A message to our RSS subscribers: We are making a change to how our blog subscriptions are managed. Please update your RSS feed URL to:  http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/feed/ 

Energy Exchange published an original version of this post in July 2016. This post updates the original to reflect recent developments in Illinois. As a utility executive, it is the best of times, it is the worst of times. It is the age of innovation, it is the age of stagnant tradition. With a nod […]

The post UPDATE: A tale of two utilities: One Illinois power provider looks ahead, while the other won’t budge appeared first on Energy Exchange.

Energy Exchange published an original version of this post in July 2016. This post updates the original to reflect recent developments in Illinois. As a utility executive, it is the best of times, it is the worst of times. It is the age of innovation, it is the age of stagnant tradition. With a nod […]

Energy Exchange published an original version of this post in July 2016. This post updates the original to reflect recent developments in Illinois. As a utility executive, it is the best of times, it is the worst of times. It is the age of innovation, it is the age of stagnant tradition. With a nod […]

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

PA Rep. Fitzpatrick at Moms Clean Air Force Play-In for Climate Action

American parents are struggling to determine how they can best protect their children from the actions of an administration that has aligned itself with the interests of fossil fuels. The clearest path to making their voices heard is to reach out to their hyperlocal representatives. At the recent Moms Clean Air Force Play-In for Climate Action, senators and those from the House on both sides of the aisle were present.

Since the inception of the Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, which I first wrote about in 2016, it has continued to grow.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania, spoke at the “Play-In” event, to show his support for reaching resolutions that have input from both sides of the aisle. I reached out to him to learn more about his positions and current actions in the environmental sphere:

What motivated you to join the Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus?

As an Eagle Scout and conservationist, who grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, I’ve always been captivated by the natural beauty of our open spaces and wild places. We have it all here: preserved farm land, amazing parks, expansive forests, historic rivers. With these features comes a special responsibility to care for and protect our natural resources at the local, state, and federal level. I believe our natural environment is worth protecting. Climate change and the irresponsible management of our resources put a strain on the health of our communities — and our children. Clean air and clean water are essential to the health, safety, and development of the next generation of Americans.

You recently were named the 2017 recipient of the Climate Leadership Award presented by the bipartisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby. One of your top actions was to call on President Trump to remain in the Paris Accords. Can you elaborate?

Washington needs independent voices now more than ever – especially when it comes to the environment and public health. I urged the current administration to keep the United States in the Paris Climate Agreement. It is imperative that we maintain our seat at the table in global discussions of how to address the threats posed by climate change. I share Secretary of Defense Mattis’ view that climate change must be addressed proactively and head-on, and I agree with both our Secretary of State and Secretary of Energy that retaining our seat at this table is vitally important.

The current administration is working to defund the work of the EPA, including rolling back the Clean Power Plan, expanding drilling for fossil fuels on public lands, and the use of the pesticide chlorpyriphos, which can impact cognitive child development (and has been detected in children who are living near crops that have been treated). Where do you stand on these issues? (I did see that you voted no on  H.J.Res.36)

Leaders on both sides of the aisle must take serious and reasonable steps to protect our planet. (Tweet this) While there is room for debate and discussion on the issue, it is vital that we never politicize protecting our environment or let partisanship prevent Washington from accomplishing common goals. To that extent, I joined 16 other House Republicans on a resolution [H.Res.195] for using American innovation to improve environmental policy and ‘to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment.’ I’ve also voted to protect some rules like the Methane Rule and the Stream Protection Rule. I’ve voted against, H.R.953, allowing exemptions to the Clean Water Act, which would allow the permitting of point-source discharge of pesticides into navigable waters.

How has your district specifically been impacted by Climate Change?

Specifically, air quality has impacted my district. The Pennsylvania 8th district covers all of Bucks County and portions of Montgomery County. These two counties received an “F” for air quality in the American Lung Association’s 2017 “State of the Air” report, two of nine counties in the state to receive such a grade. It’s something that’s not really been given a whole lot of attention, but volunteers from Moms Clean Air Force brought this issue to my attention during a local meeting in January. We need to get to the bottom of this, and it’s definitely something people in the community should know.

What advice do you have for parents who are concerned about their children’s health issues, as a result of potential relaxation of regulations on clean air?

I encourage parents to continue lobbying their elected officials with new information. I want to let each parent know that what you say and what you share with your elected officials is not lost on us. Our job, first and foremost, is to keep an open mind and listen to the concerns of constituents. Calls, letters, e-mails, in-person office visits — they all matter.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

Every year for 15 years, a lone ultralight aircraft took to the skies, tailed by a flock of majestic white and red-capped birds. The young, captive-bred whooping cranes followed their surrogate parent on a migration journey from Wisconsin to Florida, where they spent the winter on the warm Gulf Coast. This was a pioneering project […]

By Eric Holst

The whooping crane. (Photo credit: grahamvphoto)

Every year for 15 years, a lone ultralight aircraft took to the skies, tailed by a flock of majestic white and red-capped birds. The young, captive-bred whooping cranes followed their surrogate parent on a migration journey from Wisconsin to Florida, where they spent the winter on the warm Gulf Coast.

This was a pioneering project that took place from 2001-2015, run by Operation Migration, an organization dedicated to recovering endangered whooping cranes. But that was just one of many innovative and collaborative conservation efforts that have helped recover whooping cranes since the species’ numbers fell to only 15 birds in the 1940s. Shortly thereafter the North American conservation movement was born.

Whooping crane chicks at Freeport-McMoRan Audubon Species Survival Center are costume-reared. (Photo credit: tomosuke14).

A “flagship species”

The whooping crane was one of the first species to be listed as endangered in 1970, even before the Endangered Species Act (ESA) became law. The whooping crane’s struggle was characteristic of many endangered species – overhunting, habitat loss, low reproductive output and a dangerous migration route all pushed the species to near-extinction.

In the years following the listing, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership was formed under authority of the new ESA to establish a successful eastern migratory flock. The partnership included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Operation Migration and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

As of 2011, the population was up to approximately 600 birds – a remarkable recovery made possible through intense efforts of multiple agencies, in addition to regulatory protections. The Service described the whooping crane as a “flagship species for the North American wildlife conservation movement,” as it engaged several states and multiple stakeholders in pioneering recovery efforts throughout the bird’s migratory range.

In Louisiana, the first wild-hatched chick in eight decades just turned one year old this past April. Whooping cranes have not reproduced naturally in Louisiana since 1939. This chick, dubbed LW1-16, is hope for whooping cranes successfully returning to the East Coast.

The current and former range of the whooping crane. (Photo credit: Friends of the Wild Whoopers)

Innovation in conservation

To bring population numbers back up, conservationists and scientists tackled the problem in several innovative ways.

(Photo credit: Mark Moschell).

Captive breeding programs increased numbers in the wild population at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. But leaving the survival of the species up to one population was risky, so scientists worked to establish populations in Wisconsin and Florida.

The whooping crane population has increased steadily due to conservation efforts in multiple states. Captive breeding programs still teach whooping crane chicks basic survival skills so they can thrive in the wild when they are released.

A policy working for wildlife and people

While the whopping crane is still an endangered species, the ESA was critical in offering the technical and legal framework to make these various conservation efforts possible, ultimately saving the species from near certain extinction.

The ESA was founded in 1973 because Congress recognized that America’s natural heritage was of “esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its people.” Because of that belief, our skies are graced again with a distinctive whooping, as cranes take flight to their winter homes.

Related:

Let's make ESA listings extinct, not wildlife >>

Dear Congress, protect the integrity of the ESA >>

The "dean of endangered species" on the past, present and future of America's wildlife >>

Written by Ronnie Citron-Fink

Have you ever seen those articles, “Stars: They’re Just Like Us”? Along with Moms Clean Air Force activists and their children from across the country, Megan Boone, the actress best known for her leading role in the popular television series, The Blacklist, spoke out with Moms “just like us” – against the impacts of climate change on children’s health.

Megan came with her adorable toddler daughter to our 4th annual Play-In for Climate Action on July 13th, 2017 in Washington, DC. She joined hundreds of families from more than 40 states – and “just like us” she raised her voice because she’s “a mother who loves her child.”

Watch and share the video. Become inspired by Megan’s passionate words and know that we are all part of the solution to protect our children from the urgent crisis of climate change.

JOIN THE FORCE

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[My colleagues Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Lindsay McCormick, Jon Choi and Ryan O’Connell assisted in the research described in this post.]

I blogged earlier about EDF’s strong concerns with Michael Dourson’s nomination to head the EPA office charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Among these concerns are his extensive, longstanding financial ties to the chemical industry – an industry that, if he is confirmed, he will be in charge of regulating.  And not only does Dourson have these financial ties to the industry, he has made a career of helping industry play down concerns about chemicals.

A case in point is described in an article published just last week in The Intercept about his work in the early 2000s in West Virginia on behalf of DuPont and its still ongoing woes over water contamination involving the “Teflon” chemical PFOA.

Dourson’s paid work for industry goes back over two decades, starting just after he left EPA in 1994, and it includes work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  As I noted in my last post, his work for the chemical industry included developing a website, “kidschemicalsafety.org” (now defunct, but archived here), that consistently downplayed concerns about chemicals.

To illustrate the extent of his more recent conflicts, we examined the funding sources, where disclosed, for the several dozen papers he authored or co-authored that are listed in PubMed as published between 2005 and 2017.  Some of what we found is reported in this post; there will be more to come on the substance of these papers.  

For about a quarter of the papers, funding sources were not disclosed.  Half of the remaining papers were funded exclusively by industry sources, while most of the other papers were partially funded by industry or represented workshop reports and reviews involving mainly industry-affiliated participants.

Across the papers, Dourson or his company Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) were paid for their work by more than three dozen companies or trade associations.  That work involved about three dozen different chemicals.  At least two of these chemicals – TCE and 1,4-dioxane – are right now under active review by the very EPA office Dourson has been nominated to head.  Another – the pesticide chlorpyrifos – was the subject of a recent highly controversial decision by EPA Administrator Pruitt, who overruled his science advisory panel; Dourson testified before that panel in April 2016 on behalf of CropLife America, the trade association for the pesticide industry.  Dourson’s job at EPA would also entail running the pesticides office.

Notable among these are papers on:

• the pesticide chlorpyrifos, paid for entirely by its manufacturer, DowAgroSciences (two papers);
• petroleum coke, paid for entirely by Koch Industries;
• trichloroethylene, paid for entirely by the American Chemistry Council (ACC);
• the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), paid for entirely by ACC’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance, the members of which are the flame retardant manufacturers, Albemarle Corporation, Chemtura and ICL-IP;
• 1,4-dioxane, paid for entirely by PPG Industries;
• petroleum substances, paid for entirely by the American Petroleum Institute;
• acrylamide (produced in the frying of certain foods), paid for entirely by Burger King Corporation; Frito-Lay, Inc.; H.J. Heinz Company; The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company; The Proctor & Gamble Distributing Company; and Wendy’s International (two papers);
• methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), paid for entirely by Amvac Chemical Corporation and Taminco and Tessenderlo-Kerley (two papers); and
• perchlorate, paid for entirely by the Perchlorate Study Group, consisting of Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation; Goodrich Corp.; Aerojet; Lockheed Martin; American Pacific; Alliant; and Boeing.

Now, Dourson certainly has every right to make his living however he wishes.  And the chemical industry has every right to hire whomever it wants.  But a line simply must be drawn at installing such a toxicologist-for-hire at EPA to run its toxics office and oversee implementation of the TSCA reforms adopted just last year.

In finally embracing TSCA reform, the chemical industry said it needed a neutral referee, an impartial arbiter of the many disputes over the safety of chemicals.  EDF wants the same thing, which is why we sounded the alarm when a senior ACC official came over to EPA and was given wide latitude to rewrite the new law’s framework rules.  Now with Dourson’s nomination, any remaining semblance of impartiality and balance is gone.

The chemical industry needs to be seriously asking itself:  Is this any way to restore confidence in this country’s chemical safety system?

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[My colleagues Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Lindsay McCormick, Jon Choi and Ryan O’Connell assisted in the research described in this post.]

I blogged earlier about EDF’s strong concerns with Michael Dourson’s nomination to head the EPA office charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Among these concerns are his extensive, longstanding financial ties to the chemical industry – an industry that, if he is confirmed, he will be in charge of regulating.  And not only does Dourson have these financial ties to the industry, he has made a career of helping industry play down concerns about chemicals.

A case in point is described in an article published just last week in The Intercept about his work in the early 2000s in West Virginia on behalf of DuPont and its still ongoing woes over water contamination involving the “Teflon” chemical PFOA.

Dourson’s paid work for industry goes back over two decades, starting just after he left EPA in 1994, and it includes work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  As I noted in my last post, his work for the chemical industry included developing a website, “kidschemicalsafety.org” (now defunct, but archived here), that consistently downplayed concerns about chemicals.

To illustrate the extent of his more recent conflicts, we examined the funding sources, where disclosed, for the several dozen papers he authored or co-authored that are listed in PubMed as published between 2005 and 2017.  Some of what we found is reported in this post; there will be more to come on the substance of these papers.  

For about a quarter of the papers, funding sources were not disclosed.  Half of the remaining papers were funded exclusively by industry sources, while most of the other papers were partially funded by industry or represented workshop reports and reviews involving mainly industry-affiliated participants.

Across the papers, Dourson or his company Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) were paid for their work by more than three dozen companies or trade associations.  That work involved about three dozen different chemicals.  At least two of these chemicals – TCE and 1,4-dioxane – are right now under active review by the very EPA office Dourson has been nominated to head.  Another – the pesticide chlorpyrifos – was the subject of a recent highly controversial decision by EPA Administrator Pruitt, who overruled his science advisory panel; Dourson testified before that panel in April 2016 on behalf of CropLife America, the trade association for the pesticide industry.  Dourson’s job at EPA would also entail running the pesticides office.

Notable among these are papers on:

• the pesticide chlorpyrifos, paid for entirely by its manufacturer, DowAgroSciences (two papers);
• petroleum coke, paid for entirely by Koch Industries;
• trichloroethylene, paid for entirely by the American Chemistry Council (ACC);
• the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), paid for entirely by ACC’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance, the members of which are the flame retardant manufacturers, Albemarle Corporation, Chemtura and ICL-IP;
• 1,4-dioxane, paid for entirely by PPG Industries;
• petroleum substances, paid for entirely by the American Petroleum Institute;
• acrylamide (produced in the frying of certain foods), paid for entirely by Burger King Corporation; Frito-Lay, Inc.; H.J. Heinz Company; The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company; The Proctor & Gamble Distributing Company; and Wendy’s International (two papers);
• methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), paid for entirely by Amvac Chemical Corporation and Taminco and Tessenderlo-Kerley (two papers); and
• perchlorate, paid for entirely by the Perchlorate Study Group, consisting of Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation; Goodrich Corp.; Aerojet; Lockheed Martin; American Pacific; Alliant; and Boeing.

Now, Dourson certainly has every right to make his living however he wishes.  And the chemical industry has every right to hire whomever it wants.  But a line simply must be drawn at installing such a toxicologist-for-hire at EPA to run its toxics office and oversee implementation of the TSCA reforms adopted just last year.

In finally embracing TSCA reform, the chemical industry said it needed a neutral referee, an impartial arbiter of the many disputes over the safety of chemicals.  EDF wants the same thing, which is why we sounded the alarm when a senior ACC official came over to EPA and was given wide latitude to rewrite the new law’s framework rules.  Now with Dourson’s nomination, any remaining semblance of impartiality and balance is gone.

The chemical industry needs to be seriously asking itself:  Is this any way to restore confidence in this country’s chemical safety system?

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[My colleagues Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Lindsay McCormick, Jon Choi and Ryan O’Connell assisted in the research described in this post.]

I blogged earlier about EDF’s strong concerns with Michael Dourson’s nomination to head the EPA office charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Among these concerns are his extensive, longstanding financial ties to the chemical industry – an industry that, if he is confirmed, he will be in charge of regulating.  And not only does Dourson have these financial ties to the industry, he has made a career of helping industry play down concerns about chemicals.

A case in point is described in an article published just last week in The Intercept about his work in the early 2000s in West Virginia on behalf of DuPont and its still ongoing woes over water contamination involving the “Teflon” chemical PFOA.

Dourson’s paid work for industry goes back over two decades, starting just after he left EPA in 1994, and it includes work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  As I noted in my last post, his work for the chemical industry included developing a website, “kidschemicalsafety.org” (now defunct, but archived here), that consistently downplayed concerns about chemicals.

To illustrate the extent of his more recent conflicts, we examined the funding sources, where disclosed, for the several dozen papers he authored or co-authored that are listed in PubMed as published between 2005 and 2017.  Some of what we found is reported in this post; there will be more to come on the substance of these papers.  

For about a quarter of the papers, funding sources were not disclosed.  Half of the remaining papers were funded exclusively by industry sources, while most of the other papers were partially funded by industry or represented workshop reports and reviews involving mainly industry-affiliated participants.

Across the papers, Dourson or his company Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) were paid for their work by more than three dozen companies or trade associations.  That work involved about three dozen different chemicals.  At least two of these chemicals – TCE and 1,4-dioxane – are right now under active review by the very EPA office Dourson has been nominated to head.  Another – the pesticide chlorpyrifos – was the subject of a recent highly controversial decision by EPA Administrator Pruitt, who overruled his science advisory panel; Dourson testified before that panel in April 2016 on behalf of CropLife America, the trade association for the pesticide industry.  Dourson’s job at EPA would also entail running the pesticides office.

Notable among these are papers on:

• the pesticide chlorpyrifos, paid for entirely by its manufacturer, DowAgroSciences (two papers);
• petroleum coke, paid for entirely by Koch Industries;
• trichloroethylene, paid for entirely by the American Chemistry Council (ACC);
• the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), paid for entirely by ACC’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance, the members of which are the flame retardant manufacturers, Albemarle Corporation, Chemtura and ICL-IP;
• 1,4-dioxane, paid for entirely by PPG Industries;
• petroleum substances, paid for entirely by the American Petroleum Institute;
• acrylamide (produced in the frying of certain foods), paid for entirely by Burger King Corporation; Frito-Lay, Inc.; H.J. Heinz Company; The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company; The Proctor & Gamble Distributing Company; and Wendy’s International (two papers);
• methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), paid for entirely by Amvac Chemical Corporation and Taminco and Tessenderlo-Kerley (two papers); and
• perchlorate, paid for entirely by the Perchlorate Study Group, consisting of Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation; Goodrich Corp.; Aerojet; Lockheed Martin; American Pacific; Alliant; and Boeing.

Now, Dourson certainly has every right to make his living however he wishes.  And the chemical industry has every right to hire whomever it wants.  But a line simply must be drawn at installing such a toxicologist-for-hire at EPA to run its toxics office and oversee implementation of the TSCA reforms adopted just last year.

In finally embracing TSCA reform, the chemical industry said it needed a neutral referee, an impartial arbiter of the many disputes over the safety of chemicals.  EDF wants the same thing, which is why we sounded the alarm when a senior ACC official came over to EPA and was given wide latitude to rewrite the new law’s framework rules.  Now with Dourson’s nomination, any remaining semblance of impartiality and balance is gone.

The chemical industry needs to be seriously asking itself:  Is this any way to restore confidence in this country’s chemical safety system?

As President Trump surrenders America's climate leadership, California is stepping up. Regional.

As President Trump surrenders America's climate leadership, California is stepping up. Regional.

As President Trump surrenders America's climate leadership, California is stepping up. Regional.

EDF's Texas Clean Air Matters blog is changing how our blog subscriptions are managed. If you subscribe to our blog, please update your RSS feed URL to the following:

http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairmatters/feed/

– Texas Clean Air Matters 

By EDF Blogs

EDF's Climate 411 blog is changing how our blog subscriptions are managed. If you subscribe to our blog, please update your RSS feed URL to the following:

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/feed/

– Climate 411 

By EDF Blogs

EDF's Climate 411 blog is changing how our blog subscriptions are managed. If you subscribe to our blog, please update your RSS feed URL to the following:

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/feed/

– Climate 411 

By EDF Blogs

Energy Exchange is changing how our blog subscriptions are managed. If you subscribe to our blog, please update your RSS feed URL to the following:

http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/feed/

– Energy Exchange