By Andrew Williams

The one fact that Pennsylvania lawmakers needed to hear today is this: Natural gas waste is up 28%.

And yet, the state senate held a hearing yesterday to discuss the impacts of natural gas development in the state, and not one environmental expert was on tap to speak. Consequently, senate leaders don’t have the full picture.

Here’s what state legislators need to know.

Industry-reported data made available this week by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection indicate that in the year ended 2015, emissions of methane – the main component of natural gas – were up over 28% although production grew by only 12%.

The amount of methane waste is even higher than what was found via a preliminary analysis of the data earlier this month. The simple truth is that while some companies are working to do the right thing and reduce emissions, the bulk of the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania has a significant methane pollution problem.

Methane is the same product that these companies are aiming to sell. That means there is usable energy, and real dollars, literally going up into thin air. With emissions increasing nearly 30% without a congruent rise in production, it’s clear the industry isn’t doing an adequate job of controlling emissions and conserving Pennsylvania’s natural resources.

This is not only a problem for industry’s bottom line, it’s a problem that impacts millions of Pennsylvanians.

More than 1.5 million Pennsylvanians live within half a mile of an oil or gas facility, and methane isn’t the only emission that’s concerning. These facilities also emit other harmful pollutants that can trigger asthma attacks, increase smog, and exacerbate health problems.

The good news is that Pennsylvanians don’t have to choose between their environment and their economy. With the right policies in place, both can thrive. But that’s only possible if the state moves forward to address industry’s methane emissions.

Fortunately, technologies that can reduce nearly half of these emissions are some of the most affordable pollution controls in the energy industry. And many of the service and manufacturing companies that develop these technologies are headquartered in Pennsylvania, meaning there’s a huge opportunity for companies to affordably reduce their pollution as they grow good-paying jobs.

With emissions on a rapid rise, it’s clear that the state should step in and require pollution controls to be implemented statewide.

In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf proposed a blueprint to reduce industry’s emissions. A year and a half later, there has been little action.

That’s due in no small part to a bill championed by many of the same senators in yesterday’s hearing that aims to prevent Pennsylvania from taking any action on methane that goes beyond federal efforts. That’s hugely problematic, and here’s why.

In April, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a 90-day stay on existing protections that would have cut methane pollution from new oil and gas facilities, and there is a possibility that the agency will rescind these protections altogether. This means that if Pennsylvania defers to the federal government for protections, well, they won’t be there. Tying Pennsylvania policies to whatever is happening in D.C. hardly serves the interest of Pennsylvania citizens and communities – instead, it’s a bouquet to industry.

Other major energy producing states, including: Colorado, Wyoming and Ohio, have been successful at crafting policies that require companies to use affordable and readily available technology to reduce emissions. And industry growth hasn’t been impacted – seven out of 10 gas companies surveyed in Colorado confirm that.

Since promising to reduce methane emissions, Pennsylvania has green-lighted nearly 2000 new drilling projects, yet zero new protections have been implemented.

With emissions increasing at an alarming rate, that has to change. We have to have a better balance. Pennsylvania’s elected leaders must be willing to put measures in place that can support Pennsylvania’s economy while protecting the health of our citizens and communities. The record clearly shows that both are possible.

By Karen Chapman

Areas with the same color indicate zones where the soil and climate are comparable – and consequently, where a fertilizer management product or tool could perform similarly.

NutrientStar, which assesses fertilizer management products and tools using field trials and in-depth scientific reviews, was a game changer for farmers. Prior to the launch of the program last year, there was no expert review program – no Carfax, no Consumer Reports – to help farmers determine what tools would work as advertised.

The only downside of the program was its limited utility. Farmers had no easy way to extrapolate results from the relatively few number of field trials performed thus far to their own locations.

Now, a new geospatial feature called the Technology Extrapolation Domain (TED) framework will make NutrientStar accessible to tens of thousands of additional farmers across the Corn Belt.

I like to think of it as NutrientStar on steroids.

Measuring conditions

In the past, when a product was field tested, the results from that trial were difficult to extrapolate to other parts of the country, particularly if only a few trials were conducted in a limited geographical area. It is even problematic to apply results to the surrounding area or across the entire state because such interpretations ignore the highly variable climatic and soil conditions that can exist within a relatively small region.

Researchers and farmers know fertilizer management tools do not perform the same way across different soils and weather patterns. Tools designed for use in commodity crops may perform in a similar fashion, however, if performance is viewed in the context of the same conditions that influence crop growth – climate and soils.

TED ties regions together based on these key growing conditions, not on proximity. Utilizing an existing approach developed by the University of Nebraska – Lincoln through the Global Yield Gap Atlas project, the framework is the first to provide a robust delineation of climatic and soil conditions across crop-producing regions in the United States.

The current version includes corn-growing regions in the U.S., and version 2.0 will include wheat-growing regions in the Western U.S. and Canada.

How it works

NutrientStar assesses fertilizer management products and tools using field trials and in-depth scientific reviews.

NutrientStar already lets farmers know which products have been tested on specific crops, what the results were (yield and fertilizer efficiency achieved, as well as profitability), how much research has been done on that product, and where it has been tested.

If a tool has not been tested in a farmer’s particular location, he can now go to the NutrientStar website and get information about areas of the Corn Belt where that tool has been tested that might correspond climate- and soils-wise to the area where he or she is farming. That’s because the framework divides up the Corn Belt and groups similar areas together by color. Areas with the same color indicate that a given product or management tool would perform similarly within that zone because soils and climate are similar.

Now, a farmer can find their specific location and the associated color of their operation’s geography. Looking at the TED framework, farmers can see other areas that have the same conditions and where the tool under question has been tested.

This comparison helps farmers – and their crop advisors – infer that a tool might work in their backyard, even if a field trial hasn’t been conducted at a nearby location.

The Technology Extrapolation Domain framework groups Corn Belt areas with similar soils and climate together by color.

Making the most out of field trials

The new framework can also help researchers who want to conduct field trials on a product or tool because it allows them to focus on locations where they would be able to get the biggest bang for their buck. In other words, it shows them which trial location has the greatest potential for extrapolating results out to other similar areas. Likewise, a manufacturer can now gauge certain conditions where a tool or product in development might be most effective.

We absolutely still need more data, transparency, and field trials from tool manufacturers to remove geographic limitations of assessments. While companies ramp up research, TED can help farmers interpret existing data more accurately – and makes NutrientStar a lot more useful for farmers across the Corn Belt.

Related:

If you're marketing a product to a farmer, show them where and how it will work >>

New guidance to maximize every drop of fertilizer in Ohio and beyond >>

Why ag advisors should increase conservation offerings to farmers >>

By Karen Chapman

Areas with the same color indicate zones where the soil and climate are comparable – and consequently, where a fertilizer management product or tool could perform similarly.

NutrientStar, which assesses fertilizer management products and tools using field trials and in-depth scientific reviews, was a game changer for farmers. Prior to the launch of the program last year, there was no expert review program – no Carfax, no Consumer Reports – to help farmers determine what tools would work as advertised.

The only downside of the program was its limited utility. Farmers had no easy way to extrapolate results from the relatively few number of field trials performed thus far to their own locations.

Now, a new geospatial feature called the Technology Extrapolation Domain (TED) framework will make NutrientStar accessible to tens of thousands of additional farmers across the Corn Belt.

I like to think of it as NutrientStar on steroids.

Measuring conditions

In the past, when a product was field tested, the results from that trial were difficult to extrapolate to other parts of the country, particularly if only a few trials were conducted in a limited geographical area. It is even problematic to apply results to the surrounding area or across the entire state because such interpretations ignore the highly variable climatic and soil conditions that can exist within a relatively small region.

Researchers and farmers know fertilizer management tools do not perform the same way across different soils and weather patterns. Tools designed for use in commodity crops may perform in a similar fashion, however, if performance is viewed in the context of the same conditions that influence crop growth – climate and soils.

TED ties regions together based on these key growing conditions, not on proximity. Utilizing an existing approach developed by the University of Nebraska – Lincoln through the Global Yield Gap Atlas project, the framework is the first to provide a robust delineation of climatic and soil conditions across crop-producing regions in the United States.

The current version includes corn-growing regions in the U.S., and version 2.0 will include wheat-growing regions in the Western U.S. and Canada.

How it works

NutrientStar assesses fertilizer management products and tools using field trials and in-depth scientific reviews.

NutrientStar already lets farmers know which products have been tested on specific crops, what the results were (yield and fertilizer efficiency achieved, as well as profitability), how much research has been done on that product, and where it has been tested.

If a tool has not been tested in a farmer’s particular location, he can now go to the NutrientStar website and get information about areas of the Corn Belt where that tool has been tested that might correspond climate- and soils-wise to the area where he or she is farming. That’s because the framework divides up the Corn Belt and groups similar areas together by color. Areas with the same color indicate that a given product or management tool would perform similarly within that zone because soils and climate are similar.

Now, a farmer can find their specific location and the associated color of their operation’s geography. Looking at the TED framework, farmers can see other areas that have the same conditions and where the tool under question has been tested.

This comparison helps farmers – and their crop advisors – infer that a tool might work in their backyard, even if a field trial hasn’t been conducted at a nearby location.

The Technology Extrapolation Domain framework groups Corn Belt areas with similar soils and climate together by color.

Making the most out of field trials

The new framework can also help researchers who want to conduct field trials on a product or tool because it allows them to focus on locations where they would be able to get the biggest bang for their buck. In other words, it shows them which trial location has the greatest potential for extrapolating results out to other similar areas. Likewise, a manufacturer can now gauge certain conditions where a tool or product in development might be most effective.

We absolutely still need more data, transparency, and field trials from tool manufacturers to remove geographic limitations of assessments. While companies ramp up research, TED can help farmers interpret existing data more accurately – and makes NutrientStar a lot more useful for farmers across the Corn Belt.

Related:

If you're marketing a product to a farmer, show them where and how it will work >>

New guidance to maximize every drop of fertilizer in Ohio and beyond >>

Why ag advisors should increase conservation offerings to farmers >>

NutrientStar, which assesses fertilizer management products and tools using field trials and in-depth scientific reviews, was a game changer for farmers. Prior to the launch of the program last year, there was no expert review program – no Carfax, no Consumer Reports – to help farmers determine what tools would work as advertised. The only […]

The post This new geospatial tool makes NutrientStar accessible to farmers across the Corn Belt first appeared on Growing Returns.

By Andrew Williams

The state senate held a hearing yesterday to discuss the impacts of natural gas development in the state, and yet not one environmental expert was on tap to speak. Consequently, senate leaders don’t have the full picture.

Here’s what state legislators need to know.

Industry-reported data made available this week by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection indicate that in  2015, emissions of methane – essentially natural gas – were up approximately 28% although production grew by only 12%.

The amount of methane waste is even higher than what was found via a preliminary analysis of the data earlier this month. The simple truth is that while some companies are working to do the right thing and reduce emissions, the bulk of the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania has a significant methane pollution problem.

Methane is the same product that these companies are aiming to sell. That means there is usable energy, and real dollars, literally going up into thin air. With emissions increasing nearly 30% without a congruent rise in production, it’s clear the industry isn’t doing an adequate job of controlling emissions and conserving Pennsylvania’s natural resources.

This is not only a problem for industry’s bottom line, it’s a problem that impacts millions of Pennsylvanians.

More than 1.5 million Pennsylvanians live within half a mile of an oil or gas facility, and methane isn’t the only emission that’s concerning. These facilities also emit other harmful pollutants that can trigger asthma attacks, increase smog, and exacerbate health problems.

The good news is that Pennsylvanians don’t have to choose between their environment and their economy. With the right policies in place, both can thrive. But that’s only possible if the state moves forward to address industry’s methane emissions.

Fortunately, technologies that can reduce nearly half of these emissions are some of the most affordable pollution controls in the energy industry. And many of the service and manufacturing companies that develop these technologies are headquartered in Pennsylvania, meaning there’s a huge opportunity for companies to affordably reduce their pollution as they grow good-paying jobs.

With emissions on a rapid rise, it’s clear that the state should step in and require pollution controls to be implemented statewide.

In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf proposed a blueprint to reduce industry’s emissions. A year and a half later, there has been little action.

That’s due in no small part to a bill championed by many of the same senators in today’s hearing that aims to prevent Pennsylvania from taking any action on methane that goes beyond federal efforts. That’s hugely problematic, and here’s why.

In April, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a 90-day stay on existing protections that would have cut methane pollution from new oil and gas facilities, and there is a possibility that the agency will rescind these protections altogether. This means that if Pennsylvania defers to the federal government for protections, well, they won’t be there. Tying Pennsylvania policies to whatever is happening in D.C. hardly serves the interest of Pennsylvania citizens and communities – instead, it’s a bouquet to industry.

Other major energy producing states, including: Colorado, Wyoming and Ohio, have been successful at crafting policies that require companies to use affordable and readily available technology to reduce emissions. And industry growth hasn’t been impacted – seven out of 10 gas companies surveyed in Colorado confirm that.

Since promising to reduce methane emissions, Pennsylvania has green-lighted nearly 2000 new drilling projects, yet zero new protections have been implemented.

With emissions increasing at an alarming rate, that has to change. We have to have a better balance. Pennsylvania’s elected leaders must be willing to put measures in place that can support Pennsylvania’s economy while protecting the health of our citizens and communities. The record clearly shows that both are possible.

By Erica Morehouse

Tower Bridge in Sacramento. Photo: public domain via pixabay.

Auction results from the May California-Quebec carbon auction showed increased demand after a California Court of Appeal upheld the legality of California’s auction design last month.

These auction results should send a clear message to legislators that California has a strong carbon market design that can weather legal challenges and the inevitable bumps of the political process.

They also indicate it’s high time to extend, adapt, and strengthen the cap-and-trade program as the backbone of California’s effort to meet its ambitious 2030 target – something the California legislature has an opportunity to do by June 15 in concert with the governor’s budget.

Results from the May 16 auction

• The auction offered more than 75 million current vintage allowances (available for 2017 or later compliance) and all of them sold at a price of $13.80, 23 cents above the minimum floor price. This is the first time the auction has cleared above the floor since November of 2015.
• Allowances held by the utilities, Quebec, and ARB sold with over $500 million expected for California’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).
• Almost 10 million future allowances were offered that will not be available for use until 2020 or later; a little over 2 million of those allowances sold. This is significantly higher than the 600,000 that sold in February but future allowances tend to have the most variability in demand.

Demand increased significantly from February, but why?

1. The market has clearly reacted positively by increasing demand in the wake of the Court of Appeals ruling. The appeal to the California Supreme Court and uncertainty about cap-and-trade’s future after 2020 may still be impacting market behavior, however.

2. Regulated businesses need a certain number of allowances to cover their emissions. Demand for allowances is in part driven by this simple reality, and since businesses have been laying low the last few auctions, it makes sense they would need to buy allowances this quarter. Economist Chris Busch describes why these “market fundamentals” led him to predict that at least 50-65 million allowances would be sold in this auction.

3. The stabilizing forces built into California’s program prevent big price swings when the market reacts to new developments. We can see this through California’s private secondary market, which shows daily allowance prices, and acts as a kind of barometer for how and whether the market is reacting to particular events. For example, after the California Court of Appeal on April 6 upheld the legality of California’s auction design, prices on the secondary market went up by 54 cents. When the California state senate on May 1 introduced SB 775, which would have overhauled the current cap-and-trade program and eliminated the auction allowances after 2020, the market dipped by roughly 20 cents – but recovered May 10 after the bill did not come up for a vote as anticipated. This means price shifts have been very small – mostly less than one dollar.

What will happen in the auctions if the legislature extends the cap-and-trade program?

An extension of the cap-and-trade program would lead to more robust demand for allowances — leading to a rising allowance price that better reflects the cost of a ton of carbon pollution reductions, taking into account the 2030 target that was put into law last year. With the price likely rising above the floor, we would expect to see future auctions being fully subscribed — translating into significantly more revenue for the GGRF to invest in projects that reduce carbon pollution.

Some observers have painted a dire picture of allowance prices spiking overnight. But that’s not how we’ve seen carbon markets behave in the past — and there’s no reason to think it will happen now. Instead, we’d expect a gradual strengthening of the allowance price over time, as compliance entities weighed the current price of allowances against the anticipated cost of reducing emissions in the future as the cap becomes more ambitious.

What’s more, the system already has a number of design features in place to protect against such a surge in prices, including offsets, the ability to draw on allowances “banked” from previous years, and a reserve pool of allowances (the “allowance price containment reserve”) that would be released into the market if prices rise high enough.

The governor is pushing hard for a deal on cap and trade by the budget deadline of June 15, so I’m hopeful the next auction will give us much to celebrate.

Auction results from the May California-Quebec carbon auction showed increased demand after a California Court of Appeal upheld the legality of California’s auction design last month. These auction results should send a clear message to legislators that California has a strong carbon market design that can weather legal challenges and the inevitable bumps of the […]

Auction results from the May California-Quebec carbon auction showed increased demand after a California Court of Appeal upheld the legality of California’s auction design last month. These auction results should send a clear message to legislators that California has a strong carbon market design that can weather legal challenges and the inevitable bumps of the […]

By Erica Morehouse

Tower Bridge in Sacramento. Photo: public domain via pixabay.

Auction results from the May California-Quebec carbon auction showed increased demand after a California Court of Appeal upheld the legality of California’s auction design last month.

These auction results should send a clear message to legislators that California has a strong carbon market design that can weather legal challenges and the inevitable bumps of the political process.

They also indicate it’s high time to extend, adapt, and strengthen the cap-and-trade program as the backbone of California’s effort to meet its ambitious 2030 target – something the California legislature has an opportunity to do by June 15 in concert with the governor’s budget.

Results from the May 16 auction

• The auction offered more than 75 million current vintage allowances (available for 2017 or later compliance) and all of them sold at a price of $13.80, 23 cents above the minimum floor price. This is the first time the auction has cleared above the floor since November of 2015.
• Allowances held by the utilities, Quebec, and ARB sold with over $500 million expected for California’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).
• Almost 10 million future allowances were offered that will not be available for use until 2020 or later; a little over 2 million of those allowances sold. This is significantly higher than the 600,000 that sold in February but future allowances tend to have the most variability in demand.

Demand increased significantly from February, but why?

1. The market has clearly reacted positively by increasing demand in the wake of the Court of Appeals ruling. The appeal to the California Supreme Court and uncertainty about cap-and-trade’s future after 2020 may still be impacting market behavior, however.

2. Regulated businesses need a certain number of allowances to cover their emissions. Demand for allowances is in part driven by this simple reality, and since businesses have been laying low the last few auctions, it makes sense they would need to buy allowances this quarter. Economist Chris Busch describes why these “market fundamentals” led him to predict that at least 50-65 million allowances would be sold in this auction.

3. The stabilizing forces built into California’s program prevent big price swings when the market reacts to new developments. We can see this through California’s private secondary market, which shows daily allowance prices, and acts as a kind of barometer for how and whether the market is reacting to particular events. For example, after the California Court of Appeal on April 6 upheld the legality of California’s auction design, prices on the secondary market went up by 54 cents. When the California state senate on May 1 introduced SB 775, which would have overhauled the current cap-and-trade program and eliminated the auction allowances after 2020, the market dipped by roughly 20 cents – but recovered May 10 after the bill did not come up for a vote as anticipated. This means price shifts have been very small – mostly less than one dollar.

What will happen in the auctions if the legislature extends the cap-and-trade program?

An extension of the cap-and-trade program would lead to more robust demand for allowances — leading to a rising allowance price that better reflects the cost of a ton of carbon pollution reductions, taking into account the 2030 target that was put into law last year. With the price likely rising above the floor, we would expect to see future auctions being fully subscribed — translating into significantly more revenue for the GGRF to invest in projects that reduce carbon pollution.

Some observers have painted a dire picture of allowance prices spiking overnight. But that’s not how we’ve seen carbon markets behave in the past — and there’s no reason to think it will happen now. Instead, we’d expect a gradual strengthening of the allowance price over time, as compliance entities weighed the current price of allowances against the anticipated cost of reducing emissions in the future as the cap becomes more ambitious.

What’s more, the system already has a number of design features in place to protect against such a surge in prices, including offsets, the ability to draw on allowances “banked” from previous years, and a reserve pool of allowances (the “allowance price containment reserve”) that would be released into the market if prices rise high enough.

The governor is pushing hard for a deal on cap and trade by the budget deadline of June 15, so I’m hopeful the next auction will give us much to celebrate.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

What makes up Moms Clean Air Force? Over one million Moms nationwide from a diverse range of backgrounds. Driven by the power of Mother Love, Moms Clean Air Force is a force to be reckoned with!

1,000,000

MEMBERS STRONG

We are thrilled to announce that our membership has reached one million, and want to share some of the amazing women who represent this Force:

Olga Bautista

Community Organizer, Illinois
@OBauti
“As a mom and community organizer, the last four years have been very challenging. My beloved South Chicago has been dumped on by chronic polluters. KCBX, owned by the infamous Koch Brothers, has been storing toxic Petroleum Coke along the banks of the Calumet River less than 100 feet from residents’ homes. Being part of Moms For Clean Air has been a breath of fresh air. I am so gracious for the ongoing support and I know that one day, together, we will win our battle against KCBX and our families will have clean air to breathe.” Donna Bullock

State Representative, Pennsylvania
@RepDonnaBullock
“As a lawmaker with two young children, I feel double the pressure to act on clean air and climate measures. I am particularly concerned about the effects of climate change on children who live in urban communities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and who are disproportionately at higher risk of asthma and other respiratory conditions.” Betsy Cramer

Pediatrician, New Hampshire
“I joined Moms Clean Air Force because as a pediatrician I know how important clean air and outdoor spaces are to the health of our families, and how especially vulnerable children are to the effects of climate change. I hope my children join me in working with others in our community to protect our natural environment and resources so we can get outside, play, and enjoy nature — today and always.” Melissa Freidrichs

Veteran, Virginia
@MelissaFrieder1
“I joined Moms Clean Air Force because it is important that we all do our part for the environment, and make sure it is a safe, clean place for our children. I will do my part locally, which will hopefully create action in others. The more people that care about what is happening, and act on behalf of the environment, the better!” Marsha Haley

Radiation Oncologist, Pennsylvania
@Haleyml1987
“I became a member of Moms Clean Air Force to join like-minded parents in reaching out to my local community and political representatives about the issues that are important to me. Through my research on the public health effects of industrial pollution, and my advocacy work with groups such as Moms Clean Air Force, my ultimate goal is to do what I can to work toward the goal of a healthy environment for my daughter and for all children.” Karen Lee

Writer & Chiropractor, New York
@drkarenslee
“I joined Moms Clean Air Force as a writer but also as a concerned mom for my children’s future. They are young adults with so many hopes and dreams and I wanted to make sure that the air they breathe and the planet that they live on will provide the necessary foundation for them to thrive. I recite my favorite quote, ‘We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children,” every day to remind me and to make me accountable for their future.” Eneshal Miller

Hairdresser, Washington, DC
“I joined Ethic Corps, Moms Clean Air Force and Future Beauty Industry Coalition in an effort to provide insight into consumer health. Growing up in my neighborhood in Southeast Washington, DC, every other childhood friend had asthma, or bronchitis — it’s scary.” Zozan Noman

Entrepreneur, Tennessee
“I decided to join Moms Clean Air Force because I knew I was doing the right thing for the sake of all children. Clean air shouldn’t be a battle for us to fight, however, clean air needs to be our way of life. I am a mother of two girls who are extremely adventurous and love being outdoors. It is my right as a parent to fight for clean air and no pollution because they are not able to speak for themselves.” Yumz Bagobe Poacelli

Photographer, New Jersey
“I immigrated from the Philippines in 2015. Before we moved to the US, we lived in Shanghai for 3 years — where we had to deal with bad pollution, which impacted our health. Because we were concerned for our health, we moved to the US. I can see the future of our children growing up in this beautiful country. I still am concerned about our health and the air we breathe. Because of that I support and love being part of Mom Clean Air Force — to protect our nature, our children and our family’s health.” Joylette Portlock, Ph.D.

Scientist, Pennsylvania
@Communitopia
“I support the work of Moms Clean Air Force because it’s an important network of passionate people, and I agree that parents’ voices are some of the most powerful voices for climate action.” Payal Shah

Public Health Professional and Organizational Strategist, Washington, DC
@PayalShahMartin
“I joined Moms Clean Air Force because clean air today is essential for the health of our children, because human health tomorrow is dependent on a healthy planet today, and because I am willing to fight for everyone’s right to breathe clean air.” Marifel Songco

Nurse, California
“I joined Moms Clean Air Force because, as a mother and a nurse, I understand the importance of clean air to breathe, both personally and professionally. I understand the impact that asthma can have on children and families.” Alejandra Stern

Public Relations Specialist and Business Owner, Florida
@alestern03
“I was born and raised in Mexico City and later moved to Miami. Due to being exposed to poor air quality every day at a very young age, I suffered from recurring respiratory infections. I joined Moms Clean Air Force to ensure my kids and future generations enjoy a healthier quality of life.” Kelly Trout

Nurse, Texas
@belikeaduck
Kelly’s daughter has WAGR syndrome, an extremely rare genetic disorder. Kelly became a lifelong advocate for her daughter and disability rights, and co-founded what became International WAGR Syndrome Association. As a result of the election, Kelly’s advocacy quickly expanded on more fronts, including climate change: “All the success we thought was behind us are now gone, so we’re literally fighting for our lives.”

Moms Clean Air Force is 1 million moms strong! #1mCleanAirMoms (Tweet this)

JOIN MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

Over 1 million members strong, Moms Clean Air Force is the largest parent-focused activism group in US, with members from all  50 states and every political persuasion.

“Moms have passion and power – an unbeatable combination. We are harnessing the strength of motherly love to fight back against polluters. Our goal is to be a visible and organized force in every state and every Congressional District. We not only bring forward the voice of moms, but also the voices of those who cannot be heard on their own: children.” ~ Dominique Browning, co-founder and senior director. 

Moms Clean Air Force is 1 million moms strong! #1mCleanAirMoms (Tweet this)

JOIN MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE

By Boma Brown-West

Today EDF released a new report, Smart Innovation: The Opportunity for Safer Preservatives, which offers a framework for safer chemical and product development. The report details baseline toxicological information on a select set of preservative chemicals used in personal care products, and makes the case for why and how access to uniformly developed sets of chemical health and safety information can help drive safer chemical and product innovation.

Consumers are demanding safer products for their homes, schools, and places of work. Growing awareness about the health and environmental impacts of chemicals is driving this demand. The entire consumer goods supply chain, from chemical manufacturers to retailers, plays a significant role in ensuring products on the market are healthful—i.e. made up of ingredients or materials that are as safe as possible and support healthy living.

How can we use data to strengthen the marketplace and ensure better innovation and competition for safer chemicals? Companies introduce new products into the marketplace all the time, but too few strive towards innovation that is safer for people and the planet. We need innovation that generates ingredients and materials that not only perform, but are also safer than their predecessors. Smart innovation is data-driven, deliberate, and delivers solutions that support health.

Unfortunately, the lack of availability and access to comprehensive and transparent toxicological information on chemicals across the supply chain continues to be a major obstacle to smart innovation. Such baseline information is invaluable for setting safer chemical design criteria that chemical and product developers can integrate into their R&D efforts.

In EDF's new report, we demonstrate how this type of information can be useful in the pursuit of safer preservatives – an ingredient class that has garnered much regulatory and market scrutiny. For example, major retailers like Walmart, Target, and CVS have published chemicals policies that aim to drive chemicals of concern off their shelves while ensuring consumer access to safer chemicals and products. Preservatives are present on each of these retailer’s lists of chemicals targeted for removal.

Ultimately, delivering products to the marketplace that use the safest possible ingredients requires concerted effort and informed, smart innovation. Our report discusses how this can be achieved via the creation of a collective Chemicals Assessment Clearinghouse that is leveraged across the supply chain. Such a Clearinghouse would provide a strategic intervention to unlock safer chemicals innovation to benefit companies, consumers and the environment.

Today EDF released a new report, Smart Innovation: The Opportunity for Safer Preservatives, which offers a framework for safer chemical and product development. The report details baseline toxicological information on a select set of preservative chemicals used in personal care products, and makes the case for why and how access to uniformly developed sets of […]

By Boma Brown-West

Today EDF released a new report, Smart Innovation: The Opportunity for Safer Preservatives, which offers a framework for safer chemical and product development. The report details baseline toxicological information on a select set of preservative chemicals used in personal care products, and makes the case for why and how access to uniformly developed sets of chemical health and safety information can help drive safer chemical and product innovation.

Consumers are demanding safer products for their homes, schools, and places of work. Growing awareness about the health and environmental impacts of chemicals is driving this demand. The entire consumer goods supply chain, from chemical manufacturers to retailers, plays a significant role in ensuring products on the market are healthful—i.e. made up of ingredients or materials that are as safe as possible and support healthy living.

How can we use data to strengthen the marketplace and ensure better innovation and competition for safer chemicals? Companies introduce new products into the marketplace all the time, but too few strive towards innovation that is safer for people and the planet. We need innovation that generates ingredients and materials that not only perform, but are also safer than their predecessors. Smart innovation is data-driven, deliberate, and delivers solutions that support health.

Unfortunately, the lack of availability and access to comprehensive and transparent toxicological information on chemicals across the supply chain continues to be a major obstacle to smart innovation. Such baseline information is invaluable for setting safer chemical design criteria that chemical and product developers can integrate into their R&D efforts.

In EDF's new report, we demonstrate how this type of information can be useful in the pursuit of safer preservatives – an ingredient class that has garnered much regulatory and market scrutiny. For example, major retailers like Walmart, Target, and CVS have published chemicals policies that aim to drive chemicals of concern off their shelves while ensuring consumer access to safer chemicals and products. Preservatives are present on each of these retailer’s lists of chemicals targeted for removal.

Ultimately, delivering products to the marketplace that use the safest possible ingredients requires concerted effort and informed, smart innovation. Our report discusses how this can be achieved via the creation of a collective Chemicals Assessment Clearinghouse that is leveraged across the supply chain. Such a Clearinghouse would provide a strategic intervention to unlock safer chemicals innovation to benefit companies, consumers and the environment.

By Namrita Kapur

With the U.S. role in the Paris Climate Agreement hanging in the balance, over 280 investors managing a collective $17 trillion in assets spoke up in support of the agreement:

As long-term institutional investors, we believe that the mitigation of climate change is essential for the safeguarding of our investments. . . . . We urge all nations to stand by their commitments to the agreement.

Why do investors care?  As pointed out in a blog earlier this year, for investors, it all comes down to risk and return. And, where climate change is concerned, this is a risk that is omnipresent.

Simply put, investors cannot diversify away from the risks of climate change. Unlike other risks such as currency fluctuations or new regulations, the disruptive impacts of climate change on the global economic system are so pervasive they cannot be offset by simply shifting stock portfolios from one industry to another.

A study from Cambridge University found equity portfolios face losses of up to 45% from climate shocks, with only half of these losses being “hedgeable.” Likewise, The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates that investors are at risk of losing $4.2 trillion by 2100, with losses accruing across sectors from real estate to telecom and manufacturing.

Because investors recognize that climate risk is unavoidable, they support a coordinated global effort as envisioned in the Paris Agreement. It is also why investors have already expressed such strong support for regulatory limits on carbon and methane emissions.  Governments globally will need to take further proactive action to limit greenhouse gases, and incentivize technology shifts towards lower-carbon energy.

Seizing opportunities in a low-carbon economy

Technology changes will require significant adjustments in how global capital is allocated, which is an opportunity investors are eager to seize because of the promise of risk-adjusted returns in the space.

It is estimated that a shift to a clean-energy economy will require $93 trillion in new investments between 2015 and 2030 and the rise of impact investing shows markets are starting to respond to opportunities in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy efficiency among others.

For example, the green bond market has grown from $11 billion to $81 billion between 2011 and 2016 with projections for 2017 as high as $150 billion. On top of this, leading global investment banks have already pledged billions towards sustainable investing.

And where capital flows, so do jobs.

As we’re seeing in the US, renewable energy jobs grew at a compound annual growth rate of nearly 6% between 2012 and 2015 and the solar industry is creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.  Similarly, the methane mitigation industry is putting Americans and Canadians to work limiting highly potent emissions from oil and gas development.

Technology and capital changes are already happening, but are unlikely to happen quickly enough on their own.  Government policies and frameworks that speed this transition, like a price on carbon, will be critical.

Which brings us back to the importance of the Paris Agreement…

The Paris Agreement is crucial to addressing climate change

Investors vote with their dollars, and are strongly backing U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement. Global investors understand the risk of climate change and see the Paris Agreement as a good return on investment, with an optimistic $17 trillion nod to the power of capital markets to provide the innovation and jobs we need if the right policies are in place. The U.S. administration should ensure it is considering the voice of investors and the capital they stand ready to put to use as it makes its decision.

By Namrita Kapur

With the U.S. role in the Paris Climate Agreement hanging in the balance, over 280 investors managing a collective $17 trillion in assets spoke up in support of the agreement:

As long-term institutional investors, we believe that the mitigation of climate change is essential for the safeguarding of our investments. . . . . We urge all nations to stand by their commitments to the agreement.

Why do investors care?  As pointed out in a blog earlier this year, for investors, it all comes down to risk and return. And, where climate change is concerned, this is a risk that is omnipresent.

Simply put, investors cannot diversify away from the risks of climate change. Unlike other risks such as currency fluctuations or new regulations, the disruptive impacts of climate change on the global economic system are so pervasive they cannot be offset by simply shifting stock portfolios from one industry to another.

A study from Cambridge University found equity portfolios face losses of up to 45% from climate shocks, with only half of these losses being “hedgeable.” Likewise, The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates that investors are at risk of losing $4.2 trillion by 2100, with losses accruing across sectors from real estate to telecom and manufacturing.

Because investors recognize that climate risk is unavoidable, they support a coordinated global effort as envisioned in the Paris Agreement. It is also why investors have already expressed such strong support for regulatory limits on carbon and methane emissions.  Governments globally will need to take further proactive action to limit greenhouse gases, and incentivize technology shifts towards lower-carbon energy.

Seizing opportunities in a low-carbon economy

Technology changes will require significant adjustments in how global capital is allocated, which is an opportunity investors are eager to seize because of the promise of risk-adjusted returns in the space.

It is estimated that a shift to a clean-energy economy will require $93 trillion in new investments between 2015 and 2030 and the rise of impact investing shows markets are starting to respond to opportunities in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy efficiency among others.

For example, the green bond market has grown from $11 billion to $81 billion between 2011 and 2016 with projections for 2017 as high as $150 billion. On top of this, leading global investment banks have already pledged billions towards sustainable investing.

And where capital flows, so do jobs.

As we’re seeing in the US, renewable energy jobs grew at a compound annual growth rate of nearly 6% between 2012 and 2015 and the solar industry is creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.  Similarly, the methane mitigation industry is putting Americans and Canadians to work limiting highly potent emissions from oil and gas development.

Technology and capital changes are already happening, but are unlikely to happen quickly enough on their own.  Government policies and frameworks that speed this transition, like a price on carbon, will be critical.

Which brings us back to the importance of the Paris Agreement…

The Paris Agreement is crucial to addressing climate change

Investors vote with their dollars, and are strongly backing U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement. Global investors understand the risk of climate change and see the Paris Agreement as a good return on investment, with an optimistic $17 trillion nod to the power of capital markets to provide the innovation and jobs we need if the right policies are in place. The U.S. administration should ensure it is considering the voice of investors and the capital they stand ready to put to use as it makes its decision.

Written by Dominique Browning

President Trump has just announced, as part of his 2018 budget proposal, a draconian 31% cut in EPA’s budget. That’s the biggest cut in any federal agency. And EPA is already among the smallest agencies.

That means EPA will be unable to detect and measure pollution, unable to enforce pollution laws, and unable to make sure companies clean up their pollution. Many of us depend on EPA to tell us when there is a Code Orange day—when the air is too dangerous for children with asthma, or seniors with heart conditions, to be outdoors—or a Code Red day, when the air is too dangerous for all of us to be outside. Under Trump’s proposed budget, that lifesaving program gets slashed.

Of course, not one single polluter is ever held responsible for fighting asthma, cancer, premature births, neurological damage, strokes, heart attacks, and other health issues that are directly linked to air pollution. Pruitt is rolling back every single health protection he can get his hands on. He’s even trying to make it okay to spew mercury and lead into our air again. Both are terrible poisons for the developing brains of our little ones.

Polluters who break the law go free — because the laws that keep poisons out of our air and water are being systematically undermined as fast as possible.

For instance, Wyoming oil and gas company Devon Energy was illegally emitting. 80 tons of hazardous and cancer-causing chemicals every year. These created a smog so thick it blanketed huge swaths of Wyoming. Devon Energy was threatened with a hefty fine by the previous EPA. But now that their friend Scott Pruitt is in charge, the company can expect to pay a much lower fine, and is planning to walk away from its commitment to installing pollution prevention technology, according to an exposé in the New York Times.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 by a Republican administration to protect us from clouds of lethal pollution in cities across the United States. It has cleaned up our air, and the economy has rocketed along; strong anti-pollution regulations have not hurt business. Clean air should not be a partisan issue.

But now EPA is being run by a man who thinks his job is to protect polluters — and their profits. Their profits fund his — and his cronies’ — political races; so far, Pruitt has raised $4 million from major polluters. Is there any question about who he works for? Himself, and the fossil fuel industry. Even the senator charged with overseeing EPA, John A. Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, has collected more than $500,000 in contributions from the oil and gas industry in the last two years.

It is hard to understand how any politician could be so corrupt, so irresponsible, heartless and careless. It is all about money and power—for people who will never, ever feel like they have enough money, or power.

The rest of us are not powerless. Your protests stopped these vicious cuts to EPA for the 2017 budget cycle. Now it is time to deal with the 2018 budget. Sign our petition. Call your senators and representatives.

TELL YOUR SENATOR: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN