Complete list of press releases

This piece was first published as an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal 

“As a prisoner of war two generations ago, John McCain proved his patriotism and bravery. But it was through his more recent work to protect future generations of Americans that I knew Sen. McCain. Tributes to the American hero, who died Saturday at 81, must not overlook the political bravery — and, yes, patriotism — he showed in the fight to meet the threat of climate change.

“Long before other Republican lawmakers, McCain spoke out loudly about the dangers climate pollution posed to America and the world. While his colleagues treated climate change as a political issue, or sought to protect their benefactors, the gentleman from Arizona warned about ‘[the melting of glaciers, the dying of coral reefs, and rising ocean temperatures.’ If McCain’s colleagues had followed his lead, the risks Americans face from climate change today would be far more manageable and less costly.

“McCain spoke with young people passionate about climate change during his 2000 presidential campaign. Convinced that ‘most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities,’ he hoped to build a bipartisan consensus for action.

“Along with his friend, Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, McCain sponsored the first Climate Stewardship Act in 2003, which would have capped U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions at the 2000 level. The bill failed, but that didn’t stop McCain. ‘The question,’ he said in 2005, ‘is how much damage will be done before we start taking concrete action.’ After he won the Republican presidential nomination, one of his first major speeches was on climate change and clean energy. Yes — only a decade ago both major-party presidential candidates supported limits on carbon pollution.

“Since McCain’s defeat, the further hardening of partisan lines paused progress on federal legislation addressing climate change. Noting this reality, McCain stepped back from the issue for a time. But through my conversations with him in recent years, I know it was never far from his mind. Indeed, when the Trump administration tried last year to overturn restrictions on emissions of methane, a major cause of climate change, McCain withstood enormous pressure from the White House and cast the deciding vote to preserve the limits.

“McCain didn’t abandon his conservatism when he embraced conservation. He believed the government’s job is to limit pollution, then let free enterprise innovate and hunt down the lowest-cost solutions. For McCain, the problem was that companies don’t bear the costs they impose on the American public when they pollute. He wanted a market system that recognizes the cost of climate pollution — one that rewards companies for reducing emissions.

“I did not always agree with McCain on policy and strategy, but I always believed he would never stop fighting to make America better, safer and more prosperous. For him, the fight against climate change was a natural part of that lifelong crusade.”           

            - Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund

Today, the Senate passed their version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill which included an amendment by Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) to assist with the investigation of potential cancer clusters in communities across the United States.

The Donnelly-Crapo amendment provides $1 million to the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) for the agency to update the guidelines for the investigation of potential cancer clusters as directed by Trevor’s Law.

EDF applauds Senators Donnelly and Crapo for their work to support communities facing potential cancer clusters and to strengthen Trevor’s Law.

“Senator Donnelly and Senator Crapo put politics aside and worked together to help communities facing potential cancer clusters,” said Sarah Vogel, Vice President of EDF Health. “It’s the kind of bi-partisan work that’s needed to protect the health of American families. That’s how we passed the chemical safety law in 2016, and we need more of it today.”

Trevor’s Law is a provision in the newly reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) designed to provide federal agencies with the authority to help conduct investigations into potential cancer clusters. The provision ensures the federal government has the authority to undertake actions to help address cancer clusters and factors that may contribute to the creation of clusters and to better enable Federal agencies to coordinate with state and local agencies and the public.

Over 9,000 EDF Members across the country contacted their Senators to urge them to support this commonsense measure.

The Donnelly-Crapo amendment will provide needed funding to implement Trevor’s Law and give the Department of Health & Human Services the resources needed to better protect communities across the country.

(Washington, D.C. – August 21, 2018) Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler today unveiled a proposal to scrap the Clean Power Plan in favor of a weak new rule that will increase health-harming pollution from coal power plants and, by EPA’s own estimates, could result in more than one thousand extra deaths per year by 2030.

“As America suffers through a summer of record-breaking wildfires and heat waves, Acting Administrator Wheeler responds with this do-nothing plan leaving American families unprotected from dangerous climate pollution,” said Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp. “This proposal would eliminate almost all the life-saving climate and health benefits that the Clean Power Plan provides. The Trump-Wheeler plan will mean millions of tons more air pollution endangering our kids’ health, lives and future.”

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 32 percent reduction in climate pollution, below 2005 levels, by 2030 – an important part of fulfilling EPA’s legal obligation, repeatedly upheld in court, to protect Americans from the dangers of climate pollution. It would also reduce deadly soot and smog.

By contrast, the proposal released today contains no quantitative limits or compliance deadlines at all. It requires only that states consider establishing standards based on a narrow and ineffective set of operational efficiency tweaks at power plants. EPA’s own analysis shows that more than one thousand American lives could be lost in 2030 alone under today’s proposal, compared to the Clean Power Plan.

Today’s proposal disregards industry momentum toward cleaner energy and ignores the well-documented potential to achieve significant, cost-effective pollution reduction from power plants. The Trump Administration’s own Energy Information Administration recently concluded that, with the right incentives in place, power plants could reduce carbon pollution by as much as 68 percent by 2030 at very low cost – more than twice the level of pollution reduction anticipated under the Clean Power Plan.

Today’s proposal also runs counter to the wide support for the Clean Power Plan from across the country, including from Attorneys General of nineteen states and the District of Columbia, 244 mayors representing 51 million Americans, public health professionals, business organizations, consumer advocates, clean energy associations, electric grid experts, and many others. A recent poll analysis found that 70 percent of Americans — and a majority in every Congressional district in the country — expressed support for “strict” limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants.

You can learn more about the Clean Power Plan on our website.

(Washington, D.C. – August 21, 2018) Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler today unveiled a proposal to scrap the Clean Power Plan in favor of a weak new rule that will increase health-harming pollution from coal power plants and, by EPA’s own estimates, could result in more than one thousand extra deaths per year by 2030.

“As America suffers through a summer of record-breaking wildfires and heat waves, Acting Administrator Wheeler responds with this do-nothing plan leaving American families unprotected from dangerous climate pollution,” said Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp. “This proposal would eliminate almost all the life-saving climate and health benefits that the Clean Power Plan provides. The Trump-Wheeler plan will mean millions of tons more air pollution endangering our kids’ health, lives and future.”

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 32 percent reduction in climate pollution, below 2005 levels, by 2030 – an important part of fulfilling EPA’s legal obligation, repeatedly upheld in court, to protect Americans from the dangers of climate pollution. It would also reduce deadly soot and smog.

By contrast, the proposal released today contains no quantitative limits or compliance deadlines at all. It requires only that states consider establishing standards based on a narrow and ineffective set of operational efficiency tweaks at power plants. EPA’s own analysis shows that more than one thousand American lives could be lost in 2030 alone under today’s proposal, compared to the Clean Power Plan.

Today’s proposal disregards industry momentum toward cleaner energy and ignores the well-documented potential to achieve significant, cost-effective pollution reduction from power plants. The Trump Administration’s own Energy Information Administration recently concluded that, with the right incentives in place, power plants could reduce carbon pollution by as much as 68 percent by 2030 at very low cost – more than twice the level of pollution reduction anticipated under the Clean Power Plan.

Today’s proposal also runs counter to the wide support for the Clean Power Plan from across the country, including from Attorneys General of nineteen states and the District of Columbia, 244 mayors representing 51 million Americans, public health professionals, business organizations, consumer advocates, clean energy associations, electric grid experts, and many others. A recent poll analysis found that 70 percent of Americans — and a majority in every Congressional district in the country — expressed support for “strict” limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants.

You can learn more about the Clean Power Plan on our website.

(Austin, Texas – August 20, 2018) New research published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America shows, for the first time, that a management system which provides year-round fishing opportunities using secure allocations could increase the economic value of recreational fisheries, encourage better conservation outcomes, and satisfy more anglers with longer seasons, which could result in as much as $1 billion per year in additional economic benefits in the United States.

The study uses survey data from anglers who fish in the Gulf of Mexico to estimate the potential benefits of management reforms. The results showed that anglers valued the flexibility of choosing when they could fish rather than having their fishing limited by fixed seasons.

For example, frustrations over inflexible and shrinking seasons for recreational red snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico have long been a source of political debate, sparking contentious proposals in the region and in Congress. This study shows that most of these proposals focus on approaches that fail to fully maximize the kind of conservation-oriented flexibility that anglers value most.

“Many recreational fisheries, including Gulf red snapper, are struggling with outdated management that relies on season and bag limits to control catch,” said Daniel Willard, Senior Economist for Environmental Defense Fund’s Oceans program and co-author of the new study. “Seasons are closed for much of the year and overharvests are routine. Status quo management does little to conserve fish populations and excludes many anglers from the fishing experience. This squanders potential angler benefits.”

The new research also bolsters the success of a pilot program in the Gulf of Mexico that tested an alternative management approach for headboat fishing (headboats are for-hire fishing boats that take large groups of people offshore fishing). The pilot program for headboats was established in 2014 by a group of headboat captains and included 19 separate boats from across the Gulf of Mexico.

The pilot tested an allocation-based management system, similar to the commercial red snapper fishery, which provided headboats with the freedom and flexibility to fish when it is best for their business and customers. Through strict monitoring and reporting requirements, the pilot allowed participating headboats to catch the same number of fish they would normally catch during the short fishing seasons, but to take anglers fishing anytime during the calendar year.

“A management system like the one tested by the headboats in the Gulf provides recreational service providers with a secure quota of valuable target species to provide more valuable fishing experiences to their customers throughout the year,” said Joshua Abbott, the study’s lead author and an Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Economics at Arizona State University’s School of Sustainability. “Our study found that the status quo management in the Gulf was forgoing $12 million in potential economic value per year in the red snapper headboat fishery alone.”

Over the two years the pilot operated, the 19 participating headboats saw a 100 percent increase in the number of anglers they took on red snapper and grouper fishing trips, taking over 120,000 people from all 50 states fishing. While more anglers got to fish for snapper and grouper, the participating businesses reported increased profits, adherence to catch limits, and a decrease in discarded fish, meaning better business and conservation outcomes.

“The quality and value of fishing experiences depend on whether anglers can catch what they want, when they want,” added Willard. “We can achieve that, providing year round fishing opportunities for recreational fishing businesses and anglers using sustainable catch limits, secure allocations, and careful tracking of what they catch. This is a win-win for conservation and the angler experience.”

This new study comes out as two bills currently being considered by the United States Senate threaten to make it virtually impossible for headboat operators and their customers to test or adopt these types of approaches. Further, these bills contain misguided efforts to lengthen recreational fishing seasons through promoting reallocation and weakening science-based catch limits.

“This new research shows that these proposals in Congress are missing the mark when it comes to what anglers actually want,” said Matt Tinning, Associate Vice President for Environmental Defense Fund’s Oceans Program. “The pilot results and this new research show that in recreational for-hire fishing you can significantly increase the value of fishing access for anglers through better management of current quotas, like the approach used in the headboat pilot, instead of undermining conservation plans.”

The headboat captains in the Gulf of Mexico who led the effort to test the approach studied in this new research are now advocating that it be made permanent. They have a proposal being considered by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.

(Washington, D.C. – August 17, 2018) Environmental Defense Fund yesterday submitted formal comments on the EPA’s proposed “Censored Science” rule, demonstrating that it is unlawful, unjustified, and would imperil vital protections such as air pollution limits, drinking water standards, and toxic chemical safeguards. Released in April 2018 by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the proposed rule would bar EPA from considering some of our most important public health studies in making decisions about protections for human health and the environment. 

“Under the Trump administration’s Censored Science proposal, next time there’s a study that shows a danger to our health, EPA may not be able to act to protect the public,” said Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Senior Scientist at EDF. “If the proposal were in place, EPA would be prohibited from considering countless life-saving studies like those that revealed air pollution leads to premature death.”

“EPA uses many high quality, peer-reviewed studies that are broadly available for public and scientific review, yet the Trump administration is using false claims about ‘transparency’ to undermine the use of critical research on health threats like toxic chemicals and air pollution,” added Dr. McPartland.

“The Trump administration’s cynical proposal to censor the science that has protected all Americans from life-threatening pollution is a clear and present danger to our health and safety,” said EDF Senior Attorney Martha Roberts. “EDF will work to ensure EPA makes decisions central to American’s health and safety on the basis of the best available science – as our bipartisan health and environmental laws require.”

The Censored Science rule would bar EPA from using studies when underlying data are not public. EDF’s comments point out that such a requirement would depart from good scientific practice, degrade the quality of scientific decision-making at EPA, and violate EPA’s obligations under the Clean Air Act and other federal laws to consider the best available science. EDF’s comments also point out that the proposal would alter how EPA conducts chemical risk assessments in ways that are clearly out of step with current scientific understanding and that would undermine the protection of public health.

The proposal was developed without consultation with the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board or other scientific authorities, and has been widely criticized by leading scientific organizations and public health organizations. Editors of the nation’s leading scientific journals, the Presidents of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the President of Harvard University and nearly one hundred leading Harvard scientists and medical experts, EPA’s own Science Advisory Board, and other scientific experts have voiced concerns about the proposal over the last few months. The proposal closely resembles failed anti-science legislation that has been stalled in Congress for years.

In addition to EDF’s technical comments filed yesterday, over 60,000 comments have been submitted by EDF members in opposition to the proposal.

(Washington, D.C. – August 16, 2018) A new report released today by Consumer Reports shows “concerning levels” of lead, cadmium, and inorganic arsenic in baby and toddler foods. The watchdog organization tested 50 nationally distributed packaged baby and toddler foods and found measurable levels of at least one of the three heavy metals in every product, with levels they deemed “worrisome” in about 2/3 of the products. The report builds on previous findings from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) about heavy metals in infant and toddler food and points to an urgent need for action from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and food manufacturers to better protect children. 

“While the effects of exposure to a heavy metal in a single food may not affect a child, what is concerning is the cumulative impact of exposure to low levels of cadmium, inorganic arsenic, and lead from all food in the diet,” said Tom Neltner, EDF Health’s Chemicals Policy Director. “Protecting children’s ability to learn and thrive demands that we drive down exposure to heavy metals from all sources – including food.” 

For the study, Consumer Reports purchased three samples of 50 baby and toddler foods – available in the spring of 2018 – from different retailers across the country and tested the products for cadmium, lead, mercury, and inorganic arsenic. The foods included cereals, snacks, entrees, and fruits and vegetables. Key takeaways from the testing included:

• Each of the 50 products had measurable levels of cadmium, lead, and/or arsenic.
• About 2/3 of the products had at least one heavy metal at levels considered “worrisome” by Consumer Reports.
•  Organic foods were as likely as conventional foods to have heavy metals, because the organic standard is focused on pesticides and not these contaminants.
• Products with low or no measureable levels of heavy metals indicate manufacturers can achieve safer foods.

“Food that is marketed for babies should be held to a higher standard,” said Maricel Maffini, EDF’s science advisor for food. “Consumer Reports was right in calling for a goal of no measurable levels of these heavy metals in baby food and that FDA needs to set aggressive incremental targets to drive progress.”

EDF has previously reported on the issue of lead and other heavy metals in infant and toddler foods. In June 2017, we released Lead in Food: A Hidden Health Threat. The report examined data collected and analyzed by FDA from 2003 to 2013 and found lead detected in 20% of baby food samples compared to 14% for other foods. Eight types of baby foods, including fruit juices, root vegetables, and teething biscuits, had detectable lead in more than 40% of the samples.

In December 2017, EDF provided an update to the report with FDA testing data for lead from 2014 to 2016. It suggested good news for fruit juices (a category that Consumer Reports did not test) but stubbornly high detection rates for snacks and root vegetables. Consumer Reports reaffirms the need for greater diligence from FDA and baby food manufacturers.  

While FDA has taken important steps on this issue by committing to reduce levels of heavy metals to the greatest extent practicable, the agency still needs to take concrete action to drive down cadmium, lead, and inorganic arsenic levels in food – especially children’s food. To accelerate needed action, EDF recommends that FDA update its standards and make clear that international standards for lead in fruit juice are inadequate. Baby food manufacturers must test for heavy metals throughout the supply chain in order to identify and reduce all sources of contamination. 

Healthy eating requires safe, nutritious food. EDF hopes Consumer Reports’ new study draws attention to the issue and prompts food manufacturers and FDA to do more to drive down levels of heavy metals in our food supply. 

NEWS RELEASE

(Washington, D.C. – August 14, 2018) EDF and a group of environmental, conservation, and social justice organizations yesterday submitted comments to Environmental Protection Agency urging it not to move ahead on an 'Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’ that could lead the Agency to undercount the huge health and environmental benefits of standards. As the comments note, EPA has an obligation to fully account for all the benefits that result from EPA health safeguards and pollution limits– including co-benefits for health and the environment - and cannot use the existence of some degree of uncertainty as an excuse to ignore potential benefits. 

The comments also strongly oppose EPA’s efforts to ignore well-established science showing that reducing harmful particulate matter pollution saves lives and improves health at all levels of exposure.

As the comments state: “Despite the tremendous record of success demonstrated by EPA safeguards, and the enormous benefits they provide for the health and well-being of the American public, the current administration has relentlessly sought to undermine and dismantle these life-saving protections. . . This notice is another piece of the administration’s efforts to undermine justifications for protections that safeguard our health and well-being.”

The comments were joined by Environmental Law & Policy Center, National LGBTQ Task Force, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Waterkeeper Alliance. A diverse array of other organizations, including the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, have also voiced concerns about this notice.

Background

The notice seeks comment on potential action by EPA to promulgate a rule purportedly to increase consistency and transparency in the consideration of weighing costs and benefits in making regulatory decisions. However, it responds directly to requests from industry polluters for EPA to irrationally devalue actual health and environmental benefits resulting from protections including lives saved, asthma attacks avoided, and school and work days that otherwise would have been lost. This would undermine bedrock health and clean air protections, further endangering communities across the nation.
 

Environmental impact bonds could help the state of Louisiana – and other coastal areas dealing with land loss and sea level rise – restore its rapidly disappearing coast faster, better and for less money, according to a new report released today by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Quantified Ventures.

Louisiana has lost nearly 2,000 square miles of land since the 1930s and will lose an additional 4,000 square miles over the next 50 years if nothing is done. The state has a vision for restoring and protecting its coast through its $50-billion Coastal Master Plan, but it has identified only $9 billion to $12 billion of the funds needed to fully implement the plan. These capital needs put an absolute premium, over time, on the development of new sources of revenue and new means of delivering funds. This new study finds that utilizing environmental impact bonds, or EIBs, can help meet both of these needs. 

EIBs are a pay-for-success debt financing tool in which bond repayment to investors is linked to the achievement of a desired environmental outcome – in this case, sustained wetlands that help curb land loss and provide risk reduction. EIBs can be scaled and replicated to support coastal resilience efforts across Louisiana and beyond to help areas coping with sea level rise, land loss and damaging storms.

“Using environmental impact bonds provides Louisiana the opportunity to put more capital to work now and to find new sources of capital,” said Steve Cochran, associate vice president for coastal resilience at EDF. “Those are great outcomes for Louisiana’s coastal communities and can provide a model for other coastal areas around the world.”

Environmental impact bonds would allow the state of Louisiana to use capital more efficiently by building wetland restoration projects sooner, involve local asset owners who benefit from wetland restoration projects, reward high-performing wetland projects and the contractors who build them, build an evidence base for the value of wetlands for reducing land loss, expand the range of possible coastal restoration financing tools, and be a leader in innovative financing.

“Environmental impact bonds can be a big time game changer for Louisiana’s disappearing coastline. This replicable EIB will have major implications for coastal restoration efforts around the world,” said Eric Lestinger, founder and CEO of Quantified Ventures.

In the study, EDF and Quantified Ventures designed a conceptual environmental impact bond transaction for a $40 million investment in a portion of the Belle Pass-Golden Meadow Marsh Creation project adjacent to Port Fourchon. This site was selected due to the port’s role in facilitating offshore oil and gas production, making it an ideal location for piloting the EIB and its multi-payor transaction concept.

“Environmental impact bonds provide the state of Louisiana with another outcome-based performance tool that can help us speed up coastal restoration while lowering costs and involving local partners in financing those efforts,” said Johnny Bradberry, the Louisiana Governor’s Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities. “This approach to bonding shows that CPRA is looking to innovate on all sides of our business: the projects, the procurement, and the financing.”

The report outlines the next steps Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) and Coastal Protection and Restoration Financing Corporation would need to take to pilot an EIB, noting that many steps – including establishing credit rating, resolving any uses of Gulf oil spill funds and determining the bond’s tax-exempt status – are the same as those to pursue a more typically structured bond.

Learn more at edf.org/environmental-impact-bond.

The study was funded by NatureVest, the conservation investing unit of The Nature Conservancy, through its Conservation Investment Accelerator Grant, which aims to find and support the best talent and most meaningful work in the field of conservation investment.

(MEXICO CITY – Aug. 7, 2018) The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Clean Air Institute (CAI) today released a joint analysis of the Agency for Safety, Energy and Environment’s (ASEA) recently proposed federal regulations to limit methane emissions from Mexico’s oil and gas sector.

Methane is a powerful climate pollutant and the primary component of natural gas. Large quantities of methane can escape through leaks and venting across the oil and gas supply chain. ASEA’s draft regulations aim to reduce methane pollution by 40-45% by 2025 in order to achieve the country’s international climate commitments.

EDF and CAI’s analysis, “Leading Regulatory Practices to Abate Oil & Gas Methane Emissions: Lessons Learned for Mexico,” notes that Mexico’s proposed regulations are in line with international best practices to reduce oil and gas methane emissions and offers a few suggestions for how the draft regulations can be improved.

“Mexico has shown real leadership in developing these regulations, incorporating learnings from other jurisdictions effectively controlling oil and gas methane pollution. If finalized, with only minimal changes to strengthen the draft rules, these regulations would put the country well on its way to meeting international climate goals.

        – Drew Nelson, Director International Affairs, Energy, Environmental Defense Fund

As Mexico’s energy sector is poised for expansion, the urgency of addressing the methane problem grows. Finalizing strong regulations quickly can help secure Mexico’s energy independence and ensure the growing oil and gas industry operates as efficiently as possible.

“The next administration has an opportunity to maximize the economic, public health and climate benefits of reducing methane emissions, while continuing Mexico’s international leadership on climate issues. Swiftly finalizing and implementing these regulations is the key.”

        – Sergio Sanchez, CEO and Executive Director, Clean Air Institute  

ASEA’s draft regulations are now open for public consultation. EDF and CAI are engaged with local stakeholders to submit feedback on the regulations before the comment period closes thirty working days following the publication of the draft rules on July 27, 2018.

(Washington, D.C. – August 7, 2018) EDF is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to release documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to a proposed EPA rule that would prohibit EPA’s use of peer reviewed scientific studies that have long been relied on to protect the  health and safety of millions of Americans.  

“EPA’s proposal would imperil public health protections that help keep Americans safe from life-threatening air pollution, toxic chemicals, and other dangers,” said EDF Attorney Ben Levitan. “Americans have a right to know about proposals like these that could put their families at greater risk, and about any special interests those proposals may serve. EPA has a legal obligation to release this information to the public.”

The lawsuit was filed today in federal court in the Southern District of New York. Earthjustice is representing EDF in the lawsuit.

“EPA’s Censored Science proposal would allow the agency to ignore credible science under the guise of increasing transparency,” said Alexis Andiman, an attorney in Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. “The public has a right to know the origins of this strategy, which has long been championed by tobacco companies, major polluters, and industry-aligned politicians.” 

Earlier this year, EDF filed two FOIA requests about a proposed rule issued by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The rule would bar the agency from considering key public health studies when making decisions about vital protections for human health and the environment.

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has not withdrawn this harmful Censored Science proposal, despite calls to do so from public health experts, leading scientists, environmental advocates, and many other concerned Americans.

The protections at stake include limits on arsenic in drinking water, efforts to reduce deadly air pollution, and measures to address emerging contaminants like persistent PFAS’s, which are present in the drinking water of communities across the country and are associated with cancer.

EPA’s statutory deadline for responding to EDF’s FOIA requests has long since passed, but EPA has failed to release the documents – documents that could shed light on the process and rationale behind the proposal. The limited information currently available indicates that Pruitt was attempting to unilaterally implement a policy that had repeatedly failed to pass Congress, and was attempting to bypass standard interagency review.

EDF Senior Scientist Jennifer McPartland and Legal Fellow Surbhi Sarang testified against the proposal at a public hearing on July 17. EPA agreed to hold the hearing only after EDF and hundreds of others demanded an opportunity to voice their views.

EPA is also accepting public comments on the proposal until August 16.

You can find more information about the Censored Science proposal here and here. You can also find more information about EDF’s FOIA requests on our website.

“As the U.S. Senate considers the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the significance is high. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s resignation has the potential to shift the Court’s balance, with implications for a broad array of critical issues including the bedrock judicial precedents and Congressional enactments that protect the environment and public health for all Americans.

“As U.S. Senators carry out their responsibility to advise and consent, they will weigh many factors. Environmental Defense Fund seeks to inform Senators and other interested parties on the momentous environmental issues that have long been our focus.

“When it comes to any nominee to the high Court, two core principles guide our thinking:

“First, would the nominee, if confirmed, respect the central legal precedents that make up the foundation of our nation’s public health and environmental laws?

“Second, would the nominee respect Congress’s delegation of responsibility to the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out our nation’s environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, as necessary to protect our nation’s public health, safety and welfare?

“On these critical principles, Judge Kavanaugh’s rulings have not shown respect for such precedents, or the delegation of responsibility to EPA required to protect the environment and public health. He has ruled to overturn EPA protections anchored in statute even when their public health benefits clearly outweigh their costs.

“In 2012, for example, while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh struck down the Clean Air Act’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which is responsible for preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths each year and improving air quality for 240 million Americans. According to EPA, the rule’s public health benefits are more than 100 times its highly efficient compliance costs. Fortunately, in 2014, six Supreme Court Justices overruled Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion and these clean air protections were reinstated. Notably, Justice Kennedy, whom Judge Kavanaugh would replace on the Supreme Court, voted to uphold EPA’s authority to safeguard the nation’s air quality.

“It is the responsibility of each Senator to weigh these critical questions as this historic nomination is decided.”

            - Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund

(WASHINGTON, D.C. – August 6,2018) The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sued the Department of Energy today for its failure to hand over documents as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to the Trump Administration’s reported plan to force taxpayers and electricity customers to pay billions of dollars to bail out uneconomic coal and nuclear plants.

“What does the Trump Administration have to hide about its abhorrent plan that would make working families pay billions to bail out fossil fuel executives? We are taking them to court to demand answers about what’s really behind this bailout that only benefits millionaire energy executives who backed Trump’s campaign.” said Mary Anne Hitt, Senior Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “The public has the right to know why the Trump Administration is trying to increase their electricity bills to keep dangerous, polluting plants needlessly online longer — and, come hell or high water, we will fight for the transparency required by law.”

The environmental organizations’ lawsuit comes amid intense criticism of the Trump Administration’s bailout proposal from a diverse array of concerned stakeholders - including energy companies, current and former federal energy officials, utilities and energy suppliers, and consumer advocates. The reported plan outlines how the Administration would use emergency laws, which have historically been reserved for wartime necessity or natural disasters, to prop up failing coal and nuclear plants that are ready to be replaced with newer, cheaper competitors like solar, wind, and energy efficiency resources.

“The American public should know about the Trump Administration’s efforts to create a policy that would increase electricity costs for families and businesses, stifle innovation, and increase pollution,” said EDF Attorney Ben Levitan. “The Trump Administration must fulfill its legal obligations to disclose these records.”

Numerous media reports, academic studies, and expert analyses have shown that, not only is there no emergency that would necessitate the bailout, but also that the Administration’s reported plan would cost tens of billions of dollars, upend America’s electricity markets, and spike electricity prices. A prominent recent analysis from The Brattle Group estimated that the bailout could have a $34 billion price tag for taxpayers and electricity customers. With no public evidence to justify DOE’s apparent plans to invoke its emergency authority for such bailouts„ the Sierra Club and EDF have repeatedly requested documents through FOIA to inform the public and elected officials on the Administration’s intentions, but their requests have been continually ignored and delayed.  

“The Trump administration’s proposal to slam the brakes on America’s successful Clean Car Standards is a massive pileup of bad ideas.

“This proposal will substantially increase pollution and will cost the average American family hundreds of dollars a year extra for gas. It’s a proposal that attacks the states’ right to protect people from dangerous pollution, one that no one – not the American public, not the states, not even most automakers – really wants, and one that’s being presented to the public under the false and easily discredited guise of improving public safety.

“EDF will oppose this proposal in the court of public opinion and the court of law, and will work to secure protective Clean Car Standards for all Americans.”

 
            - Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund

(NEW YORK, NY) A new study conducted in the European Union’s largest gas field (Groningen, Netherlands) found oil and gas emissions in the region are substantially higher than the Dutch inventory estimates. At the same time, the team of international scientists, which includes experts from Environmental Defense Fund, found lower methane leaks from production facilities than observed in North America, indicating that emission controls can be practical and effective when applied.

The study comes at a time when Groningen production is ramping down and the energy it supplies is being replaced, in part, by both imported and European-produced gas, where measured emissions data is lacking. The paper titled, “Methane emissions in the Netherlands: The Groningen field” was published today in Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.
 
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and human-caused methane emissions account for 25 percent of today’s warming. The oil and gas industry, which has a significant presence in Europe, is one of the largest global sources of methane pollution. Reducing methane emissions from the global oil and gas industry is among the most immediate and most cost-effective solutions available to countries seeking ways to meet climate reduction goals. 
 
“The more we measure, the more clearly we see that emissions based on engineering estimates often underestimate emissions,” said Dr. Daniel Zavala-Araiza, co-author and international scientist with Environmental Defense Fund.
 
Groningen has historically supplied a significant portion of Europe’s natural gas. That supply is dwindling, as the Dutch government will cease production by 2030 and the field ramps down. The new study raises timely questions about how EU nations will fill supply gaps and whether those choices will exacerbate the union’s climate efforts. 
 
“The results beg important questions about the emissions profile of EU produced and imported gas,” said Drew Nelson, international affairs director at Environmental Defense Fund. “With Groningen supply dwindling, what will replace it? And to whatever extent gas remains a part of Europe’s energy mix, what policies will be in place to assure that the gas produced, delivered, or transported in Europe is free of methane emissions?” 

Dutch, American, and Swiss researchers sampled methane emissions from oil and gas facilities using airborne and ground-based techniques in Groningen between August and September 2016. The team included Aerodyne Research, Inc.; Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a global environmental organization; Metair, a Swiss airborne research group; and TNO, the Netherland’s largest research and technology organization. Additional research is being done to better understand the policies that led to lower emissions in the Groningen and to extract insights that can improve practices in other oil-and-gas-producing regions around the world. 
 
EDF has organized an extensive and influential body of scientific work on methane, including a five-year, $20 million series of studies involving more than 140 researchers from over 40 institutions, examining every link in the U.S. oil and gas supply chain. The research, which has generated 35 peer-reviewed scientific papers, shows emissions are 60 percent higher than U.S. EPA estimates. Studies examining industry’s emissions in Canada further verify this occurrence.
 
EDF is engaged with ten oil and gas companies representing 20 percent of worldwide production that together formed the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) around methane issues. EDF, OGCI, and the UN’s Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) are collaborating on a series of peer-reviewed studies to measure oil and gas methane emitted in key locations worldwide. Two studies already underway will look at methane from offshore activity in the North Sea and from nodes along Europe’sdistribution system that delivers gas across the continent.