Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Mandy Warner for Climate 411:

Details of President Trump’s budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have started leaking out — and they are alarming, to say the least.

The reported budget cuts outline a disturbingly stark vision for the nation’s guardians of human health and the environment, cutting EPA staff by one-fifth and resources by 25 percent.

This budget would reportedly slash funding to restore the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, for state air quality grants, for environmental justice programs, for safe drinking water grants to states, and much more.

This short-sighted budget proposal would mean dirtier air and water. It would mean more deaths among American citizens, and more asthma attacks among American children.

That’s why reports of a budget proposal this alarming has drawn criticism from all corners of America, from red and blue states alike.

As Jim Brainard, the Republican Mayor of Carmel, Indiana put it:

I haven’t met a Republican or Democrat yet that wants to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air.

Members of Congress from both parties, former EPA administrators serving under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, experts from state and local air agencies, environmental justice groups, and others all agree:

William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator for Presidents Nixon and Reagan:

A strong and credible regulatory regime is essential to the smooth functioning of our economy… Budget cuts that hurt programs that states now have in place to meet those duties run the risk of returning us to a time when some states offered industries a free lunch, creating havens for polluters. This could leave states with strong environmental programs supported by the public at a competitive disadvantage compared to states with weak programs. In other words, it could lead to a race to the bottom.

Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator for President George W. Bush:

I haven’t ever really seen anything quite like this,” and on the enforcement of environmental rules, “a lot of that enforcement is protecting people.

Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator for President Obama:

This budget is a fantasy if the administration believes it will preserve EPA’s mission to protect public health… It ignores the need to invest in science and to implement the law… It ignores the lessons of history that led to EPA’s creation 46 years ago. And it ignores the American people calling for its continued support … This is actually going to be devastating for the agency’s ability to protect public health.

WE ACT for Environmental Justice:

Trump’s proposed cuts to EPA’s programs are racist and an attack on EJ communities nationwide.

Dominique Browning, founder of Moms Clean Air Force:

No mom — whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent — voted for air pollution. No mom voted for anything that would endanger her children’s health. We’ve come a long way in cleaning up air pollution, and cutting back EPA’s efforts to enforce the rules that protect us — in favor of polluters’ profits — runs completely against what mothers and fathers across the country want: safe and clean air.

National Association of Clean Air Agencies director Bill Becker:

These cuts, if enacted by Congress, will rip the heart and soul out of the national air pollution control program and jeopardize the health and welfare of tens of millions of people around the country… I can guarantee with certainty that at least in the air pollution area, there will be many more people who will die prematurely and tens of thousands, perhaps millions more, who will get sick unnecessarily… [the cuts will have] a direct and serious adverse health impact on almost every major metropolitan area in the country.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho):

There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud. (Simpson also noted that Republicans had already reduced EPA’s budget significantly in recent years.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma):

EPA has been cut by over 20 percent in the last few years. The discretionary budget has been lowered pretty dramatically compared to how it was in 2009, and it’s under what [Speaker] Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) thought it would be in his budget.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Delaware):

Reckless cuts to the EPA — the agency responsible for protecting public health and our environment — are not what Americans voted for in November.

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio):

[W]e’re not going to let that happen, we’re going to continue to oppose cuts to the [Great Lakes Restoration Initiative] and we’re going to mobilize our voting forces to let them know that this isn’t going to stand.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):

[Proposed cuts to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative are] outrageous … this initiative has been critical to cleaning up our Great Lakes and waterways, restoring fish and wildlife habitats, and fighting invasive species, like Asian carp… I call on President Trump to reverse course on these harmful decisions.

John Stine, Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

It would cut across every area of our work… It would hurt the people who look to [our] programs for protecting the quality of their health and the quality of the places they live… We need people to understand that this work is not just … abstract, these are all people and places that are at some level of risk.

American Lung Association:

Slashing funding for programs that are proven to save lives is a disastrous strategy; cuts to key lung health programs at EPA and HHS make Americans less secure and less protected from known health threats such as the next influenza pandemic and air pollution. Our nation’s scientists and doctors will be less likely to find cures and better treatments for the millions of Americans with lung cancer, COPD and asthma.

Clean air, water, and other environmental safeguards are essential to Americans’ lives. The vast majority of Americans across the country support EPA’s mission – a mission the agency has been carrying out under both political parties for almost half a century, and one that that has led to incredible progress in cleaning and protecting our air and waters.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

How do we compensate those who add clean electricity to our shared power grid? This fundamental question has affected the rate at which the U.S. has adopted, deployed, and put into use clean, distributed energy resources such as energy efficiency, batteries, electric vehicles, and rooftop and community solar. At the core of our new distributed […]

The post Biting the Biggest Apple: New York’s New Plan to Reward Distributed Energy Resources appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Ferit Ucar

How do we compensate those who add clean electricity to our shared power grid? This fundamental question has affected the rate at which the U.S. has adopted, deployed, and put into use clean, distributed energy resources such as energy efficiency, batteries, electric vehicles, and rooftop and community solar.

At the core of our new distributed energy electricity system are resources that work better during specific times and weather conditions, and thereby have more value at some moments than others. So, it’s crucial to take time and location into account to properly identify the value of these clean energy resources and how they should be fairly compensated. Solving for price can spur much needed investment in renewable resources and lower the cost of clean energy development, while reducing emissions.

Last week, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) brought us a step closer to figuring how to fairly compensate distributed energy by issuing a long-awaited order to establish an interim pricing structure that encourages the evolution of distributed energy markets and better aligns with Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), the state’s initiative to build a cleaner, more efficient, and customer-centric electric system.

Here’s what the order requires New York to do:

• Market price for large energy resources – Adopt a more accurate, market-based approach for compensating large energy resources (like community solar and on-site large commercial solar projects) that add electricity to the grid. Instead of the traditional net energy metering model – which allows solar owners to sell their unused power back to the grid at the retail rate – New York will now allow compensation to align with the market value of electricity generated by large energy resources. This value can be higher or lower than the retail rate, the price people pay for each kilowatt hour.

• Net metering for small energy resources – Keep net energy metering for existing and new home solar systems and wind projects that come online until 2020 for 20 years from their in-service date. This will give the small distributed energy resources market preparation time to transition to a market-based compensation mechanism.

• Transition credit for community solar – Provide a temporary “market transition credit” to community solar projects that are likely to receive less compensation compared to what they would receive under a net metering mechanism. The credit will be phased out over time. This will help avoid suddenly disrupting the state’s burgeoning community solar market, while recognizing the value of the distributed energy benefits not quantified in the interim pricing mechanism.

• Value carbon’s social cost – Set the Social Cost of Carbon, the overall cost to society from each ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted, as the minimum value for the environmental benefits of clean resources.

• Fair access to solar – Facilitate low- and moderate-income customers’ access to community solar projects by reducing or eliminating financial barriers, and identifying innovative approaches to encourage their participation.

• Dollar-value based credit – In the new compensation approach, move away from offsetting how much power a customer adds to the grid against how much the customer uses. Instead, provide a monetary credit, where each kilowatt hour exported to the grid is converted into a dollar amount based on the energy, grid, and environmental value the resource creates.

This interim compensation approach moves New York closer to a marketplace in which customers, utilities, and energy developers are rewarded for investments decisions based on the “full” value their resources provide to the electric system.

However, more work is needed to establish better value systems for all the benefits distributed energy resources provide and to develop a more complete and accurate value-based compensation mechanism.

New York should also address the following aspects of clean energy valuation:

• Distribution and transmission value – Distributed energy resources can cut down on the amount of costly transmission and distribution infrastructure necessary to deliver electricity because they reduce demand for electricity provided by utilities. So, the valuation method adopted needs to be more precise and capture the full distribution and transmission value of these resources.

• Public health benefits – Clean, distributed energy resources reduce air pollution and provide significant public health benefits. In the future, once the market-transition credit is phased out, it will become even more important to compensate those who make electricity using clean resources for the value of public health benefits they provide.

• Environmental value – Clean, distributed energy resources are environmentally valuable because they generate power without polluting, and they can help avoid the dirtiest central generators. The interim pricing mechanism provides an average flat rate for compensating environmental benefits. The mechanism needs to better align payments with actual environmental value created by these resources to encourage investment in distributed resources where and when they provide the most value to the system.

REV envisions an electricity market in which distributed energy resources are treated in much the same manner as traditional generators. To that end, New York’s wholesale market operator, NYISO, has already been working to integrate distributed energy resources into its scheme. By opening the wholesale electricity market to distributed resources, New York can unlock additional value streams and allow them to compete fairly with traditional generators. Increased competition in the market can lower energy costs for everybody.

Environmental Defense Fund looks forward to continue working with the PSC, utilities, and other parties to further refine clean energy valuation and develop a long-term solution that provides a healthy market for distributed energy resources.

By Ferit Ucar

How do we compensate those who add clean electricity to our shared power grid? This fundamental question has affected the rate at which the U.S. has adopted, deployed, and put into use clean, distributed energy resources such as energy efficiency, batteries, electric vehicles, and rooftop and community solar.

At the core of our new distributed energy electricity system are resources that work better during specific times and weather conditions, and thereby have more value at some moments than others. So, it’s crucial to take time and location into account to properly identify the value of these clean energy resources and how they should be fairly compensated. Solving for price can spur much needed investment in renewable resources and lower the cost of clean energy development, while reducing emissions.

Last week, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) brought us a step closer to figuring how to fairly compensate distributed energy by issuing a long-awaited order to establish an interim pricing structure that encourages the evolution of distributed energy markets and better aligns with Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), the state’s initiative to build a cleaner, more efficient, and customer-centric electric system.

Here’s what the order requires New York to do:

• Market price for large energy resources – Adopt a more accurate, market-based approach for compensating large energy resources (like community solar and on-site large commercial solar projects) that add electricity to the grid. Instead of the traditional net energy metering model – which allows solar owners to sell their unused power back to the grid at the retail rate – New York will now allow compensation to align with the market value of electricity generated by large energy resources. This value can be higher or lower than the retail rate, the price people pay for each kilowatt hour.

• Net metering for small energy resources – Keep net energy metering for existing and new home solar systems and wind projects that come online until 2020 for 20 years from their in-service date. This will give the small distributed energy resources market preparation time to transition to a market-based compensation mechanism.

• Transition credit for community solar – Provide a temporary “market transition credit” to community solar projects that are likely to receive less compensation compared to what they would receive under a net metering mechanism. The credit will be phased out over time. This will help avoid suddenly disrupting the state’s burgeoning community solar market, while recognizing the value of the distributed energy benefits not quantified in the interim pricing mechanism.

• Value carbon’s social cost – Set the Social Cost of Carbon, the overall cost to society from each ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted, as the minimum value for the environmental benefits of clean resources.

• Fair access to solar – Facilitate low- and moderate-income customers’ access to community solar projects by reducing or eliminating financial barriers, and identifying innovative approaches to encourage their participation.

• Dollar-value based credit – In the new compensation approach, move away from offsetting how much power a customer adds to the grid against how much the customer uses. Instead, provide a monetary credit, where each kilowatt hour exported to the grid is converted into a dollar amount based on the energy, grid, and environmental value the resource creates.

This interim compensation approach moves New York closer to a marketplace in which customers, utilities, and energy developers are rewarded for investments decisions based on the “full” value their resources provide to the electric system.

However, more work is needed to establish better value systems for all the benefits distributed energy resources provide and to develop a more complete and accurate value-based compensation mechanism.

New York should also address the following aspects of clean energy valuation:

• Distribution and transmission value – Distributed energy resources can cut down on the amount of costly transmission and distribution infrastructure necessary to deliver electricity because they reduce demand for electricity provided by utilities. So, the valuation method adopted needs to be more precise and capture the full distribution and transmission value of these resources.

• Public health benefits – Clean, distributed energy resources reduce air pollution and provide significant public health benefits. In the future, once the market-transition credit is phased out, it will become even more important to compensate those who make electricity using clean resources for the value of public health benefits they provide.

• Environmental value – Clean, distributed energy resources are environmentally valuable because they generate power without polluting, and they can help avoid the dirtiest central generators. The interim pricing mechanism provides an average flat rate for compensating environmental benefits. The mechanism needs to better align payments with actual environmental value created by these resources to encourage investment in distributed resources where and when they provide the most value to the system.

REV envisions an electricity market in which distributed energy resources are treated in much the same manner as traditional generators. To that end, New York’s wholesale market operator, NYISO, has already been working to integrate distributed energy resources into its scheme. By opening the wholesale electricity market to distributed resources, New York can unlock additional value streams and allow them to compete fairly with traditional generators. Increased competition in the market can lower energy costs for everybody.

Environmental Defense Fund looks forward to continue working with the PSC, utilities, and other parties to further refine clean energy valuation and develop a long-term solution that provides a healthy market for distributed energy resources.

How do we compensate those who add clean electricity to our shared power grid? This fundamental question has affected the rate at which the U.S. has adopted, deployed, and put into use clean, distributed energy resources such as energy efficiency, batteries, electric vehicles, and rooftop and community solar. At the core of our new distributed […]

The post Biting the Biggest Apple: New York’s New Plan to Reward Distributed Energy Resources appeared first on Energy Exchange.

How do we compensate those who add clean electricity to our shared power grid? This fundamental question has affected the rate at which the U.S. has adopted, deployed, and put into use clean, distributed energy resources such as energy efficiency, batteries, electric vehicles, and rooftop and community solar. At the core of our new distributed […]

How do we compensate those who add clean electricity to our shared power grid? This fundamental question has affected the rate at which the U.S. has adopted, deployed, and put into use clean, distributed energy resources such as energy efficiency, batteries, electric vehicles, and rooftop and community solar. At the core of our new distributed […]

By Ferit Ucar

How do we compensate those who add clean electricity to our shared power grid? This fundamental question has affected the rate at which the U.S. has adopted, deployed, and put into use clean, distributed energy resources such as energy efficiency, batteries, electric vehicles, and rooftop and community solar.

At the core of our new distributed energy electricity system are resources that work better during specific times and weather conditions, and thereby have more value at some moments than others. So, it’s crucial to take time and location into account to properly identify the value of these clean energy resources and how they should be fairly compensated. Solving for price can spur much needed investment in renewable resources and lower the cost of clean energy development, while reducing emissions.

Last week, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) brought us a step closer to figuring how to fairly compensate distributed energy by issuing a long-awaited order to establish an interim pricing structure that encourages the evolution of distributed energy markets and better aligns with Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), the state’s initiative to build a cleaner, more efficient, and customer-centric electric system.

Here’s what the order requires New York to do:

• Market price for large energy resources – Adopt a more accurate, market-based approach for compensating large energy resources (like community solar and on-site large commercial solar projects) that add electricity to the grid. Instead of the traditional net energy metering model – which allows solar owners to sell their unused power back to the grid at the retail rate – New York will now allow compensation to align with the market value of electricity generated by large energy resources. This value can be higher or lower than the retail rate, the price people pay for each kilowatt hour.

• Net metering for small energy resources – Keep net energy metering for existing and new home solar systems and wind projects that come online until 2020 for 20 years from their in-service date. This will give the small distributed energy resources market preparation time to transition to a market-based compensation mechanism.

• Transition credit for community solar – Provide a temporary “market transition credit” to community solar projects that are likely to receive less compensation compared to what they would receive under a net metering mechanism. The credit will be phased out over time. This will help avoid suddenly disrupting the state’s burgeoning community solar market, while recognizing the value of the distributed energy benefits not quantified in the interim pricing mechanism.

• Value carbon’s social cost – Set the Social Cost of Carbon, the overall cost to society from each ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted, as the minimum value for the environmental benefits of clean resources.

• Fair access to solar – Facilitate low- and moderate-income customers’ access to community solar projects by reducing or eliminating financial barriers, and identifying innovative approaches to encourage their participation.

• Dollar-value based credit – In the new compensation approach, move away from offsetting how much power a customer adds to the grid against how much the customer uses. Instead, provide a monetary credit, where each kilowatt hour exported to the grid is converted into a dollar amount based on the energy, grid, and environmental value the resource creates.

This interim compensation approach moves New York closer to a marketplace in which customers, utilities, and energy developers are rewarded for investments decisions based on the “full” value their resources provide to the electric system.

However, more work is needed to establish better value systems for all the benefits distributed energy resources provide and to develop a more complete and accurate value-based compensation mechanism.

New York should also address the following aspects of clean energy valuation:

• Distribution and transmission value – Distributed energy resources can cut down on the amount of costly transmission and distribution infrastructure necessary to deliver electricity because they reduce demand for electricity provided by utilities. So, the valuation method adopted needs to be more precise and capture the full distribution and transmission value of these resources.

• Public health benefits – Clean, distributed energy resources reduce air pollution and provide significant public health benefits. In the future, once the market-transition credit is phased out, it will become even more important to compensate those who make electricity using clean resources for the value of public health benefits they provide.

• Environmental value – Clean, distributed energy resources are environmentally valuable because they generate power without polluting, and they can help avoid the dirtiest central generators. The interim pricing mechanism provides an average flat rate for compensating environmental benefits. The mechanism needs to better align payments with actual environmental value created by these resources to encourage investment in distributed resources where and when they provide the most value to the system.

REV envisions an electricity market in which distributed energy resources are treated in much the same manner as traditional generators. To that end, New York’s wholesale market operator, NYISO, has already been working to integrate distributed energy resources into its scheme. By opening the wholesale electricity market to distributed resources, New York can unlock additional value streams and allow them to compete fairly with traditional generators. Increased competition in the market can lower energy costs for everybody.

Environmental Defense Fund looks forward to continue working with the PSC, utilities, and other parties to further refine clean energy valuation and develop a long-term solution that provides a healthy market for distributed energy resources.

The 2017 Master Plan is the road map that will guide Louisiana's efforts to protect the coast over the next 50 years. As the plan comes up for a vote, our best weapon is your voice! #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. We've already had some great responses, here are real stories from people like ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

The 2017 Master Plan is the road map that will guide Louisiana's efforts to protect the coast over the next 50 years. As the plan comes up for a vote, our best weapon is your voice! #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. We've already had some great responses, here are real stories from people like ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

The 2017 Master Plan is the road map that will guide Louisiana's efforts to protect the coast over the next 50 years. As the plan comes up for a vote, our best weapon is your voice! #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. We've already had some great responses, here are real stories from people like ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Written by Diane MacEachern

Of the many important reasons why you should give up plastic straws, should wrinkles be one of them?

According to skin-care expert, Renée Rouleau, if you want to avoid getting wrinkles around your mouth, you need to skip straws. Evidently, the sipping action breaks down the skin’s collagen and elasticity. The result? Wrinkly “smoker’s lines” around your lips. Yuck.

Even without anti-aging mania, I’ve been on something of a personal rampage against plastic straws. One thing that bugs me about plastic straws is how wasteful they are. Whether I’m sitting in a four-star restaurant, a diner or a dive, my glass of water usually comes served with a straw. My martini doesn’t come with a straw. No one would think of handing me a straw with my beer. But water? Or soda? The server doesn’t even ask.

This boiled to a head for me a couple of weeks ago. I was in a snazzy new eatery in snazzy Bethesda, MD and ordered an appetizer and a drink. The server showed up with glasses of water that already had straws in them. I was annoyed. I guess I should have immediately said “No straw, please,” when I ordered, but I forgot. So there it sat in my glass, a stupid plastic straw.

Shortly thereafter, the owner of the restaurant dropped by my table to say hello and ask how we liked his place. Before anyone could say anything, I said, “So far, not so good. Why are you serving drinking straws? Do you know what chemicals are in plastic? And that it’s going to take 10,000 years for this one straw to break down? And how much micro pollution is in the ocean? And…and…”

Yes, I was ranting. But I made my point that the menu brags about how sustainable the food is, but if he really wanted to run an environmentally responsible establishment, he needed to stop automatically handing out straws.

On the spot, he promised to do so.

Ditch Single-Use Plastic Straws

I sure wish it was that easy to eradicate straws globally. Ecocycle reports that 500 million straws are used in the U.S. daily. That’s enough to fill over 127 school buses each day, more than 46,400 buses every year. If we don’t stop using straws, Ecocycle projects that every American will use approximately 38,000 or more straws between the ages of 5 and 65. Mind boggling!

Even when you think a straw is being thrown “away,” there are good chances the straw will end up as roadside litter or disintegrate into tiny pieces called microplastic that eventually find their way into our rivers, lakes, seas and bodies. In fact, microplastic pollution is becoming one of the most insidious forms of ocean contamination we’re trying to eradicate, as Moms Clean Air Force has reported on in depth.

Manufacturing plastic also pollutes the air. Notes plastic-free activist Beth Terry, most plastic is made from fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. The toxic emissions from using these fuels can include benzene, toluene, xylene, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds that “affect the health of everyone within breathing distance.”

Plastic straws are useless to me and to most people. I never use straws at home, so avoiding them when I’m out is the key for me to stop using them completely. I try to remember to tell servers in restaurants to skip the straw as soon as they offer to bring me water. I am making it a habit to encourage any restaurant I patronize to ask their customers if they want a straw before automatically bringing one. I’m also letting straw-lovers know that there are several eco-friendly options to choose from.

The best is a reusable straw. LifeWithoutPlastic.com sells straws made from bamboo, glass, and stainless steel that come with their own convenient carrying cases so you can keep them in your purse, backpack, or brief case without worrying they’ll break.

It’s probably too late for me to worry about wrinkles, but at least I can take the No Straw Please Pledge organized by the Plastic Pollution Coalition and the Last Plastic Straw campaign. You can join me here.

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

By Mandy Warner

Wikimedia Commons

Details of President Trump’s budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have started leaking out — and they are alarming, to say the least.

The reported budget cuts outline a disturbingly stark vision for the nation’s guardians of human health and the environment, cutting EPA staff by one-fifth and resources by 25 percent.

This budget would reportedly slash funding to restore the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, for state air quality grants, for environmental justice programs, for safe drinking water grants to states, and much more.

It would also reportedly gut EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the office responsible for guiding the agency’s approach to science. The Office of Research and Development includes vital work like the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program.

This short-sighted budget proposal would mean dirtier air and water. It would mean more deaths among American citizens, and more asthma attacks among American children.

That’s why reports of a budget proposal this alarming has drawn criticism from all corners of America, from red and blue states alike.

As Jim Brainard, the Republican Mayor of Carmel, Indiana put it:

I haven't met a Republican or Democrat yet that wants to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air.

Members of Congress from both parties, former EPA administrators serving under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, experts from state and local air agencies, environmental justice groups, and others all agree:

William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator for Presidents Nixon and Reagan:

A strong and credible regulatory regime is essential to the smooth functioning of our economy… Budget cuts that hurt programs that states now have in place to meet those duties run the risk of returning us to a time when some states offered industries a free lunch, creating havens for polluters. This could leave states with strong environmental programs supported by the public at a competitive disadvantage compared to states with weak programs. In other words, it could lead to a race to the bottom.

Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator for President George W. Bush:

I haven’t ever really seen anything quite like this,” and on the enforcement of environmental rules, “a lot of that enforcement is protecting people.

Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator for President Obama:

This budget is a fantasy if the administration believes it will preserve EPA’s mission to protect public health… It ignores the need to invest in science and to implement the law… It ignores the lessons of history that led to EPA’s creation 46 years ago. And it ignores the American people calling for its continued support … This is actually going to be devastating for the agency’s ability to protect public health.

WE ACT for Environmental Justice:

Trump's proposed cuts to EPA's programs are racist and an attack on EJ communities nationwide.

Dominique Browning, founder of Moms Clean Air Force:

No mom — whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent — voted for air pollution. No mom voted for anything that would endanger her children’s health. We’ve come a long way in cleaning up air pollution, and cutting back EPA’s efforts to enforce the rules that protect us — in favor of polluters’ profits — runs completely against what mothers and fathers across the country want: safe and clean air.

National Association of Clean Air Agencies director Bill Becker:

These cuts, if enacted by Congress, will rip the heart and soul out of the national air pollution control program and jeopardize the health and welfare of tens of millions of people around the country… I can guarantee with certainty that at least in the air pollution area, there will be many more people who will die prematurely and tens of thousands, perhaps millions more, who will get sick unnecessarily… [the cuts will have] a direct and serious adverse health impact on almost every major metropolitan area in the country.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho):

There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud. (Simpson also noted that Republicans had already reduced EPA’s budget significantly in recent years.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma):

EPA has been cut by over 20 percent in the last few years. The discretionary budget has been lowered pretty dramatically compared to how it was in 2009, and it’s under what [Speaker] Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) thought it would be in his budget.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Delaware):

Reckless cuts to the EPA — the agency responsible for protecting public health and our environment — are not what Americans voted for in November.

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio):

[W]e’re not going to let that happen, we’re going to continue to oppose cuts to the [Great Lakes Restoration Initiative] and we’re going to mobilize our voting forces to let them know that this isn’t going to stand.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):

[Proposed cuts to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative are] outrageous … this initiative has been critical to cleaning up our Great Lakes and waterways, restoring fish and wildlife habitats, and fighting invasive species, like Asian carp… I call on President Trump to reverse course on these harmful decisions.

John Stine, Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

It would cut across every area of our work… It would hurt the people who look to [our] programs for protecting the quality of their health and the quality of the places they live… We need people to understand that this work is not just … abstract, these are all people and places that are at some level of risk.

American Lung Association:

Slashing funding for programs that are proven to save lives is a disastrous strategy; cuts to key lung health programs at EPA and HHS make Americans less secure and less protected from known health threats such as the next influenza pandemic and air pollution. Our nation's scientists and doctors will be less likely to find cures and better treatments for the millions of Americans with lung cancer, COPD and asthma.

Clean air, water, and other environmental safeguards are essential to Americans’ lives. The vast majority of Americans across the country support EPA’s mission – a mission the agency has been carrying out under both political parties for almost half a century, and one that that has led to incredible progress in cleaning and protecting our air and waters.

By Mandy Warner

Wikimedia Commons

Details of President Trump’s budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have started leaking out — and they are alarming, to say the least.

The reported budget cuts outline a disturbingly stark vision for the nation’s guardians of human health and the environment, cutting EPA staff by one-fifth and resources by 25 percent.

This budget would reportedly slash funding to restore the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, for state air quality grants, for environmental justice programs, for safe drinking water grants to states, and much more.

It would also reportedly gut EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the office responsible for guiding the agency’s approach to science. The Office of Research and Development includes vital work like the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program.

This short-sighted budget proposal would mean dirtier air and water. It would mean more deaths among American citizens, and more asthma attacks among American children.

That’s why reports of a budget proposal this alarming has drawn criticism from all corners of America, from red and blue states alike.

As Jim Brainard, the Republican Mayor of Carmel, Indiana put it:

I haven't met a Republican or Democrat yet that wants to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air.

Members of Congress from both parties, former EPA administrators serving under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, experts from state and local air agencies, environmental justice groups, and others all agree:

William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator for Presidents Nixon and Reagan:

A strong and credible regulatory regime is essential to the smooth functioning of our economy… Budget cuts that hurt programs that states now have in place to meet those duties run the risk of returning us to a time when some states offered industries a free lunch, creating havens for polluters. This could leave states with strong environmental programs supported by the public at a competitive disadvantage compared to states with weak programs. In other words, it could lead to a race to the bottom.

Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator for President George W. Bush:

I haven’t ever really seen anything quite like this,” and on the enforcement of environmental rules, “a lot of that enforcement is protecting people.

Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator for President Obama:

This budget is a fantasy if the administration believes it will preserve EPA’s mission to protect public health… It ignores the need to invest in science and to implement the law… It ignores the lessons of history that led to EPA’s creation 46 years ago. And it ignores the American people calling for its continued support … This is actually going to be devastating for the agency’s ability to protect public health.

WE ACT for Environmental Justice:

Trump's proposed cuts to EPA's programs are racist and an attack on EJ communities nationwide.

Dominique Browning, founder of Moms Clean Air Force:

No mom — whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent — voted for air pollution. No mom voted for anything that would endanger her children’s health. We’ve come a long way in cleaning up air pollution, and cutting back EPA’s efforts to enforce the rules that protect us — in favor of polluters’ profits — runs completely against what mothers and fathers across the country want: safe and clean air.

National Association of Clean Air Agencies director Bill Becker:

These cuts, if enacted by Congress, will rip the heart and soul out of the national air pollution control program and jeopardize the health and welfare of tens of millions of people around the country… I can guarantee with certainty that at least in the air pollution area, there will be many more people who will die prematurely and tens of thousands, perhaps millions more, who will get sick unnecessarily… [the cuts will have] a direct and serious adverse health impact on almost every major metropolitan area in the country.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho):

There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud. (Simpson also noted that Republicans had already reduced EPA’s budget significantly in recent years.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma):

EPA has been cut by over 20 percent in the last few years. The discretionary budget has been lowered pretty dramatically compared to how it was in 2009, and it’s under what [Speaker] Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) thought it would be in his budget.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Delaware):

Reckless cuts to the EPA — the agency responsible for protecting public health and our environment — are not what Americans voted for in November.

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio):

[W]e’re not going to let that happen, we’re going to continue to oppose cuts to the [Great Lakes Restoration Initiative] and we’re going to mobilize our voting forces to let them know that this isn’t going to stand.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):

[Proposed cuts to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative are] outrageous … this initiative has been critical to cleaning up our Great Lakes and waterways, restoring fish and wildlife habitats, and fighting invasive species, like Asian carp… I call on President Trump to reverse course on these harmful decisions.

John Stine, Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

It would cut across every area of our work… It would hurt the people who look to [our] programs for protecting the quality of their health and the quality of the places they live… We need people to understand that this work is not just … abstract, these are all people and places that are at some level of risk.

American Lung Association:

Slashing funding for programs that are proven to save lives is a disastrous strategy; cuts to key lung health programs at EPA and HHS make Americans less secure and less protected from known health threats such as the next influenza pandemic and air pollution. Our nation's scientists and doctors will be less likely to find cures and better treatments for the millions of Americans with lung cancer, COPD and asthma.

Clean air, water, and other environmental safeguards are essential to Americans’ lives. The vast majority of Americans across the country support EPA’s mission – a mission the agency has been carrying out under both political parties for almost half a century, and one that that has led to incredible progress in cleaning and protecting our air and waters.

New proposed timeline for Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion “completely unacceptable” (Baton Rouge – March 15, 2017) At this morning’s Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board meeting, Col. Michael Clancy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated that the new target date for issuing a permit, in consultation with other federal agencies, on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion is October 2022 – two years behind the schedule proposed by the state of Louisiana. In response, Restore the Mississippi River Delta – ...

Read The Full Story

The post Conservation Groups Insist Federal Agencies Act with Urgency on Key Restoration Project appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

New proposed timeline for Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion “completely unacceptable” (Baton Rouge – March 15, 2017) At this morning’s Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board meeting, Col. Michael Clancy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated that the new target date for issuing a permit, in consultation with other federal agencies, on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion is October 2022 – two years behind the schedule proposed by the state of Louisiana. In response, Restore the Mississippi River Delta – ...

Read The Full Story

The post Conservation Groups Insist Federal Agencies Act with Urgency on Key Restoration Project appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

New proposed timeline for Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion “completely unacceptable” (Baton Rouge – March 15, 2017) At this morning’s Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board meeting, Col. Michael Clancy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated that the new target date for issuing a permit, in consultation with other federal agencies, on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion is October 2022 – two years behind the schedule proposed by the state of Louisiana. In response, Restore the Mississippi River Delta – ...

Read The Full Story

The post Conservation Groups Insist Federal Agencies Act with Urgency on Key Restoration Project appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This excerpt was written by Joe Ryan for Bloomberg News: 

Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s demand for low-emission vehicles, just as President Donald Trump seeks to review pollution standards the industry opposes.

Thirty cities including New York and Chicago jointly asked automakers for the cost and feasibility of providing 114,000 electric vehicles, including police cruisers, street sweepers and trash haulers, said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who is coordinating the effort. That would be comparable to about 72 percent of total U.S. plug-in sales last year.

While urban leaders want more low-emission vehicles to ease the role city traffic plays in altering the climate, automakers say there aren’t enough buyers. They also have advocated for relaxing rules on traditional fuel vehicles. The Trump administration, which seeks to cut regulations it sees as too costly or onerous, is poised to announce Wednesday that it will reconsider tighter standards finalized a week before President Barack Obama left office.

“No matter what President Trump does or what happens in Washington, cities will continue leading the way on tackling climate change,” Matt Petersen, Los Angeles chief sustainability officer, said in an email.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

“Jump!” the guide told us. “Jump out of the boat!” I was sitting with my colleagues in a small boat near the mouth of the Atchafalaya River, a tributary of the Mississippi. We had boarded at the dock, traveled south through the channel, and were now bobbing in open water where the murky Atchafalaya River meets the clear waters of the Gulf of Mexico. I figured our guide was making a joke – there was no way I was jumping ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast: From the headwaters to the delta appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.