.@APIOhio is one of the many groups opposing FirstEnergy's nuclear bailout. Find out who else: edf.org/7yB

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Virginia’s State Senator Barbara Favola:

What is unique about protecting Virginia’s resources?

According to Virginia’s Department of Conservation and Recreation, about 20% of all Virginia jobs are agriculture jobs. Therefore, we must be concerned about maintaining clean ground water and regulating the use of pesticides. Moreover, Virginia’s parks and other environmental assets are treasures that attract tourism and business. This means that our natural resources are inextricably tied to Virginia’s economy. Being good stewards of the environment is healthy for Virginians and in the economic interest of the Commonwealth. It is also the right thing to do for future generation.

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

As a parent, I am extremely concerned about the effects of climate change on future generations. Rising temperatures and extreme weather have started to wreak havoc on our biosphere, which in turn will have a harmful impact on drinkable water. Moreover, I am very concerned about rising sea-levels and understand that Virginia needs to devote the necessary resources to combat climate change and protect our natural assets in a timely fashion.

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

While my colleagues across the aisle and I may not agree on everything, I truly believe we can find some common ground on which we can make significant progress together with respect to protecting the environment. In fact, there was bi-partisan support in the 2017 session to better contain coal ash. There are also examples of bi-partisan support for cleaning-up the Chesapeake Bay and creating alternative energy sources. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers want their communities to be clean, healthy and livable. We must build on these values. The cornerstones for compromise are in place, but we must work to find common ground on the approaches employed to achieve our stated environmental goals. Bi-partisan approaches are much more likely to survive the test of time.

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

As past chair of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission and past chair of the Council of Governments Chesapeake Bay Committee, I led the regional fight to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Now as a State Senator, I served on Governor McAuliffe’s Climate Change & Resiliency Update Commission, working with environmental groups and industry leaders to identify best practices for the creation of clean energy jobs. I have been recognized by the Sierra Club and the Virginia League of Conservation Voters for my leadership on environmental issues.

***

Senator Barbara A. Favola represents Virginia’s 31st Senate district, which includes parts of Arlington and Fairfax counties, and a portion of Loudoun County. She served on the Arlington County Board for fourteen years (1997-2011) and chaired that body three times. During her service with the County, Senator Favola was the Board’s leading advocate for children, youth and families. Throughout her public life she has been a vigorous supporter of universal human rights. Senator Favola was given a 100% rating from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters for her efforts during the legislative session to support the environment. In April, she was honored with the Child Advocate Award from the Richmond United Methodist Family Services for her tireless efforts in advocating for children, particularly those impacted by foster care, mental health and juvenile justice. Senator Favola is the founder and CEO of Pathways to 21st Century Communities, a consulting firm specializing in government relations and community outreach. She and her husband Douglas Weik have been residents of Arlington and the 31st district since 1982.

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

Gov. McAuliffe just stepped up to lead on climate, and we need to overwhelm him with thanks. Regional.

Gov. McAuliffe just stepped up to lead on climate, and we need to overwhelm him with thanks. Regional.

Gov. McAuliffe just stepped up to lead on climate, and we need to overwhelm him with thanks. Regional.

By Tomas Carbonell

Environmental Defense Fund and fourteen other public health and environmental organizations filed a brief yesterday urging the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a decision on the merits in the litigation over the Clean Power Plan – America’s only nationwide standards limiting harmful carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants.

Other parties supporting the Clean Power Plan also filed briefs, including 18 states and 7 municipalities, power companies representing nearly 10 percent of the nation’s generation, and associations representing America’s vibrant $200 billion clean energy industry.

The latest filings all respond to a recent D.C. Circuit order which temporarily suspended the litigation and directed the parties to submit briefs on whether to continue the suspension (known as an “abeyance”) or terminate the case and hand the matter back to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for further review (known as “remand”).

This order addressed a motion filed by the Trump Administration on March 28, which asked the court to suspend the Clean Power Plan litigation indefinitely and refrain from deciding the legal merits of the Clean Power Plan.

Here’s what’s at stake at this critical juncture in the Clean Power Plan litigation – and a few things we can count on regardless of how the court rules on yesterday’s filings.

 Real World Consequences for Healthier Air and a Safer Climate

The briefs have vital real-world consequences for everyone who cares about healthier air and a safer climate.

As legal experts have noted, the Administration’s move is a brazen, eleventh-hour attempt to prevent the D.C. Circuit from issuing a timely opinion on legal issues that are central to EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect the public against climate pollution. The Administration filed its March 28 motion almost a year after the parties submitted briefs in the case, and six months after ten judges of the D.C. Circuit held an exhaustive seven hour-long oral argument.

Because the Supreme Court voted 5-to-4 to temporarily block the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan while the courts reviewed the legal challenges, the Administration’s motion would also indefinitely delay the enforcement of these urgently needed and long-overdue limits on carbon pollution.

The Administration’s motion asked the court for an indefinite pause in the litigation while EPA undertakes the long process of reviewing – and likely rescinding or weakening – the Clean Power Plan. However, if the court declines to decide the central legal questions in this case now, the same issues would likely have to be re-litigated again after EPA has completed its review. This would add years of unnecessary delay at a time when the urgency of action to mitigate climate pollution has never been greater.

Americans have been waiting for protection from climate pollution from power plants for almost twenty years — with no relief:

• In 1998, EPA’s General Counsel Jonathan Cannon concluded in a memorandum to the EPA Administrator that EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants under the Clean Air Act – but EPA took no action to address the issue.
• In 2003, environmental organizations filed a complaint against EPA in federal district court seeking carbon dioxide standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
• In 2006, states and environmental organizations filed a legal challenge in the D.C. Circuit to EPA’s failure to establish carbon dioxide standards for power plants under the Clean Air Act.
• In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that climate pollution is subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The D.C. Circuit then remanded the 2006 lawsuit to EPA to address the issue of establishing carbon dioxide standards for power plants.
• In 2010, states, public health, and environmental organizations reached a settlement with EPA in which the agency committed to finalizing carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants by 2012 – a deadline that the agency failed to meet.
• In 2011, the Supreme Court relied on EPA’s authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act as a basis for dismissing suits filed by states for common law damages against some of the nation’s most polluting power companies — holding that section 111 “speaks directly” to the problem of climate pollution from power plants.
• In 2015, after almost two years of intensive public outreach and after considering millions of public comments — and using its authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act — EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan.
• In 2016, a closely divided Supreme Court voted 5-to-4 to temporarily block the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review of the merits.

Affected communities and vulnerable populations have waited long enough for action to protect our health and climate, while more and more climate pollution is accumulating in the atmosphere. That’s why the court should decide this case now rather than leaving climate protection in long-term legal limbo.

The Urgent Need for Limits on Carbon Pollution from the Nation’s Power Plants

The Clean Power Plan is a common sense climate and public health protection that will carbon reduce pollution from one of the nation’s largest sources, saving thousands of lives each year and protecting the health of all Americans.

The Clean Power Plan gives states and power companies tremendous flexibility in deciding how to reduce carbon pollution, including through cost-effective energy efficiency measures that save families money. Investments in clean energy and energy efficiency are already growing rapidly, employing over three million Americans and bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year to low-income and rural areas.

That’s why a strikingly broad and diverse coalition emerged to defend the Clean Power Plan in court. The coalition includes: eighteen states and sixty municipalities; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Amazon, Apple, Google, Mars, and IKEA; former Republican heads of EPA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others.

Coal producers, coal-intensive power companies, and their political allies have waged a massive, years-long litigation effort to thwart any limits whatsoever on climate-destabilizing pollution from power plants. Their campaign recently got an assist when the Trump Administration issued an executive order on March 28 that took aim at the Clean Power Plan and many other vital clean air protections.

In response to that executive order, an extraordinary array of leading businesses, faith leaders, medical associations, state and municipal officials, and other stakeholders have spoken out against the Administration’s threats to climate and health protections or vowed to continue moving towards a low-carbon future.

In recent weeks, dissent has emerged even within the coalition challenging the Clean Power Plan: North Carolina formally withdrew its challenge to the Clean Power Plan on February 23.

Millions of Americans in red and blue states – including a majority of Americans in every Congressional district in the country – support strong action to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. This public chorus reflects an understanding of the growing hazards of climate change, which is already affecting public health and well-being in a host of ways.

America has been demanding action from EPA since 2003, has been told multiple times by the Supreme Court that EPA has authority to act, and is now counting on the D.C. Circuit to resolve key legal questions about the scope of that authority. For that reason, our brief argues that the most fair and efficient course of action for the Court is to resolve those questions now.

EPA is Required to Act. It’s Up to All of Us to Make Sure EPA Fulfills That Obligation

Regardless of how the Court rules on today’s filings, a few critical facts will remain unchanged:

• EPA has a clear legal obligation to protect the public from carbon pollution. The Supreme Court has affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act three times since 2007, including EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act provision that is the basis for the Clean Power Plan.
• EPA’s carbon pollution standards for new power plants remain in full force and effect. Separate from the Clean Power Plan, EPA adopted carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants in August 2015. Although those standards have also been the target of legal challenges by polluters and their allies, the enforcement of those standards has not been blocked by the courts.  They will remain in full force and effect regardless of how the Court acts.
• EPA can’t roll back the Clean Power Plan or the carbon pollution standards for new power plants without public comment or judicial review. Even if the court declines to issue an opinion and instead suspends the litigation or remands the rule to EPA, the Clean Power Plan would still be the law of the land. Any attempt to withdraw or modify the Clean Power Plan (or the carbon pollution standards for new power plants) would first have to go through the same rigorous public notice and comment process that EPA carefully followed in adopting them. Such changes would also be subject to judicial review in the federal courts, and would be set aside if they are contrary to the Clean Air Act or do not rest on sound technical and policy foundations.

Americans all across the country are demanding an end to the era of unlimited carbon pollution from power plants.

In the face of the Trump Administration’s assault on common sense protections, the Environmental Defense Fund is ready to fight harder than ever for healthier air and a safer climate for our children.

By Tomas Carbonell

Environmental Defense Fund and fourteen other public health and environmental organizations filed a brief yesterday urging the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a decision on the merits in the litigation over the Clean Power Plan – America’s only nationwide standards limiting harmful carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants.

Other parties supporting the Clean Power Plan also filed briefs, including 18 states and 7 municipalities, power companies representing nearly 10 percent of the nation’s generation, and associations representing America’s vibrant $200 billion clean energy industry.

The latest filings all respond to a recent D.C. Circuit order which temporarily suspended the litigation and directed the parties to submit briefs on whether to continue the suspension (known as an “abeyance”) or terminate the case and hand the matter back to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for further review (known as “remand”).

This order addressed a motion filed by the Trump Administration on March 28, which asked the court to suspend the Clean Power Plan litigation indefinitely and refrain from deciding the legal merits of the Clean Power Plan.

Here’s what’s at stake at this critical juncture in the Clean Power Plan litigation – and a few things we can count on regardless of how the court rules on yesterday’s filings.

 Real World Consequences for Healthier Air and a Safer Climate

The briefs have vital real-world consequences for everyone who cares about healthier air and a safer climate.

As legal experts have noted, the Administration’s move is a brazen, eleventh-hour attempt to prevent the D.C. Circuit from issuing a timely opinion on legal issues that are central to EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect the public against climate pollution. The Administration filed its March 28 motion almost a year after the parties submitted briefs in the case, and six months after ten judges of the D.C. Circuit held an exhaustive seven hour-long oral argument.

Because the Supreme Court voted 5-to-4 to temporarily block the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan while the courts reviewed the legal challenges, the Administration’s motion would also indefinitely delay the enforcement of these urgently needed and long-overdue limits on carbon pollution.

The Administration’s motion asked the court for an indefinite pause in the litigation while EPA undertakes the long process of reviewing – and likely rescinding or weakening – the Clean Power Plan. However, if the court declines to decide the central legal questions in this case now, the same issues would likely have to be re-litigated again after EPA has completed its review. This would add years of unnecessary delay at a time when the urgency of action to mitigate climate pollution has never been greater.

Americans have been waiting for protection from climate pollution from power plants for almost twenty years — with no relief:

• In 1998, EPA’s General Counsel Jonathan Cannon concluded in a memorandum to the EPA Administrator that EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants under the Clean Air Act – but EPA took no action to address the issue.
• In 2003, environmental organizations filed a complaint against EPA in federal district court seeking carbon dioxide standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
• In 2006, states and environmental organizations filed a legal challenge in the D.C. Circuit to EPA’s failure to establish carbon dioxide standards for power plants under the Clean Air Act.
• In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that climate pollution is subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The D.C. Circuit then remanded the 2006 lawsuit to EPA to address the issue of establishing carbon dioxide standards for power plants.
• In 2010, states, public health, and environmental organizations reached a settlement with EPA in which the agency committed to finalizing carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants by 2012 – a deadline that the agency failed to meet.
• In 2011, the Supreme Court relied on EPA’s authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act as a basis for dismissing suits filed by states for common law damages against some of the nation’s most polluting power companies — holding that section 111 “speaks directly” to the problem of climate pollution from power plants.
• In 2015, after almost two years of intensive public outreach and after considering millions of public comments — and using its authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act — EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan.
• In 2016, a closely divided Supreme Court voted 5-to-4 to temporarily block the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review of the merits.

Affected communities and vulnerable populations have waited long enough for action to protect our health and climate, while more and more climate pollution is accumulating in the atmosphere. That’s why the court should decide this case now rather than leaving climate protection in long-term legal limbo.

The Urgent Need for Limits on Carbon Pollution from the Nation’s Power Plants

The Clean Power Plan is a common sense climate and public health protection that will carbon reduce pollution from one of the nation’s largest sources, saving thousands of lives each year and protecting the health of all Americans.

The Clean Power Plan gives states and power companies tremendous flexibility in deciding how to reduce carbon pollution, including through cost-effective energy efficiency measures that save families money. Investments in clean energy and energy efficiency are already growing rapidly, employing over three million Americans and bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year to low-income and rural areas.

That’s why a strikingly broad and diverse coalition emerged to defend the Clean Power Plan in court. The coalition includes: eighteen states and sixty municipalities; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Amazon, Apple, Google, Mars, and IKEA; former Republican heads of EPA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others.

Coal producers, coal-intensive power companies, and their political allies have waged a massive, years-long litigation effort to thwart any limits whatsoever on climate-destabilizing pollution from power plants. Their campaign recently got an assist when the Trump Administration issued an executive order on March 28 that took aim at the Clean Power Plan and many other vital clean air protections.

In response to that executive order, an extraordinary array of leading businesses, faith leaders, medical associations, state and municipal officials, and other stakeholders have spoken out against the Administration’s threats to climate and health protections or vowed to continue moving towards a low-carbon future.

In recent weeks, dissent has emerged even within the coalition challenging the Clean Power Plan: North Carolina formally withdrew its challenge to the Clean Power Plan on February 23.

Millions of Americans in red and blue states – including a majority of Americans in every Congressional district in the country – support strong action to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. This public chorus reflects an understanding of the growing hazards of climate change, which is already affecting public health and well-being in a host of ways.

America has been demanding action from EPA since 2003, has been told multiple times by the Supreme Court that EPA has authority to act, and is now counting on the D.C. Circuit to resolve key legal questions about the scope of that authority. For that reason, our brief argues that the most fair and efficient course of action for the Court is to resolve those questions now.

EPA is Required to Act. It’s Up to All of Us to Make Sure EPA Fulfills That Obligation

Regardless of how the Court rules on today’s filings, a few critical facts will remain unchanged:

• EPA has a clear legal obligation to protect the public from carbon pollution. The Supreme Court has affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act three times since 2007, including EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act provision that is the basis for the Clean Power Plan.
• EPA’s carbon pollution standards for new power plants remain in full force and effect. Separate from the Clean Power Plan, EPA adopted carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants in August 2015. Although those standards have also been the target of legal challenges by polluters and their allies, the enforcement of those standards has not been blocked by the courts.  They will remain in full force and effect regardless of how the Court acts.
• EPA can’t roll back the Clean Power Plan or the carbon pollution standards for new power plants without public comment or judicial review. Even if the court declines to issue an opinion and instead suspends the litigation or remands the rule to EPA, the Clean Power Plan would still be the law of the land. Any attempt to withdraw or modify the Clean Power Plan (or the carbon pollution standards for new power plants) would first have to go through the same rigorous public notice and comment process that EPA carefully followed in adopting them. Such changes would also be subject to judicial review in the federal courts, and would be set aside if they are contrary to the Clean Air Act or do not rest on sound technical and policy foundations.

Americans all across the country are demanding an end to the era of unlimited carbon pollution from power plants.

In the face of the Trump Administration’s assault on common sense protections, the Environmental Defense Fund is ready to fight harder than ever for healthier air and a safer climate for our children.

By Christina Wolfe

Texas lawmakers are nearing the end of another legislative session. Before they leave Austin, though, there are two things that we would like them to do to improve air quality:

1. They should extend the successful Texas Emissions Reduction Plan, or TERP, beyond 2019.
2. They should fully fund the program.

This matters because the 16-year-old program works.

Last week, the Houston Chronicle published an op-ed on the importance of this program, co-authored by EDF’s Dr. Elena Craft and Nolan Richardson, president of Richardson Companies, Port Houston’s largest tenant.

Here is the bottom line – Clean air is good for business.

EDF supports this program because it has been an excellent investment for Texas.

We also remind lawmakers that there is work to do until every Texan has access to clean air. Cities and counties across the state continue to receive alerts for unhealthy air. Today is another bad ozone day for Dallas-Fort Worth and the eight-county Houston region.

We urge lawmakers to finish the job by extending TERP and using every cent collected for the program on its intended purpose.

Welcome to the latest episode of Delta Dispatches with hosts Jacques Hebert & Simone Maloz. On this episode of Delta Dispatches, with hosts Jacques Hebert & Simone Maloz. On this episode, Jacques has Times-Picayune hurricane & environment reporters Mark Schleifstein, Sara Sneath and Tristan Baurick join the show to talk with Jacques about coastal reporting. 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! ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Conversation with The Times Picayune Coastal Reporting Team appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Welcome to the latest episode of Delta Dispatches with hosts Jacques Hebert & Simone Maloz. On this episode of Delta Dispatches, with hosts Jacques Hebert & Simone Maloz. On this episode, Jacques has Times-Picayune hurricane & environment reporters Mark Schleifstein, Sara Sneath and Tristan Baurick join the show to talk with Jacques about coastal reporting. 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! ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Conversation with The Times Picayune Coastal Reporting Team appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Welcome to the latest episode of Delta Dispatches with hosts Jacques Hebert & Simone Maloz. On this episode of Delta Dispatches, with hosts Jacques Hebert & Simone Maloz. On this episode, Jacques has Times-Picayune hurricane & environment reporters Mark Schleifstein, Sara Sneath and Tristan Baurick join the show to talk with Jacques about coastal reporting. 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! ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Conversation with The Times Picayune Coastal Reporting Team appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This post was written by Brooks Zitzmann. It originally published on Catholic Climate Covenant:

In the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue on April 29, 2017, a six-foot high inflatable globe towered above a four-year-old girl.  But this little girl was wearing a butterfly costume and, unlike the adults around her, she was unencumbered by a sign.  With a smile on her face and her arms outstretched revealing the butterfly’s wings, she pushed the entire world forward – literally and metaphorically. She couldn’t see the path given that the globe was so big; it was her mother who helped her stay on course as she joyfully did her part.

This little girl’s enthusiastic determination symbolized the essence of the People’s Climate March. She was a reminder that we must be and do differently, not just talk differently. We must work together, for the problems are too big alone. We ought to be joyful in this work, and remembering the butterfly effect – that even small actions can create great change – is a call to hopefulness.

Marches, protests, and rallies are generally wordy events, with participants seeking to spread their message in catchy slogans, intellectual quotations, and poignant or provocative remarks. But, we’re called to something far deeper than can be summarized in a few words. In Laudato Si, Pope Francis urges us toward an ecological conversion, a complete change of heart and mind regarding the way in which we relate to one another and to the earth. Like the girl dressed as a butterfly and carrying no sign, we are to be transformed. We must embody a new way of being. We must move from expressing lofty ideals in words to living as new creations.

This embodied living out of ecological conversion requires that we acknowledge and celebrate our interdependence with all people and all creatures. The little butterfly girl could not see around the giant globe. She relied on her mother and congregation members to help direct her as she pushed the earth forward. Similarly, the ecosocial problems we face can seem so big that it’s difficult to see around them, to see the path ahead. As such, our fate lies in our solidarity, our willingness to band together as we care for creation and care for one another. Collectively, we are able to guide one another in moving our world forward.

While this work may seem daunting, we are called to be joyful in it! When our hearts and minds shift through ecological conversion, we once again see the full splendor of God’s creation. We see beauty in the snow, in the incredible diversity of flowers and trees, in the faces of the animals around us. What a gift to be aware of such grandeur! What an inspiration to live and work in ways that are gentle and reverent to all of life. The new way of being is not about sacrifice and toil; it is about returning to a more profound, loving relationship with the Creator and the creation.That is a reason for joy!

This turn toward ecological conversion may be slow in our lives and in our society, while destruction seems to gain momentum. However, the little butterfly girl pushing a globe forward powerfully reminds us of the butterfly effect (from Chaos Theory): small movements can create profound effects. So, let us march on.Let us embody a new way of being, stand in solidarity, find joy in being part of God’s creation, and let us never lose hope. Just as faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, one little butterfly can move the whole world.

Brooks Zitzmann is a licensed clinical social worker from Louisiana and a PhD Candidate in Social Work at the Catholic University of America. Through this professional lens, Brooks recognizes the numerous and nuanced negative implications of climate degradation on human well-being. Her social work perspective combines with her active Catholic faith as she works to find ways for individuals and communities to reorient themselves toward a life-affirming ethic.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

This post was reposted with permission from Catholic Climate Covenant.

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

A new book by business magnate and former New York city mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and Carl Pope, previously executive director of the Sierra Club, puts forth the premise of “How cities, businesses, and citizens can save the planet.”

In seven chapters, they break down key ideas with clearly delineated points to generate a game plan for attacking climate change from a pioneering angle.

The two men connected around PlaNYC, a New York City sustainability plan. Bloomberg Philanthropies later supported a Sierra Club initiative, Beyond Coal, with a $50 million grant. The goal was to close down or phase out one-third of the coal-fired plants in America.

Bloomberg states that he is both a capitalist and a believer in the premise that the prime responsibility of government is to “protect public health and safety.” He’s a numbers man, and his motto is, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”

Referencing facts and figures, Bloomberg presents stats that show why acting now on climate change is the best move — economically and financially. Early on, he references global GDP figures to support the point that when it comes to dealing with the fallout from climate disruption, the costs of confronting the problem is substantially less.

Pope and Bloomberg agree that the impetus for change is not going to come from Washington (Especially with an administration of climate deniers.) They see cities as the drivers of change and the “key” to tackling the problems of climate change.

As mayor, Bloomberg tracked emissions, “quantified” them, and then categorized them by source. He applied cost/benefit analysis to his findings, instituted an Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, and made alliances with other mayors from around the country and the world.

I don’t agree with Bloomberg on everything. He supports nuclear power. In regards to fracking, he acknowledges that gas companies have not self-regulated, and that they need established oversight to avoid methane leaks, pollution of ground water, and earthquakes. He sees gas not as a “permanent solution,” but an essential alternative until we reach a “decarbonized economy.”

Beijing is an example Bloomberg cites for coming to grips with the net costs of high air pollution. The metropolis has seen health ramifications for inhabitants, as well as less foreign investment.

A pragmatist, Bloomberg wants to see cities planning for the 21st century and future generations. He had plenty to consider after Hurricane Sandy left New York City residents with a horrifying lesson about flood zones. Bloomberg notes that by the 2050s, 800,000 New Yorkers will be living in a projected floodplain (level land that may be submerged by floodwaters).

Armed with data, Bloomberg learned that 75 percent of emissions comes from buildings. He puts forth the concept of tying tax credits to the installation of green roofs and solar panels. He became part of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, where member cities used a standard system for measuring carbon emissions.

Cities as “drivers of action” became a crystallized concept for Bloomberg, often frustrated by the pace of federal action. He underscores, “Cities can’t wait for national governments to act.” Bloomberg envisions a network of cities as “collective forces of change” – setting precedents in innovative urban planning, promoting public transportation, and embracing public space that doesn’t included vehicular traffic.

Pope and Bloomberg cover a full range of topics, including getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies, the consequences of how we eat (agricultural practices are responsible for 30 percent of total methane emissions), an examination of how we use our resources, and the need to see climate change as an economic concern with tangible financial impacts.

My biggest takeaway from the book was what Bloomberg called the failure to recognize “disruptive innovation.” An example is the electric car. He uses a Silicon Valley phrase, “Valley of Death,” to pinpoint what happens when the technology is ahead of the market.

It’s all about adopting novel ideas and business models. Going with a green technology revolution in transportation instead of holding onto the old fossil fuel paradigm, or re-examining how our electrical grid is sourced and operates.

I also liked the concept of using biomimicry – taking a page from nature, to solve our environmental problems. My favorite was the permeable concrete that allows rainfall or flooding waters to pass through, and then be collected in aquifers.

All of the models presented by Bloomberg and Pope will take political will, and a fight against “the profit motive” embraced tenaciously by those who have the most to lose.

Lifestyle choices make a difference too. That’s one of the ways citizens can get in on the action.

“We can stop global warming,” the co-authors contend. “Not by slowing down economies but by speeding them up. Not by depending on national governments but by empowering cities, businesses, and citizens. Not by scaring people about the future but by showing them the immediate benefits of taking action. If we accomplish this, we will be healthier and wealthier. We’ll live longer and better lives. We’ll have less poverty and political instability. And, while we’re at it, we’ll pass it on to our children and their a brighter future.”

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

 

Our opposition in the Senate tried to put the interests of the oil & gas industry above those of American taxpayers. Your Senator fought back--and won. Regional. C4.

Our opposition in the Senate tried to put the interests of the oil & gas industry above those of American taxpayers. Your Senator fought back--and won. Regional. C4.

Our opposition in the Senate tried to put the interests of the oil & gas industry above those of American taxpayers. Your Senator fought back--and won. Regional. C4.

By Andrew Williams

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the same company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, just spilled millions of gallons of drilling sludge into an Ohio wetland – but don’t worry, they say everything is “safe.”

Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency called the company’s response “dismissive,” and “exceptionally disappointing,” and he’s right.

Fortunately, federal and state regulators have stepped up to hold ETP accountable.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered ETP to halt plans to continue with other pipeline drilling projects in the area and to double the number of environmental inspectors on its payroll.  And the Ohio EPA fined ETP $400,000 dollars for the damage caused by this spill, damage that OEPA says could be deadly and last for decades.

Still, ETP claims that they “do not believe that there will be any long-term impact to the environment.”  How do they figure that? It is clear that without regulators stepping in to manage the literal muck, the company would not have done the right thing.

Companies routinely argue that spilling is never their objective and thus regulations to prevent spills from happening are unnecessary. This is flawed logic. The objective of a driver speeding down the highway isn’t to get into an accident, it’s to get where they’re going faster. But accidents happen—on the highway and in the oilfield – and it’s exactly why we have traffic laws and environmental standards.  Because many people, and companies, won’t follow the rules unless someone makes them.

This should be a wakeup call about the real risks associated with oil and gas operations. These risks cannot be reduced to zero, but regulation is the only assurance that the American public has that they are protected when something goes wrong.

Of course, not all drivers run red lights, and not all companies are as reckless and destructive as what we see in this instance. Many are mindful of the environmental risks of constructing and operating well sites and pipelines.  Regulations that require more rigorous oversight and environmental enforcement reward the companies that are already doing the right thing, and they hold the bad actors accountable for their mess.

The way ETP handled the situation in Ohio is regretful and it’s a clear indicator for why we cannot allow oil and gas companies to operate with flagrant disregard for our health and our environment.   Strong state and federal regulations and vigilant enforcement of such regulations are our best assurance that disasters like this don’t happen again.

Image source: Ohio EPA