“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.

“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.

Rolling back EPA's Clean Car Standards is bad for America. Here's why.

Last month, a group of American carmakers urged President Trump to remove cost-effective vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards in an attempt to capitalize on changing political winds in Washington.

Trump didn’t waste any time: On March 15, in Detroit, Michigan, he announced plans to roll back the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s historic Clean Car Standards for new models hitting the market between 2022 and 2025 – vehicles that will account for 40 percent of the United States’ oil consumption and nearly 20 percent of our greenhouse gases.

As car makers ought to know, however, a reversal of fuel efficiency is ill-advised for reasons that go beyond pollution. To remain competitive in a global market increasingly dominated by China, they must invest in cleaner-running cars, period.

Markets, Trump move in opposite directions

Nearly three in four vehicles sold globally today are subject to existing fuel efficiency standards [PDF]. Add to that an explosive growth in sales of electric cars, and it’s clear where the market is headed.

China, the top market for electric vehicles with 630,000 such cars on the road, reported a 70-percent increase in sales of EVs in 2016. Nations such as Canada, France and Sweden saw similar increases.

The pace of adoption of advanced technology vehicles will continue to grow as Paris, Mexico City, Athens and other large cities restrict access to conventionally fueled vehicles to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants. The EPA fuel efficiency standards for car models produced between 2022 and 2025 keep us at the front end of this trend.

If we want to export American-made cars to China or France a few years from now, in other words, we’d better make sure these standards remain in place. It’s worth considering since China already makes up one-third of GM’s global sales.

Clean cars, strong industry go hand-in-hand 

The historic EPA Clean Car Standards­ have been in effect since 2012 and require a predictable and flexible pace of improvement through 2025.

Last year, the EPA concluded an exhaustive technical review of the industry’s ability to meet the phase of the standards that cover the 2022-2025 model years. It found that the automotive industry can meet those standards at lower costs than predicted when they were initially finalized in 2012.

Indeed, the past few years have demonstrated that a robust automotive industry and leading fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards do go hand-in-hand.

In 2016, the industry sold more vehicles than ever before, increased employment by 700,000 direct jobs since the recession, and complied with the most stringent fuel efficiency standards in our history.

Lower fuel prices won’t change trajectory

Just in the past few months, Ford promised a new fully electric SUV vehicle with 300-mile range by 2020, General Motors started selling the 238-mile range Chevy Bolt, Nissan announced a new generation LEAF with 200 mile range, and Tesla declared that its gigafactory for battery production was open for business.

The explosive pace of technology development has coincided with another trend: falling oil prices.

Since mid-2012, the price of gas at the pump has fallen from $3.50 a gallon to $2.25 today. Industry associations have been trumpeting this as Exhibit A in its attack on the 2022-2025 standards. Except, this argument doesn’t hold up.

The critical nature of the fuel economy program is apparent through the flexible path of progress it enables in the event of lower-than-expected fuel prices. The fact is that even with lower fuel prices, consumers purchasing new vehicles in 2025 are expected to spend up to $8,200 less on fuel over the lifetime of those vehicles.

The EPA standards were also designed to reflect changing consumer taste in vehicles by creating distinct standards for various vehicle types. This means that performance will continue to improve even if consumers seek large vehicles.

Short-term profit motives won’t change this trajectory, nor can the Trump White House overcome global market trends. It means the president is doing American car companies a big disservice by rolling back these critical fuel economy rules.

Tell EPA: Hands off America’s Clean Car Standards Anonymous March 15, 2017 - 08:51

See comments

Force still equals mass times acceleration. The lighter cars [needed] to meet the standards will result in more injuries and deaths.

Marc sheridan March 15, 2017 at 8:51 pm

Wait, force would be decreased with a lighter car as mass would be reduced, less force, fewer injuries and deaths. Is it also not impossible to improve safety through design ? We have excellent engineers who would meet that challenge.

Don Mugford March 16, 2017 at 10:48 pm

In reply to Force still equals mass times by Marc sheridan

Sad to see just how selfish, greedy and stupid people can be turning back pollution standards.

Charyl March 16, 2017 at 6:38 am Pagination

• Current page 1
• Page 2
• Last page (last)
• Next page »

Rolling back EPA's Clean Car Standards is bad for America. Here's why.

Last month, a group of American carmakers urged President Trump to remove cost-effective vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards in an attempt to capitalize on changing political winds in Washington.

Trump didn’t waste any time: On March 15, in Detroit, Michigan, he announced plans to roll back the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s historic Clean Car Standards for new models hitting the market between 2022 and 2025 – vehicles that will account for 40 percent of the United States’ oil consumption and nearly 20 percent of our greenhouse gases.

As car makers ought to know, however, a reversal of fuel efficiency is ill-advised for reasons that go beyond pollution. To remain competitive in a global market increasingly dominated by China, they must invest in cleaner-running cars, period.

Markets, Trump move in opposite directions

Nearly three in four vehicles sold globally today are subject to existing fuel efficiency standards [PDF]. Add to that an explosive growth in sales of electric cars, and it’s clear where the market is headed.

China, the top market for electric vehicles with 630,000 such cars on the road, reported a 70-percent increase in sales of EVs in 2016. Nations such as Canada, France and Sweden saw similar increases.

The pace of adoption of advanced technology vehicles will continue to grow as Paris, Mexico City, Athens and other large cities restrict access to conventionally fueled vehicles to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants. The EPA fuel efficiency standards for car models produced between 2022 and 2025 keep us at the front end of this trend.

If we want to export American-made cars to China or France a few years from now, in other words, we’d better make sure these standards remain in place. It’s worth considering since China already makes up one-third of GM’s global sales.

Clean cars, strong industry go hand-in-hand 

The historic EPA Clean Car Standards­ have been in effect since 2012 and require a predictable and flexible pace of improvement through 2025.

Last year, the EPA concluded an exhaustive technical review of the industry’s ability to meet the phase of the standards that cover the 2022-2025 model years. It found that the automotive industry can meet those standards at lower costs than predicted when they were initially finalized in 2012.

Indeed, the past few years have demonstrated that a robust automotive industry and leading fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards do go hand-in-hand.

In 2016, the industry sold more vehicles than ever before, increased employment by 700,000 direct jobs since the recession, and complied with the most stringent fuel efficiency standards in our history.

Lower fuel prices won’t change trajectory

Just in the past few months, Ford promised a new fully electric SUV vehicle with 300-mile range by 2020, General Motors started selling the 238-mile range Chevy Bolt, Nissan announced a new generation LEAF with 200 mile range, and Tesla declared that its gigafactory for battery production was open for business.

The explosive pace of technology development has coincided with another trend: falling oil prices.

Since mid-2012, the price of gas at the pump has fallen from $3.50 a gallon to $2.25 today. Industry associations have been trumpeting this as Exhibit A in its attack on the 2022-2025 standards. Except, this argument doesn’t hold up.

The critical nature of the fuel economy program is apparent through the flexible path of progress it enables in the event of lower-than-expected fuel prices. The fact is that even with lower fuel prices, consumers purchasing new vehicles in 2025 are expected to spend up to $8,200 less on fuel over the lifetime of those vehicles.

The EPA standards were also designed to reflect changing consumer taste in vehicles by creating distinct standards for various vehicle types. This means that performance will continue to improve even if consumers seek large vehicles.

Short-term profit motives won’t change this trajectory, nor can the Trump White House overcome global market trends. It means the president is doing American car companies a big disservice by rolling back these critical fuel economy rules.

Tell EPA: Hands off America’s Clean Car Standards Anonymous March 15, 2017 - 08:51

See comments

Force still equals mass times acceleration. The lighter cars [needed] to meet the standards will result in more injuries and deaths.

Marc sheridan March 15, 2017 at 8:51 pm

Wait, force would be decreased with a lighter car as mass would be reduced, less force, fewer injuries and deaths. Is it also not impossible to improve safety through design ? We have excellent engineers who would meet that challenge.

Don Mugford March 16, 2017 at 10:48 pm

In reply to Force still equals mass times by Marc sheridan

Sad to see just how selfish, greedy and stupid people can be turning back pollution standards.

Charyl March 16, 2017 at 6:38 am Pagination

• Current page 1
• Page 2
• Last page (last)
• Next page »

By Theresa Erlich

By engaging consumers, clarifying date labeling, and promoting composting, grocers, supermarkets and food companies can play an important role in cutting food waste. But did you know that an estimated 85% of food waste occurs at consumer-facing businesses and homes?

In the restaurant and food service industry, food loss occurs due to inefficiencies, pressure to offer extensive menu options, large portions and consumer culture. According to a study, 4-10% of food purchased by restaurants becomes kitchen loss, both edible and inedible, before reaching the consumer. Once the plate leaves the kitchen, diners typically leave 17% of meals uneaten and 55% of these potential leftovers are not taken home.

All this uneaten food comes with a high cost, both for your wallet and the planet:

• Estimates show that food waste represents $1350 to $2275 lost each year to a family of four. That could be used for weekend getaway or (something else).
• NRDC estimates that food waste represents nearly 16% of U.S. methane emissions.

But, by working together, restaurateurs (and their customers) can increase efficiency, save money and reduce food

waste.  Here are 6 ideas for restaurant owners, some fairly obvious, others as a result of emerging technologies or innovative practices:

1. Limit menu items to optimize inventory management. Extensive menus require more inventory on hand at all times and could lead to greater waste.
2. Offer reduced portion size options. Many national chains such as TGIFridays, Au Bon Pain, Maggianos and Cheesecake Factory, have begun offering small plate options to reduce waste.
3. Use waste audit software such as MintScrape to identify waste sources.
4. Find alternative uses for surplus food. One app, Too Good to Go, connects users to restaurants offering discounts on surplus food before closing or throwing it away. The app will be available in the U.S. in 2018.
5. Get creative. Find ways to reuse food in creative and innovative ways. Restaurant owner Sean Telo of Brooklyn 21 is turning food waste into his Sunday tasting menu. Some recent items on the menu have included mozzarella butter, roasted eggplant puree served with biscuits, and pizza with lamb bacon, cheese, and honey.
6. Look to best practices for ways to improve efficiency and reduce overall costs.

   Theresa Erhlich, Project Coordinator, Supply Chain

What can customers do?

• First, vote with your wallet by supporting local businesses and national brands committed to reducing food waste.
• Next, when you're patronizing those businesses, be more conscientious of your ordering choices.
• Finally, take leftovers home for a late night snack or cheap, easy lunch.  Brown bagging it can mean a greener planet!

By Theresa Erlich

By engaging consumers, clarifying date labeling, and promoting composting, grocers, supermarkets and food companies can play an important role in cutting food waste. But did you know that an estimated 85% of food waste occurs at consumer-facing businesses and homes?

In the restaurant and food service industry, food loss occurs due to inefficiencies, pressure to offer extensive menu options, large portions and consumer culture. According to a study, 4-10% of food purchased by restaurants becomes kitchen loss, both edible and inedible, before reaching the consumer. Once the plate leaves the kitchen, diners typically leave 17% of meals uneaten and 55% of these potential leftovers are not taken home.

All this uneaten food comes with a high cost, both for your wallet and the planet:

• Estimates show that food waste represents $1350 to $2275 lost each year to a family of four. That could be used for weekend getaway or (something else).
• NRDC estimates that food waste represents nearly 16% of U.S. methane emissions.

But, by working together, restaurateurs (and their customers) can increase efficiency, save money and reduce food

waste.  Here are 6 ideas for restaurant owners, some fairly obvious, others as a result of emerging technologies or innovative practices:

1. Limit menu items to optimize inventory management. Extensive menus require more inventory on hand at all times and could lead to greater waste.
2. Offer reduced portion size options. Many national chains such as TGIFridays, Au Bon Pain, Maggianos and Cheesecake Factory, have begun offering small plate options to reduce waste.
3. Use waste audit software such as MintScrape to identify waste sources.
4. Find alternative uses for surplus food. One app, Too Good to Go, connects users to restaurants offering discounts on surplus food before closing or throwing it away. The app will be available in the U.S. in 2018.
5. Get creative. Find ways to reuse food in creative and innovative ways. Restaurant owner Sean Telo of Brooklyn 21 is turning food waste into his Sunday tasting menu. Some recent items on the menu have included mozzarella butter, roasted eggplant puree served with biscuits, and pizza with lamb bacon, cheese, and honey.
6. Look to best practices for ways to improve efficiency and reduce overall costs.

   Theresa Erhlich, Project Coordinator, Supply Chain

What can customers do?

• First, vote with your wallet by supporting local businesses and national brands committed to reducing food waste.
• Next, when you're patronizing those businesses, be more conscientious of your ordering choices.
• Finally, take leftovers home for a late night snack or cheap, easy lunch.  Brown bagging it can mean a greener planet!

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

The New York Times made it a front-page story: “EPA Chief Doubts Consensus View of Climate Change.”

Trump’s appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, stated (again) that carbon dioxide was not “a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.” He added, “We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

For those who follow clean air and water issues to protect the health of our families, Pruitt’s statement was no surprise. (It was insane that someone with his track record of suing the EPA and unreleased emails to fossil fuel powers, got confirmed in the first place.)

So where does that leave us?

Ever vigilant.

The Trump environmental team may think that it’s okay to continually relitigate science. However, most Americans don’t.

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication updated their Opinion Map this month (incorporating findings from 2014-2016). This interactive mapping of the country is remarkable. America can be broken down by states, Congressional Districts, metro areas, and hyperlocal counties.

Currently, 70 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening. (Good thing that this research isn’t on a federal website. It would have been disappeared by now!) Looking at the breakdown, the bar in gray represents those who either “refused to answer the question or said ‘I don’t know.’”

The data can be cross-indexed with four categories of questions posed to respondents. They were: Beliefs, Risk Perceptions, Policy Support, and Behaviors. This allows for comparisons and drill downs on disparities between locations.

For example, two different reactions to the statement: “Global warming will harm me personally.”

In Florida, where rising sea level is a viable concern, 41 percent agreed. In Wyoming, an inland state, only 29 percent concurred.

As a nation:

• 53 percent believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities
• 71 percent somewhat trust /strongly trust climate scientists about global warming
• 70 percent believe global warming will harm future generations

When it comes to policy, Americans do not want roll-backs of regulations.

• 82 percent support funding research into renewable energy sources
• 75 percent want to see regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant
• 69 percent want strict carbon dioxide limits on existing coal-fired power plants

Looking at individual states, it was not surprising to see that in New York, 79 percent of those polled wanted tough limits on coal-fired plants, while in Kentucky, 58 percent didn’t.

As I changed criteria and combinations, I saw that in the Washington, D.C., Arlington, Alexandria areas, numbers were consistently high in conjunction with climate concerns. For example, on the question about funding research into renewable energy sources, the answer came in at 86 percent. I wondered if there was any overlap with people working in the military and defense sectors, as they have been pointing to climate change as a cause for international instability and terrorism.

I have written previously about the disconnect between elected representatives and the viewpoints of their constituents on environmental issues and fossil fuels. Once again, the big takeaway is, “Follow the money!”

Check out the “Climate Denier 2016” Google doc that documents House and Senate members who don’t accept the science behind climate change. Then compare it to the contribution totals they have received from the coal, oil, and gas industries throughout their terms.

The scientist Albert Einstein said,

Tsk-tsking at the outrageousness of those who don’t want to deal with the climate crisis is getting the public nowhere.

Scott Pruitt is not going to change his mind anytime soon. But Senators and legislators who want to keep their jobs, may. And if they don’t, let’s remind them that if we ignore climate change, even their kids won’t get a second chance at developing a new brain, a functioning reproductive system, or a new set of lungs.

The Climate March is in April. Please join us in putting an end to this insanity.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

By Suzy Friedman

On paper, I appear to be the picture perfect stereotype of an east coast liberal: I’ve been working at environmental nonprofits for over 20 years, I’m an Ivy League grad, and I live in the “bluest” county in Virginia. When it comes to first impressions in the world of agriculture, I’ve been met countless times with skepticism and even contempt.

The reality is that I spend nearly every waking hour of my career collaborating with farmers – exploring ways to implement on-the-ground practices that help producers save money and protect yields while also reducing impacts to water and air. After years of building relationships, I’m proud of the diverse and unlikely partnerships I’ve formed. Many of my closest friends and allies would be labeled as “big ag.”

But I’m worried that today’s political divisions will roll back the decades of progress reducing nutrient runoff across the Corn Belt and beyond. I don’t want to see doors closed because of assumptions on either side of the political divide that now dominate the country.

Ag and environmental tensions on the table

"Sustainability and profitability can and must go hand-in-hand."

Urban elites versus rural America, farmers versus environmentalists, there are just too many fights to count. For example, the majority of farmers and agribusinesses cheered on the confirmation of Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, while dozens of environmental advocacy organizations (including my own) vehemently opposed his nomination. The “Waters of the U.S.” rule and the Endangered Species Act, generally unpopular with the farming community, are on the chopping block at the same time that environmental groups are receiving record-breaking donations to keep these regulations in place.

Everyone seems to be walking on edge and hesitant to engage in constructive dialogue. Even among like-minded conservation organizations, there is disagreement about how to proceed – should we protest, or roll up our sleeves and try to find common ground even with those who appear to be adversaries?

I’m of the latter camp – and I suggest we change the conversation to something that rings true, time and again: economics drive real change.

There’s good reason to end the agriculture v. the environment fight, says…
Click To Tweet

Speaking the same language

Sustainability and profitability can and must go hand-in-hand. For years, farmers have told me that environmental initiatives cannot come at the expense of profits. And that’s never been more true than today, as the economy was top-of-mind for voters in last year’s election.

To keep farming, growers need to be profitable. This is not easy, thanks to record low farm income levels and commodity prices. And from an environmental perspective, only those initiatives that make good business sense will get to scale and be truly successful.

Working in agriculture for nearly two decades, I’ve learned that farmers are innovators and business minded. They don’t want to be told what to do (let’s be honest – who does?), but they want to be given the opportunity to make decisions based on market opportunities.

So if environmentalists want sustainability at scale, what we ask of farmers has to be good for their bottom line. Regulations clearly have a role, and they can even make good business sense, but farmers are far more motivated by economic sustainability – they have families to feed and businesses to run.

I don’t see the political divisions letting up anytime soon. But I do think agriculture is one area where, because sustainable farming practices can and do lead to big cost savings and even increased yields, farmers and environmentalists can meet each other halfway.

This post originally appeared on Agri-Pulse and is shared with permission. 

Related:

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >>

Why wholesale repeal of environmental protections is a losing business strategy >>

Farmers' voices are essential to figuring out sustainability. Let's listen up. >>

By Suzy Friedman

On paper, I appear to be the picture perfect stereotype of an east coast liberal: I’ve been working at environmental nonprofits for over 20 years, I’m an Ivy League grad, and I live in the “bluest” county in Virginia. When it comes to first impressions in the world of agriculture, I’ve been met countless times with skepticism and even contempt.

The reality is that I spend nearly every waking hour of my career collaborating with farmers – exploring ways to implement on-the-ground practices that help producers save money and protect yields while also reducing impacts to water and air. After years of building relationships, I’m proud of the diverse and unlikely partnerships I’ve formed. Many of my closest friends and allies would be labeled as “big ag.”

But I’m worried that today’s political divisions will roll back the decades of progress reducing nutrient runoff across the Corn Belt and beyond. I don’t want to see doors closed because of assumptions on either side of the political divide that now dominate the country.

Ag and environmental tensions on the table

"Sustainability and profitability can and must go hand-in-hand."

Urban elites versus rural America, farmers versus environmentalists, there are just too many fights to count. For example, the majority of farmers and agribusinesses cheered on the confirmation of Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, while dozens of environmental advocacy organizations (including my own) vehemently opposed his nomination. The “Waters of the U.S.” rule and the Endangered Species Act, generally unpopular with the farming community, are on the chopping block at the same time that environmental groups are receiving record-breaking donations to keep these regulations in place.

Everyone seems to be walking on edge and hesitant to engage in constructive dialogue. Even among like-minded conservation organizations, there is disagreement about how to proceed – should we protest, or roll up our sleeves and try to find common ground even with those who appear to be adversaries?

I’m of the latter camp – and I suggest we change the conversation to something that rings true, time and again: economics drive real change.

There’s good reason to end the agriculture v. the environment fight, says…
Click To Tweet

Speaking the same language

Sustainability and profitability can and must go hand-in-hand. For years, farmers have told me that environmental initiatives cannot come at the expense of profits. And that’s never been more true than today, as the economy was top-of-mind for voters in last year’s election.

To keep farming, growers need to be profitable. This is not easy, thanks to record low farm income levels and commodity prices. And from an environmental perspective, only those initiatives that make good business sense will get to scale and be truly successful.

Working in agriculture for nearly two decades, I’ve learned that farmers are innovators and business minded. They don’t want to be told what to do (let’s be honest – who does?), but they want to be given the opportunity to make decisions based on market opportunities.

So if environmentalists want sustainability at scale, what we ask of farmers has to be good for their bottom line. Regulations clearly have a role, and they can even make good business sense, but farmers are far more motivated by economic sustainability – they have families to feed and businesses to run.

I don’t see the political divisions letting up anytime soon. But I do think agriculture is one area where, because sustainable farming practices can and do lead to big cost savings and even increased yields, farmers and environmentalists can meet each other halfway.

This post originally appeared on Agri-Pulse and is shared with permission. 

Related:

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >>

Why wholesale repeal of environmental protections is a losing business strategy >>

Farmers' voices are essential to figuring out sustainability. Let's listen up. >>

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This article originally posted on SaludToday.com: 

Latino kids who live in areas with higher levels of air pollution have a heightened risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to a new study.

USC researchers tracked 314 overweight/obese Latino kids ages 8-15 in L.A. County.

None had diabetes at study start.

But by the time kids turned 18, those who lived in areas with high levels of air pollution had 13% less-than-normal efficiency in their insulin-producing cells, making them more prone to eventually developing diabetes, according to USC news.

These children lived in neighborhoods that, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, had excess nitrogen dioxide and tiny air pollution particles that are generated by automobiles and power plants.

“Exposure to heightened air pollution during childhood increases the risk for Hispanic children to become obese and, independent of that, to also develop Type 2 diabetes,” said study corresponding author Dr. Michael Goran of USC.

“Poor air quality appears to be a catalyst for obesity and diabetes in children, but the conditions probably are forged via different pathways.”

Diabetes and Latinos

Latinos have higher diabetes rates (13.2%) than whites (9%).

Among Latino groups, U.S. adults of South American heritage have the lowest rate of diabetes. Only about 10% of them have diabetes compared with about 18% of persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican or Dominican background, according to a recent report.

The situation is worse among kids.

Latino kids have a 50-50 chance of developing diabetes in their lifetime, a higher rate than U.S. kids overall, studies have found.

Air pollution & Latinos

Air pollution also is a huge problem for Latinos.

In fact, Latinos and other people of color are exposed to 38% more polluted air than whites, according to a 2014 national report.

Comparing even high-income Hispanics to low-income whites, nitrogen dioxide concentrations were still higher among high-income Hispanics, researchers found.

U.S. Latinos also are especially vulnerable to health threats posed by climate change because of where they live and work, according to a recent report. A majority of Latinos live in California, Texas, Florida and New York, states that are among the most affected by extreme heat, air pollution, and flooding.

What to Do?

The USC study, published in Diabetes, suggests the negative effects of elevated and chronic exposure to nitrogen dioxide and tiny dirty air particles begin in early life.

If other risk factors, such as an unhealthy diet, persist, diabetes risk goes up.

“Air pollution is ubiquitous, especially in Los Angeles,” said study lead author Tanya Alderete of USC. “It’s important to consider the factors that you can control — for example, being aware that morning and evening commute times might not be the best time to go for a run.”

“Change up your schedule so that you’re not engaging in strenuous activity near sources of pollutants or during peak hours.”

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

By Lindsay McCormick

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.  

When purchasing a home, buyers expect to be informed about deficiencies, defects, or environmental hazards on the property. Since 1996, there have been federal policies to alert buyers about lead in paint. However, the likelihood that a buyer will be told their prospective home has lead pipes, including a lead service line, depends on the state in which they live.

Lead service lines (LSLs) – the lead pipes connecting water mains under the street to homes and other buildings – are the primary source of lead in drinking water. Up to 10 million homes across the nation continue to receive water through LSLs, putting millions at risk of lead exposure. Homebuyers deserve to know about this liability when they choose a home and negotiate a price. When done properly, removing the full LSL significantly reduces the risk of lead exposure.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) analyzed and graded the housing disclosure policies of all U.S. states and the District of Columbia according to their ability to help homebuyers make informed decisions about LSLs before they sign a sales contract by assessing state disclosure laws, required disclosure forms, and voluntary disclosure forms.  We did not address the extent to which LSLs are actively being disclosed under each policy.

What did we find?

We found a remarkable amount of variance in state disclosure laws – from states that require sellers to fill out detailed disclosure forms to “buyer beware” states, where the responsibility is on the buyer, not the owner, to investigate hazards.

The highest grade we gave was an A- to reflect the fact that even the top performing states have room for improvement. States with mandatory disclosure that specifically asks about the presence of lead pipes received an A-. All other states were compared to these top performers.

• A-: Three states
• B: Seven states and Washington, DC
• C: 20 states
• D: 8 states
• F: 12 states

Conclusions

Our findings support the need for greater transparency in real estate transactions regarding LSLs. If a potential homebuyer learns of an LSL on the property before they sign a contract, they have the option to decide to add the cost of replacement to the mortgage, deduct the estimated cost from the sale price, demand replacement prior to purchase, or plan to replace it later. Over time, we anticipate that increased transparency will increase market incentives to replace LSLs.

EDF sees significant opportunities for states to help protect homebuyers from lead by improving their disclosure requirements.  Short of changing state law, however, states or real estate associations could update the voluntary forms for use in real estate transactions. Water utilities can help this effort by directly informing all property owners if they are likely to have an LSL or indirectly through online mapping tools that disclose locations of LSLs in the service area, such as those developed by DC Water and Greater Cincinnati Water Works. This would create a responsibility for the property owner to disclose what is known about the service line when selling their home in states with an A- grade. Home inspectors can also help homebuyers by checking the service line as it comes into the home and letting the buyer know whether or not it is lead and recommending replacement.

Check out the full report here.

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.   When purchasing a home, buyers expect to be informed about deficiencies, defects, or environmental hazards on the property. Since 1996, there have been federal policies to alert buyers about lead in paint. However, the likelihood that a buyer will be told their prospective home has lead pipes, including […]

If these bills pass, it will be. But you can help stop it. Here's how: C4.

If these bills pass, it will be. But you can help stop it. Here's how: C4.

If these bills pass, it will be. But you can help stop it. Here's how: C4.

If these bills pass, it will be. But you can help stop it. Here's how: