By Liz Delaney

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry.

It’s the same plan we’ve heard since Trump’s first day as President. So let’s ask ourselves, is it working?

Slashing climate policies

In March, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, and on June 1st, he followed through on his promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. These reckless decisions were a major setback to both our nation’s economy and our job market.

The decision to withdraw from Paris was justified by the “economic unfairness” that it would bring upon the country, citing negative effects on jobs. The administration claimed they would continue to be the “cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth”, but not at the expense of our businesses and jobs. After business and world leaders criticized his actions, Trump defended his decision by stating he was simply fulfilling a campaign promise.

This was a campaign promise to bring back [coal] jobs. It’s time we check whether Trump has delivered.

America’s job board: where does coal fall on the list?

In addition to his actions on the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement, Trump has focused on weakening health protections that reduce the impacts associated with the production of fossil fuels, like coal. Since then, the coal mining industry has added a mere 1,000 jobs, bringing us to a total of just 51,000 coal mining jobs nationwide—keep in mind that’s roughly only .03 percent of the more than 150,000,000 jobs in the U.S—as of May 2017. And of those industry workers, only roughly one-fifth actually mine the coal. These numbers fall far behind the 50,000 coal jobs that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt claimed have been created in just the time since Trump became president.

It’s time we look at the long-term picture. The economic realities of the past few decades haven’t favored coal power and this isn’t going to change. The decline of coal-related jobs is partly due to the rise in cheap natural gas, combined with increased continuous automation, and the industry is forecasted to see an additional 51% reduction in generation by 2040. We’re heading in a new direction. The U.S. power sector—as states and power companies reaffirm their commitments to de-carbonization—is well-positioned to continue to reduce carbon pollution.

Six months into the presidency, where are all the jobs?
Click To Tweet

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s best efforts to dismantle their progress, renewables are on track to see a 169 percent increase in generation by 2040, bringing with them clean, local and well-paying jobs. There are an estimated 4-4.5 million clean and sustainability jobs in the U.S. today according to this Now Hiring report. Solar and wind alone account for close to half a million jobs, and energy efficiency makes up another 2.2 million more jobs. The rest are in fields such as natural resources conservation, corporate sustainability and environmental education.

The future of clean jobs only looks more promising. Wind turbine technicians are the fastest-growing occupations in America, adding jobs over nine times faster than the overall economy, just behind solar jobs, which are growing at a rate 17 times faster than the rest of the economy. And, investing in renewables or energy efficiency results in about 5 more jobs than the same investment in fossil fuels. That’s an opportunity we can’t afford to turn our backs on.

Moving the needle in the right direction

If Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promises of creating jobs, then he should redirect his attention from the dying coal industry to the booming clean energy sector. Why? Because it makes economic sense. That’s why business leaders, investors and politicians are demanding that the Trump administration deliver a plan to address climate change with smart policies.

There’s a way for Trump to make good on his campaign promises to bring back America's jobs and lead us closer to becoming energy “dominant”. The answer is to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency jobs.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

In Bianca Ibarra’s neighborhood on Houston’s eastside, the smokestacks are simply a given, part of the landscape.

“It surrounds us,” she said. “When you leave for the first time as a kid, it’s a shock. You see that other places do not have this. We are living in one of the most polluted cities in the country.”

To help others understand that this is not normal or healthy, Ibarra, 18, produced “Houston, At What Cost?” The three-minute video details how air pollution damages hearts and lungs and offers ways for young people to help solve the problem.

Her work won the first video contest sponsored by Environmental Defense Fund for students from high schools near the heavily industrialized Houston Ship Channel.

Elena Craft, senior health scientist at EDF, said the contest provided students with a platform to talk about air pollution, a pressing concern in the eight-county Houston region, which has yet to meet federal standards for ozone, or smog.

“We picked these schools because we want these kids to have a voice,” Craft said. “We saw a lot of passion. We saw a lot of emotion. We heard some kids talk about how their lungs hurt on days with high ozone.”

Through the contest, students gained a deeper understanding about the air they breathe. It also showed how a classroom project could inform and influence the community around them, said Juan Carlos Ramirez, an associate principal at Galena Park High School.

“They have the power of one,” Ramirez said. “They can influence people’s opinions. They can affect people’s consciousness. They can create change through video, through technology, social media, whatever means they communicate with the world. Their voice is heard, and it’s strong.”

With roughly 12,000 residents, Galena Park is located along the Ship Channel, 12 miles east of Houston’s downtown. Nearly all of the high school’s students are Latino or African-American, and more than 70 percent of them are eligible for subsidized lunches. Many of its graduates go to work at the nearby oil refineries and other industrial facilities, where wages can start at $30 an hour.

It is a familiar path to Ibarra, whose father, Cesar, went to work for a manufacturer of building materials after graduating from Galena Park High. He is now a police officer in nearby Pasadena.

“The refineries are here to stay,” said Ibarra, who plans to attend the University of Houston in the fall. “But there are things we can do. The smallest things do count.”

A good first step is planting more trees, she said. “We can put more green in the city.”

Her inspiration is the “The Lorax,” Dr. Seuss’s 1971 book on speaking for the trees and saving the environment. She ended her video with a quote from the book: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

Ibarra also contributed to the second-place video, produced by five Galena Park classmates: Eduardo Aguillon, Karina Moreno, Adrian Pacheco, Rosie Salgado and Genesis Salinas.

The video is inspired by the Netflix show “13 Reasons Why.” In their production, the students explain the reasons for Houston’s unhealthy air.

Brandon Chacon and Saul Luviano, of Cesar Chavez High School, took third place. They used a drone to follow a boy on his daily run near industrial facilities.

“I was trying to show how close we are to them and how many there are,” said Luviano, whose school is a quarter-mile from three chemical plants. “I can run for a little bit, but I start to feel a certain way that isn’t natural.”

The Furr High School team of Maycol Agreda, Kimberlyn Maldonado and Maria Vazquez earned honorable mention.

EDF will sponsor the video contest again during the upcoming school year.

In addition, EDF is developing youth councils at two of the high schools. The program will give students an opportunity to delve deeper into the health impacts of air pollution and come up with solutions to this persistent problem. At the end of the school year, the students will present their work to their elected representatives.

“We want to continue their good work and foster their interest in clean air,” Craft said.

 

FIRST PLACE

Bianca Ibarra

Galena Park High School

Houston, At What Cost?

 

SECOND PLACE

Eduardo Aguillon, Karina Moreno, Adrian Pacheco, Rosie Salgado and Genesis Salinas

Galena Park High School

13 reasons why our air is polluted

 

THIRD PLACE

Brandon Chacon and Saul Luviano

Chavez High School

Air pollution

 

HONORABLE MENTION

Maycol Agreda, Kimberlyn Madonado and Maria Vazquez

Furr High School

Air pollution

 

By Liz Delaney

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry.

It’s the same plan we’ve heard since Trump’s first day as President. So let’s ask ourselves, is it working?

Slashing climate policies

In March, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, and on June 1st, he followed through on his promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. These reckless decisions were a major setback to both our nation’s economy and our job market.

The decision to withdraw from Paris was justified by the “economic unfairness” that it would bring upon the country, citing negative effects on jobs. The administration claimed they would continue to be the “cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth”, but not at the expense of our businesses and jobs. After business and world leaders criticized his actions, Trump defended his decision by stating he was simply fulfilling a campaign promise.

This was a campaign promise to bring back [coal] jobs. It’s time we check whether Trump has delivered.

Liz Delaney, Program Director, EDF Climate Corps

America’s job board: where does coal fall on the list?

In addition to his actions on the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement, Trump has focused on weakening health protections that reduce the impacts associated with the production of fossil fuels, like coal. Since then, the coal mining industry has added a mere 1,000 jobs, bringing us to a total of just 51,000 coal mining jobs nationwide—keep in mind that’s roughly only .03 percent of the more than 150,000,000 jobs in the U.S—as of May 2017. And of those industry workers, only roughly one-fifth actually mine the coal. These numbers fall far behind the 50,000 coal jobs that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt claimed have been created in just the time since Trump became president.

Coal represents .03% of total US jobs. If Trump wants to deliver on jobs, he should look to clean…
Click To Tweet

It’s time we look at the long-term picture. The economic realities of the past few decades haven’t favored coal power and this isn’t going to change. The decline of coal-related jobs is partly due to the rise in cheap natural gas, combined with increased continuous automation, and the industry is forecasted to see an additional 51% reduction in generation by 2040. We’re heading in a new direction. The U.S. power sector—as states and power companies reaffirm their commitments to de-carbonization—is well-positioned to continue to reduce carbon pollution.

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s best efforts to dismantle their progress, renewables are on track to see a 169 percent increase in generation by 2040, bringing with them clean, local and well-paying jobs. There are an estimated 4-4.5 million clean and sustainability jobs in the U.S. today according to this Now Hiring report. Solar and wind alone account for close to half a million jobs, and energy efficiency makes up another 2.2 million more jobs. The rest are in fields such as natural resources conservation, corporate sustainability and environmental education.

The future of clean jobs only looks more promising. Wind turbine technicians are the fastest-growing occupations in America, adding jobs over nine times faster than the overall economy, just behind solar jobs, which are growing at a rate 17 times faster than the rest of the economy. And, investing in renewables or energy efficiency results in about 5 more jobs than the same investment in fossil fuels. That’s an opportunity we can’t afford to turn our backs on.

Moving the needle in the right direction

If Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promises of creating jobs, then he should redirect his attention from the dying coal industry to the booming clean energy sector. Why? Because it makes economic sense. That’s why business leaders, investors and politicians are demanding that the Trump administration deliver a plan to address climate change with smart policies.

There’s a way for Trump to make good on his campaign promises to bring back America's jobs and lead us closer to becoming energy “dominant”. The answer is to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency jobs.

Follow Liz on Twitter, @lizdelaneylobo

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry. It’s the same plan we’ve […]

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry. It’s the same plan we’ve […]

By Liz Delaney

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry.

It’s the same plan we’ve heard since Trump’s first day as President. So let’s ask ourselves, is it working?

Slashing climate policies

In March, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, and on June 1st, he followed through on his promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. These reckless decisions were a major setback to both our nation’s economy and our job market.

The decision to withdraw from Paris was justified by the “economic unfairness” that it would bring upon the country, citing negative effects on jobs. The administration claimed they would continue to be the “cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth”, but not at the expense of our businesses and jobs. After business and world leaders criticized his actions, Trump defended his decision by stating he was simply fulfilling a campaign promise.

This was a campaign promise to bring back [coal] jobs. It’s time we check whether Trump has delivered.

Liz Delaney, Program Director, EDF Climate Corps

America’s job board: where does coal fall on the list?

In addition to his actions on the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement, Trump has focused on weakening health protections that reduce the impacts associated with the production of fossil fuels, like coal. Since then, the coal mining industry has added a mere 1,000 jobs, bringing us to a total of just 51,000 coal mining jobs nationwide—keep in mind that’s roughly only .03 percent of the more than 150,000,000 jobs in the U.S—as of May 2017. And of those industry workers, only roughly one-fifth actually mine the coal. These numbers fall far behind the 50,000 coal jobs that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt claimed have been created in just the time since Trump became president.

Coal represents .03% of total US jobs. If Trump wants to deliver on jobs, he should look to clean…
Click To Tweet

It’s time we look at the long-term picture. The economic realities of the past few decades haven’t favored coal power and this isn’t going to change. The decline of coal-related jobs is partly due to the rise in cheap natural gas, combined with increased continuous automation, and the industry is forecasted to see an additional 51% reduction in generation by 2040. We’re heading in a new direction. The U.S. power sector—as states and power companies reaffirm their commitments to de-carbonization—is well-positioned to continue to reduce carbon pollution.

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s best efforts to dismantle their progress, renewables are on track to see a 169 percent increase in generation by 2040, bringing with them clean, local and well-paying jobs. There are an estimated 4-4.5 million clean and sustainability jobs in the U.S. today according to this Now Hiring report. Solar and wind alone account for close to half a million jobs, and energy efficiency makes up another 2.2 million more jobs. The rest are in fields such as natural resources conservation, corporate sustainability and environmental education.

The future of clean jobs only looks more promising. Wind turbine technicians are the fastest-growing occupations in America, adding jobs over nine times faster than the overall economy, just behind solar jobs, which are growing at a rate 17 times faster than the rest of the economy. And, investing in renewables or energy efficiency results in about 5 more jobs than the same investment in fossil fuels. That’s an opportunity we can’t afford to turn our backs on.

Moving the needle in the right direction

If Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promises of creating jobs, then he should redirect his attention from the dying coal industry to the booming clean energy sector. Why? Because it makes economic sense. That’s why business leaders, investors and politicians are demanding that the Trump administration deliver a plan to address climate change with smart policies.

There’s a way for Trump to make good on his campaign promises to bring back America's jobs and lead us closer to becoming energy “dominant”. The answer is to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency jobs.

Follow Liz on Twitter, @lizdelaneylobo

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

Nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president. It’s a remarkably dismal number for a president at any time, but especially so early in his term.

It’s clear that the dissatisfaction is not only because of scandals and poor behavior, but also because his policies are deeply unpopular.

Consider this: Just 28 percent of Americans support Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. The health care bill he celebrated has approval ratings in the teens. And a full 62 percent disagree [PDF] with his attacks against the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era pollution limits.

In spite of this, hundreds of members of the U.S. House and Senate, many of whom face re-election next year, continue to vote with the president nearly all the time.

Here’s why this matters: Presidential approval is one of the most important determining factors in midterm elections, and Trump’s ratings could have consequences for lawmakers who now follow his lead.

Unpopular presidents a risky bet

As the Gallup Poll noted in advance of the last midterm election 2014, a president’s “standing with voters is usually a significant predictor of election outcomes.” When presidents are unpopular, Gallup reported, “their party typically loses a substantial number of seats in the House of Representatives.” 

That makes congressional voting patterns in 2017 so much more remarkable.

Even “moderates” support Trump 90% of the time

According to analysis by FiveThirtyEight, 229 House members sided with Trump’s position more than 90 percent of the time – and 102 have a 100-percent Trump score.

With some important exceptions, even members who like to be considered moderates nearly always support the president’s positions, as FiveThirtyEight shows in its breakdown of who voted how.

Who favors contaminated food and dirty water?

When the House voted to overturn a rule limiting methane pollution from oil and gas wells on public lands, 221 members voted with Trump’s position. Some of them come from districts the president didn’t even win – including Rep. David Valadao of California whose district Trump lost by double digits.

Most of those members also voted for legislation that would add red tape and make it harder to use good science to create safeguards for heath, clean air and other issues.

Trump’s blitzes against the environment: Recap

If these bills become law – and make it more difficult to protect people from contaminated food and dirty water – it won’t comfort the public to learn that their elected officials felt the need to support the president.

I doubt these lawmakers actually like the idea of more air pollution and climate disruption – or think it’s popular at home – but maybe pressure from their congressional leadership was more important to their calculation.

When voting records become toxic

This lockstep voting doesn’t apply to everyone in Congress, of course.

There were many votes against these bills, including by some Republicans such as Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania; and by Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Susan Collins (Maine), who opposed the methane pollution bill.

But for many others, it will be very difficult to differentiate themselves from the unpopular chief executive.

Recall that in 2008, part of Sen. John McCain’s strategy in the presidential race was to use his maverick reputation to separate himself from President George W. Bush.

Except, there was video of McCain from the primary season reminding Republicans that he voted with the president 90 percent of the time. That statistic was politically toxic and the Obama campaign spent a lot money on ads featuring the clip.

If our representatives in Congress keep walking toward a political cliff with this unpopular president – tearing down health protections, gutting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget, and weakening clean air and water rules – they will find their opponents running very similar TV ads in 2018.

It’s dangerous to overlook Pence’s environmental record. Here’s why.

Written by Diane MacEachern

President Trump outraged the world when he thumbed his nose at the Paris Accord. Almost every country in the world had signed this international agreement, including the U.S. when Barack Obama was president. It was hailed as groundbreaking because for the first time, all countries but two – Syria and Nicaragua – volunteered to set and meet ambitious goals to reduce climate change.

By all accounts, the Paris accord would have stimulated American job growth, the economy, and the transition to clean safe fuels like solar energy and wind power. And it will. Since the rest of the world plans to adhere to the agreements they struck under the accord. So do many individual states, realizing that it’s good for their economies and citizens to build and live in a healthier world.

Speaking of citizens, that’s where you and I come in. It’s always been important for each of us to use energy more efficiently and to figure out where we can reduce our own “carbon footprint,” the impact we individually make by using fossil fuels like coal and oil.

We can’t let up now, especially if we want to show the Trump Administration that reducing climate change is an American priority, despite what they say or do. But if you want to create and adhere to your own “Paris Accord,” where should you start? What should you do?

Here’s a 5-Step Personal Paris Accord Plan you could adopt that would help you reduce your own carbon footprint significantly.

1. Reduce Food Waste – Here in the U.S., “producing the food we throw away generates more greenhouse gases than most countries do.” What’s the solution? Make weekly meal plans BEFORE you go grocery shopping so you will buy what you actually plan to eat, and then will eat what you buy. Keep leftovers in front of your fridge and in clear glass containers so they don’t moulder in the back of a shelf where they’re out of sight and out of mind. Ignore most “sell by” and “best before” dates, which are arbitrary and don’t actually reflect whether or not the food is safe or good to eat. Avoid buying food that’s on sale just because it’s cheaper. If you can’t eat it when it’s fresh or freeze it until you can, it will just go to waste – and that will cost you more money in the long run.
2. Eat More Fruits and Veggies, Less Meat – Producing beef, chicken, pork and dairy products has a big impact on greenhouse gases in part because the animals that source these foods emit so much gas themselves! The good news is that Americans’ diet-related carbon footprint has been shrinking as people swap out meat for plants. Want some great meatless recipes to get started? I’ve pulled together some of my favorites here.
3. Protect Forests and Plant Trees – Trees and forests offer so many climate change benefits, they should be considered a superhero. They absorb and hold carbon, protect ground water, conserve the soil, and help filter the air. You can help protect tropical rainforests by shifting your spending to shade-grown coffee rather than coffee grown on clearcut plantations. Closer to home, plant and maintain trees on your own property and in your community. American Forests’ American ReLeaf program has helped plant more than 40 million trees in all 50 states!
4. Educate Girls, Especially on Family Planning – The Drawdown project reports that “Education lays a foundation for vibrant lives for girls and women, their families, and their communities. It also is one of the most powerful levers available for avoiding emissions by curbing population growth. Women with more years of education have fewer and healthier children, and actively manage their reproductive health.” In the U.S., 45 percent of pregnancies are unintended.
5. Switch to LEDs – LED lights use 90 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs for the same amount of light, and half as much as compact fluorescents, CFLs. They offer another benefit over CFLs, too: they contain no mercury, so they’re safer to use and throwaway. Plus, they seem to last forever – sometimes 10 or more years. LEDs are available for every fixture in every room. And though they can be slightly more expensive than other options, their added cost is more than offset by the money saved on electric bills.

Want more great ideas? Here are more ways to create a Clean Power Plan for your home.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

As President Trump surrenders America's climate leadership , we need your help to ensure the California legislature steps up. Regional.

As President Trump surrenders America's climate leadership , we need your help to ensure the California legislature steps up. Regional.

I was kicking up mud as we skimmed over a newly created mudflat just downstream from the West Bay Diversion. New land with vibrant flora and fauna spread in every direction, a product of diverting sediment-laden river water and strategically depositing dredged material from navigation channels of the Mississippi River. My two passengers with the Plaquemines Association of Business and Industry (PABI), Bobby Thomas and Mike Van Haverbeke, were pleasantly surprised at industrial development and coastal stewardship colliding to create ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana’s Roseau Cane: Why It’s Important and What’s Eating It Away appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

I was kicking up mud as we skimmed over a newly created mudflat just downstream from the West Bay Diversion. New land with vibrant flora and fauna spread in every direction, a product of diverting sediment-laden river water and strategically depositing dredged material from navigation channels of the Mississippi River. My two passengers with the Plaquemines Association of Business and Industry (PABI), Bobby Thomas and Mike Van Haverbeke, were pleasantly surprised at industrial development and coastal stewardship colliding to create ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana’s Roseau Cane: Why It’s Important and What’s Eating It Away appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

I was kicking up mud as we skimmed over a newly created mudflat just downstream from the West Bay Diversion. New land with vibrant flora and fauna spread in every direction, a product of diverting sediment-laden river water and strategically depositing dredged material from navigation channels of the Mississippi River. My two passengers with the Plaquemines Association of Business and Industry (PABI), Bobby Thomas and Mike Van Haverbeke, were pleasantly surprised at industrial development and coastal stewardship colliding to create ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana’s Roseau Cane: Why It’s Important and What’s Eating It Away appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Mandy Warner

The Clean Air Act has a long, well-documented history of reducing pollution, and thus improving – and often even saving – lives in America.

This bedrock law represents one of the greatest environmental and health success stories in the world. Gross Domestic Product in the U.S. has grown 246 percent over the life of the Clean Air Act while at the same time pollutants have been reduced 71 percent.

The Clean Air Act has led to enormous innovation in technology

The Clean Air Act has helped launch innovation in technologies that reduce pollution –technologies which in many cases can be exported around the world.

We know from previous experience with standards we adopted to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in 1971 and 1979 that pollution standards can reduce emissions substantially, and that the more the technology is deployed to meet the standards the more costs go down. The Clean Air Act helped create a market demand for various pollution control technologies by creating standards for pollutants, including for sulfur dioxide. (Read more from technology experts who filed a legal brief in support of carbon standards for power plants.)

America’s homegrown environmental protection industry

The U.S. is the single largest producer of environmental technologies in the world, capturing 29 percent of the world’s $1.05 trillion market.

In 2015, there were an estimated 1.73 million jobs in the U.S. environmental industry, with projected growth of 3 to 4 percent over the next several years.

According to the U.S. government, 99 percent of the businesses in this industry were small to medium-sized. U.S. environmental companies exported about $48 billion in goods in 2013. At the same time, 2005 data from U.S. manufacturers indicate that their expenses for reducing pollution account for less than one percent of the value of the goods they ship.

Environmental protection standards can drive jobs in a myriad of sectors including manufacturing, engineering, construction, operations, and more.

Some examples of jobs and industries created by specific EPA clean air protections include the following:

• Approximately 200,000 person-years of jobs from implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule to reduce soot and smog pollution.
• The vehicle emissions control industry provides about 70,000 jobs in North America.
• Analysis by MJ Bradley & Associates shows that the Clean Power Plan could reduce electricity bills by up to 20 percent in 2030. At the same time, analysis by the Economic Policy Institute found that the Clean Power Plan will create a net 360,000 jobs in 2020.
• Compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards was expected to create a net 84,500 jobs in the utility sector and as a result of pollution abatement and control investments.

Cleaning the air saves lives and creates an engine for job growth
Click To Tweet

Clean air saves lives and improves productivity

Cleaner air saves lives and protects the health of American families.

According to a landmark analysis, in 2010 alone the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 deaths.

It also prevented 13 million lost workdays and 3.2 million lost school days because of illnesses and diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution. The value of avoiding those lost work and school days in 2010 was approximately $2 billion.

That same landmark analysis estimates that the central benefits of the Clean Air Act outweigh costs by more than 30 to one.

The evidence is clear – environmental protections that promote clean energy help improve lives and give way to economic growth.

This post originally appeared on our Climate 411 blog.

By Mandy Warner

The Clean Air Act has a long, well-documented history of reducing pollution, and thus improving – and often even saving – lives in America.

This bedrock law represents one of the greatest environmental and health success stories in the world. Gross Domestic Product in the U.S. has grown 246 percent over the life of the Clean Air Act while at the same time pollutants have been reduced 71 percent.

The Clean Air Act has led to enormous innovation in technology

The Clean Air Act has helped launch innovation in technologies that reduce pollution –technologies which in many cases can be exported around the world.

We know from previous experience with standards we adopted to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in 1971 and 1979 that pollution standards can reduce emissions substantially, and that the more the technology is deployed to meet the standards the more costs go down. The Clean Air Act helped create a market demand for various pollution control technologies by creating standards for pollutants, including for sulfur dioxide. (Read more from technology experts who filed a legal brief in support of carbon standards for power plants.)

America’s homegrown environmental protection industry

The U.S. is the single largest producer of environmental technologies in the world, capturing 29 percent of the world’s $1.05 trillion market.

In 2015, there were an estimated 1.73 million jobs in the U.S. environmental industry, with projected growth of 3 to 4 percent over the next several years.

According to the U.S. government, 99 percent of the businesses in this industry were small to medium-sized. U.S. environmental companies exported about $48 billion in goods in 2013. At the same time, 2005 data from U.S. manufacturers indicate that their expenses for reducing pollution account for less than one percent of the value of the goods they ship.

Environmental protection standards can drive jobs in a myriad of sectors including manufacturing, engineering, construction, operations, and more.

Some examples of jobs and industries created by specific EPA clean air protections include the following:

• Approximately 200,000 person-years of jobs from implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule to reduce soot and smog pollution.
• The vehicle emissions control industry provides about 70,000 jobs in North America.
• Analysis by MJ Bradley & Associates shows that the Clean Power Plan could reduce electricity bills by up to 20 percent in 2030. At the same time, analysis by the Economic Policy Institute found that the Clean Power Plan will create a net 360,000 jobs in 2020.
• Compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards was expected to create a net 84,500 jobs in the utility sector and as a result of pollution abatement and control investments.

Cleaning the air saves lives and creates an engine for job growth
Click To Tweet

Clean air saves lives and improves productivity

Cleaner air saves lives and protects the health of American families.

According to a landmark analysis, in 2010 alone the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 deaths.

It also prevented 13 million lost workdays and 3.2 million lost school days because of illnesses and diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution. The value of avoiding those lost work and school days in 2010 was approximately $2 billion.

That same landmark analysis estimates that the central benefits of the Clean Air Act outweigh costs by more than 30 to one.

The evidence is clear – environmental protections that promote clean energy help improve lives and give way to economic growth.

This post originally appeared on our Climate 411 blog.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This post was written by Jenny Ahren. It originally appeared on EDF + Business:

As a parent, environmental professional and wife of an accomplished chef, I spend a lot of time thinking about food and how to make the best choices when it comes to feeding my family. That’s why EDF’s report detailing lead in food has me so concerned.

Usually I think about, and maybe even felt guilty at times, about the nutritional content and environmental impacts of the food I choose, but it never occurred to me to worry that the food itself could be contaminated with lead.  And, let’s just be clear – there is no scientific evidence of a safe level of lead in blood. Lead can harm a child’s developing brain, potentially leading to learning problems, lower IQ, as well as cause behavioral problems.

While I knew that the major exposures to lead come from lead-based paint, contaminated soil and dust, and drinking water, I didn’t realize that in order to have a comprehensive plan to protect my child from harm, contaminated food should also be on my list.

According to EDF’s analysis of FDA data from 2003 to 2013, 20% of baby food and 14% of other food sampled contained detectable levels of lead. The baby food items with the highest rates of detection include grape, mixed fruit, apple, and pear juices, sweet potatoes and carrots, arrowroot cookies, and teething biscuits.

The following chart details the percentage of various food samples where lead was detected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are two key takeaways from this chart.

1. Some product types have a high percent of lead detection across the samples, while other product types have much smaller percentages.
2. While many samples of products have detected levels of lead, every category has some products with no detectable levels of lead. This suggests that lead in food is a problem with a solution.

So, what is a food company to do?

• Step 1 – Set a goal of less than 1 parts per billion (ppb) of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children
• Step 2 – Test for lead
• Step 3 – Identify the source of contamination – is it the raw ingredients, something the food is exposed to during processing, or something else?
• Step 4 – Take steps to eliminate the contamination
• Step 5 – Remain vigilant – keep testing and improving until the contamination is eliminated

 What can you do?

Ask companies if they regularly test their products for lead; and whether they ensure that there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell. If they don’t, let them know it is a high priority concern for you.

I’m about to have another baby, and I hope that by the time baby number two is here and ready to eat solids, food companies have taken the steps necessary to eliminate lead. That way, I can spend more time focusing on eating great food and less time worrying about if it’s  contaminated.

JOIN THE FORCE