Complete list of press releases

Haz click aquí para leer en español.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released today a special report that details the dramatic consequences of current and future climate change, and identifies the benefits of limiting global warming as much as possible. The expert report provides the first comprehensive assessment of the impacts of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above preindustrial levels – and concludes that limiting warming to that level would significantly reduce the risk of climate impacts such as water scarcity, flood and drought, extreme heat, tropical cyclones, biodiversity loss, and sea level rise relative to warming of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).The Paris Agreement sets a global goal of limiting warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to "pursue efforts" to limit warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. The earth has already warmed roughly 1 degree Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit).Statement from Nathaniel Keohane, Senior Vice President for Climate at Environmental Defense Fund:

"This new report makes it clearer than ever that we're in the race of our lives. Our fate – and the fate of our children – is in our hands. We can make decisions that protect our communities, our children, and future generations, or we can pass on a world far different and more damaged than the one we inherited. It's time to cut climate pollution, make clean energy abundant and accessible to all, and protect the world's tropical forests that store enormous amounts of carbon. As the report makes clear, the stakes could not be higher."This news is jarring, but it also shows us the way forward. If we are ambitious about moving to clean energy, as well as cutting methane pollution and black carbon, we can make significant progress. We owe it to ourselves and our children to take this warning – and this opportunity – seriously.

"The good news is that the wind is at our backs. Recent technological advances are already shaping our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Countries are putting in place market-based policies like emission trading programs that create powerful incentives to develop and deploy the fastest and cheapest ways to cut carbon. 

"Even as President Trump seeks to take the U.S. backward, the rest of America – and the rest of the world – is moving ahead. The clear benefits of limiting global warming laid out in this report should inspire us to double down on our fight to provide a safe planet for our children and future generations."

• Nathaniel Keohane, Senior Vice President for Climate at Environmental Defense Fund

Today, in response to a 2015 food additive petition by Environmental Defense Fund and other public health advocates, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed its approval of seven artificial flavors because they have been shown to cause cancer in animal studies.

These chemicals are believed to be used in foods like candy, chewing gum, baked goods, ice cream and beverages to simulate flavors like mint, cinnamon, and citrus. They would appear on the label as "artificial flavors."

The chemicals losing approval are: benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether, myrcene, pulegone, and pyridine. The FDA also removed approval for styrene without ruling on its status as a carcinogen. For one of the chemicals, benzophenone, FDA went a step further and removed approval for use as a plasticizer in flexible plastics.

The decision is effective immediately after the notice is published in the Federal Register unless industry objects. The FDA has said it will begin enforcement of these decisions in two years, allowing industry time to reformulate products.

"This is an important win for American families, who were consuming these cancer-causing "flavors" without even knowing it," said Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director at EDF. "While these FDA decisions were long overdue, we applaud the agency for following the law and taking these actions. Now it's time for FDA to rule on overdue petitions including the use of toxic ortho-phthalates in food manufacturing and packaging, cancer-causing perchlorate in dry food plastic packaging, and lead acetate in hair dyes like Grecian Formula."

The petition by EDF and the other organizations represents a new legal strategy. For the first time, public health advocates used a process formerly only deployed by industry to gain approval for chemicals in food. Under this approach, the law required FDA to come to a decision by August 2016.

In May of this year, the petitioners, represented by Earthjustice, asked a court to order FDA to make a final decision.

"While it's unfortunate that we had to go to court to get FDA to act, we are glad they here took the right decision to protect public health," said Carrie Apfel, Senior Attorney, Earthjustice.

FDA agreed to make a decision in response to the court filing.

(SPRINGFIELD, IL) Today the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) modified the widely criticized proposal by Governor Bruce Rauner’s administration to bail out Dynegy-Vistra coal power plants in Illinois. Dynegy and Vistra Energy recently merged in a deal worth $20 billion, yet still claimed financial hardship and urged state officials to ease clean-air rules. The proposed change would have led to worse air quality and detrimental health impacts in communities already among the hardest hit by pollution.

The proposed changes followed eight months of backroom talks between Dynegy and Gov. Rauner’s Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) lead by former coal lobbyist Alec Messina. In January, the proposal drew fire in the Chicago Tribune for Messina’s close ties to the company, highlighted by a lawsuit from advocacy groups about Illinois’ failure to ensure that conflict of interest safeguards are in place. Today’s ruling lowers the annual cap on pollution from Dynegy-Vistra’s plants and requires that the cap be reduced when plants are retired, mothballed, or sold. These important revisions to IEPA’s proposal reflect the input of thousands of individual testimonies, and reject Dynegy-Vistra’s request that would have allowed it to close some plants while running cheaper, dirtier plants. Advocate groups see this as a move in the right direction but raise concerns from communities impacted by pollution from Dynegy-Vistra coal plants.

“Today, the Pollution Control Board delivered a vital check to the Rauner/Messina backroom coal bailout, which was spurred by false claims of economic hardship from the multi-billion-dollar Texas corporation, Dynegy-Vistra. However, the new proposal can still lead to thousands more tons of pollution than the original standard allowed for people in Peoria, Metro East, and other locations where poorer or minority communities live near power plants.

“The Board heard thousands of Illinois residents and dozens of Illinois legislators who spoke out against this proposal and responded by making changes. As the process moves forward, it is important that the Board continue to listen and ensure that the next hearing is held in a community like Peoria that is impacted by Dynegy-Vistra’s pollution, that time and space for public comment is available, and that adequate 30 day notice is given so that this process can continue to work as it should. Instead of weakening air pollution rules for Texas-based corporations, Illinois needs to double-down on creating new jobs in our expanding clean energy economy, diversifying local economies in Central and Southern Illinois, and protecting the air we breathe.”

• Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Respiratory Health Association, Environmental Law and Policy Center, MEGA, Central Illinois Healthy Community Alliance, IPA, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Environmental Council

(NEW YORK, NY) Gov. Andrew Cuomo today expressed strong support for congestion pricing as the only way to provide critical funding for New York City subway and transportation-infrastructure improvements. A comprehensive congestion pricing plan will get city streets moving again and provide up to $1.5 billion every year to invest in a cleaner, modern and more equitable transit system.

“It’s inspiring to hear Governor Cuomo’s leadership on congestion pricing, the sustainable and equitable funding solution for New York’s subway woes. We stand ready to work with our state elected leaders and a wide range of civic partners to help put in place the next steps forward. Our economy, our environment and 6 million transit riders cannot afford to wait.”

• Andy Darrell, New York Regional Director, Environmental Defense Fund

“Today’s argument underscored that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provides vital clean air protections for downwind states and that upwind states must do their part to reduce pollution that harms their neighbors,” said Graham McCahan, Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was created under the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act. It reduces sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen pollution emitted from coal-fired power plants across the eastern states. Those emissions, and the resulting particulate pollution and ozone – more commonly known as soot and smog – drift across state borders and contribute to dangerous, sometimes lethal, levels of pollution in 22 downwind states

The Supreme Court upheld the original Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in April of 2014.

In September of 2016 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized an update to the rule to help states meet our nation’s 2008 health-based smog standard.
 
EPA estimates the updated rule will:

• Prevent more than 67,000 asthma attacks each year
• Prevent almost 56,000 days of missed school and work each year
• Provide annual benefits of up to $880 million dollars
• Provide American families with $13 in health benefits for every dollar invested  

Fossil fuel interests and five states sued EPA over the updated rule in 2016. EDF, along with the American Lung Association, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and Sierra Club intervened in support of the rule. Six states are also arguing in support of the rule – as is the Trump administration EPA. The Trump administration has been trying to undermine almost every other clean air protection, from America’s Clean Car Standards to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. In this lawsuit challenging the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update, however, the Trump Administration did not abandon the legal defense of an important health protection for the American people as it has in a number of other cases.

You can read more about the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule on EDF’s website.

(Washington, D.C. – October 2, 2018) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a coalition of seven other environmental, environmental justice, and public health organizations are asking the courts to close a damaging new EPA loophole for toxic air pollution. 

The groups are challenging the loophole in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They filed their opening brief late last night.

“This loophole upends the whole concept of our country’s clean air protections. It was created unlawfully, and it risks exposing our families and communities to unacceptably high levels of toxic and dangerous pollutants such as benzene,” said EDF Lead Attorney Tomás Carbonell. “We look forward to presenting a strong case to the court that this loophole should be permanently closed.”

EPA’s new loophole applies to “maximum achievable control technology,” or MACT, standards for hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These standards generally apply to large industrial facilities, like refineries and chemical plants, that emit high amounts of 187 dangerous or cancer-causing pollutants. 

Those “major source” facilities had to comply with the MACT standards for as long as they operated – until January, when EPA suddenly announced the loophole. Now, facilities can opt out of the MACT if their pollution levels drop below the threshold.

Under the loophole, thousands of industrial facilities across the country would be eligible to operate with weaker, or no, air pollution controls. An EDF report found at least 18 major facilities in the Houston area alone that are eligible to use the loophole.

Then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt created the loophole unlawfully – in a four-page memo issued without notice or public comment and without considering the damage to Americans’ health and the environment.

The loophole is one of a long line of Trump administration attacks on America’s clean air protections – including attempts to undermine limits on climate pollution and toxic air pollution from power plants, protections on pollution from oil and gas facilities, and clean car standards.

Earthjustice, California Communities Against Toxics, Environmental Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Ohio Citizen Action, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council have joined EDF in the lawsuit against the toxic loophole. The state of California, which is also challenging the loophole, filed a separate brief yesterday in the D.C. Circuit.

(TRENTON, NJ – Oct. 1, 2018) Gov. Phil Murphy today outlined a new economic plan for New Jersey, which highlights clean energy development as key to spurring the state’s economy, creating jobs and cutting pollution. The plan is a roadmap for New Jersey to draw 100 percent of its energy from clean sources by 2050, to meet 50 percent of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2030, and to unlock the potential of offshore wind.

“As New Jersey transitions from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources, Gov. Murphy’s steadfast commitment to environmental protection and economic development is critical. This ambitious plan creates a path for statewide innovation and economic growth to attain a clean energy future.”

• Mary Barber, Director, New Jersey Clean Energy

(Chicago – October 1, 2018) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held its one and only planned public hearing today on a highly controversial proposal to scrap the Clean Power Plan – America’s historic effort to reduce dangerous pollution from power plants.

Experts from EDF joined other worried Americans in Chicago to testify against the administration’s weak proposal for a Clean Power Plan replacement – a proposal that in some cases would be worse than doing nothing.

“EDF urges EPA to withdraw its unlawful and destructive proposal to roll back the Clean Power Plan,” said EDF legal fellow Lance Bowman in his testimony. “The proposed rule fails to place any meaningful limits on climate pollution from existing power plants — abandoning EPA’s fundamental legal obligation to protect the public from climate pollution. The results for our climate and our health would be disastrous.”

The Clean Power Plan established America’s only nationwide limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants. The common-sense plan would result in a 36 percent reduction in climate pollution, below 2005 levels, by 2030, and would also reduce deadly soot and smog.

By contrast, the Trump administration’s proposal contains no quantitative limits or compliance deadlines at all – and the proposal would actually weaken long-standing Clean Air Act protections that ensure power plants install modern pollution controls when undertaking expansions or upgrades.

According to EPA’s own analysis, the Trump administration’s proposal would cause up to 1,630 additional premature deaths from air pollution by 2030, relative to the Clean Power Plan. 

The analysis also indicates that, through 2030, the proposal would result in a total increase in carbon pollution equivalent to the annual pollution from almost 168 million cars.

“The Clean Power Plan set cost-effective and achievable limits on climate pollution from power plants — helping protect our communities against the threat of climate change by employing proven measures that states and power companies have long used to reduce climate pollution,” said Bowman in his testimony.

Today’s hearing comes just a day after news reports that EPA is putting the finishing touches on a proposal to roll back America’s protections against mercury, arsenic, acid gases and other harmful pollution from coal-fired power plants. It comes just weeks after EPA proposed rolling back our country’s successful and money-saving Clean Car Standards, and weeks after the agency proposed weakening protections against harmful leaks at new oil and gas wells.

At today’s hearing, EDF urged EPA to hold more public hearings on its proposed rollback of the Clean power Plan and extend its inadequate public comment period so more Americans can weigh in on this critical issue.

You can learn more about the Clean Power Plan on EDF’s website.

(San Francisco, CA –  October 1, 2018) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a broad coalition of health, environmental, Native American and Western citizens’ groups have filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from eliminating protections that reduce waste and associated pollution from oil and gas operations on public and tribal lands.

The Trump administration is trying to get rid of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Waste Prevention Rule, which reduces the waste of natural gas – a valuable public resource.

“The Trump administration’s action will imminently harm Americans by allowing substantial waste of natural gas that will result in lost money for taxpayers and additional air pollution that puts families at risk,” said EDF Lead Attorney Peter Zalzal. “We plan to vigorously challenge the administration’s decision to eliminate the Waste Prevention Rule, which completely disregards these foundational public interests.”

More than $2 billion of American taxpayer-owned natural gas has been wasted through leaks or intentional venting and flaring since 2013. That’s money that could have gone toward schools, healthcare and other vital public projects across the West.

Congress mandated that BLM must require companies drilling on public and tribal lands to use “all reasonable precautions to prevent waste.” BLM created the Waste Prevention Rule to fulfill that mandate. It requires operators to control the venting, flaring, and leaks that waste natural gas – using proven and widely-available technologies that are already in use in the industry and already required by leading states.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recently finalized a plan to eliminate key components of the Waste Prevention Rule.

Zinke justified the rollback in part by saying the Waste Prevention Rule is redundant because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has methane regulations. However, the Trump administration is already trying to roll back those EPA methane protections.

BLM admits that its rollback of the Waste Prevention Rule will hurt average Americans — costing taxpayers up to $80 million in lost royalty revenues over the next ten years — while having little benefit for operators. BLM’s own analysis shows these changes will result in less energy production and won’t accelerate investment or increase jobs.

More than half a million Americans have contacted BLM to oppose a rollback of the Waste Prevention Rule. A recent Colorado College poll found that seven in 10 Western voters, including a majority of Republicans, support a strong BLM methane rule. And Congress, in a bipartisan vote, rejected an attempt to repeal the Waste Prevention Rule in May of 2017.

EDF filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California late Friday, asking the court to vacate Zinke’s rollback and reinstate the Waste Prevention Rule.

Sierra Club, Los Padres Forestwatch, the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society, National Wildlife Federation, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights, the Montana Environmental Information Center, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Wilderness Workshop, Wildearth Guardians, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthjustice, Clean Air Task Force, and Western Environmental Law Center joined EDF in the lawsuit.

The states of California and New Mexico have also filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the methane waste standards.

You can read more about the BLM Waste Prevention Rule, including all legal documents, on EDF’s website.

(BOSTON – September 27, 2018) A report released this week from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration acknowledges that the monitoring program for groundfish vessels in New England is failing to meet minimum coverage requirements. Regional Administrator Mike Pentony wrote in letters sent to sector managers on September 25, 2018 that coverage levels are “substantially below the 15 percent target.” (The referenced letters and a summary table of monitoring levels are available upon request.)

According to the report, on average only about six to seven percent of fishing trips in New England’s groundfish fishery carry human observers to document what fishermen catch and discard at sea. Monitoring is important because it helps fishermen trust the system and provides reliable information about the health of critically important and fragile fish populations, like Atlantic cod. 

“The required monitoring levels are already too low, and this new report reveals that even those inadequate levels are not being met. This is a recipe for disaster for the fishery if things don’t change soon,” said Johanna Thomas, New England Director, Environmental Defense Fund. 

Thanks to money provided by Congress, the cost of monitoring is covered by federal taxpayers, and funding is not cited in the report as a factor in the failure to reach target monitoring levels. NOAA Fisheries did cite a combination of factors to explain the reasons for the low coverage levels, including a shortage of qualified observers and other logistical challenges in not meeting the required monitoring target. NOAA Fisheries described the issues as “systemic.”   

“For a fishery in such dire shape, NOAA has a critical decision to make: fix the monitoring system, or risk the fishery,” said Thomas. “There is no luxury of time when the fishery is essentially unmonitored and there is virtually no reliable information about what is happening at sea.” 

The New England Fishery Management Council is considering a proposal that would improve monitoring in the fishery, called Amendment 23. EDF and many other stakeholders hope the amendment will result in a monitoring system based on electronic technologies that will provide the accountability and information the fishery sorely needs to recover. Information from a comprehensive monitoring system is vital to setting the right catch limits and to make sure that those catch limits are not exceeded.

EDF believes that the existing observer program cannot be fixed and decisive leadership by NOAA Fisheries and the New England Fishery Management Council is urgently needed to increase monitoring levels through broadening the adoption of electronic monitoring in the groundfish fishery.

“Technology has enormous potential to deliver more effective monitoring in fisheries,” said Thomas.

Fishermen using cameras to provide at-sea monitoring, including in pilot programs in New England, have reported multiple benefits to their business operations such as greater efficiency and incentives for innovation. Some of these fishermen have articulated their belief that monitoring is important to help close the trust gap between fishermen and managers over the status of fish stocks.

(New York – September 27, 2018) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today upheld a New York state clean energy policy, reaffirming states’ right to create policies to protect their people and their environments from unhealthy pollution.

“For the third time in a row, our Circuit Courts have said that states have the fundamental authority to create strong clean energy and environmental policies,” said EDF Senior Attorney Michael Panfil. “This is a clear sign that states have the right to address the threats posed by climate change and air pollution in the ways that are best for them.”

EDF and NRDC filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting New York’s right to establish its own clean energy policies.

New York state created zero-emission credits (ZEC’s) for qualifying nuclear power plants with the aim, as stated by the court, “to prevent nuclear generators that do not emit carbon dioxide from retiring until renewable sources of energy can pick up the slack.” The ZEC program ties the credit to the social cost of carbon, structured to reduce unhealthy, climate-changing pollution through a larger energy reform plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

Opponents challenged the policy, saying it violated the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution because it usurped the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

A lower court ruled in favor of New York. Today the Second Circuit upheld that decision, saying:

“In this Circuit, there is a ‘strong presumption against finding that the [State’s] powers’ are preempted by the [Federal Powers Act], legislation that was ‘drawn with meticulous regard for the continued exercise of state power.’ That presumption may be overcome only if displacing state authority was Congress’ ‘clear and manifest purpose.’”  (Decision, page 12)

The decision later states:

“The ZEC program does not cause clear damage to federal goals, and Plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim for conflict preemption.” (Decision, page 22)

Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit Court upheld a clean energy policy in Illinois that was challenged on similar grounds. The Seventh Circuit also found that state policies to create more clean energy and reduce pollution do not violate the Supremacy or Commerce Clause of the Constitution or infringe of the rights of FERC. EDF filed an amicus brief in that case.

Also earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a clean fuels policy in Oregon. The Ninth Circuit also found that Oregon’s policy did not violation the Commerce Clause. EDF was a party to that case.

(NEW ORLEANS) There is widespread, bipartisan support for action in addressing Louisiana’s coastal land loss crisis, according to a new poll released today by BDPC, LLC + Pinsonat and Restore the Mississippi River Delta. Of note, 79 percent of coastal voters said they support sediment diversions, large-scale engineering projects that would be strategically operated to direct sediment and fresh water from the Mississippi River into nearby wetlands, building and maintaining thousands of acres of land over time. Only 5 percent of those voters oppose. Additionally, an overwhelming 97 percent of Louisiana coastal voters say that the state should still work to maintain as much coastal land as possible even if the coast cannot be restored to its previous footprint.

While most coastal voters (79 percent) support sediment diversions, that number increases to 92 percent when voters are asked if they would support sediment diversions knowing these projects would create a wetland buffer, protecting homes from storm surge and hurricanes. Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) is currently advancing the Mid-Barataria and Mid-Breton sediment diversions, two cornerstone Coastal Master Plan projects on either side of the river in Plaquemines Parish. Without action, Barataria Basin alone could lose 500 square miles of land over the next 50 years.

“We face many future challenges, but people realize that using the power and sediment of the Mississippi River through diversions is essential to securing a future for our region. Working alongside other projects throughout the coast, we can rebuild and sustain a functioning and protective landscape here,” said Steve Cochran, campaign director for Restore the Mississippi River Delta. 

The poll also identifies extensive support for investing in coastal restoration, protecting funds committed to restoration and allocating additional resources to address the state’s land loss problem. Of note, 91 percent of respondents indicated that they want state government to ensure current dedicated funds are spent on coastal restoration and protection, and a majority of Louisiana coastal voters (77 percent) think not enough money is being spent on coastal protection efforts.

“This poll confirms that the people of Louisiana recognize the urgency of our coastal crisis and acknowledge what needs to be done to protect our coast. Coastal residents realize that this issue will directly impact them in the near future, which is why the majority of the state believes coastal restoration must be implemented – even if that means securing additional funding,” continued Cochran.

While 49 percent of the respondents think that coastal land loss will affect them within the year, 77 percent think they will be affected within 10 years. The poll found that voters also strongly support the Coastal Master Plan and the commitment of funds to implement key projects

The poll was conducted by BDPC, LLC + Pinsonat for the National Audubon Society on behalf of Restore the Mississippi River Delta to determine the familiarity, interest and support for major issues facing coastal Louisiana. According to Bernie Pinsonat, political consultant at BDPC LLC + Pinsonat, “The results of this particular poll were unique because we usually don’t see such an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of support for action. Unlike many other issues, Louisianians are in broad agreement about doing whatever it takes to save our coast and protect our future.”

Interviews for this poll were completed by trained live operators over the phone with 809 likely Louisiana coastal voters from August 29 through September 5, 2018. Results were analyzed to ensure consistency in responses. The overall sample error for the statewide statistics is not greater than plus or minus 3.0 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

(Pittsburgh – September 26, 2018) The Trump administration heard more opposition to its proposed rollback of America’s Clean Car Standards at its third and final public hearing today in Pittsburgh.

EDF attorney Erin Murphy joined other concerned Americans to testify against the proposed rollback – and for strong, protective Clean Car Standards.

“As my dad always says, especially when working on his car, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The existing standards protect our climate, clean air and public health — and are supported by years of analysis,” said Murphy in her testimony.

The Clean Car Standards, in effect since 2012, reduce climate pollution, improve fuel efficiency, and save Americans money at the gas pump. Last month the Trump administration proposed drastically weakening them – an extreme step that doesn’t even have support from major automakers like Ford and Honda.

The Trump administration’s widely criticized proposal is based on controversial scientific and economic data. Experts have debunked administration claims that the rollback would make cars safer, and an analysis by MJ Bradley and Associates found the average family will spend $200 more every year if we rollback the standards –  and could spend as much as $500 more every year if gas prices continue to rise. And the administration’s own analysis found the proposed rollback will cost 60,000 American jobs.

The proposed rollback also attacks the right of states to protect people against harmful pollution – an action that is contrary to their well-established authority to play a leading role in addressing car and truck pollution.

The administration held its first hearing on the proposed rollback of the Clean Car Standards in Fresno, California on Monday, and held a second hearing in Dearborn, Michigan yesterday. Both of those hearings also drew large crowds of people who spoke against the proposed rollback – including representatives of Ford Motor Company and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in Dearborn.

Americans can also write to the administration about the proposed rollback – now through October 26 – during the public comment period.

You can read Murphy’s full testimony here, and read more about the Clean Car Standards on EDF’s website.

(Dearborn, MI – September 25, 2018) The Trump administration held a second hearing today on its proposed rollback of America’s Clean Car Standards – and heard testimony from a large crowd opposing their plan.

Average Americans, Members of Congress, and representatives of Ford Motor Company and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles spoke against the proposed rollback at today’s hearing in Dearborn, Michigan.

EDF consultant and former EPA senior executive Chet France joined the multitude of voices testifying against the Trump administration’s “severely flawed proposal and the contorted analysis that accompanies it.”

“[T]he agencies have statutory duties to protect public health and conserve energy. The proposal as written does neither,” said France in his testimony. “The proposal should be withdrawn and the current standards should be maintained through 2025.”

The Clean Car Standards, in effect since 2012, reduce climate pollution, improve fuel efficiency, and save Americans money at the gas pump. Last month the Trump administration proposed drastically weakening them.

The proposed rollback is based on controversial scientific and economic data. Experts have debunked what France called the administration’s “single most deceptive claim” – that the rollback would make cars safer. France also testified about other egregious flaws the administration used to justify its proposed rollback.

“The technical analysis by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) — in which the Environmental Protection Agency career experts did not participate — represents an unprecedented departure from EPA’s and NHTSA’s own work over the previous seven years. NHTSA and EPA had consistently and independently shown that the current standards were feasible and would provide large net economic benefits to society,” said France in his testimony. “The NHTSA analysis, which EPA relies upon to justify relaxing its [greenhouse gas] standards, is seriously flawed in many fundamental ways and provides no rational basis whatsoever for the proposed massive roll back.”

The proposed rollback also attacks the right of states to protect people against harmful pollution – an action that is contrary to their well-established authority to play a leading role in addressing car and truck pollution.

The administration held its first hearing on the proposed rollback of the Clean Car Standards yesterday in Fresno, California. It will hold one more hearing tomorrow in Pittsburgh. Americans can also write to the agencies – now through October 26 – during the public comment period.

You can read France’s full testimony here, and read more about the Clean Car Standards on EDF’s website.

(Fresno, CA – September 24, 2018) EDF joined a large crowd of Americans at a hearing in Fresno today to tell the Trump administration not to undermine America’s Clean Car Standards – protections that reduce climate pollution, spur fuel efficiency gains, and save families money at the gas pump.

The Clean Car Standards are already in effect delivering crucial health and economic benefits to all Americans, but last month the Trump administration proposed rolling them back – an extreme step  that doesn’t even have support from major automakers like Ford and Honda.

The administration held the first of three planned hearings on the proposed rollback in Fresno today. EDF Senior Attorney Martha Roberts joined the many others testifying in favor of the Clean Car Standards.

“We’ve already seen that Clean Car Standards mean American families are able to buy a wide range of cars and trucks that pollute less and cost families less money at the gas pump — at the same time the auto industry has thrived,” said Roberts in her testimony. “This proposal to eviscerate a tremendously successful program is contrary to law, facts, and the best interests of all stakeholders. It should be immediately withdrawn.”

Sean Donahue, an attorney who has represented EDF in a wide range of lawsuits, also testified today.

“Despite years of continuous progress in cutting pollution and improving fuel economy; despite engineers’ proven ingenuity in making cars cleaner and cheaper to operate; despite years of strong auto sales under tighter pollution standards, and in the face of our gravest environmental threat, the agencies propose to flatline greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for six years. Nothing remotely like this is necessary,” said Donahue in his testimony. “Anyone who thinks climate change is real and that our path forward lies in respect for science and innovation should repudiate this embarrassing and retrograde proposal.”

The Trump administration’s widely criticized proposal to roll back the Clean Car Standards is based on controversial scientific and economic data. Experts have debunked administration claims that the rollback would make cars safer, and an analysis by MJ Bradley and Associates found the average family will spend $200 more every year if we rollback the standards –  and could spend as much as $500 more every year if gas prices continue to rise.

In her testimony, Roberts pointed out that the administration’s own analysis found the proposed rollback will cost 60,000 American jobs.

The proposed rollback also relies on attacking the right of California and other states to protect millions of people against harmful pollution – an action that is contrary to the long history and well-established authority for states to play a leading role in addressing car and truck pollution.

The administration will hold two more hearing on the proposed rollback – tomorrow in Dearborn, Michigan and Wednesday in Pittsburgh. Americans can also weigh in during the public comment period.

You can read Roberts’ full testimony here and Donahue’s full testimony here, and read more about the Clean Car Standards on EDF’s website.