daughter from carrying her in my belly to her nearing her 4th birthday, I have used EPA’s easy-to-understand fact sheets and straightforward information to better protect her. When I was pregnant, I found useful recommendations on fish consumption to try to avoid her exposure to mercury. Fast forward to when Quinn was a young toddler and we had one of our first nitrate drinking water advisories in Columbus in several years. Again, EPA provided online information about the risks of nitrates in drinking water, which prompted me to use bottled water for my daughter until the advisory was over.

This past spring, we bought a 1924 fixer-upper home in Grandview. After having every surface tested, we learned that we had lead paint in the upstairs woodwork, including in the room we picked out to be my daughter’s bedroom. My heart sank to learn of this tremendous exposure risk. But again, I turned to the EPA for information that I knew I could trust. The EPA’s 20-page resource guide on how to “protect your family from lead in your home” provided helpful tips for safe lead abatement and reducing the risk of exposure for our daughter.

Most recently, when I found a deer tick on Quinn, I searched the internet again to find that the EPA yet again had relevant resources. This time on preventing tick bites and understanding the risk of Lyme Disease once a bite has occurred.

Finally the US EPA is working to keep my daughter and your children safer in their homes by addressing chemicals. Many parents don’t realize it, but children’s toys can contain harmful chemicals such as lead, formaldehyde and phthalates. The EPA plays an important role in making our children’s toys safer by reviewing new chemicals that come onto the market.

It might seem silly to make this comparison: but the US EPA is like a dear and loyal friend who is with me on my journey to raise my smart and beautiful daughter. I can count on the agency to be there when I need trusted information and helpful advice.

The EPA’s mission is simple: to protect human health and the environment. If the EPA is going to continue to be able protect our children and their health, through their programs and resources for concerned parents like me, it cannot see its budget cut by 8% percent. We must at least see the current levels of funding remain so that the agency can run it’s critical programs to achieve cleaner air, safer drinking water, and healthier indoor and outdoor environments for our children.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

By Martha Roberts

A public hearing today on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s effort to reverse America’s Clean Car Standards drew widespread support for keeping the protections in place.

I got the chance to join more than a hundred people who signed up to testify at the Washington, D.C. hearing – and they overwhelmingly spoke in favor of the Clean Car Standards and praised the benefits they provide for climate security and economic prosperity for our communities and families. (You can read my full testimony here.)

The American public stands to lose vital benefits if the Clean Cars Standards are reversed

The Clean Car Standards are already at work reducing climate pollution, driving innovative new technologies, improving our energy security, and saving American families money at the gas pump. But last month, the Trump Administration announced formal steps to begin reconsidering the existing standards for cars and passenger trucks for model years 2022 to 2025 – which could stop that progress.

Under the standards already in place, people who buy a new car or truck in 2025 would save thousands of dollars on fuel over the lifetime of those vehicles. In total, EPA projects that consumers would save more than $1 trillion because of the standards.

The 86 percent of Americans who finance their vehicle with a five-year loan are expected to immediately realize the cost savings from cleaner, more efficient vehicles. This is true even with recent lower gas prices.

Meanwhile, the Clean Car standards would reduce America’s oil consumption by two million barrels per day by 2025 – more than we import from any single country other than Canada. According to Ret. Lt. General Richard Zilmer:

Over-reliance on oil ties our nation to far-flung conflicts, sends our troops into harm’s way, and endangers them once they’re in conflict zones. Ensuring that the cars and trucks we drive every day go farther on every gallon of gas makes our nation stronger.

The Clean Car program would also eliminate an estimated six billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the life of the vehicles subject to the standards, which is more than a year’s worth of U.S. carbon emissions.

We’re making progress faster and cheaper than expected

EPA’s recent rigorous evaluation of the existing standards found that technologies are developing more quickly and at even lower costs than EPA originally projected – making the standards for the later model years appropriate and even more feasible than was first thought.

Per vehicle compliance costs are significantly lower than those projected in 2012 ($252 lower for cars and $197 lower for trucks as compared to 2012 projections).

 

 

Both the U.S. and world automotive markets are moving forward

• Britain just announced it will ban the sale of all gas and diesel-powered cars after 2040
• France declared it would end the sale of gas and diesel-powered vehicles by 2040
• India challenged itself to be gas free by 2030
• China has taken the global lead in terms of number of electric vehicles on the road
• In the U.S., electric vehicles are on pace to comprise 10 percent of new vehicle sales by 2025, and there are already more than 100 car and truck models on the market that meet the 2020 or later Clean Car Standards.

Reopening the final Clean Car Standards will create uncertainty, slow innovation and hurt U.S. economic leadership.

Auto manufacturers have strongly recovered from the 2008 recession while increasing vehicle efficiency and cutting pollution

During the height of the economic recession in 2008, the American auto industry was on the verge of collapse. This prompted the Obama Administration to develop a bailout package for the industry, which provided the boost the industry needed to help rebound.

Last year, drivers in the United States bought more cars than ever before – roughly 70 percent more vehicles than during the recession – as fuel economy rose to its highest levels yet.

In total, the auto industry has added nearly 700,000 direct jobs since the recession – supporting several million indirect jobs throughout the economy. Auto manufacturing jobs account for 40 percent of all net jobs added in U.S. manufacturing since the recession.

In a letter supporting EPA’s proposal to reaffirm the Phase 2 standards, the United Auto Workers (UAW) noted:

UAW members know firsthand that Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards have spurred investments in new products that employ tens of thousands of our members.

Today, the auto industry directly employs millions of Americans and employment at auto dealerships is at its highest level ever. Automakers have recognized this strong financial performance in recent annual reports:

Our solid business results included record profits and an increased worldwide market share. Overall, we achieved our sixth consecutive year of both profit and positive operating-related cash flow, which enabled us to distribute $2.5 billion to our shareholders and grow our regular dividend by 20 percent. – Ford 2015 Annual report, Letter from Executive Chairman William Clay Ford, Jr.

2016 was the best year in its history of more than 130 years. — Daimler 2016 Annual Report, Chairman’s Letter

[Fiat Chrysler] closed 2016 with another record financial performance … all of our segments were profitable and showed improvement over the prior year. – FCA 2016 Annual Report, Letter from the Chairman and the CEO

As so many testified today, Americans want to move forward on clean cars.

At EDF, we're committed to holding Administrator Pruitt accountable if he recklessly rolls back these common sense standards. We hope you'll join us and take action for Clean Cars.

By Martha Roberts

A public hearing today on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s effort to reverse America’s Clean Car Standards drew widespread support for keeping the protections in place.

I got the chance to join more than a hundred people who signed up to testify at the Washington, D.C. hearing – and they overwhelmingly spoke in favor of the Clean Car Standards and praised the benefits they provide for climate security and economic prosperity for our communities and families. (You can read my full testimony here.)

The American public stands to lose vital benefits if the Clean Cars Standards are reversed

The Clean Car Standards are already at work reducing climate pollution, driving innovative new technologies, improving our energy security, and saving American families money at the gas pump. But last month, the Trump Administration announced formal steps to begin reconsidering the existing standards for cars and passenger trucks for model years 2022 to 2025 – which could stop that progress.

Under the standards already in place, people who buy a new car or truck in 2025 would save thousands of dollars on fuel over the lifetime of those vehicles. In total, EPA projects that consumers would save more than $1 trillion because of the standards.

The 86 percent of Americans who finance their vehicle with a five-year loan are expected to immediately realize the cost savings from cleaner, more efficient vehicles. This is true even with recent lower gas prices.

Meanwhile, the Clean Car standards would reduce America’s oil consumption by two million barrels per day by 2025 – more than we import from any single country other than Canada. According to Ret. Lt. General Richard Zilmer:

Over-reliance on oil ties our nation to far-flung conflicts, sends our troops into harm’s way, and endangers them once they’re in conflict zones. Ensuring that the cars and trucks we drive every day go farther on every gallon of gas makes our nation stronger.

The Clean Car program would also eliminate an estimated six billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the life of the vehicles subject to the standards, which is more than a year’s worth of U.S. carbon emissions.

We’re making progress faster and cheaper than expected

EPA’s recent rigorous evaluation of the existing standards found that technologies are developing more quickly and at even lower costs than EPA originally projected – making the standards for the later model years appropriate and even more feasible than was first thought.

Per vehicle compliance costs are significantly lower than those projected in 2012 ($252 lower for cars and $197 lower for trucks as compared to 2012 projections).

 

 

Both the U.S. and world automotive markets are moving forward

• Britain just announced it will ban the sale of all gas and diesel-powered cars after 2040
• France declared it would end the sale of gas and diesel-powered vehicles by 2040
• India challenged itself to be gas free by 2030
• China has taken the global lead in terms of number of electric vehicles on the road
• In the U.S., electric vehicles are on pace to comprise 10 percent of new vehicle sales by 2025, and there are already more than 100 car and truck models on the market that meet the 2020 or later Clean Car Standards.

Reopening the final Clean Car Standards will create uncertainty, slow innovation and hurt U.S. economic leadership.

Auto manufacturers have strongly recovered from the 2008 recession while increasing vehicle efficiency and cutting pollution

During the height of the economic recession in 2008, the American auto industry was on the verge of collapse. This prompted the Obama Administration to develop a bailout package for the industry, which provided the boost the industry needed to help rebound.

Last year, drivers in the United States bought more cars than ever before – roughly 70 percent more vehicles than during the recession – as fuel economy rose to its highest levels yet.

In total, the auto industry has added nearly 700,000 direct jobs since the recession – supporting several million indirect jobs throughout the economy. Auto manufacturing jobs account for 40 percent of all net jobs added in U.S. manufacturing since the recession.

In a letter supporting EPA’s proposal to reaffirm the Phase 2 standards, the United Auto Workers (UAW) noted:

UAW members know firsthand that Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards have spurred investments in new products that employ tens of thousands of our members.

Today, the auto industry directly employs millions of Americans and employment at auto dealerships is at its highest level ever. Automakers have recognized this strong financial performance in recent annual reports:

Our solid business results included record profits and an increased worldwide market share. Overall, we achieved our sixth consecutive year of both profit and positive operating-related cash flow, which enabled us to distribute $2.5 billion to our shareholders and grow our regular dividend by 20 percent. – Ford 2015 Annual report, Letter from Executive Chairman William Clay Ford, Jr.

2016 was the best year in its history of more than 130 years. — Daimler 2016 Annual Report, Chairman’s Letter

[Fiat Chrysler] closed 2016 with another record financial performance … all of our segments were profitable and showed improvement over the prior year. – FCA 2016 Annual Report, Letter from the Chairman and the CEO

As so many testified today, Americans want to move forward on clean cars.

At EDF, we're committed to holding Administrator Pruitt accountable if he recklessly rolls back these common sense standards. We hope you'll join us and take action for Clean Cars.

A public hearing today on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s effort to reverse America’s Clean Car Standards drew widespread support for keeping the protections in place. I got the chance to join more than a hundred people who signed up to testify at the Washington, D.C. hearing – and they overwhelmingly spoke in favor of the […]

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.  Jack Pratt is Chemicals Campaign Director.

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

A report issued today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) documents that the industrial chemical 1,4-dioxane, a likely human carcinogen, is present in tap water used by nearly 90 million Americans living in 45 states.  For more than 7 million of those people (living in 27 states), the average level of the chemical exceeds the level set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as presenting an increased risk of cancer, which is one among a number of health effects tied to the chemical.

The solvent 1,4-dioxane is manufactured in large amounts in the U.S., with EPA reporting a total volume in 2015 between 1 and 10 million pounds. It is intentionally used or present in products like paints and coatings, greases, waxes, varnishes and dyes. It is also found as an impurity in many household cleaning and personal care products.

Among the other reasons this chemical is currently notable:

• It is one of the first 10 chemicals being evaluated by EPA under the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act to determine whether it presents an unreasonable risk and warrants regulation. Currently there is no legal enforceable limit on the amount of the chemical allowed in drinking water.
• It is one of a number of chemicals that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to lead the EPA toxics office, was paid to work on by the chemical industry. EDF has blogged extensively about Dourson’s close ties to the chemical industry as well as earlier work he did for the tobacco industry.  In the case of 1,4-dioxane, Dourson was hired by PPG Industries, a paints and coatings manufacturer that has released the chemical into the environment, leading to contamination of a public water supply in Ohio.

In a 2014 paper, published in the industry’s go-to journal, Dourson argued for an acceptable level of 1,4-dioxane in water that was 1,000 times higher than EPA’s drinking water guideline reflecting elevated risk of cancer.  The accompanying chart from the EWG report helpfully illustrates the selective information and analysis Dourson used to derive his weaker standard.  EWG’s report notes that a review of Dourson’s work by the State of Michigan rejected his work as flawed and embraced EPA’s more comprehensive methodology.

A Pattern of Downplaying Concerns

The case of 1,4-dioxane is hardly unique: Dourson’s paid work for industry dates back decades, including work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As reported in The Intercept, internal industry emails reveal that Dourson’s firm had “a very good reputation among the folks that are still in the business of blessing criteria.”  In that case, the company in question hoped Dourson’s firm could argue for a looser threshold for the chemical PFOA—a toxic chemical that has polluted water supplies in West Virginia, Ohio and New York. (EWG has mapped contamination from PFOA and related chemicals as well.)

In fact, Dourson or TERA were paid for their work by more than three dozen companies or trade associations, involving at least three dozen different chemicals.

Several of these chemicals, including 1,4-dioxane, are under active review by the very EPA office Dourson has been nominated to head, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and the pesticide chlorpyrifos—itself, the subject of a highly controversial decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reject a ban of the pesticide backed by agency scientists.

Dourson’s track record of downplaying risks posed by toxic chemicals makes it obvious why his firm was sought after by chemical makers.  What is of far greater concern is the notion that he should be entrusted with ensuring chemical safety at EPA.

Senators representing states whose water supplies have been impacted by 1,4-dioxane, PFOA and other Dourson-endorsed chemicals should ask tough questions of this nominee. And residents of those states should urge their Senators to oppose the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead the toxics office at EPA.

 

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.  Jack Pratt is Chemicals Campaign Director. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] A report issued today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) documents that the industrial chemical 1,4-dioxane, a likely human carcinogen, is present in tap water used by nearly 90 million Americans living in […]

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.  Jack Pratt is Chemicals Campaign Director.

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

A report issued today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) documents that the industrial chemical 1,4-dioxane, a likely human carcinogen, is present in tap water used by nearly 90 million Americans living in 45 states.  For more than 7 million of those people (living in 27 states), the average level of the chemical exceeds the level set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as presenting an increased risk of cancer, which is one among a number of health effects tied to the chemical.

The solvent 1,4-dioxane is manufactured in large amounts in the U.S., with EPA reporting a total volume in 2015 between 1 and 10 million pounds. It is intentionally used or present in products like paints and coatings, greases, waxes, varnishes and dyes. It is also found as an impurity in many household cleaning and personal care products.

Among the other reasons this chemical is currently notable:

• It is one of the first 10 chemicals being evaluated by EPA under the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act to determine whether it presents an unreasonable risk and warrants regulation. Currently there is no legal enforceable limit on the amount of the chemical allowed in drinking water.
• It is one of a number of chemicals that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to lead the EPA toxics office, was paid to work on by the chemical industry. EDF has blogged extensively about Dourson’s close ties to the chemical industry as well as earlier work he did for the tobacco industry.  In the case of 1,4-dioxane, Dourson was hired by PPG Industries, a paints and coatings manufacturer that has released the chemical into the environment, leading to contamination of a public water supply in Ohio.

In a 2014 paper, published in the industry’s go-to journal, Dourson argued for an acceptable level of 1,4-dioxane in water that was 1,000 times higher than EPA’s drinking water guideline reflecting elevated risk of cancer.  The accompanying chart from the EWG report helpfully illustrates the selective information and analysis Dourson used to derive his weaker standard.  EWG’s report notes that a review of Dourson’s work by the State of Michigan rejected his work as flawed and embraced EPA’s more comprehensive methodology.

A Pattern of Downplaying Concerns

The case of 1,4-dioxane is hardly unique: Dourson’s paid work for industry dates back decades, including work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As reported in The Intercept, internal industry emails reveal that Dourson’s firm had “a very good reputation among the folks that are still in the business of blessing criteria.”  In that case, the company in question hoped Dourson’s firm could argue for a looser threshold for the chemical PFOA—a toxic chemical that has polluted water supplies in West Virginia, Ohio and New York. (EWG has mapped contamination from PFOA and related chemicals as well.)

In fact, Dourson or TERA were paid for their work by more than three dozen companies or trade associations, involving at least three dozen different chemicals.

Several of these chemicals, including 1,4-dioxane, are under active review by the very EPA office Dourson has been nominated to head, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and the pesticide chlorpyrifos—itself, the subject of a highly controversial decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reject a ban of the pesticide backed by agency scientists.

Dourson’s track record of downplaying risks posed by toxic chemicals makes it obvious why his firm was sought after by chemical makers.  What is of far greater concern is the notion that he should be entrusted with ensuring chemical safety at EPA.

Senators representing states whose water supplies have been impacted by 1,4-dioxane, PFOA and other Dourson-endorsed chemicals should ask tough questions of this nominee. And residents of those states should urge their Senators to oppose the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead the toxics office at EPA.