Written by Molly Rauch

Some of America’s largest companies are looking a lot like climate change heroes right now. (Tweet this) They are affirming the urgency of the climate crisis, hoping to sway the hand of the climate change-denying Commander in Chief.

Moms are grateful for the moral fiber exhibited by these companies, which are concerned about US participation in the Paris climate agreement.

Rumors are swirling about Trump’s intention to walk away from the agreement. He seems to have dueling factions whispering in his ear. Is it Secretary of State and former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson? Or daughter and close advisor Ivanka Trump? If so, the US might stay in the Paris agreement. Or is today’s favored perspective that of EPA Administrator and polluter-promoter Scott Pruitt? If so, the US is likely to walk away from the historic global agreement that aims to reduce dangerous climate emissions.

Whatever disagreements are roiling among Trump’s inner circle, greenhouse gas emissions continue to alter our climate and impact our communities. Our children’s health and future is literally at stake.

Trump made a reckless campaign promise to “cancel” the Paris agreement, implying that fulfilling our promises under that agreement would stifle economic growth. But dozens of titans of the US economy have recently united to declare their support of the Paris climate agreement. They recognize that climate change is a global threat to families, communities, national security, public health – and to their businesses.

These companies represent a range of industries, including some surprising brand names like Tiffany & Co. and Levi Strauss, as well as tech giants Apple and Google. Here’s the list of companies that signed a recent letter urging the President to keep the US in the Paris agreement:

• Adobe
• Apple
• Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
• Danfoss
• Dignity Health
• Facebook
• Gap, Inc.
• Google
• Hewlett Packard Enterprise
• Ingersoll Rand
• Intel Corporation
• Johnson Controls
• Levi Strauss & Co.
• Mars Incorporated
• Microsoft
• Morgan Stanley
• National Grid
• PG&E Corporation
• Royal DSM
• Salesforce
• Schneider Electric
• Tiffany and Co.
• Unilever
• VF Corporation

Their message appeared in a full page ad in the New York Times, and some companies, such as Tiffany & Co., also took to their social media channels to affirm their dedication to global climate action.

Regardless of whether or not Trump keeps the USA in the agreement, his EPA chief Scott Pruitt is doing everything in his power to wreck our ability to meet our pledged emissions standards. That’s truly destructive. Still, it is important that we stay in the agreement as a signal to the rest of the world that we honor our agreements and acknowledge the moral obligation to protect those most vulnerable to climate impacts.

How are these pioneering companies going to know how grateful moms are? Because we’ll tell them. Contact the companies and thank them yourself. It can be simple: “I recently learned that you support the Paris Climate Agreement. As a mom, I want to say Thank You for your leadership on addressing climate change.” Here is contact info for a few of the above listed companies:

• Apple: (408) 996–1010
• Facebook: (650) 308-7300
• Gap, Inc.: (650) 952-4400
• Google: (650) 253-0000
• Hewlett Packard Enterprise: (650) 857-1501
• Levi Strauss & Co.: online comment form
• Mars Incorporated: online comment form
• Microsoft: (425) 882-8080
• Morgan Stanley: (212) 761-4000
• Tiffany and Co.: (212) 755-8000
• Unilever: online comment form

Climate change is a global health threat, and so global action is necessary to solve the problem. The Paris Climate Agreement, which garnered the support of almost every single nation on Earth when it was adopted in 2015, is the first global effort to systematically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This historic, visionary agreement is a lifeline that will help protect our children’s future. Thank you to those American businesses that recognize its importance.

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR HEALTH FROM AIR AND CLIMATE POLLUTION

April showers usually bring May flowers. They also often bring higher river flows. The heavy rainfall within the Mississippi River’s enormous drainage basin over the last month is currently flowing down the river toward the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began inspections along the Mississippi River on May 4th in response to the rising river. In Baton Rouge, the river stage is predicted to peak at 41 feet on May 27th. While a river stage of ...

Read The Full Story

The post April Showers Bring May Flows: What That Means for Louisiana’s Wetlands appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

April showers usually bring May flowers. They also often bring higher river flows. The heavy rainfall within the Mississippi River’s enormous drainage basin over the last month is currently flowing down the river toward the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began inspections along the Mississippi River on May 4th in response to the rising river. In Baton Rouge, the river stage is predicted to peak at 41 feet on May 27th. While a river stage of ...

Read The Full Story

The post April Showers Bring May Flows: What That Means for Louisiana’s Wetlands appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

April showers usually bring May flowers. They also often bring higher river flows. The heavy rainfall within the Mississippi River’s enormous drainage basin over the last month is currently flowing down the river toward the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began inspections along the Mississippi River on May 4th in response to the rising river. In Baton Rouge, the river stage is predicted to peak at 41 feet on May 27th. While a river stage of ...

Read The Full Story

The post April Showers Bring May Flows: What That Means for Louisiana’s Wetlands appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Not only did he reinforce Minnesotans' commitment to leadership in the wake of climate action attacks by the Trump Administration, but he just vetoed the state legislature's dangerous bill. Regional.

Not only did he reinforce Minnesotans' commitment to leadership in the wake of climate action attacks by the Trump Administration, but he just vetoed the state legislature's dangerous bill. Regional.

Not only did he reinforce Minnesotans' commitment to leadership in the wake of climate action attacks by the Trump Administration, but he just vetoed the state legislature's dangerous bill. Regional.

Groups call on Congressional leaders to fight for GOMESA funding, and other critical programs that protect communities and wetlands. (NEW ORLEANS – May 23, 2017) Earlier today, President Trump unveiled a budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2018 that would significantly set back coastal restoration and protection efforts in Louisiana. The proposal upends the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), which is a commitment from Congress to share offshore energy revenues with four of the Gulf states that are impacted ...

Read The Full Story

The post President Trump’s Budget Proposal Abandons Louisiana Coastal Restoration appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Groups call on Congressional leaders to fight for GOMESA funding, and other critical programs that protect communities and wetlands. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (NEW ORLEANS – May 23, 2017) Earlier today, President Trump unveiled a budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2018 that would significantly set back coastal restoration and protection efforts in Louisiana. The proposal upends the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), which is a commitment from Congress to share offshore energy revenues with four of the Gulf states ...

Read The Full Story

The post President Trump’s Budget Proposal Abandons Louisiana Coastal Restoration appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Groups call on Congressional leaders to fight for GOMESA funding, and other critical programs that protect communities and wetlands. (NEW ORLEANS – May 23, 2017) Earlier today, President Trump unveiled a budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2018 that would significantly set back coastal restoration and protection efforts in Louisiana. The proposal upends the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), which is a commitment from Congress to share offshore energy revenues with four of the Gulf states that are impacted ...

Read The Full Story

The post President Trump’s Budget Proposal Abandons Louisiana Coastal Restoration appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Trump's EPA budget: 5 critical public health programs on the chopping block

The federal budget that the president proposes annually and Congress votes on is more than a collection of numbers. It tells us who the president is, what he stands for, and what he cares about.

With President Trump’s first proposed budget since his election now official, we do indeed have reason to be alarmed. It’s clear that Trump is directing a full-scale effort to dismantle our nation’s core environmental protections.

Helping to lead that charge is none other than Scott Pruitt, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He has claimed that the deep EPA budget cuts they’re planning – at 31 percent, the worst of any department or agency of government – are actually a good thing.   

By cutting funding to the states, which help the EPA carry out its environmental mission, it will somehow improve environmental protection, Pruitt argues.

What it means in reality is that states will be left holding the environmental bag for some programs they must still carry out, that some protections will likely just go away or diminish – and that families and communities in 50 states are put at great risk. 

For example, about 25 percent of state and local air quality monitoring funds come from EPA grants. That monitoring allows public health officials to warn families and communities about “Code Red” days – those badly polluted days when the air is too dangerous for children with asthma and seniors with heart conditions to spend time outdoors.

The Trump administration is proposing to cut that that funding by one-third, leaving states and local governments legally required to make up the shortfall. Other critical federal public health and environmental programs will just be axed.

With the president’s budget now out, we’re looking at these five key tests as we assess the damage:

1. Will cleanup of toxic waste sites be slowed?

There are more than 1,300 toxic Superfund waste sites and 450,000 brownfield hazardous sites across America, causing untold damage to local communities, such as toxins in their drinking water, cancer hotspots and stalled economic development.

Preliminary indications were that Trump and Pruitt plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from this program, dramatically slowing cleanup at these sites, many of which have been posing health hazards for decades.

2. Will polluters still be held accountable?

Pruitt’s long, cozy relationship with companies that have supported his political career – and his actual record as Attorney General of Oklahoma – suggest he’ll go easy on polluters. Serious cuts to the office that enforces clean air and water laws, for which the federal government is responsible, will suggest he has no intention of changing his ways.

3. Will harmful air pollution increase?

Pruitt has expressed hostility to rules limiting mercury, acid gas, carbon and smog pollution. If clean air program funding is scaled back, we’ll know he not only intends to go after these rules, but wants to hobble the EPA’s ability to carry out the entire Clean Air Act.

4. Will lead protection programs be weakened?

There is no safe level of lead, a known neurotoxin that that damages children’s IQs for the rest of their lives. While the EPA has made great strides reducing lead exposure from paints, gasoline, pipes, soil and so on, more than half a million American kids have elevated lead levels in their blood.

The Trump-Pruitt budget slashes funding for programs that are helping these kids.

5. Will climate action become a thing of the past?

Both President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have said that more study of climate change is needed before any action can be taken. Yet their new budget rips out all spending for climate research, education and action.

That includes zeroing out the Climate Action Plan, the landmark achievement of the Obama Administration that would impose the first-ever limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Of course, neither the EPA nor the White House say they’re gutting the programs that keep our air and water clean. The administration knows that overwhelming majorities of the American people, including Trump voters, want those programs to stay strong.

Instead, they’ll continue to point to a few programs where they added money, or didn’t cut. They’ve added some money to a few favored programs, and are asking you to ignore the rest of their disastrous budget choices.

Except, the public won’t be fooled into thinking that massive budget cuts that eviscerate community and family environmental health protections are somehow good for America.

Instead, we’re all learning together on which side the Trump administration actually stands – not on the side of Americans, but on the side of polluters. 

Tell Congress to keep our safeguards strong Anonymous May 22, 2017 - 03:39

See comments

Trump is not open to criticism. Anytime his fallacies are challenged, he becomes overly defensive and attacks furiously, becoming more unreasonable than he was at the start of the incident. We need peaceful-minded mediators to negotiate between us and him, or them, as the Republican Party appears to support him through everything.

Sandra Schettler May 22, 2017 at 9:02 pm

It looks like the Republicans let him be president if he did what they want. Quid pro quo.

Susannah May 24, 2017 at 7:47 pm

In reply to Trump is not open to by Sandra Schettler

Presidents in the past have fought hard to save our beautiful environment – mountains, parks and water, lakes, rivers, streams. Total opposite now and we will be screwed going forward!

Judy Sheldon May 24, 2017 at 4:41 pm

Trump's EPA budget: 5 critical public health programs on the chopping block

The federal budget that the president proposes annually and Congress votes on is more than a collection of numbers. It tells us who the president is, what he stands for, and what he cares about.

With President Trump’s first proposed budget since his election now official, we do indeed have reason to be alarmed. It’s clear that Trump is directing a full-scale effort to dismantle our nation’s core environmental protections.

Helping to lead that charge is none other than Scott Pruitt, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He has claimed that the deep EPA budget cuts they’re planning – at 31 percent, the worst of any department or agency of government – are actually a good thing.   

By cutting funding to the states, which help the EPA carry out its environmental mission, it will somehow improve environmental protection, Pruitt argues.

What it means in reality is that states will be left holding the environmental bag for some programs they must still carry out, that some protections will likely just go away or diminish – and that families and communities in 50 states are put at great risk. 

For example, about 25 percent of state and local air quality monitoring funds come from EPA grants. That monitoring allows public health officials to warn families and communities about “Code Red” days – those badly polluted days when the air is too dangerous for children with asthma and seniors with heart conditions to spend time outdoors.

The Trump administration is proposing to cut that that funding by one-third, leaving states and local governments legally required to make up the shortfall. Other critical federal public health and environmental programs will just be axed.

With the president’s budget now out, we’re looking at these five key tests as we assess the damage:

1. Will cleanup of toxic waste sites be slowed?

There are more than 1,300 toxic Superfund waste sites and 450,000 brownfield hazardous sites across America, causing untold damage to local communities, such as toxins in their drinking water, cancer hotspots and stalled economic development.

Preliminary indications were that Trump and Pruitt plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from this program, dramatically slowing cleanup at these sites, many of which have been posing health hazards for decades.

2. Will polluters still be held accountable?

Pruitt’s long, cozy relationship with companies that have supported his political career – and his actual record as Attorney General of Oklahoma – suggest he’ll go easy on polluters. Serious cuts to the office that enforces clean air and water laws, for which the federal government is responsible, will suggest he has no intention of changing his ways.

3. Will harmful air pollution increase?

Pruitt has expressed hostility to rules limiting mercury, acid gas, carbon and smog pollution. If clean air program funding is scaled back, we’ll know he not only intends to go after these rules, but wants to hobble the EPA’s ability to carry out the entire Clean Air Act.

4. Will lead protection programs be weakened?

There is no safe level of lead, a known neurotoxin that that damages children’s IQs for the rest of their lives. While the EPA has made great strides reducing lead exposure from paints, gasoline, pipes, soil and so on, more than half a million American kids have elevated lead levels in their blood.

The Trump-Pruitt budget slashes funding for programs that are helping these kids.

5. Will climate action become a thing of the past?

Both President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have said that more study of climate change is needed before any action can be taken. Yet their new budget rips out all spending for climate research, education and action.

That includes zeroing out the Climate Action Plan, the landmark achievement of the Obama Administration that would impose the first-ever limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Of course, neither the EPA nor the White House say they’re gutting the programs that keep our air and water clean. The administration knows that overwhelming majorities of the American people, including Trump voters, want those programs to stay strong.

Instead, they’ll continue to point to a few programs where they added money, or didn’t cut. They’ve added some money to a few favored programs, and are asking you to ignore the rest of their disastrous budget choices.

Except, the public won’t be fooled into thinking that massive budget cuts that eviscerate community and family environmental health protections are somehow good for America.

Instead, we’re all learning together on which side the Trump administration actually stands – not on the side of Americans, but on the side of polluters. 

Tell Congress to keep our safeguards strong Anonymous May 22, 2017 - 03:39

See comments

Trump is not open to criticism. Anytime his fallacies are challenged, he becomes overly defensive and attacks furiously, becoming more unreasonable than he was at the start of the incident. We need peaceful-minded mediators to negotiate between us and him, or them, as the Republican Party appears to support him through everything.

Sandra Schettler May 22, 2017 at 9:02 pm

It looks like the Republicans let him be president if he did what they want. Quid pro quo.

Susannah May 24, 2017 at 7:47 pm

In reply to Trump is not open to by Sandra Schettler

Presidents in the past have fought hard to save our beautiful environment – mountains, parks and water, lakes, rivers, streams. Total opposite now and we will be screwed going forward!

Judy Sheldon May 24, 2017 at 4:41 pm

By Jim Marston

Among Rick Perry’s first acts as Secretary of Energy was calling for a 60-day “study” of whether any policies or regulations have led to the premature retirement of coal or nuclear plants. I – and many others in the clean energy industry – are concerned this so-called study will amount to little more than a pro-coal fluff piece.

To people familiar with energy policy and the coal industry’s rhetoric, Perry’s request is a transparent promotion of coal and a backdoor attack on clean energy resources, like solar, wind, and energy efficiency. Besides, 60 days is barely enough time to fill job vacancies in a new administration, much less conduct a thorough analysis of America’s complex energy policies.

But until the report is released, we can only look at what Perry and other Trump appointees have said and done about energy, generally, and coal, specifically, to predict what arguments Perry’s office will make.

Over the next few weeks, EDF will examine several of the administration’s pro-coal arguments and explain why:

What we know so far about Rick Perry’s power grid “study”
Click To Tweet

• Perry’s coal propaganda has nothing to do with reliability and everything to do with giving the pollution industry what it wants. The “grid reliability” angle is a ruse, and one Perry used a decade ago when he tried to fast track new coal plants in Texas. This issue has been studied relentlessly by grid operators and government agencies around the country, and the grid is handling coal’s decline just fine. The Trump administration is using the reliability argument as cover to distract the American people from their close ties with the coal industry. Just look at Perry’s staff at DOE – it’s a who’s who of the fossil fuel industry lobby. His Chief of Staff, who will manage the study, worked for the Edison Electric Institute – where he led its anti-solar campaign.
• Perry’s (and Trump’s and Pruitt’s) flip-flop on states’ rights is hypocritical. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently took time off from decimating our clean air and water protections to second Perry’s argument that some state policies that encourage fuels other than coal could be a national security risk and should be reversed. I must admit, suggesting that coal makes America safer is a clever tactic. But it’s not true, and I suspect this tack is little more than a way for Perry and Pruitt to counter all their vile attacks against the federal government when they were governor of Texas and attorney general of Oklahoma. Apparently, states’ rights are so 2016.
• Coal is terrible for the economy, human health, and the environment. Propping up the ailing coal industry will hurt the economy and American jobs, serving as another broken promise from Trump. Market trends undeniably show that cleaner, smarter energy – like solar and wind – is creating more jobs than fossil fuel electricity. Furthermore, we know doubling down on dirty coal means more asthma attacks, more health problems for elderly Americans, and a more polluted future.

The Trump administration may look chaotic, but its actions suggest it is meticulously and unapologetically laying the groundwork for four years of pro-coal policy. This so-called study is just another step of the plan. See also Trump’s latest 2018 budget proposal – leaked last week – which aims to cut funding for DOE’s renewable and energy efficiency program by 70 percent.

So stay tuned. It’s going to be an interesting few weeks.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By Jack Pratt

Today, Environmental Defense Fund joined other groups in challenging a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that allows chemical and food manufacturers to decide for themselves – in secret – what chemicals and food additives can be added to foods. The practice puts our health at risk and does not fulfill Congress’ requirement that FDA determine that chemical additives are safe before they can be used in food.

Americans would be shocked to learn that food companies routinely add novel chemicals to our food without first getting FDA approval. In doing so, the companies are exploiting a loophole exempting ingredients “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) from formal FDA review and approval.

Originally intended for ingredients like vinegar and olive oil, industry now abuses the GRAS loophole by bypassing FDA review and making safety determinations in secret. The alarming result: even FDA does not know what is in our food. In fact, FDA has no way to know what chemicals are actually being used in which food or in what quantities—even in baby food.

Last year, the FDA issued a final rule formalizing this outrageous practice. We described this decision as a lost opportunity for safer food additives when the decision was made. Today, EDF and our colleagues at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Environmental Working Group, represented by CFS and the environmental law firm Earthjustice, joined in filing suit against the FDA for unconstitutionally and illegally delegating that authority to self-interested food and chemical manufacturers.

It is disappointing that the groups were forced to take legal action. In addition to being a bad policy that doesn’t comply with law, or protect public health, the FDA is oddly out of touch with public sentiment. Just last week an industry funded survey showed overwhelming consumer concern about chemicals in food, including cancer causing chemicals, while showing diminished confidence in the food supply. This continues a trend that has been building for years. Food companies would be wise to take notice: adding secret chemicals without FDA scientific review to our food is no way to improve confidence in their products.

But with thousands of secret chemicals in our food, we can’t wait for industry or FDA to wise up. Today’s lawsuit seeks to force FDA to do what should be common sense—determine that food additives are safe before they can be added to our food.

Today, Environmental Defense Fund joined other groups in challenging a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that allows chemical and food manufacturers to decide for themselves – in secret – what chemicals and food additives can be added to foods. The practice puts our health at risk and does not fulfill Congress’ requirement that FDA […]

By John Hall

A thriving economy now or a thriving planet for my grandchildren?

Why not both?

With Texas’s plentiful natural resources and cutting-edge research and development capabilities, we don’t have to choose. If planned strategically, protecting our health and growing the economy go together. Our policymakers and business leaders should make note of our recent history as they’re planning for our future.

Under former Governor George W. Bush, Texas refineries and petrochemical companies met or exceeded established ozone policies while expanding, innovating, and generating record sales growth. Now, smarter and more efficient energy sources are helping to clean our air while creating higher-than-average paying jobs and attracting large-scale investments into the state.

Beyond ozone protections

In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act’s 1990 amendments, the Environmental Protection Agency’s health-based ozone standards required large industrial facilities to drastically cut their nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound pollution. Moreover, project sponsors had to completely offset the emissions resulting from expansions at existing facilities and newly constructed plants, plus an additional 10 to 20 percent margin.

Initially, many Texas business leaders boldly predicted refining and petrochemical facilities would be forced to shut down, costing thousands of Texans their jobs.

But instead, these ozone protections inspired innovation across the industry. Companies were able to go above and beyond simple compliance, and existing operations continued as new plants and major expansions came online. Growth generated greater revenues while giving Texans healthier air, water, and land.

Thanks to related research, development, and innovation sparked by these standards, the Houston Ship Channel today is buzzing with activity, serving as one of the largest refining and petrochemicals hubs in the world.

Clean energy potential

Similarly, clean energy can simultaneously grow the economy and lower pollution. And, it’s booming in Texas.

Last year, wind provided nearly 15 percent of power in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the flow of electric power to 24 million Texas customers (representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load). And, Texas is on track to become the fastest-growing utility-scale solar market in the United States.

As more clean energy comes online, it often replaces dirty coal-fired electricity. Consequently, by lowering Texas’s coal power plant emissions approximately 30 percent—an achievable goal—2,300 Texas lives and $20 billion in associated costs could be saved.

Meanwhile, the wind and solar power industries now employ more than four times as many Texans as the fossil-fuel electricity industry. Plus, nearly 150,000 Texans work in energy efficiency-related jobs. And, wind energy has sparked more than $30 billion in capital investment, far surpassing any other state.

There are clearly cost-effective ways to protect people and the environment while facilitating economic growth. Texas’s refining and petrochemical industry did it, and the booming clean energy economy here is doing it now. Influencers and policymakers, however, need to recognize and leverage available opportunities. An easy way to give Americans cleaner air and a jolt to the economy is to continue to encourage clean energy’s growth—or at least don’t stand in the way of its impressive momentum.

This post originally appeared on the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation blog. 

Welcome to the latest episode of Delta Dispatches with hosts Jacques Hebert & Simone Maloz. We’re happy to welcome Lacy McManus and Joni Tuck to the show today. Lacy is the Director of Program Development of GNO Inc. and talks with Jacques and Simone about the economic case for restoration in Southeast Louisiana. In the second half the show, Joni sits in studio to chat about Port Fourchon & The Working Coast. Joni Tuck is the External Relations Manager for the Greater Lafourche ...

Read The Full Story

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