On today’s show Simone & Jacques talk with Meredith Dowling, Associate Executive Director and Emmet Bartholomew, Gulf Region Volunteer Pilot Recruitment of Southwings about how Southwings organization provides a network of volunteer pilots to advocate for the restoration and protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity of the Southeast through flight. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording or subscribe to our feed in iTunes and Google Play.     Listen now! Jacques: Hello. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Seeing Louisiana's Coast from Above appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Simone & Jacques talk with Meredith Dowling, Associate Executive Director and Emmet Bartholomew, Gulf Region Volunteer Pilot Recruitment of Southwings about how Southwings organization provides a network of volunteer pilots to advocate for the restoration and protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity of the Southeast through flight. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording or subscribe to our feed in iTunes and Google Play.     Listen now! Jacques: Hello. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Seeing Louisiana's Coast from Above appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Susanne Brooks

This post originally appeared on EDF's Climate 411

By this time, your eyes may have glazed over from reading the myriad of fact checks and rebuttals of President Trump’s speech announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. There were so many dizzying falsehoods in his comments that it is nearly impossible to find any truth in the rhetorical fog.

Of all the falsehoods, President Trump’s insistence that compliance with the Paris accord would cost Americans millions of lost jobs and trillions in lowered Gross Domestic Product was particularly brazen, deceptive, and absurd. These statements are part of a disturbing pattern, the latest in a calculated campaign to deceive the public about the economics of reducing climate pollution.

Based on a study funded by industry trade groups

Let’s be clear: the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) study underpinning these misleading claims was paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) – two lobbying organizations backed by fossil fuel industry funding that have a history of commissioning exaggerated cost estimates of climate change solutions. When you pay for bad assumptions, you ensure exaggerated and unrealistic results.

In the past five years alone, NERA has released a number of dubious studies funded by fossil fuel interests about a range of environmental safeguards that protect the public from dangerous pollution like mercury, smog, and particulate matter – all of which cause serious health impacts, especially in the elderly, children, and the most vulnerable. NERA’s work has been debunked over and over. Experts from MIT and NYU said NERA’s cost estimates from a 2014 study on EPA’s ozone standards were “fraudulent” and calculated in “an insane way.” NERA’s 2015 estimates of the impacts of the Clean Power Plan, which are frequently quoted by President Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and others, have also been rebutted due to unrealistic and pessimistic assumptions.

The study does not account for the enormous costs of climate pollution

In his speech about the Paris agreement, President Trump crossed a line that made even NERA so uncomfortable that it released a statement emphasizing that its results were mischaracterized and that the study “was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris agreement, nor does it purport to be one.”

The most important point embedded in this statement is that the study does not account for the enormous benefits of reducing the carbon pollution causing climate change. Climate change causes devastating impacts including extreme weather events like flooding and deadly storms, the spread of disease, sea level rise, increased food insecurity, and other disasters. These impacts can cost businesses, families, governments and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars through rising health care costs, destruction of property, increased food prices, and more. The costs of this pollution are massive, and communities all around the U.S. are already feeling the impacts – yet the President and his Administration continue to disregard this reality as well as basic scientific and economic facts.

Cherry-picking an impractical and imaginary pathway to emission reductions

The statistics the President used were picked from a specific scenario in the study that outlined an impractical and imaginary pathway to meet our 2025 targets designed to be needlessly expensive, as experts at the World Resources Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council have noted. The study’s “core” scenario assumes sector by sector emission reduction targets (which do not exist as part of the Paris accord) that result in the most aggressive level of mitigation being required from the sectors where it is most expensive. This includes an almost 40 percent reduction in industrial sector emissions – a disproportionate level not envisioned in any current policy proposal – which results in heavily exaggerated costs.

An expert at the independent think tank Resources for the Future, Marc Hafstead, pointed out:

The NERA study grossly overstates the changes in output and jobs in heavy industry.

Yale economist Kenneth Gillingham said of these numbers:

It’s not something you can cite in a presidential speech with a straight face … It’s being used as a talking point taken out of context.

The NERA analysis also includes a scenario that illustrates what experts have known for decades – that a smarter and more cost-effective route to achieving deep emission reductions is a flexible, economy-wide program that prices carbon and allows the market to take advantage of the most cost-effective reductions across sectors. Even NERA’s analysis shows that this type of program would result in significantly lower costs than their “core” scenario. Not surprisingly, that analysis is buried in the depths of the report, and has been entirely ignored by the Chamber of Commerce and ACCF as well as President Trump.

Study ignores potential innovation and declining costs of low carbon energy

Finally, the NERA study assumes that businesses would not innovate to keep costs down in the face of new regulations – employing pessimistic assumptions that ignore the transformational changes already moving us towards the expansion of lower carbon energy. Those assumptions rely on overly-conservative projections for renewable energy costs, which have been rapidly declining. They also underestimate the potential for reductions from low-cost efficiency improvements, and assume only minimal technological improvements in the coming years.

In reality, clean energy is outpacing previous forecasts and clean energy jobs are booming. There are more jobs in solar energy than in oil and natural gas extraction in the U.S. right now, and more jobs in wind than in coal mining.

The truth is that the clean energy revolution is the economic engine of the future. President Trump’s announcement that he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accord cedes leadership and enormous investment opportunities to Europe, China, and the rest of the world. His faulty math will not change these facts.

This post originally appeared on EDF's Climate 411 By this time, your eyes may have glazed over from reading the myriad of fact checks and rebuttals of President Trump’s speech announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. There were so many dizzying falsehoods in his comments that it is nearly impossible to […]

Written by Diane MacEachern

Every breath we take makes a difference to our health and the health of our kids. Here are four ways indoor air pollutants threaten our family’s well-being, including one that may surprise you.

1. Fertility – We all know that cigarette smoking causes cancer, heart disease and emphysema. I was also news to me that smoking cigarettes can also reduce the ability of men and women to have babies. In fact, as much as 13 percent of infertility in the US is a result of smoking, says Dr. Edward Marut of Fertility Centers of Illinois. Burning tobacco produces more than 4,000 chemicals, many of which have been shown to damage DNA in both sperm and eggs. Women who smoke are 16 percent more likely to experience a miscarriage, as well, while smoking can make it difficult for men to achieve and maintain an erection.

The good news is that giving up smoking has a positive and swift impact on fertility. Women can increase their chances of conception within two months, while the quality of semen men produce will improve dramatically by as little as three months after giving up cigarettes.

2. Asthma – Foregoing smoking also improves indoor air quality for kids, who can become “passive smokers” when the air they breathe is loaded with tobacco smoke. The Centers for Disease Control says “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke,” and that it can trigger an asthma attack in a child as well as cause bronchitis and pneumonia. Other indoor air pollutants that trigger asthma attacks include nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a gas given off by using gas stoves or gas kerosene space heaters. The chemicals emitted by paint, pesticides, adhesive, dry-cleaned clothes and various cleansers can also trigger an attack.

Increasing ventilation by opening windows and using the fans over stoves helps; so does switching to no VOC paints, non-toxic pesticides, home laundering, and simple cleansers made from vinegar, baking soda, freshly squeezed lemon, fragrance-free liquid soap and warm water. Learn more at our asthma resource.

3. Allergies – Toxic chemicals that are sprayed into the air during cleaning, or that off-gas from painting, furniture or carpeting can cause allergic reactions that range from coughing, sneezing and watery eyes to fatigue, dizziness, headaches and nausea. Some kids and grown-ups may suffer nose bleeds, while others may break out in a rash or vomiting.

Again, increasing the ventilation in a room or home helps dissipate the damage these chemicals can do. However, avoiding exposure to them in the first place is the best way to stay healthy. Clean with non-toxic ingredients. Dust or mop with a damp cloth and vacuum to remove build-up of pet dander, insect debris, and particles emitted from operating a wood stove. Use biological traps instead of insecticides. Buy solid wood furniture and carpeting made from wool, hemp, flax or cotton to avoid formaldehyde and other chemicals found in particleboard furniture, cabinetry and carpet backing.

4. ADHD – Kids whose moms inhaled certain types of air pollutants when they were pregnant can develop ADHD as they get older. One indoor air pollutant of particular concern is part of a class called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. Some research suggests that PAHs affect the developing brain by impacting the mother’s endocrine system. The chemicals could also be damaging DNA or how DNA functions.

The biggest sources of PAHs that pregnant women are exposed to are the burning of fossil fuels, wood and trash, as well as tobacco. Thus, avoiding traffic congestion as much as possible is key when you’re outside, especially if you’re pregnant. Don’t burn your trash if you can possibly avoid it. Don’t allow smoking in your home or around you, either. And if you have a wood-burning stove or fireplace, make sure that the chimney is clean and the flue is well vented to the outside to minimize release of PAHs into your living room.

If you want to know exactly what you’re breathing at home, you can monitor your indoor air quality for a whole host of pollutants. And don’t miss Every Breath We Take, a book by Dominique Browning and Maya Ajmera that “introduces children to the importance of clean air.”

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Susanne Brooks

By this time, your eyes may have glazed over from reading the myriad of fact checks and rebuttals of President Trump’s speech announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. There were so many dizzying falsehoods in his comments that it is nearly impossible to find any truth in the rhetorical fog.

Of all the falsehoods, PresidentTrump’s insistence that compliance with the Paris accord would cost Americans millions of lost jobs and trillions in lowered Gross Domestic Product was particularly brazen, deceptive, and absurd. These statements are part of a disturbing pattern, the latest in a calculated campaign to deceive the public about the economics of reducing climate pollution.

Based on a study funded by industry trade groups

Let’s be clear: the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) study underpinning these misleading claims was paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) – two lobbying organizations backed by fossil fuel industry funding that have a history of commissioning exaggerated cost estimates of climate change solutions. When you pay for bad assumptions, you ensure exaggerated and unrealistic results.

In the past five years alone, NERA has released a number of dubious studies funded by fossil fuel interests about a range of environmental safeguards that protect the public from dangerous pollution like mercury, smog, and particulate matter – all of which cause serious health impacts, especially in the elderly, children, and the most vulnerable. NERA’s work has been debunked over and over. Experts from MIT and NYU said NERA’s cost estimates from a 2014 study on EPA’s ozone standards were “fraudulent” and calculated in “an insane way.” NERA’s 2015 estimates of the impacts of the Clean Power Plan, which are frequently quoted by President Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and others, have also been rebutted due to unrealistic and pessimistic assumptions.

The study does not account for the enormous costs of climate pollution

In his speech about the Paris agreement, President Trump crossed a line that made even NERA so uncomfortable that it released a statement emphasizing that its results were mischaracterized and that the study “was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris agreement, nor does it purport to be one.”

The most important point embedded in this statement is that the study does not account for the enormous benefits of reducing the carbon pollution causing climate change. Climate change causes devastating impacts including extreme weather events like flooding and deadly storms, the spread of disease, sea level rise, increased food insecurity, and other disasters. These impacts can cost businesses, families, governments and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars through rising health care costs, destruction of property, increased food prices, and more. The costs of this pollution are massive, and communities all around the U.S. are already feeling the impacts – yet the President and his Administration continue to disregard this reality as well as basic scientific and economic facts.

Cherry-picking an impractical and imaginary pathway to emission reductions

The statistics the President used were picked from a specific scenario in the study that outlined an impractical and imaginary pathway to meet our 2025 targets designed to be needlessly expensive, as experts at the World Resources Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council have noted. The study’s “core” scenario assumes sector by sector emission reduction targets (which do not exist as part of the Paris accord) that result in the most aggressive level of mitigation being required from the sectors where it is most expensive. This includes an almost 40 percent reduction in industrial sector emissions – a disproportionate level not envisioned in any current policy proposal – which results in heavily exaggerated costs.

An expert at the independent think tank Resources for the Future, Marc Hafstead, pointed out:

The NERA study grossly overstates the changes in output and jobs in heavy industry.

Yale economist Kenneth Gillingham said of these numbers:

It’s not something you can cite in a presidential speech with a straight face … It’s being used as a talking point taken out of context.

The NERA analysis also includes a scenario that illustrates what experts have known for decades – that a smarter and more cost-effective route to achieving deep emission reductions is a flexible, economy-wide program that prices carbon and allows the market to take advantage of the most cost-effective reductions across sectors. Even NERA’s analysis shows that this type of program would result in significantly lower costs than their “core” scenario. Not surprisingly, that analysis is buried in the depths of the report, and has been entirely ignored by the Chamber of Commerce and ACCF as well as President Trump.

Study ignores potential innovation and declining costs of low carbon energy

Finally, the NERA study assumes that businesses would not innovate to keep costs down in the face of new regulations – employing pessimistic assumptions that ignore the transformational changes already moving us towards the expansion of lower carbon energy. Those assumptions rely on overly-conservative projections for renewable energy costs, which have been rapidly declining. They also underestimate the potential for reductions from low-cost efficiency improvements, and assume only minimal technological improvements in the coming years.

In reality, clean energy is outpacing previous forecasts and clean energy jobs are booming. There are more jobs in solar energy than in oil and natural gas extraction in the U.S. right now, and more jobs in wind than in coal mining.

The truth is that the clean energy revolution is the economic engine of the future. President Trump’s announcement that he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accord cedes leadership and enormous investment opportunities to Europe, China, and the rest of the world. His faulty math will not change these facts.

By Susanne Brooks

By this time, your eyes may have glazed over from reading the myriad of fact checks and rebuttals of President Trump’s speech announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. There were so many dizzying falsehoods in his comments that it is nearly impossible to find any truth in the rhetorical fog.

Of all the falsehoods, PresidentTrump’s insistence that compliance with the Paris accord would cost Americans millions of lost jobs and trillions in lowered Gross Domestic Product was particularly brazen, deceptive, and absurd. These statements are part of a disturbing pattern, the latest in a calculated campaign to deceive the public about the economics of reducing climate pollution.

Based on a study funded by industry trade groups

Let’s be clear: the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) study underpinning these misleading claims was paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) – two lobbying organizations backed by fossil fuel industry funding that have a history of commissioning exaggerated cost estimates of climate change solutions. When you pay for bad assumptions, you ensure exaggerated and unrealistic results.

In the past five years alone, NERA has released a number of dubious studies funded by fossil fuel interests about a range of environmental safeguards that protect the public from dangerous pollution like mercury, smog, and particulate matter – all of which cause serious health impacts, especially in the elderly, children, and the most vulnerable. NERA’s work has been debunked over and over. Experts from MIT and NYU said NERA’s cost estimates from a 2014 study on EPA’s ozone standards were “fraudulent” and calculated in “an insane way.” NERA’s 2015 estimates of the impacts of the Clean Power Plan, which are frequently quoted by President Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and others, have also been rebutted due to unrealistic and pessimistic assumptions.

The study does not account for the enormous costs of climate pollution

In his speech about the Paris agreement, President Trump crossed a line that made even NERA so uncomfortable that it released a statement emphasizing that its results were mischaracterized and that the study “was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris agreement, nor does it purport to be one.”

The most important point embedded in this statement is that the study does not account for the enormous benefits of reducing the carbon pollution causing climate change. Climate change causes devastating impacts including extreme weather events like flooding and deadly storms, the spread of disease, sea level rise, increased food insecurity, and other disasters. These impacts can cost businesses, families, governments and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars through rising health care costs, destruction of property, increased food prices, and more. The costs of this pollution are massive, and communities all around the U.S. are already feeling the impacts – yet the President and his Administration continue to disregard this reality as well as basic scientific and economic facts.

Cherry-picking an impractical and imaginary pathway to emission reductions

The statistics the President used were picked from a specific scenario in the study that outlined an impractical and imaginary pathway to meet our 2025 targets designed to be needlessly expensive, as experts at the World Resources Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council have noted. The study’s “core” scenario assumes sector by sector emission reduction targets (which do not exist as part of the Paris accord) that result in the most aggressive level of mitigation being required from the sectors where it is most expensive. This includes an almost 40 percent reduction in industrial sector emissions – a disproportionate level not envisioned in any current policy proposal – which results in heavily exaggerated costs.

An expert at the independent think tank Resources for the Future, Marc Hafstead, pointed out:

The NERA study grossly overstates the changes in output and jobs in heavy industry.

Yale economist Kenneth Gillingham said of these numbers:

It’s not something you can cite in a presidential speech with a straight face … It’s being used as a talking point taken out of context.

The NERA analysis also includes a scenario that illustrates what experts have known for decades – that a smarter and more cost-effective route to achieving deep emission reductions is a flexible, economy-wide program that prices carbon and allows the market to take advantage of the most cost-effective reductions across sectors. Even NERA’s analysis shows that this type of program would result in significantly lower costs than their “core” scenario. Not surprisingly, that analysis is buried in the depths of the report, and has been entirely ignored by the Chamber of Commerce and ACCF as well as President Trump.

Study ignores potential innovation and declining costs of low carbon energy

Finally, the NERA study assumes that businesses would not innovate to keep costs down in the face of new regulations – employing pessimistic assumptions that ignore the transformational changes already moving us towards the expansion of lower carbon energy. Those assumptions rely on overly-conservative projections for renewable energy costs, which have been rapidly declining. They also underestimate the potential for reductions from low-cost efficiency improvements, and assume only minimal technological improvements in the coming years.

In reality, clean energy is outpacing previous forecasts and clean energy jobs are booming. There are more jobs in solar energy than in oil and natural gas extraction in the U.S. right now, and more jobs in wind than in coal mining.

The truth is that the clean energy revolution is the economic engine of the future. President Trump’s announcement that he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accord cedes leadership and enormous investment opportunities to Europe, China, and the rest of the world. His faulty math will not change these facts.

Jacques Hebert host solo on today's show. Joining him is Alek Krautmann Meteorologist, New Orleans/Baton Rouge Forecast Office NOAA National Weather Service to talk about about this year's Atlantic Hurricane Season Predictions and how to stay safe this summer. The second guest in today's show is Mike Steele, Communications Director at Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness-State of Louisiana, here to talk about Hurricane & Disaster Preparedness in South Louisiana. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Hurricane Season 2017 appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE As Secretary Ross and Secretary Zinke Both Testify about the President’s Proposed Budget, Conservation Groups Call on Congress to Keep their Promises on Restoration (New Orleans, LA – June 8, 2017) Today, national and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River Delta restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Ocean Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy – released the following statement in advance of two different budget hearings today, one with ...

Read The Full Story

The post Gulf Restoration Groups to Congressional Leaders: We’re Counting On You to Keep Your Word appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE As Secretary Ross and Secretary Zinke Both Testify about the President’s Proposed Budget, Conservation Groups Call on Congress to Keep their Promises on Restoration (New Orleans, LA – June 8, 2017) Today, national and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River Delta restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Ocean Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy – released the following statement in advance of two different budget hearings today, one with ...

Read The Full Story

The post Gulf Restoration Groups to Congressional Leaders: We’re Counting On You to Keep Your Word appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE As Secretary Ross and Secretary Zinke Both Testify about the President’s Proposed Budget, Conservation Groups Call on Congress to Keep their Promises on Restoration (New Orleans, LA – June 8, 2017) Today, national and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River Delta restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Ocean Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy – released the following statement in advance of two different budget hearings today, one with ...

Read The Full Story

The post Gulf Restoration Groups to Congressional Leaders: We’re Counting On You to Keep Your Word appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

On October 1, a new Federal Budget for fiscal year 2018 will go into effect. Despite the respite the EPA has through September 30, the proposal put forth for next year is dismal — if unsurprising.

Trump has consistently said that he wants the EPA cut to the bone. His director, Scott Pruitt, is enmeshed with fossil fuel companies. Mick Mulvaney, budget director, speaking about getting the EPA back to its “core function” stated in response to a question on climate change: “We’re not spending money on that anymore; we consider that to be a waste of your money.”

Representatives on both sides of the aisle have already called the budget “dead on arrival.” However, it’s important to look at the precedent the Trump administration is trying to put forth.

Trump is offering the EPA $5.6 billion dollars, which is the smallest amount allocated to the agency since the late 1970s. It’s a reduction of approximately one-third.

Employees at the department are out of luck as well. The number floated for the chopping block is 3,800 people. The proposed shrinkage of the “enforcement arm” is 40 percent. These are the folks that make sure industries and businesses are in compliance with federal regulations.

Superfund Sites, which are public health hazards, will be slashed 23 percent. This could lead to a slow down or potential halt of clean-ups.

Meanwhile, Pruitt want to push oversight to the states. But the proposed budget going to states, for the purpose of enforcement, has been trimmed by 45 percent.

When I reviewed the 2018 EPA Budget in Brief, I immediately checked the “eliminated programs.” There were plenty, over forty. That didn’t include the five killed “sub-programs.” The verbiage used to explain the decision: “The Administration is committed to creating a leaner, more accountable, less intrusive, and more effective Government.”

When you look at the concrete numbers, in columns, comparing (Fiscal Year) FY 2016 to FY 2018’s Present Budget — it’s beyond concerning. Apparently, the Trump administration doesn’t think that Environmental education outreach and Information exchange for “Children and Other Sensitive Populations” is essential.

Below are five examples of how you and your family may be impacted.

• Environmental Justice “The program provides support to address environmental and human health concerns in minority, low income, Tribal, and other communities. Environmental Justice will continue to be supported in the work done at the EPA, when applicable. EJ work impacting the entire agency will be incorporated into future policy work.” Dismal news. These are the populations most at risk. I keep checking the page of the EJ Mapper, which I wrote about, to see if it has disappeared.
• Endocrine Disruptors “The program develops and validates scientific test methods for the routine, ongoing evaluation of pesticides and other chemicals to determine their potential interference with normal endocrine system function. The ongoing functions of the program can be absorbed into the pesticides program.” With children particularly vulnerable, you have to question why this step was taken and how much attention it will get at the new program.
• Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico “The program is a partnership of the five Gulf states, Gulf coastal communities, citizens, nongovernmental organizations, and federal agencies working together to initiate cooperative actions by public and private organizations to achieve specific environmental results. The EPA will encourage the five Gulf of Mexico states to continue to make progress in restoring the Gulf of Mexico from within core water programs.” This is an example of “Geographic Programs” that impact areas from the Chesapeake Bay to the San Francisco Bay. State and local entities are “encouraged” to pick up the slack. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has also been canceled.
• Reduce Risks from Indoor Air: “This program addresses indoor environmental asthma triggers, such as secondhand smoke, dust mites, mold, cockroaches and other pests, household pets, and combustion byproducts through a variety of outreach, education, training and guidance activities.” Good luck to the children suffering from asthma, who are often from low-income households. The justification for this cut is that the program is “mature” and states can continue the work independently.
• Eliminated Sub-Programs: There were fifteen 15 voluntary partnership programs that were axed. The suggestion was that they were “successfully administered by non-governmental entities like industry associated and consumer groups.” The Energy Star Certification Program fell into this category.

Americans deserve better. The current administration believes that science creates problems. With a cut in scientific research, America will no longer be a world leader. Rather, we will be in a swift race to the bottom.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Ohio Representative Kristin Boggs:

What is unique about protecting Ohio’s resources and environment?

Ohio’s natural resources are the State’s greatest assets. Our water, air, and soil support the physical health of our citizens and the economic viability of communities. We must shape our policies in a ways that prioritize keeping Ohioans healthy and protect our water, air, and soil for the future.

As a parent are you worried about the effects of climate change on your children and the children of Ohio?

Yes! As a child, I played outside all summer. I swam in local rivers and lakes that I would not let my daughter dip a toe in now because of pollution. While I can limit the contact she has with polluted waters, how do you protect a child from pollution in the air? We cannot ignore the severe weather patterns that we have seen in Ohio over the last 10 years, and its relation to climate change.  As severe weather continues, it will have a drastic impact on agriculture, the economy, and the health of everyone living here.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

Ohio is truly a 50/50 political state, with most people considering themselves moderate or independent. Unfortunately, as power swings back and forth between political parties, so does the State’s environmental policy. There needs to be a strategic, long term plan to address protecting our water, air, and soil quality that doesn’t change with every election, which is why creating bipartisan consensus is necessary for success on these issues.

 Is there anything you’d like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know? 

The advocacy work being done by Moms Clean Air Force is vital to educating members of the State legislature about how our policy has a profound impact on the children of Ohio. Never underestimate how influential the personal stories of a child can be, and how important it is for our state leaders to hear from our children.

 

Kristin Boggs was appointed to the Ohio House of Representatives in January 2016. She represents Ohio’s 18th House District, which includes Ohio State University, the downtown areas of Columbus, Grandview, and Bexley. Since her appointment, Boggs has served on the Judiciary, State Government, and Insurance Committees.

Boggs is a committed advocate for a strong public education system, affordable higher education, and economic opportunities for all working people. She believes that education and work force development are critical to growing and supporting a thriving economy. Boggs is also unwavering in her commitment to fight for equality.  During her time in the Ohio House, Boggs has supported legislation to address unequal pay for women, and she has pushed back against discriminatory legislation targeting the LGBT community.  

Prior to joining the Ohio House, Boggs graduated from the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and served as an Assistant Ohio Attorney General for nearly a decade.  During her time at the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Boggs assisted some of Ohio’s most vulnerable populations in recovering from crimes of financial exploitation and physical abuse. 

Boggs currently lives in the Short North with her husband, Adam Ward, her daughter, Sloane, and their dog, Riley.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

 

By Bryce Golden-Chen

My first week on the job at Environmental Defense Fund was also the week the Trump administration released its full federal budget proposal. I joined the EDF + Business team after working at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), implementing technology-to-market innovation partnerships for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The proposal slashes EERE and related offices and programs that have been at the forefront of successful public-private partnerships. At a time when the U.S. is backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and federal clean energy technology investments are critically and urgently needed, this budget threatens American innovation.

Funding that nurtures new businesses without requiring their owners to give up any stake in their companies can be make-or-break for the early-stage startups that drive innovation. When government, well-positioned to make this kind of unique investment, puts forth tax-payer dollars, it encourages the private sector to buy-in as well—oftentimes with a multiplying effect. DOE has created opportunities like these that reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and investors. It is through this public-private collaboration that meaningful partnerships and lasting progress are possible for clean energy and our nation’s economy.

Clean energy and innovation threatened

Titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” the president’s budget proposal jeopardizes nearly a decade of progress in building our clean energy economy.

Trump budget breakdown: Time to defend clean energy and American innovation
Click To Tweet

Dulling the cutting edge of our nation’s innovation enterprise curtails our ability to strategically lead in scientific and technological innovations more broadly, across sectors. Decelerating cleantech research, development, demonstration, and deployment would also inhibit our ability to deal responsibly with climate change and its consequences. Specifically, the President’s plan cuts FY18 funding to EERE by over $1.4 billion, down nearly 70 percent from FY16 and FY17 levels, and it all but eliminates the $290 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with a 93 percent reduction for FY18. It zeroes out EERE’s Strategic Programs Office that initiated, funds, and organizes tech-to-market efforts like the National Incubator Initiative for Clean Energy, Small Business Vouchers Pilot, and Energy I-Corps, which build innovative partnerships among startups, small businesses, incubators, and accelerators and give them unprecedented access to national lab scientists, engineers, and equipment. The plan does note that strategic subprograms would be consolidated or transferred to elsewhere within DOE. The budget also includes 70 percent cuts to both EERE’s Solar and Vehicle Technologies Offices. These are home to successful public-private partnership programs like the SunShot Initiative, which helped the solar industry achieve DOE’s vision of $1-per-watt three years early, and SuperTruck II, which builds upon the success of the original SuperTruck program that showed 115 percent improvements to freight fuel efficiency are possible.

The reductions go as far as eliminating the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office, which has worked with state, local, and tribal governments for decades to assist more than 7 million low-income households find significant savings through energy efficiency. These upgrades have lowered these families’ utility bills an average of $283 per year and brought demonstrated improvements to health and safety.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose.

Even DOE “crown jewels” that Energy Secretary Rick Perry vowed to protect are not safe as the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) now faces a 20 percent cut. NREL celebrates its 40th anniversary this year with its 2,200 employees who hold over 300 patents and further support the growing clean energy economy through more than 500 technology partnership agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions. Despite these and other successes, the proposed budget significantly defunds or eliminates clean energy activities across all 17 national labs.

The contradictions between the administration’s rhetoric and numeric reality are signs that our Energy Department may very well lose its unique and leading role at home and abroad in driving innovation.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from cuts to ARPA-E and EERE, which also work on methane leak detection and advanced combustion engines. These offices, programs, and labs have proven results, and to end or scale them back would be a disservice to U.S. industrial competitiveness and the American people.

Common ground and hope for progress

The good news is that clean energy continues to receive bipartisan support, and the proposed DOE cuts are widely opposed, including by at least six Republican senators. There is also broad consumer backing even among Trump voters for Energy Star, a joint EPA-DOE program helping consumers identify and select energy-saving products. Yet it too has been targeted by the administration. Fortunately, the private sector continues to step up, with diverse businesses and investors making serious cleantech commitments around the globe.

As I begin my work at EDF during these challenging times, I find hope in the common goal of human prosperity shared by the public and private sectors, in the opportunities created by collaborative approaches, and in the vast infrastructure and resilient spirit that are the true foundations of American entrepreneurship and innovation. Our country has a history of unexpected, rapid, and game-changing breakthroughs in science, technology, health, and sustainability that have improved the lives of millions of people. These can continue and accelerate into the future if, and only if, we do not back down now.

Photo source: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

By Bryce Golden-Chen

My first week on the job at Environmental Defense Fund was also the week the Trump administration released its full federal budget proposal. I joined the EDF + Business team after working at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), implementing technology-to-market innovation partnerships for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The proposal slashes EERE and related offices and programs that have been at the forefront of successful public-private partnerships. At a time when the U.S. is backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and federal clean energy technology investments are critically and urgently needed, this budget threatens American innovation.

Funding that nurtures new businesses without requiring their owners to give up any stake in their companies can be make-or-break for the early-stage startups that drive innovation. When government, well-positioned to make this kind of unique investment, puts forth tax-payer dollars, it encourages the private sector to buy-in as well—oftentimes with a multiplying effect. DOE has created opportunities like these that reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and investors. It is through this public-private collaboration that meaningful partnerships and lasting progress are possible for clean energy and our nation’s economy.

Clean energy and innovation threatened

Titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” the president’s budget proposal jeopardizes nearly a decade of progress in building our clean energy economy.

Trump budget breakdown: Time to defend clean energy and American innovation
Click To Tweet

Dulling the cutting edge of our nation’s innovation enterprise curtails our ability to strategically lead in scientific and technological innovations more broadly, across sectors. Decelerating cleantech research, development, demonstration, and deployment would also inhibit our ability to deal responsibly with climate change and its consequences. Specifically, the President’s plan cuts FY18 funding to EERE by over $1.4 billion, down nearly 70 percent from FY16 and FY17 levels, and it all but eliminates the $290 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with a 93 percent reduction for FY18. It zeroes out EERE’s Strategic Programs Office that initiated, funds, and organizes tech-to-market efforts like the National Incubator Initiative for Clean Energy, Small Business Vouchers Pilot, and Energy I-Corps, which build innovative partnerships among startups, small businesses, incubators, and accelerators and give them unprecedented access to national lab scientists, engineers, and equipment. The plan does note that strategic subprograms would be consolidated or transferred to elsewhere within DOE. The budget also includes 70 percent cuts to both EERE’s Solar and Vehicle Technologies Offices. These are home to successful public-private partnership programs like the SunShot Initiative, which helped the solar industry achieve DOE’s vision of $1-per-watt three years early, and SuperTruck II, which builds upon the success of the original SuperTruck program that showed 115 percent improvements to freight fuel efficiency are possible.

The reductions go as far as eliminating the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office, which has worked with state, local, and tribal governments for decades to assist more than 7 million low-income households find significant savings through energy efficiency. These upgrades have lowered these families’ utility bills an average of $283 per year and brought demonstrated improvements to health and safety.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose.

Even DOE “crown jewels” that Energy Secretary Rick Perry vowed to protect are not safe as the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) now faces a 20 percent cut. NREL celebrates its 40th anniversary this year with its 2,200 employees who hold over 300 patents and further support the growing clean energy economy through more than 500 technology partnership agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions. Despite these and other successes, the proposed budget significantly defunds or eliminates clean energy activities across all 17 national labs.

The contradictions between the administration’s rhetoric and numeric reality are signs that our Energy Department may very well lose its unique and leading role at home and abroad in driving innovation.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from cuts to ARPA-E and EERE, which also work on methane leak detection and advanced combustion engines. These offices, programs, and labs have proven results, and to end or scale them back would be a disservice to U.S. industrial competitiveness and the American people.

Common ground and hope for progress

The good news is that clean energy continues to receive bipartisan support, and the proposed DOE cuts are widely opposed, including by at least six Republican senators. There is also broad consumer backing even among Trump voters for Energy Star, a joint EPA-DOE program helping consumers identify and select energy-saving products. Yet it too has been targeted by the administration. Fortunately, the private sector continues to step up, with diverse businesses and investors making serious cleantech commitments around the globe.

As I begin my work at EDF during these challenging times, I find hope in the common goal of human prosperity shared by the public and private sectors, in the opportunities created by collaborative approaches, and in the vast infrastructure and resilient spirit that are the true foundations of American entrepreneurship and innovation. Our country has a history of unexpected, rapid, and game-changing breakthroughs in science, technology, health, and sustainability that have improved the lives of millions of people. These can continue and accelerate into the future if, and only if, we do not back down now.

Photo source: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

Written by Dominique Browning

 

Last week, Trump proclaimed his intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. But climate action presses on. Since Trump’s announcement, more than 200 US mayors have committed to fulfilling the goals of the Paris agreement, and EU members have strongly condemned the withdrawal, saying they will move ahead with climate action.

These leaders affirm: We’re still in the Paris agreement. And we, the moms and dads of America, we’re in too. We are working toward the Paris goals, with or without the President.

What are those goals?

The Paris climate accord is a non-binding agreement signed by almost every nation on Earth to significantly reduce the carbon dioxide and methane emissions that are causing global climate change.

Nations agreed to contain global average temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrialization levels. (Global average temperature has already risen more than 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880.)

Under the Paris agreement, nations proposed voluntary reductions in climate pollution. These reductions are not enough to meet the goal of containing temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, but countries agreed to ratchet up their commitments over time, through collectively evaluating progress every five years.

The US’s participation in the Paris agreement was seen as critical. The US accounts for one fifth of global human-caused climate pollution, and Trump’s withdrawal signals his unwillingness to take concrete action to limit climate pollution.

He’s unwilling. It’s reckless and arrogant. But we are leaving him behind. We’re still in! Nations, states, counties, cities, and individuals can and must take action to curb climate pollution—no matter what.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN