#OurCoast is an ongoing project by Restore the Mississippi River Delta to document the various ways the Mississippi River Delta has made an impact in the lives of Louisianians and others. Sometimes, I find it really hard to be an earth scientist and live in New Orleans – and not just because we don't have any local rocks to speak of. Rather, I find myself overwhelmed as my work can inundate me with new facts and projections about the vulnerability ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast: Faith, Science, and Sea Level Rise appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Jonathan Camuzeaux

This blog was co-authored with Gernot Wagner

The Trump administration’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2017 slashes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by 31 percent, targeting an entity that already operates with one of the smallest budgets in the government – of every 10 dollars the federal government spends, EPA only gets 2 cents.

But absolute numbers aren’t the right metric. The big question is what the public (President Trump’s employer) gets for its investment. And using that metric, the EPA generates the biggest benefits of any agency, bar none.

 

 

Between 2005 and 2015, EPA regulations produced on average $9 in benefits for every $1 spent towards compliance. These benefits include: keeping Americans safe from dirty air, water, and dangerous chemicals – all of which can cause increased hospitalizations, missed work days, premature death, and birth defects. While numerous agencies across the federal government provide vital, lifesaving services, as well, EPA has the best benefits-to-costs ratio of any U.S. agency, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which produces an annual report tallying the benefits and the costs of major federal rules for every U.S. agency.

Total numbers are even more staggering: over those ten years, EPA is responsible for $376 billion in social benefits after subtracting the costs incurred by its regulations. That’s an order of magnitude higher than any other U.S. agency.

The message is clear: EPA provides large benefits at a bargain. In fact, while a high benefit-to-cost ratio is good, the goal isn’t to maximize the ratio. The goal is to maximize net benefits to society. EPA has been extremely successful at doing exactly that. Now is not the time to walk back that kind of progress.

 

This blog was co-authored with Gernot Wagner The Trump administration’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2017 slashes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by 31 percent, targeting an entity that already operates with one of the smallest budgets in the government – of every 10 dollars the federal government spends, EPA only gets 2 […]

The post Why the EPA gives Taxpayers the Biggest Bang for their Hard-earned Buck appeared first on Market Forces.

This blog was co-authored with Gernot Wagner The Trump administration’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2017 slashes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by 31 percent, targeting an entity that already operates with one of the smallest budgets in the government – of every 10 dollars the federal government spends, EPA only gets 2 […]

Written by Lori Popkewitz Alper

When we hear the words “climate change” many things come to mind, including intense heat waves and droughts, increase in natural disasters, loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise, and concern for the overall health of our planet. Rarely, do we think about mental health. Yet a new study, Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance, is bringing the impact on our mental health to the forefront of climate change discussions. The report was compiled as a way to support the mental health of Americans as our climate continues to rapidly change.

Our Climate is Changing Fast

As global temperatures continue to rise and we witness pieces of ice the size of Delaware ready to break off in the Antartic, there’s no denying that climate change is happening.

These changes to our climate are clearly impacting our physical health as evidenced by fatalities caused by severe weather episodes, and the increase in asthma and allergies when seasonal temperatures fluctuate and seasons swiftly change. And now, we’re discovering that climate change is affecting our mental health and emotional well-being as well.

How Climate Change is Impacting Mental Health

According to the study, there’s a direct connection between our physical health, mental health, and community mental health and climate change. The convergence of these can cause an increase in stress and anxiety, loss of community identity, and heightened aggression and violence.

Some mental health issues arise directly from natural disasters stemming from experiencing flooding, wildfires, and hurricanes. Those impacted by these severe disasters can experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, stress, addiction, and depression. For example in a study of Hurricane Katrina 1 in 6 people met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, rates of suicidal thoughts can be more than doubled, and more than 50% of people living in affected areas developed an anxiety or mood disorder. Stress from the experience of an extreme weather event can cause insomnia, and compromise an immune system, which in turn can cause missed days of work due to illness. Additional stressors, such as the economic stress from lost income, can create a vicious cycle –  impacting both physical and emotional health.

According to the report, stress from natural disasters is associated with increases in domestic violence and child abuse. Also, a change in temperature has also been shown – as heat goes up so does violence and suicide attempts.

Vulnerable Communities

Not all Americans are impacted equally by climate change and those with certain vulnerabilities such as pre-existing disabilities and/or chronic illness are more likely to experience a decline in mental health.

Some are going to be more physically vulnerable because they live and work in areas more susceptible to natural disasters that impact their livelihoods such as farming and fishing communities. When these communities are threatened they not only experience stress and anxiety but they also direct threats to their social connections. This can can lead to increased drug and alcohol abuse. The elderly and children are also particularly vulnerable.

What You Can Do

As our climate continues to change we’re going to see a growing impact on our physical and mental health. There are a few things families can focus on at home and in our communities, to create a shield against some of the projected climate mental health impacts.

Here are a few things you can do:

1. Make and practice household emergency plans.
2. Participate in mindset training to prepare for adversity and adaptation through increased awareness of emotions.
3. Take care of yourself and foster healthy daily habits.
4. Connect with family, friends, neighbors, and other groups to build strong social networks.

" class="button medium" style="background-color: #ed3e2b; ">TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR HEALTH FROM AIR AND CLIMATE POLLUTION

The U.S. Senate will confirm the Secretary of Agriculture today, empowering former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to lead an agency with a $155 billion budget, some 100,000 employees and ultimate responsibility for our nation’s food security. Over 80 percent of this budget goes toward farm programs, food stamps, school meals and other mandatory spending programs. […]

By Callie Eideberg

The U.S. Senate will confirm the Secretary of Agriculture today, empowering former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to lead an agency with a $155 billion budget, some 100,000 employees and ultimate responsibility for our nation’s food security.

Over 80 percent of this budget goes toward farm programs, food stamps, school meals and other mandatory spending programs. The remainder goes to protect farmers’ livelihoods, rural economies and the environment – but according to the Administration’s budget proposals, this pot of funding could be cut by over 21 percent.

Retaining current funding levels for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – and conservation programs in particular – ensures that farmers can remain productive during periods of extreme weather, protects habitat for wildlife without sacrificing profitability and improves on-farm efficiencies.

Secretary Perdue will need to advocate on behalf of farmers to protect these programs – and he’ll need help from the private sector, since the federal government alone cannot maintain farming as a core industry in America, make sustainable agriculture the norm or feed a growing population.

Here are three programs that provide widespread benefits – and that should be a top priority for the new Secretary.

Why Sonny Perdue should prioritize these 3 farm programs at @USDA, via…
Click To Tweet

Protecting ecologically important lands

Seventy percent of U.S. land is privately owned, making farmers, ranchers and other landowners key partners in conservation efforts. Over the past eight years, the USDA has worked with half a million landowners to protect over 400 million acres across the U.S.

Since 2012, the Working Lands for Wildlife program has restored nearly 7 million acres of wildlife habitat by offering farmers payment to protect ecologically important lands on their properties. Producers benefit from peace of mind and regulatory predictability under the Endangered Species Act.

In other programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), farmers are paid to keep environmentally sensitive land out of production – which improves water quality, maintains wildlife habitat, protects watersheds and preserves carbon-absorbing grasslands.

Making farmland more resilient

Through programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), farmers are able to keep croplands productive while ensuring they become more resilient to the effects of extreme weather – all while improving air and water quality. Farmers participating in these programs share the cost of implementing conservation practices with the federal government, encouraging long-term adoption and ensuring that everyone has skin in the game.

Since 2009, USDA has also invested nearly $30 billion to help farmers implement on-the-ground conservation practices such as cover crops, which help improve soil health and reduce nutrient runoff that can lead to air and water pollution.

Bringing in private sector help

The 2014 Farm Bill established the Regional Conservation Partnerships Program (RCPP) at USDA to accelerate collaboration among local and regional governments, universities, nonprofit organizations and the private sector.

Already, more than 2,000 stakeholders are engaged in local conservation efforts through RCPP. Government no longer has to go it alone when it comes to sustainable agriculture – the private sector’s investment in conservation is unprecedented, and growing rapidly. This public-private partnership is critical if we’re going to meet the tremendous need across the country.

As Congress considers the Administration’s budget proposal, and as Secretary Perdue comes on board to start tackling the next Farm Bill, further collaboration with the private sector will drive on-the-ground results that will justify every penny.

Related:

How my passion for food and history led me to the Farm Bill >>

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >> 

By Callie Eideberg

The U.S. Senate will confirm the Secretary of Agriculture today, empowering former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to lead an agency with a $155 billion budget, some 100,000 employees and ultimate responsibility for our nation’s food security.

Over 80 percent of this budget goes toward farm programs, food stamps, school meals and other mandatory spending programs. The remainder goes to protect farmers’ livelihoods, rural economies and the environment – but according to the Administration’s budget proposals, this pot of funding could be cut by over 21 percent.

Retaining current funding levels for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – and conservation programs in particular – ensures that farmers can remain productive during periods of extreme weather, protects habitat for wildlife without sacrificing profitability and improves on-farm efficiencies.

Secretary Perdue will need to advocate on behalf of farmers to protect these programs – and he’ll need help from the private sector, since the federal government alone cannot maintain farming as a core industry in America, make sustainable agriculture the norm or feed a growing population.

Here are three programs that provide widespread benefits – and that should be a top priority for the new Secretary.

Why Sonny Perdue should prioritize these 3 farm programs at @USDA, via…
Click To Tweet

Protecting ecologically important lands

Seventy percent of U.S. land is privately owned, making farmers, ranchers and other landowners key partners in conservation efforts. Over the past eight years, the USDA has worked with half a million landowners to protect over 400 million acres across the U.S.

Since 2012, the Working Lands for Wildlife program has restored nearly 7 million acres of wildlife habitat by offering farmers payment to protect ecologically important lands on their properties. Producers benefit from peace of mind and regulatory predictability under the Endangered Species Act.

In other programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), farmers are paid to keep environmentally sensitive land out of production – which improves water quality, maintains wildlife habitat, protects watersheds and preserves carbon-absorbing grasslands.

Making farmland more resilient

Through programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), farmers are able to keep croplands productive while ensuring they become more resilient to the effects of extreme weather – all while improving air and water quality. Farmers participating in these programs share the cost of implementing conservation practices with the federal government, encouraging long-term adoption and ensuring that everyone has skin in the game.

Since 2009, USDA has also invested nearly $30 billion to help farmers implement on-the-ground conservation practices such as cover crops, which help improve soil health and reduce nutrient runoff that can lead to air and water pollution.

Bringing in private sector help

The 2014 Farm Bill established the Regional Conservation Partnerships Program (RCPP) at USDA to accelerate collaboration among local and regional governments, universities, nonprofit organizations and the private sector.

Already, more than 2,000 stakeholders are engaged in local conservation efforts through RCPP. Government no longer has to go it alone when it comes to sustainable agriculture – the private sector’s investment in conservation is unprecedented, and growing rapidly. This public-private partnership is critical if we’re going to meet the tremendous need across the country.

As Congress considers the Administration’s budget proposal, and as Secretary Perdue comes on board to start tackling the next Farm Bill, further collaboration with the private sector will drive on-the-ground results that will justify every penny.

Related:

How my passion for food and history led me to the Farm Bill >>

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >> 

Written by Diane MacEachern

“Climate change, destruction of the earth’s surface and population growth are leading us to a tipping point.”

That’s the message coming across loud and clear from “Tomorrow,” the new eco-documentary that just hit big screens across the U.S. on Earth Day weekend.

But before you shake your head and bemoan another “downer doc,” be aware that the movie, which won a Cesar (the French Oscar) for Best Documentary in 2016, is much more about hope and cheer than gloom and doom.

That’s because the filmmakers made the intentional decision to focus on inspiring solutions, and they traveled to the U.S. and nine countries in Europe to find them.

At the onset of the film, French actress and film co-director Mélanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds) explains how it all came about. A few years ago, Cyril Dion approached her when she was pregnant and told her about a study in Nature magazine that predicted the possible extinction of part of humanity by 2100. The report said that “my son would grow up in a world where food, oil and water would be hard to find,” Laurent remarks disbelievingly.

Dion wanted to try to buck the trends by making a hopeful film aimed at people who were “fed up with catastrophes,” and asked Laurent to help.

I’d hoped to interview Mélanie Laurent, but she’s on location making a new movie and couldn’t be reached. Happily, Cyril Dion was available to share his reasons for making the film, and the hopes that it conveys. Here’s my interview with him.

First and foremost, I was interested in Cyril’s motivations to tackle such big topics as climate change and resource destruction from his perspective as a father.

You must have been aware of environmental problems before becoming a father; did you not take them seriously then, or not feel like they would affect you personally?

I have been aware of environmental issues for most of my adult life, and always felt strongly concerned and compelled to get involved. However, becoming a father made me much more conscious of the fragility of life and of my responsibility to take care of it. And I guess this particular study (the Nature study), made me feel that we couldn’t let our children face such a disaster without doing anything to avoid it.

What was unique about becoming a father that really woke you up to the environmental threats we face?

Holding my son in my hands. Feeling that he wouldn’t survive if my wife and I wouldn’t take care of him. Feeling that whatever I do now, I cannot live only for myself anymore. Having children is the end of selfishness. Or, it should be.

Children are disproportionately affected by toxic chemicals in the environment. Are you taking particular steps to protect yourself and your child from exposure to toxic threats? 

My wife and I do whatever is in our power to live by the principles we put forth in the film. We buy organic products, from local farmers when possible, and always give extra attention to what we see in our plates (and also what we don’t see!). I think the most important way to protect our children starts with good and healthy eating habits. We also use organic cosmetics, detergent, natural paintings (for the walls), no pesticides in our garden, plus organic clothes as far as we can, and a water filter.

How did you choose the 10 countries you visited, and the people you interviewed? 

First, we wanted the initiatives to be big or successful enough to convince event reluctant people. Then, we chose mainly initiatives in Europe and in the US. We wanted to tell another story of “development” in the “western world.” For decades, Europe and the US have spent a lot of energy to export their development model all around the world. It worked so well that everybody wants to live like we do, and lots of countries are destroying their previous structures to imitate us. But we know now that living like this is leading to massive catastrophes. We don’t have enough natural resources. So we tried to tell a different story about the future. The message is basically: “Don’t try to live like a regular crazy French or American. You have great things. And maybe we can go on this path together to try to be more autonomous and exchange and interact in a different way.”

How did you choose the particular issues you focused on? 

We started with food because it is our most basic need. We then needed to show that everything is linked. When you try to change the food system, you see that it is highly dependent on the powerful oil system. You then speak about energy and see that some regions aren’t able to participate in the energy transition because they are so in debt and you ask yourself “why?” So we dove into economy and found some solutions. But we’ve seen that the economy takes power from the democracy, leading to the question: How can we get the power back? We found examples that are only working because people are really involved. And this is something we should learn in school. We should raise kids to be free to take responsibility. That’s how we came up with segments based on agriculture, energy, economy, democracy and education.

I focus on mobilizing women’s consumer clout to create incentives to manufacturers to reduce pollution. How do you think shopping and conscientious consumption fit into the picture when it comes to protecting the planet?

That is one of the main things you can do every day – choose to buy or not to buy. We are definitely buying too much stuff and creating an insane amount of waste. Then we need to ask ourselves what the impact on the planet, on the people and on us will be. Proper and independent labeling of consumer products is a very important issue. We need to ensure that people have access, at reasonable prices, to products that protect the environment and do not enslave other people. Also, buying local, in independent shops, creates two-to-four times more jobs, two-to-four times the wealth to share in our community compared to buying from a big company. That is a way to get our economic power back.

As you traveled the world, did you find yourself getting more hopeful that we’ll solve our global environmental crises, or more worried that we’re not moving fast enough?

As we traveled, we realized that the world lacked encouraging initiatives. We also found initiatives that were amazingly impactful and easily replicable. I am aware more than ever that if we continue to behave the way we do, there will be no hope and sooner than we might think. But I also believe that we can all play a role to save our planet and protect our future. This is what “Tomorrow” is about, showing that individual and local actions are the immediate and concrete solutions. And that if we gather, we can even shift the political system.

Do you have any advice for President Donald Trump re: climate change?

If he really thinks climate change is a hoax, I’m ok to take him to some places where he will see it is not! Seriously, I would love President Trump to watch the film and let us know what he thinks; after all, he is also a father. When you are the president of such a big and powerful country you have a huge responsibility. Fixing ecological problems might be the biggest challenge the human race ever faced. So he needs to take a stand with the world.

WATCH the Tomorrow trailer HERE.

JOIN THE FORCE

By Jayant Kairam

More than 25 U.S. cities, 12 countries, and at least 89 companies have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change.

Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent renewable ring. California and Massachusetts have proposed plans to get there, while Hawaii has made the pledge. This 100-percent dream does not come from fantasy, but is actually the result of a number of coalescing factors.

Earth Day is our time to recognize what’s more: With the right mix of clean energy technologies and solutions, 100 percent renewable is 100 percent possible.

100 percent is possible

Cost competitive and scalable renewable energy has taken off over the past 10 to 20 years. The hungry solar market in California for example, has resulted in exponential growth of utility-scale and rooftop solar over the last decade, creating over 150,000 jobs throughout the Golden State.

Recently, California powered 40 percent of its midday energy demand with solar power. A steady stream of policy actions at the state and local level – timed with the dramatic drop in costs of renewables – have helped make this possible. Across the U.S., current RPS policies alone could result in these benefits:

• Renewables contributing 40 percent of total electricity generation in the U.S. by 2050;
• Reducing climate change-causing greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants like SOx and NOx (which together form ozone) by 6 percent; and
• An almost 20 percent increase in jobs.

The bold inspiration, urgency, and benefit of 100 percent renewables is without question, but the pathway for getting there is less clear and will vary by state and region.

Making 100 percent work

Let’s take California as an example, especially since it is currently considering a 100 percent renewable portfolio standard. California’s electricity sector currently accounts for a fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state. Thanks to legislation passed last year, the sector must reduce those emissions by 40 percent. The state’s current 50 percent RPS is a hugely important piece to achieving those reductions.

Yet, as California’s leaders consider higher RPS targets, they must simultaneously invest in and develop a variety of resource, policy, and market solutions to ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable.

This Earth Day, 100 percent clean energy is 100 percent possible
Click To Tweet

These are clean energy resources that can even-out the variability of renewables, and use market mechanisms to create more competition and opportunity to serve energy demand with renewables throughout the day.

Smart policies, technology, and market tools are gaining traction around the country and offer some excellent examples of how to lay a foundation for an energy system powered by 100 percent clean resources.

Connecting Western grid management

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power.

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power. Capitalizing on the West’s resource and population footprint has been the driver for establishing a Western wide wholesale energy market.

Currently, 38 separate authorities manage the region’s electric grid. Connecting them could increase renewables, reduce pollution and wasted resources, save people money, and create jobs. One sign this would work is the current Energy Imbalance Market, a voluntary market for utilities to sell energy in real-time. It has expanded in recent years to include utilities in Nevada and Arizona, and there has been a noticeable improvement in California’s ability to put more of our renewables to use.

Solar + storage, and other tech

Hawaii was the first state in the nation to announce its plan to tackle a 100-percent RPS. Now the state is leveraging the dropping costs of solar-plus-storage technologies. Since the beginning of 2017, Kauai Electric Cooperative has won two such deals, a 13MW solar + 52MWh storage project with Tesla, and 28MW + 20MW storage project with Advanced Energy Solutions.

The price of the power from these projects is competitive and they’re directly aimed at using as much of the state’s high amount of solar power as possible.

Back on the mainland, a recent study of a 30 MW utility-scale solar plant equipped with smart inverters shows how clean resources can out-compete fossil fuel resources in operating the grid. Innovation is proof that renewables can be packaged to keep the grid reliable, allow operators to confidently maintain balance between supply and demand, and can alleviate concerns about the variability of renewables.

Using market signals

Distributed energy resources, like demand response and electric vehicles, can also provide important grid benefits in a variety of affordable ways. For example, time-of-use pricing (a type of demand response), could drive almost 8,000 GWh of energy demand to times of day when electricity is cheaply and cleanly powered by renewables.

Here’s what time-of-use pricing could do for California:

• Increase the amount of renewables we use by 10 percent;
• Avoid over 8 million tons of carbon emissions; and
• Save California energy customers, collectively, $700 million a year.

Using the power of price signals to incentivize electric vehicle charging when its cheapest and cleanest will help transform the growing fleets of clean vehicles into grid assets and help reduce pollution from the transportation sector, as well.

Why it matters

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization charged with  balancing much  of California’s grid – recently reported they will have to shut off 6,000 to 8,000 MW of solar due to over-generation (when supply exceeds demand). High levels of curtailment, aka wasted renewable resources, are not the goal of a 100 percent renewable target. Nor are the severe ramps of energy demand that CAISO projects when increasing amounts of variable renewable resources shut down at the end of the day. Currently, fossil fuels like natural gas service much of that high demand.

We need to make sure the road to 100 percent is paved with clean energy resources that will help integrate, store, and use those renewables throughout the day and do so affordably.

This way, California and other states and nations can continue to prove how to balance vibrant economic growth with a strong commitment to climate and energy policy.

By Jayant Kairam

More than 25 U.S. cities, 12 countries, and at least 89 companies have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change.

Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent renewable ring. California and Massachusetts have proposed plans to get there, while Hawaii has made the pledge. This 100-percent dream does not come from fantasy, but is actually the result of a number of coalescing factors.

Earth Day is our time to recognize what’s more: With the right mix of clean energy technologies and solutions, 100 percent renewable is 100 percent possible.

100 percent is possible

Cost competitive and scalable renewable energy has taken off over the past 10 to 20 years. The hungry solar market in California for example, has resulted in exponential growth of utility-scale and rooftop solar over the last decade, creating over 150,000 jobs throughout the Golden State.

Recently, California powered 40 percent of its midday energy demand with solar power. A steady stream of policy actions at the state and local level – timed with the dramatic drop in costs of renewables – have helped make this possible. Across the U.S., current RPS policies alone could result in these benefits:

• Renewables contributing 40 percent of total electricity generation in the U.S. by 2050;
• Reducing climate change-causing greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants like SOx and NOx (which together form ozone) by 6 percent; and
• An almost 20 percent increase in jobs.

The bold inspiration, urgency, and benefit of 100 percent renewables is without question, but the pathway for getting there is less clear and will vary by state and region.

Making 100 percent work

Let’s take California as an example, especially since it is currently considering a 100 percent renewable portfolio standard. California’s electricity sector currently accounts for a fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state. Thanks to legislation passed last year, the sector must reduce those emissions by 40 percent. The state’s current 50 percent RPS is a hugely important piece to achieving those reductions.

Yet, as California’s leaders consider higher RPS targets, they must simultaneously invest in and develop a variety of resource, policy, and market solutions to ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable.

This Earth Day, 100 percent clean energy is 100 percent possible
Click To Tweet

These are clean energy resources that can even-out the variability of renewables, and use market mechanisms to create more competition and opportunity to serve energy demand with renewables throughout the day.

Smart policies, technology, and market tools are gaining traction around the country and offer some excellent examples of how to lay a foundation for an energy system powered by 100 percent clean resources.

Connecting Western grid management

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power.

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power. Capitalizing on the West’s resource and population footprint has been the driver for establishing a Western wide wholesale energy market.

Currently, 38 separate authorities manage the region’s electric grid. Connecting them could increase renewables, reduce pollution and wasted resources, save people money, and create jobs. One sign this would work is the current Energy Imbalance Market, a voluntary market for utilities to sell energy in real-time. It has expanded in recent years to include utilities in Nevada and Arizona, and there has been a noticeable improvement in California’s ability to put more of our renewables to use.

Solar + storage, and other tech

Hawaii was the first state in the nation to announce its plan to tackle a 100-percent RPS. Now the state is leveraging the dropping costs of solar-plus-storage technologies. Since the beginning of 2017, Kauai Electric Cooperative has won two such deals, a 13MW solar + 52MWh storage project with Tesla, and 28MW + 20MW storage project with Advanced Energy Solutions.

The price of the power from these projects is competitive and they’re directly aimed at using as much of the state’s high amount of solar power as possible.

Back on the mainland, a recent study of a 30 MW utility-scale solar plant equipped with smart inverters shows how clean resources can out-compete fossil fuel resources in operating the grid. Innovation is proof that renewables can be packaged to keep the grid reliable, allow operators to confidently maintain balance between supply and demand, and can alleviate concerns about the variability of renewables.

Using market signals

Distributed energy resources, like demand response and electric vehicles, can also provide important grid benefits in a variety of affordable ways. For example, time-of-use pricing (a type of demand response), could drive almost 8,000 GWh of energy demand to times of day when electricity is cheaply and cleanly powered by renewables.

Here’s what time-of-use pricing could do for California:

• Increase the amount of renewables we use by 10 percent;
• Avoid over 8 million tons of carbon emissions; and
• Save California energy customers, collectively, $700 million a year.

Using the power of price signals to incentivize electric vehicle charging when its cheapest and cleanest will help transform the growing fleets of clean vehicles into grid assets and help reduce pollution from the transportation sector, as well.

Why it matters

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization charged with  balancing much  of California’s grid – recently reported they will have to shut off 6,000 to 8,000 MW of solar due to over-generation (when supply exceeds demand). High levels of curtailment, aka wasted renewable resources, are not the goal of a 100 percent renewable target. Nor are the severe ramps of energy demand that CAISO projects when increasing amounts of variable renewable resources shut down at the end of the day. Currently, fossil fuels like natural gas service much of that high demand.

We need to make sure the road to 100 percent is paved with clean energy resources that will help integrate, store, and use those renewables throughout the day and do so affordably.

This way, California and other states and nations can continue to prove how to balance vibrant economic growth with a strong commitment to climate and energy policy.

More than 25 U.S. cities, 12 countries, and at least 89 companies have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change. Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent […]

More than 25 U.S. cities, 12 countries, and at least 89 companies have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change. Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent […]

By Jayant Kairam

More than 25 U.S. cities, 12 countries, and at least 89 companies have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change.

Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent renewable ring. California and Massachusetts have proposed plans to get there, while Hawaii has made the pledge. This 100-percent dream does not come from fantasy, but is actually the result of a number of coalescing factors.

Earth Day is our time to recognize what’s more: With the right mix of clean energy technologies and solutions, 100 percent renewable is 100 percent possible.

100 percent is possible

Cost competitive and scalable renewable energy has taken off over the past 10 to 20 years. The hungry solar market in California for example, has resulted in exponential growth of utility-scale and rooftop solar over the last decade, creating over 150,000 jobs throughout the Golden State.

Recently, California powered 40 percent of its midday energy demand with solar power. A steady stream of policy actions at the state and local level – timed with the dramatic drop in costs of renewables – have helped make this possible. Across the U.S., current RPS policies alone could result in these benefits:

• Renewables contributing 40 percent of total electricity generation in the U.S. by 2050;
• Reducing climate change-causing greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants like SOx and NOx (which together form ozone) by 6 percent; and
• An almost 20 percent increase in jobs.

The bold inspiration, urgency, and benefit of 100 percent renewables is without question, but the pathway for getting there is less clear and will vary by state and region.

Making 100 percent work

Let’s take California as an example, especially since it is currently considering a 100 percent renewable portfolio standard. California’s electricity sector currently accounts for a fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state. Thanks to legislation passed last year, the sector must reduce those emissions by 40 percent. The state’s current 50 percent RPS is a hugely important piece to achieving those reductions.

Yet, as California’s leaders consider higher RPS targets, they must simultaneously invest in and develop a variety of resource, policy, and market solutions to ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable.

This Earth Day, 100 percent clean energy is 100 percent possible
Click To Tweet

These are clean energy resources that can even-out the variability of renewables, and use market mechanisms to create more competition and opportunity to serve energy demand with renewables throughout the day.

Smart policies, technology, and market tools are gaining traction around the country and offer some excellent examples of how to lay a foundation for an energy system powered by 100 percent clean resources.

Connecting Western grid management

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power.

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power. Capitalizing on the West’s resource and population footprint has been the driver for establishing a Western wide wholesale energy market.

Currently, 38 separate authorities manage the region’s electric grid. Connecting them could increase renewables, reduce pollution and wasted resources, save people money, and create jobs. One sign this would work is the current Energy Imbalance Market, a voluntary market for utilities to sell energy in real-time. It has expanded in recent years to include utilities in Nevada and Arizona, and there has been a noticeable improvement in California’s ability to put more of our renewables to use.

Solar + storage, and other tech

Hawaii was the first state in the nation to announce its plan to tackle a 100-percent RPS. Now the state is leveraging the dropping costs of solar-plus-storage technologies. Since the beginning of 2017, Kauai Electric Cooperative has won two such deals, a 13MW solar + 52MWh storage project with Tesla, and 28MW + 20MW storage project with Advanced Energy Solutions.

The price of the power from these projects is competitive and they’re directly aimed at using as much of the state’s high amount of solar power as possible.

Back on the mainland, a recent study of a 30 MW utility-scale solar plant equipped with smart inverters shows how clean resources can out-compete fossil fuel resources in operating the grid. Innovation is proof that renewables can be packaged to keep the grid reliable, allow operators to confidently maintain balance between supply and demand, and can alleviate concerns about the variability of renewables.

Using market signals

Distributed energy resources, like demand response and electric vehicles, can also provide important grid benefits in a variety of affordable ways. For example, time-of-use pricing (a type of demand response), could drive almost 8,000 GWh of energy demand to times of day when electricity is cheaply and cleanly powered by renewables.

Here’s what time-of-use pricing could do for California:

• Increase the amount of renewables we use by 10 percent;
• Avoid over 8 million tons of carbon emissions; and
• Save California energy customers, collectively, $700 million a year.

Using the power of price signals to incentivize electric vehicle charging when its cheapest and cleanest will help transform the growing fleets of clean vehicles into grid assets and help reduce pollution from the transportation sector, as well.

Why it matters

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization charged with  balancing much  of California’s grid – recently reported they will have to shut off 6,000 to 8,000 MW of solar due to over-generation (when supply exceeds demand). High levels of curtailment, aka wasted renewable resources, are not the goal of a 100 percent renewable target. Nor are the severe ramps of energy demand that CAISO projects when increasing amounts of variable renewable resources shut down at the end of the day. Currently, fossil fuels like natural gas service much of that high demand.

We need to make sure the road to 100 percent is paved with clean energy resources that will help integrate, store, and use those renewables throughout the day and do so affordably.

This way, California and other states and nations can continue to prove how to balance vibrant economic growth with a strong commitment to climate and energy policy.

By Jayant Kairam

More than 25 U.S. cities, 12 countries, and at least 89 companies have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change.

Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent renewable ring. California and Massachusetts have proposed plans to get there, while Hawaii has made the pledge. This 100-percent dream does not come from fantasy, but is actually the result of a number of coalescing factors.

Earth Day is our time to recognize what’s more: With the right mix of clean energy technologies and solutions, 100 percent renewable is 100 percent possible.

100 percent is possible

Cost competitive and scalable renewable energy has taken off over the past 10 to 20 years. The hungry solar market in California for example, has resulted in exponential growth of utility-scale and rooftop solar over the last decade, creating over 150,000 jobs throughout the Golden State.

Recently, California powered 40 percent of its midday energy demand with solar power. A steady stream of policy actions at the state and local level – timed with the dramatic drop in costs of renewables – have helped make this possible. Across the U.S., current RPS policies alone could result in these benefits:

• Renewables contributing 40 percent of total electricity generation in the U.S. by 2050;
• Reducing climate change-causing greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants like SOx and NOx (which together form ozone) by 6 percent; and
• An almost 20 percent increase in jobs.

The bold inspiration, urgency, and benefit of 100 percent renewables is without question, but the pathway for getting there is less clear and will vary by state and region.

Making 100 percent work

Let’s take California as an example, especially since it is currently considering a 100 percent renewable portfolio standard. California’s electricity sector currently accounts for a fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state. Thanks to legislation passed last year, the sector must reduce those emissions by 40 percent. The state’s current 50 percent RPS is a hugely important piece to achieving those reductions.

Yet, as California’s leaders consider higher RPS targets, they must simultaneously invest in and develop a variety of resource, policy, and market solutions to ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable.

This Earth Day, 100 percent clean energy is 100 percent possible
Click To Tweet

These are clean energy resources that can even-out the variability of renewables, and use market mechanisms to create more competition and opportunity to serve energy demand with renewables throughout the day.

Smart policies, technology, and market tools are gaining traction around the country and offer some excellent examples of how to lay a foundation for an energy system powered by 100 percent clean resources.

Connecting Western grid management

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power.

The Western U.S. is full of expansive and diverse natural beauty. This translates into an impressive abundance of clean energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power. Capitalizing on the West’s resource and population footprint has been the driver for establishing a Western wide wholesale energy market.

Currently, 38 separate authorities manage the region’s electric grid. Connecting them could increase renewables, reduce pollution and wasted resources, save people money, and create jobs. One sign this would work is the current Energy Imbalance Market, a voluntary market for utilities to sell energy in real-time. It has expanded in recent years to include utilities in Nevada and Arizona, and there has been a noticeable improvement in California’s ability to put more of our renewables to use.

Solar + storage, and other tech

Hawaii was the first state in the nation to announce its plan to tackle a 100-percent RPS. Now the state is leveraging the dropping costs of solar-plus-storage technologies. Since the beginning of 2017, Kauai Electric Cooperative has won two such deals, a 13MW solar + 52MWh storage project with Tesla, and 28MW + 20MW storage project with Advanced Energy Solutions.

The price of the power from these projects is competitive and they’re directly aimed at using as much of the state’s high amount of solar power as possible.

Back on the mainland, a recent study of a 30 MW utility-scale solar plant equipped with smart inverters shows how clean resources can out-compete fossil fuel resources in operating the grid. Innovation is proof that renewables can be packaged to keep the grid reliable, allow operators to confidently maintain balance between supply and demand, and can alleviate concerns about the variability of renewables.

Using market signals

Distributed energy resources, like demand response and electric vehicles, can also provide important grid benefits in a variety of affordable ways. For example, time-of-use pricing (a type of demand response), could drive almost 8,000 GWh of energy demand to times of day when electricity is cheaply and cleanly powered by renewables.

Here’s what time-of-use pricing could do for California:

• Increase the amount of renewables we use by 10 percent;
• Avoid over 8 million tons of carbon emissions; and
• Save California energy customers, collectively, $700 million a year.

Using the power of price signals to incentivize electric vehicle charging when its cheapest and cleanest will help transform the growing fleets of clean vehicles into grid assets and help reduce pollution from the transportation sector, as well.

Why it matters

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization charged with  balancing much  of California’s grid – recently reported they will have to shut off 6,000 to 8,000 MW of solar due to over-generation (when supply exceeds demand). High levels of curtailment, aka wasted renewable resources, are not the goal of a 100 percent renewable target. Nor are the severe ramps of energy demand that CAISO projects when increasing amounts of variable renewable resources shut down at the end of the day. Currently, fossil fuels like natural gas service much of that high demand.

We need to make sure the road to 100 percent is paved with clean energy resources that will help integrate, store, and use those renewables throughout the day and do so affordably.

This way, California and other states and nations can continue to prove how to balance vibrant economic growth with a strong commitment to climate and energy policy.

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director The United States has made significant progress over the past fifteen years towards reducing children’s exposure to lead. While much more needs to be done to eliminate the more than $50 billion a year in societal costs from lead, the progress is good news for children since it is […]

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

The United States has made significant progress over the past fifteen years towards reducing children’s exposure to lead. While much more needs to be done to eliminate the more than $50 billion a year in societal costs from lead, the progress is good news for children since it is well known that there is no safe level of lead in children, and it can impair their brain development, contribute to learning and behavioral problems, and lower IQs.

Achieving this progress has required a diligent and ongoing commitment from all levels of government. If we expect to continue to make progress – and not backslide – the federal government needs to remain committed to reducing sources of lead exposure. So far what we’ve seen from the Trump Administration raises serious concerns about any real commitment to protecting children’s health, including from lead.

Lead has a toxic legacy from decades of extensive use in paint, gasoline, and water pipes. As long as lead is in the paint, pipes, and soil where we live, work and play, progress is far from inevitable. Protecting children from lead takes constant vigilance, especially when the paint or plumbing is disturbed. Flint provided a tragic example of what happens when we turn away. Without vigilance, the positive trends we have seen in blood lead levels could all too easily reverse course and go up. That is why the proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget, which would eliminate the agency’s lead-based paint programs, are yet another indication that this Administration is turning its back on protecting children’s health.

Mean blood lead levels in young children dropped 56% from 1999 to 2014

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) demonstrates that from 1999 to 2014 the levels of lead in children’s blood or “blood lead levels” (BLL) dropped preciptiously. Average BLLs in young children declined by 56% during that period with the rate of decline increasing after 2010. For children with a BLL greater than 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter (µg/dL), the reduction was an impressive 86%.

 

Progress result of important policy decisions

Looking at the chart above, it’s clear we’ve made significant progress in reducing children’s exposure to lead. So what happened since 1999? You can learn more about the different lead policies on EDF’s interactive tool that plots federal policy decisions and blood lead levels. Here is a quick summary of the major actions taken during this time:

• 1999 – The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) promulgated its Lead-Safe Housing Rule setting strict standards for lead-based paint in more than 1.2 million federally subsidized homes. The rule went into effect in 2000.
• 2001 – EPA promulgated hazard standards for dust and soil contaminated by lead-based paint in housing and child-occupied facilities.
• 2008 – EPA adopted its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) that requires lead-safe work practices by trained and certified renovators when they disturb lead-based paint in pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilites. The rule, which went into effect in 2010, was estimated to affect more than 4.4 million projects each year.
• 2008 – EPA promulgated a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead that was ten-fold lower than the one set decades earlier.
• 2008 – Congress enacted the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which set more stringent standards for lead in paint and in children’s products and required a third-party to certify that children’s products met the standards.
• 2011 – Congress lowered the definition of lead-free plumbing from 8% to 0.25% with compliance required in 2014.
• 2012 – CDC adopted a BLL Reference Level for young children that was half of its previous level of concern. That same year, Congress virtually eliminated funding for CDC’s lead office as part of its sequester cuts and has restored only part of it.

Each of these federal policy decisions had an impact in some way on the impressive drops in BLLs since 1999. And each built on earlier policy decisions banning lead from paint, gasoline, and metal food cans, and sustained investment in Lead Hazard Control Grants at HUD. There is no realistic method to assess the relative contribution of each policy change.

Progress is not inevitable – it results from sound policy and vigilance by all levels of government

Vigilance is imperative when the lead is distributed throughout our communities, whether in the estimated 37 million older homes with lead-based paint or 6.1 million with lead pipes connecting their home to the drinking water main under the street. While no renovator wants to poison a child, people usually are more careful when they are being monitored and can be held accountable. Ultimately that means people in the federal government are on-board and have the time and resources to provide the essential oversight. And the policies only work if they are updated regularly to reflect the latest scientific research.

With lead costing our society more than $50 billion annually in lost IQ points, reduced attention spans, and more violent behavior, the proposed cuts are incredibly shortsighted. The proposed cuts at EPA as well as HUD and the other agencies, if adopted by Congress, run a very real risk of slowing the progress we have seen in protecting young children from lead. The numbers could go up if we, as a nation, do not remain committed to continued progress: that means updating standards, ensuring that laws are complied with, and providing the resources federal and state agencies they need to protect children. Few areas of environmental health have such a direct and tangible feedback as levels of lead in the blood of young children.

The data is clear: policies have consequences. If members of Congress gut lead programs, their constituents will have a clear metric by which to judge the impact of their votes.

By Elena Craft, PhD

EDF’s Maia Draper co-wrote this post

We’ve written before about the Air Pollutant Watch List, a Texas program for addressing harmful air pollutants that pose a particularly high risk to public health.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adds areas to the Air Pollution Watch List where monitoring data show persistently high concentrations of air toxics above the state’s health-based guidelines for these substances.

Listing an area on the Air Pollution Watch List enables TCEQ to dedicate additional time and resources to reducing air toxic emissions in these areas. A listing can serve as an important tool for reducing dangerous air pollution and protecting public health.

However, since 2007, TCEQ has removed 14 monitored pollutants in 10 areas from the Air Pollution Watch List. TCEQ says that average concentration levels of air toxics in these areas no longer exceed state guidelines, and therefore that additional scrutiny and resources to encourage air quality improvements are no longer necessary.

TCEQ’s Air Pollution Watch List delisting decisions can be controversial, in part due to questions about whether air monitoring data are sufficient to support the delisting decision, and to what extent the Air Pollution Watch List label is still needed as a tool to deter high long-term emissions of harmful pollutants or short-term emissions spikes that can pose an immediate danger to public health.

To find out whether air quality improvements have persisted in areas that have been removed from the Air Pollution Watch List, EDF conducted a comprehensive analysis of air monitoring data for all Air Pollution Watch List areas delisted since the program’s inception.

Our analysis reveals several shortcomings in the way that TCEQ currently collects and reports these data, and recommends several crucial steps that TCEQ should take to better monitor emissions and protect public health in areas that have been removed from the Air Pollution Watch List.

Areas among 16 TCEQ regions that have been removed from the APWL. Source: TCEQ Air Monitoring Site Data. Map created using ArcGIS.

Among them:

• Address short-term emissions spikes in delisted areas

For some areas that have been delisted, we found continuing exceedances of TCEQ’s recommended concentration levels for air toxics, suggesting that these areas have not adequately maintained the air quality improvements that led to their removal from the Air Pollution Watch List. In particular, while average annual concentration levels of air toxics for most areas are below TCEQ’s health-based threshold, there is wide variability in these levels throughout the year, indicating that short-term spikes in concentrations of harmful air pollutants continue to be a problem in these delisted areas, posing a potential threat to public health. TCEQ should take steps to address these short-term spikes.

• Improve transparency of the Air Pollution Watch List program 

Our analysis also revealed problems with data transparency – air monitoring data for nine monitors located in the delisted Air Pollution Watch List areas analyzed in this report are not currently available to the public. We also recommend that TCEQ improve transparency about the investigative and enforcement actions it takes in response to violation of health-based pollution levels. Improving the transparency of all aspects of the Air Pollution Watch List program, including areas that have been removed from the list but still require ongoing monitoring, is a fundamental step needed to improve its effectiveness.

• Improve accuracy of data collection and presentation to the public 

Our analysis also finds inconsistencies in TCEQ’s data collection and presentation protocols for hazardous air pollutants that undermine the accuracy of its air quality monitoring and data analysis. We propose ways for TCEQ to improve the precision and usefulness of its air quality monitoring data, in order to provide the public with a more accurate and complete assessment of air quality levels. In order to better protect public health, TCEQ should improve the precision and granularity of the data it uses as the basis for Air Pollution Watch List listing and delisting decisions.

Reducing emissions of air toxics is an important public health goal. Both short-term and long-term exposure to these emissions can cause severe adverse health effects, including respiratory distress, problems with the central nervous system, and cancer. At high levels, exposure to these toxics can even result in death.

The Texas Air Pollution Watch List system plays an important role in limiting human exposure to these dangerous compounds, which is why it is important for TCEQ to use rigorous and transparent data analysis before it decides to delist an area, and for it to continue to monitor these areas after delisting to safeguard against continued emissions of hazardous air pollutants in these areas.

You can read our full analysis here.

EDF’s Maia Draper co-wrote this post We’ve written before about the Air Pollutant Watch List, a Texas program for addressing harmful air pollutants that pose a particularly high risk to public health. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adds areas to the Air Pollution Watch List where monitoring data show persistently high concentrations of […]

Written by Dominique Browning

Sometimes I’m overwhelmed — in a wonderful way — by the beauty of this world. Springtime does this to me. Everything waking up, coming back to public life — the presentation of flowers, of buds, the unfurling of sweet tiny early leaves, looking like baby ears. We’re still here! We made it through the winter. We are all together.

And sometimes I’m overwhelmed — in a terrible way — by the cynicism and immorality with which we harm each other, and our world.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — who is sworn to uphold rules that clean up our air — is going to the courts again in a continuing assault on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which regulate some of the most dangerous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants. What’s even more troubling about Pruitt’s latest move is that the standards are already in place, with nearly every power plant in compliance — and mercury levels in our waters are beginning to drop.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards reduce mercury, arsenic, chromium, and hydrochloric acid gas. Not just mercury, but other horrible poisons. These pollutants are hazardous to human health even in small doses — for instance, mercury causes brain damage in developing children; metal toxics like chromium and nickel cause cancer; and acid gases cause serious lung diseases.

Anything that puts more mercury into our air and water is wrong. Immoral, actually. End of story. We know how to keep it out — and keep our economy strong, our power plants prospering, and our electricity reliable and abundant. So why take us backwards?

Backwards is the direction Scott Pruitt has set. He wants to make America dirty again. His crippling budget cuts to EPA — already one of the tiniest parts of the national budget — mean that we won’t have the resources to keep air clean. His legal assault on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards — already finalized and almost fully implemented — mean that polluters will get to put more mercury into the air.

" class="button medium" style="background-color: #ed3e2b; ">TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR HEALTH FROM AIR AND CLIMATE POLLUTION