Complete list of press releases

Contact:
David Baron, Earthjustice, (202) 745-5203, (202) 841-4457 (cell), dbaron@earthjustice.org
Raviya Ismail, Earthjustice, (202) 745-5221, (202) 841-7619 (cell), rismail@earthjustice.org
Mary Havell, American Lung Association, (202) 715-3459, mary.havell@lung.org
Suzanne Struglinski, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-2387, sstruglinkski@nrdc.org
Rob Burbank, Appalachian Mountain Club, (603) 466-8155, burbank@outdoors.org
Sharyn Stein, Environmental Defense Fund, (202) 572-3396, sstein@edf.org

Washington, D.C. – Public health and conservation groups are today filing a lawsuit against the Obama Administration for rejecting stronger ozone standards that scientists say are needed to save lives and prevent thousands of hospital visits. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the stronger standards almost two years ago, but President Obama directed the EPA to drop the proposal on September 2, 2011. Rejection of the protective standards leaves in place weaker Bush-era ozone standards that leave tens of thousands of Americans at risk of suffering serious health impacts, according to leading medical organizations.

Earthjustice is representing the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Appalachian Mountain Club in this challenge.

Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog and is the most widespread air pollutant. Ozone is linked to premature deaths, increased asthma attacks and breathing problems, as well as increased emergency room and hospital admissions. This pollutant poses an especially serious risk to children, seniors, and people with lung diseases like asthma and bronchitis.

“The rejection of stronger standards was illegal and irresponsible in our view,” said Earthjustice attorney David Baron. “Instead of protecting people’s lungs as the law requires, this administration based its decision on politics, leaving tens of thousands of Americans at risk of sickness and suffering.”

The 2008 standards limit ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion (ppb). Strengthening the standards to 60 ppb would have saved up to 12,000 lives every year, prevented 58,000 asthma attacks and avoided 21,000 hospital and emergency room visits, according to the EPA estimates. The suit is the latest in a series of court actions by Earthjustice over more than a decade seeking stronger protections against ozone pollution.

In 2008 Earthjustice filed suit challenging the Bush ozone standards on behalf of the same organizations. That suit was put on hold when the EPA said it doubted the adequacy of the Bush standards and proposed to strengthen them. The agency assured the court that it would finish its proposal to strengthen the standards by August 2010, and then repeatedly delayed releasing the standards. That 2008 suit is now on track to resume in the wake of the administration’s abrupt rejection of the EPA’s long-awaited proposal.

“The Obama Administration’s inaction in cleaning up ozone pollution, and its decision to ignore the strong recommendations of the scientific community, jeopardizes the health of millions of Americans,” said Charles D. Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. “If the administration had followed the law, new smog standards would have saved lives and resulted in fewer people getting sick.”

“It is critical to move forward with a science-based standard that reduces smog and protects public health,” said Peter Zalzal, an attorney with Environmental Defense Fund. “The administration’s decision to reject a more health-protective standard for smog puts thousands of Americans’ lives at risk and ignores a unanimous recommendation by the leading experts on this issue: EPA’s scientific advisory board.”

“The White House made a serious mistake by stopping these standards,” said John Walke, Clean Air Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We were counting on the administration to set ozone standards that would protect our health but now have to go back to court to get the protection we all deserve.”

The EPA’s science advisors have repeatedly and unanimously called for protective ozone standards, as have the nation’s leading medical and health organizations, including the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, American Heart Association, and American Medical Association.

Contact:
Jennifer Andreassen, 202-572-3387, jandreassen@edf.org

(Panama City/ Washington – October 7, 2011) UN climate negotiators wrapped up in Panama today the last set of talks before their ministers meet in Durban, South Africa next month.

EDF’s International Climate Program Director Jennifer Haverkamp observed, “Some positive signals came out of Panama – less rancor and obstructionism than we had come to expect this year, and some progress on teeing up negotiating texts — but these glimmers of progress are eclipsed by the unresolved question of the Kyoto Protocol’s future.”

“Our preferred Durban outcome is agreement on a timetable and pathway to a new mandatory agreement. Sad to say, that’s looking like a heavy lift,” said Haverkamp. “But the prospect of a collapse of the existing legal framework will only strengthen the resolve of countries that actually want to tackle this problem to move forward in the avenues available to them.”

A case in point is the EU’s Aviation Directive, which marked a milestone yesterday when an interim legal opinion recommended upholding the directive’s requirement that all flights using European airports account for their greenhouse gas emissions. In rejecting U.S. airlines’ legal challenges, the European Court of Justice’s Advocate General found the directive consistent with international law and observed the “The EU institutions could not reasonably be required to give [the international aviation body] unlimited time in which to develop a multilateral solution.”

“Much still needs to be done in the next six weeks if Durban is to successfully advance progress toward a climate regime that preserves the planet for our grandchildren in a form we would still recognize,” Haverkamp said.

Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. See twitter.com/EnvDefenseFund; facebook.com/EnvDefenseFund;edf.org/ClimateTalks

Contacts

Mica Odom, Environmental Defense Fund, 512-691-8453, modom@edf.org
Ashley Katz, U.S. Green Building Council, 202-742-3738, akatz@usgbc.org
Nancy Young, Skipping Stone, 832-279-3029, nyoung@skippingstone.com

TORONTO – The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) yesterday announced the launch of the Demand Response Partnership Program (DR Partnership Program). The DR Partnership Program will reach thousands of commercial buildings to educate, promote and drive participation in demand response programs. Through the program, USGBC & EDF will partner with selected utilities, solution providers and program sponsors to work together on this groundbreaking initiative. The program was announced at USGBC’s Greenbuild International Conference & Expo, taking place this week in Toronto.

“There is no doubt that without demand response this past summer that our nation’s electric grid could have experienced significant stresses costing the economy untold billions of dollars,” said Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). “To meet our future grid reliability needs, we need the commercial sector to actively participate in demand response programs.”

The DR Partnership Program will use USGBC’s newly revised LEED Demand Response credit as an implementation guideline and leverage its relationships with the building community to foster adoption and participation in existing utility and solution provider demand response offerings.

“This is an important initiative for USGBC as we expand our horizons,” said Brendan Owens, Vice President, LEED, USGBC. “One of the key goals of this program is to engage the building and energy communities to figure out how to achieve common goals for smart grid, sustainability and electric system reliability.” Utilizing the knowledge and information derived from commercial building participation and participating partners, the DR Partnership will include a robust market and environmental research agenda. EDF will lead research efforts to measure and verify the environmental benefits of demand response.

“We believe that demand response is both environmentally beneficial and key to increasing renewable generation,” said Elgie Holstein, EDF’s Senior Director for Strategic Planning. “The DR Partnership Program presents a unique opportunity to measure and assess that premise.”

Case studies and benchmark implementation best practices are being developed. Also being developed are technologies that address building, utility and solution provider adoption methodologies to facilitate improvements in DR programs and business practices. Results of these efforts will be made available to program partners and sponsors, and eventually published.

USGBC has retained Skipping Stone, an energy consulting firm, to provide project management and program resources to work with the partners and sponsors.

USGBC and EDF are currently in the process of selecting utility and solution provider partners to participate in the DR Partnership Program. Interested parties should contact Brendan Owens at bowens@usgbc.org or Ross Malme at rmalme@skippingstone.com. To learn more about the DR Partnership Program, visit www.usgbc.org/LEED.

(Phoenix—October 6, 2011) The first ever statewide report projecting Arizona’s water supplies and demands over the next century is a key first step to “ensure that physical limits to water supplies don’t limit Arizona’s economic prosperity or the legacy of its natural resources,” according to Environmental Defense Fund.

“This is the kind of forward-looking process that is needed for Arizona to ensure that it has secure water supplies for the future of its communities and natural resources, including its desert rivers and streams,” said Jocelyn Gibbon, a Phoenix-based water law attorney for the Colorado River program at Environmental Defense Fund. “It also shows the need for a robust, well-funded Department of Water Resources to take a leadership role in developing creative solutions for the future. We need to ensure that physical limits to water supplies don’t limit Arizona’s economic prosperity or the legacy of natural resources that we leave to our kids.”

The report, scheduled to be released today by the state’s Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) to the Arizona legislature, projects annual water use in the state could grow steadily from current levels of about 7.1 million acre-feet to between 9.9 to 10.6 million acre-feet per year in 2110, a jump of nearly 40 to 50 percent.

“Water is an essential element to Arizona’s prosperity…It is clear that meeting the demand for additional water supplies in the 21st century requires inventive action to be taken and consideration of new ways to expand supplies,” the report concludes. “Arizona must develop a broad portfolio of solutions to meet the myriad of challenges that are inherent in this diverse state. Finally, decisions must be made regarding what solutions will be most effective in discrete regions, how those solutions will be funded, and whether implementation of the solutions requires legislative changes.”

Last year, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2661, which created the WRDC to assess the current and future water needs of Arizona.

The Commission’s tasks include:

1. Considering the projected water needs of each Arizona county in the next 25, 50, and 100 years
2. Identifying current and potential future supplies and the legal and technical issues associated with their development
3. Identifying possible financing mechanisms for acquisition, treatment and delivery of water supplies
4. Making recommendations regarding further studies and evaluations

The final report released today includes data and reports from five committees, recommendations related to future studies and evaluations, and the suggestion that the Commission continue to meet.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) praised the Arizona Department of Water Resources and stakeholders for their efforts in developing the report information quickly and cooperatively under a tight deadline. EDF made particular mention of the work of the Environmental Working Group established by the Commission, which mapped and catalogued natural resources in Arizona that are dependent on water.

“The county-by-county inventory of natural resources dependent on water begins to illustrate how much the continued flow of water in rivers, streams, and other natural features means to the state,” concluded Gibbon. “Arizona’s incredibly rich and diverse ecosystems depend on reliable water supplies, as do communities across the state. We have a lot of work to do to prevent those supplies from being depleted.”

The report identifies some next steps that could be taken towards planning for the state’s water future, including evaluating the effectiveness of alternative water supply solutions for diverse areas of the state, and incorporating information about water for rivers and natural resources into future planning. The current report does not evaluate risks to these natural resources.

Washington, D.C. – Several groups today filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue letter [PDF] against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the agency’s failure to identify communities throughout the nation that have unhealthy levels of ozone air pollution. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to formally identify the areas that are not meeting the ozone standards set in 2008 which limits ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion (ppb). Identifying these areas is essential to triggering clean-up plans for those regions with unsafe pollution levels.

Based on recent data, regions that should be designated as violating standards include Washington, D.C.; Baltimore; Los Angeles; Sacramento; San Diego; San Francisco; Dallas; New York City; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Atlanta; and more than two dozen additional communities across the United States. The EPA was originally required by law to identify these areas by March 12, 2010, in a formal process called designating nonattainment areas. It missed that legal deadline. While the agency granted itself a one-year extension for designating ozone nonattainment areas, until March 12, 2011, it also failed to meet this deadline.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice is representing the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association and Appalachian Mountain Club in this action.

“These delays are intolerable when people are breathing dangerous levels of ozone in these cities,” said Earthjustice Attorney David Baron. “The longer the EPA puts off getting these cities on the cleanup track, the more lives are at risk.”

Ground-level ozone, a component of smog, is linked to premature deaths, thousands of emergency room visits, and tens of thousands of asthma attacks each year. Ozone is especially dangerous to small children and senior citizens, who are often warned to stay indoors on polluted days.

“Curbing smog is one of our most urgent tasks and it’s way past time for our government to take decisive action,” said John Walke, Clean Air Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“It is the EPA’s responsibility to protect and clean up the nation’s air, and its failure to meet the March 2011 deadline is inexcusable,” said Charles D. Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. “This delay jeopardizes the health of millions of Americans, as breathing smog-polluted air can lead to coughing and wheezing, restricted airways, hospitalization and for some, death.”

“In 2011, national parks experienced hundreds of exceedances of the ozone standards, more than in any of the past three years,” said Mark Wenzler, Vice President for Climate & Air Quality Programs at the National Parks Conservation Association. “Without EPA action to enforce the ozone standards, Americans will continue to be put needlessly at risk when they visit our national parks.”

“Clean air needs to be a priority if we are going to be successful at reconnecting American families with healthy outdoor activities.” said Georgia Murray, Air Quality Staff Scientist with the Appalachian Mountain Club. “The EPA must move quickly to improve outdoor air quality for our nation’s health.”

“Our families and our communities have a right to know whether the air is unhealthy to breathe,” said Peter Zalzal, an attorney with Environmental Defense Fund. “Identifying the communities with unhealthy smog levels is a critical first step to putting in place smart clean air solutions. States have already submitted information required by the Clean Air Act, and the EPA must now act to help protect public health from harmful smog pollution.”

Contacts

• Sharyn Stein, Environmental Defense Fund, 202-572-3396, sstein@edf.org
• Raviya Ismail, Earthjustice, (202) 745-5221, (202) 841-7619 (cell), rismail@earthjustice.org
• Suzanne Struglinski, Natural Resources Defense Council, 202-289-2387, 202-423-6004 (cell)
• sstruglinski@nrdc.org
• Mary Havell, American Lung Association, (202) 715-3459, mary.havell@lung.org
• Jeffery Billington, National Parks Conservation Association, (202) 419-3717, (202) 384-8894 (cell), jbillington@npca.org
• Rob Burbank, Appalachian Mountain Club, (603) 466-8155, rburbank@outdoors.org

(Brussels/ London/ Washington – October 6, 2011) A transatlantic coalition of environmental groups applauded today’s European Court of Justice’s Advocate General’s preliminary opinion [PDF], which supports Europe’s right to tackle carbon emissions from airlines that use its airports. The coalition said the preliminary opinion was very encouraging. The Court is expected to hand down its final opinion in early 2012.

In a thorough and comprehensive opinion [PDF], addressing all issues referred to the Court, the Advocate General called the airlines’ challenges “unconvincing”, “untenable”, “erroneous” and based on a “highly superficial reading” of the Aviation Directive.

The opinion thoroughly dismisses the airlines’ argument that the EU Law violates sovereignty, pointing out that it is “by no means unusual for a State or an international organisation also to take into account in the exercise of its sovereignty circumstances that occur or have occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction.”

The EU Aviation Directive, the world’s only mandatory program to address emissions from aviation, will take effect in January 2012.

“This is an encouraging development. We are pleased that the Advocate General found our arguments, and those of the European Union and its member states, persuasive, and we look forward to receiving the Court’s final opinion,” said the coalition.

The coalition’s six participants include three U.S.-based groups (Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, and Environmental Defense Fund) and three European groups (Aviation Environment Federation, Transport & Environment, and WWF-UK). All six groups are intervenor-defendants in the litigation.

The opinion of the Advocate General, an esteemed attorney appointed to the ECJ to provide an independent, unbiased opinion to the Court, will now be considered by the 13 members of the ECJ’s “Grand Chamber” who heard oral arguments on July 5, 2011. The judges begin their deliberations upon receiving the Advocate General’s opinion. The opinion does not bind in any way the final decision of the Court.

Airlines have argued that the EU law is discriminatory in some way, but the Advocate General states clearly:

“If the EU legislature had excluded airlines holding the nationality of a third country from the EU emissions trading scheme, those airlines would have obtained an unjustified competitive advantage over their European competitors. Such a course of action would not have been compatible with the principle of fair and equal opportunity laid down in Article 2 of the Open Skies Agreement and which also underpins Directive 2008/101 itself.”

Finally, the opinion concludes that the Aviation Directive is not a charge or a tax, noting that it “would be unusual, to put it mildly, to describe as a charge or tax the purchase price paid for an emission allowance, which is based on supply and demand according to free market forces.”

The European Court frequently follows the recommendations of Advocates General.

Background

Europe’s Aviation Directive, which includes aviation emissions within the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) from 1 January 2012, is a pioneering law that holds airlines accountable for their emissions associated with their commercial flights that land at or take off from EU airports. Aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, rising 3 to 4% per year. Until now, the sector has escaped regulations that would require emissions reductions.

Three U.S. airlines — United/Continental and American — and their trade association, Air Transport Association of America (ATA), challenged the legality of the aviation emissions trading system, as applied to non-EU airlines.

Reactions from intervenors

Tim Johnson, Director of the Aviation Environment Federation:

“The Advocate General’s report is a positive step towards ensuring that airlines operating from European airports will become accountable for their carbon emissions from 1 January 2012 as the world’s first regional initiative to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation sector comes into effect.”

Sarah Burt, Staff Attorney at Earthjustice:

“In the absence of an effective global measure for reigning in greenhouse gases from aviation, the EU law is a necessary step to address this significant and rapidly expanding source of pollution. We are pleased that the Advocate General’s opinion confirms the legality of this important action.”

Annie Petsonk, International Counsel at Environmental Defense Fund:

“Airlines operate in a global market, and the reality is that those markets will be increasingly carbon-constrained. It’s time for the U.S. airlines to provide leadership and demonstrate that we can compete in the carbon-limited markets of the 21st century. No lawsuit will stop climate change or its effects, so it’s time to move forward and implement the solutions already available: Europe’s Aviation Directive.”

Bill Hemmings, Programme Manager of Transport & Environment:

“The international community, aided and abetted by the airlines, has failed to make any progress on cutting aviation emissions in fourteen years despite innumerable meetings and negotiating sessions. So the airlines cannot have been serious when they called for international action instead of European leadership. That so many major airlines jumped on the bandwagon of criticizing the EU-ETS, an extremely modest measure equivalent to one cent a litre on (untaxed) kerosene, was just opportunistic and irresponsible. The aviation industry should now start tackling climate change with engineers, not lawyers.”

Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change at WWF-UK

We are pleased that this advice will send a message that the ETS is entirely consistent with international law. In the absence of a global deal, ETS is a positive first step towards bringing runaway aviation emissions under control. To further enhance mitigation and adaptation, EU member states should dedicate revenues from this measure to climate action, especially in developing countries.”

Contact

Tim Johnson, Aviation Environment Federation (UK)
+44 (0) 7710 381742, tim@aef.org.uk

Sarah Burt, Earthjustice (USA)
+1-510-599-8573, sburt@earthjustice.org

Jennifer Andreassen, Environmental Defense Fund (USA)
+1-202-572-3387, jandreassen@edf.org

Bill Hemmings, Transport & Environment (Brussels)
+32 (0) 487 582706, bill.hemmings@transportenvironment.org

George Smeeton, WWF-UK (UK)
+44 (0)1483 412 388, Mob: +44 (0)7917 052 948, GSmeeton@wwf.org.uk

Contacts

Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense Fund, 202.572.3331, scrowley@edf.org
David J. Ringer, National Audubon Society, 601.642.7058, dringer@audubon.org
Emily Guidry Schatzel, National Wildlife Federation, 225.253.9781, guidrye@nwf.org
Tracy Connell, The Nature Conservancy, 703.247.3726, tjonesconnell@tnc.org
David Willett, Ocean Conservancy, 202.351.0465, dwillett@oceanconservancy.org
Patrick Scully, Oxfam America, 617.728.2402, pscully@oxfamamerica.org

(Washington, D.C.—October 5, 2011) A coalition of groups supporting Gulf restoration thanked Members from both sides of the aisle who introduced a bill today that will ensure that 80 percent of penalties paid by BP and others responsible for last year’s Gulf oil disaster are used to help restore the region, not for unrelated federal spending. The RESTORE Gulf Coast States Act of 2011 [PDF] was introduced by U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) as lead sponsor, along with more than 20 other bipartisan leaders as joint co-sponsors.

“Our nation depends on a healthy Gulf environment to help drive a strong Gulf economy. The RESTORE Gulf Coast States Act of 2011 provides a path to meaningful restoration, and holds the parties responsible for last year’s Gulf spill accountable for Gulf ecosystems, communities and their economies,” said a joint statement by Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy and Oxfam America. “We thank the leaders in the House for their hard work to get this bipartisan legislation introduced, and we look forward to working with them to improve and pass a bill to meet the restoration needs of the Gulf.”

Nine Gulf senators have introduced a similar bill in the Senate, the RESTORE Gulf Coast States Act (S. 1400), which passed through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last month.

Also today, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force – a key federal/state panel convened by the White House – released its draft report calling for a major new commitment to restore the vital resources of the Gulf Coast. The report also urged the dedication of oil spill penalties to the environmental and economic restoration of the Gulf, which is what the bills in both the House and Senate would accomplish.

“We laud the Task Force’s report calling for swift and far-reaching action to restore the Gulf Coast,” said the groups. “The draft report highlights key issues that demand immediate attention and outlines many broad strategies to undertake toward making restoration a reality. Recognizing the urgent need now to translate words into action, we hope the final report will include specific steps that can be taken without delay to address the most pressing needs in the Gulf.”

(Washington, D.C. – October 5, 2011) Today Howard University and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) unveil a cutting-edge collaboration. The “Partnership for Environmental Leadership” will provide unprecedented educational and career opportunities for Howard University students, while providing diverse and premiere academic candidates to EDF and the greater environmental community.

“This powerful partnership is part of our relentless campaign to train future environmental leaders and speed the transition to a sustainable economy,” said EDF President Fred Krupp. “We’re proud to be working with a leading academic institution like Howard, and glad that our work will help the university cut energy costs and equip its students for the new energy economy.”

The multi-faceted partnership will engage students through the development of sustainable curricula at Howard University as well as practical experience analyzing and solving environmental issues. Through the establishment of a recurring Howard University intern initiative, a graduate level fellowship at EDF with full benefits, and the collaborative development of a practical energy efficiency investment plan for the university, the partnership is the first of its kind in Washington, DC.

Leading voices in the clean energy economy are already praising the partnership. Van Jones, co-founder and President of Rebuild the Dream, said that “the proven market-based solutions of EDF coupled with Howard’s reputation for producing pioneers in social leadership will undoubtedly create some of the most thoughtful solutions for the green economy and environmental era that is upon us.” Jones added, “Cultivating leaders for the green economy will be essential for an America that will prosper by realizing its economic potential.”

Anticipating the results of this unique partnership, Dr. Barbara Griffin, Vice President for Student Affairs agrees that, “Partnering with the Environmental Defense Fund will not only open opportunities for EDF internships and possible employment for our graduate and undergraduate students but also introduce our students to the reality of environmental challenges and solutions through the perspective of an expert in the field.”

EDF has chartered partnerships with Stanford and Princeton Universities respectively, and anticipates the development and growth of the Howard University Partnership over time. Diane Regas, Vice President for Programs at EDF explains that “this win-win partnership with Howard University will highlight our shared interest in delivering environmental solutions that protect health and livelihoods for now and for the future.”

###

MEDIA ADVISORY

Contact:
Jennifer Andreassen, +1-202-572-3387, jandreassen@edf.org (Environmental Defense Fund)
John McManus, +1-510-550-6707, jmcmanus@earthjustice.org (Earthjustice)
Keith Allott, +44 (0) 1483 412 532, kallott@wwf.org.uk (WWF-UK)

WHEN

Tuesday, October 4, 2011
10 a.m. Washington (EDT) | 3 p.m. London (BST) | 7 a.m. Sacramento (PDT)

WHAT

A preliminary opinion from an Advocate General of the European Court of Justice will be issued Thursday, Oct. 6 on a suit brought by two airlines and their trade association to block a law that holds airlines accountable for their global warming pollution resulting from flights using airports in the European Union.

In a media briefing Tuesday (4 Oct.), members of a transatlantic coalition of environmental groups who have intervened in support of the EU law will discuss the background and substance of the case, the European court’s process, and the relevant EU policy-making process.

WHO

• Annie Petsonk, International Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund
• Sarah Burt, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice
• Pamela Campos, Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund
• Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change, WWF-UK

WHERE - Dial-in

Within U.S.: 800-681-6311
International callers: +1-303-223-2681

A recording of conference will be available, please contact Jennifer Andreassen for more information.

BACKGROUND

Europe’s highest court is currently deliberating over a suit brought by United/Continental and American Airlines to block a law that holds airlines accountable for their global warming pollution resulting from flights to, from and within the European Union. The law was enacted in 2009, and the limits on airlines’ emissions take effect Jan. 1, 2012.

On Thursday, Oct. 6, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will release the preliminary opinion in the case. This recommendation, prepared by a senior legal advisor appointed to the ECJ, makes a formal recommendation to the Court regarding resolution of the case. The judges begin their deliberation upon release of the Advocate General opinion. The final decision rests entirely in the hands of the 13 members of the Grand Chamber who heard oral argument on July 5, 2011. The European Court of Justice is Europe’s highest court for matters of European Union law The full court’s ruling is anticipated in early 2012.

(Washington — September 30, 2011) The Obama Administration joined Saudi Arabia and other nations opposed to the European Union’s efforts to reduce emissions from aviation, signing a statement today in India that suggested opposition to the world’s first program to reduce global warming pollution from aviation. The EU Aviation Directive will hold all airlines accountable for their emissions from flights using European airports starting in January 2012.

The statement also called for emissions from aviation to be addressed in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), though ICAO has thus far failed, after more than a decade of negotiations, to agree on an effective program to mitigate aviation’s impact on climate change.

“Countries say this issue should be addressed in a global forum, but after 14 years of frittering in ICAO, the tooth fairy has a better chance of delivering a serious plan to curb the rapidly rising global warming emissions from aviation anytime soon,” said Annie Petsonk, International Counsel at Environmental Defense Fund.

“We don’t have time for a fantasy approach to a real-world environmental problem,” Petsonk said.

“What’s the strategy?” said Jenny Cooper, aviation specialist at EDF. “Since the United States apparently cannot lead on this issue, they are going to obstruct instead? The rest of the world is moving forward on climate change, and we need to play a constructive role.”

Emissions from aviation are expected to quadruple by 2050 if left unregulated, but the United States and the other countries who signed this declaration have repeatedly failed to take effective action to deal with the problem, whether through ICAO or other means.

“The Obama Administration pledged to lead global efforts to cut climate pollution, but with regard to aviation, the only thing the State Department and the Department of Transportation are doing now is helping obstruct other nations’ efforts to tackle the problem,” Petsonk said.

(Sacramento, CA – September 29, 2011) Yesterday’s decision by California’s Supreme Court to deny a request to stop implementation of the state’s cap-and-trade regulation was an important step toward approval of the program, according to Environmental Defense Fund.

“This decision blocks the most recent effort to put an immediate end to California’s progress finalizing its cap-and-trade regulation. It also affirms the importance of California’s groundbreaking effort to limit and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas pollution,” said Tim O’Connor, Director of EDF’s California Climate and Energy Initiative.

“More importantly, it helps set the table for CARB’s October hearing where the board is expected to approve the final cap-and-trade regulation. California’s market-based program will lead to cleaner air and lower energy costs for Californians, and it complements other regulations to ensure polluters play their part in cleaning up communities, deploying innovative clean technologies, and improving public health.”

California’s Department of Public Health recently evaluated the potential impacts of a cap-and-trade regulation and found that it was not likely to cause any adverse impacts to public health and welfare, especially if money raised from the program were reinvested in California communities to help protect against the impacts of climate change, an essential element of the state’s plan.

Since that analysis was released, EDF has been working with academic, environmental and state government experts to develop proposals for adaptively managing the cap-and-trade program to guard against any unwanted impacts that may arise.

NEWS RELEASE

Contact:

Tony Kreindler, 202-445-8108, tkreinder@edf.org

Vickie Patton, 720-837-6239, vpatton@edf.org 

(Washington, DC – September 28, 2011) The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inspector general (IG) today buttressed the agency’s efforts to address greenhouse gas pollution, affirming that EPA followed the law when it determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

The IG’s report concludes EPA “met statutory requirements for rulemaking” when it issued its endangerment finding, the scientific predicate for action to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The IG’s report takes issue with EPA’s procedural classification of the technical support document under internal federal guidance.   The Office of Management and Budget, which created the internal guidance at issue, agreed with EPA’s approach under the internal government procedures (set forth in an OMB Bulletin).

“Let’s be clear on what this report does not do: it does not call into question any of the underlying science.  And the report affirmed that EPA complied with the law when making the Endangerment Finding,” said Steve Hamburg, chief scientist at Environmental Defense Fund.

The scientific foundation underlying EPA’s endangerment finding is extensive and underwent rigorous peer review.  EPA relied on assessments of climate science by the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.  These assessments considered tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles and involved thousands of scientists.  Each assessment report was peer reviewed by an independent group of experts and was subject to public comment.  

“EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare is based on volumes of rigorously peer-reviewed research reflecting an extensive and unwavering body of work from our best scientists,” Hamburg added.

###

NEWS RELEASE

Contacts:
Lori Sinsley, Media Director, 415.293.6097 (office), lsinsley@edf.org
Ramon Alvarez, Senior Scientist, 512.788.2246 (mobile), ralvarez@edf.org

(Washington, DC – September 27, 2011) The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule for new national clean air standards for oil and natural gas will reduce harmful air pollution, protect public health and the environment, and prevent the waste of a valuable domestic energy source, according to testimony this week by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The updated standards are a critical first step but key areas can be improved. EDF highlights protections provided and areas for improvement in a preliminary analysis of the regulations.

That is the message that EDF air pollution experts will be delivering this week at three EPA public hearings, where they’ll be making the case that America needs rigorous national emission standards to strengthen protections for public health and the environment. The hearings are today in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, tomorrow in Denver, Colorado, and on Thursday in Arlington, Texas. The EPA will accept public comments on the regulations through October 24th and is required to issue final rules by February 28, 2012.

“Updated standards will reduce harmful air pollution through highly cost-effective controls and avoid the needless waste of a valuable domestic energy source: natural gas,” said EDF senior scientist Ramon Alvarez, who will testify at the hearing Thursday, September 29, in Arlington, Texas. “They will also standardize many common sense practices and technologies that natural gas companies already use successfully benefit from financially.”

Oil and natural gas exploration and production are rapidly increasing in urban and rural areas of the country due to technological developments such as ”fracking” that have made extraction of previously untapped unconventional resources feasible. Yet, the clean air standards covering these activities have not been updated since 1985 in one case and 1999 in another. Having inadequate, outdated national standards threatens families and communities who must breathe hazardous air pollutants and airborne contaminants known to seriously impact human health.

Case in point: wintertime ozone levels that exceed the nation’s health-based air quality standards have been recorded in remote parts of Wyoming and Utah where there is little industrial activity other than oil and gas production. Previously pristine parts of those states monitor high pollution episodes with pollution levels that are higher than some of the most heavily polluted cities. Natural gas and oil operations also are the largest U.S. source of methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas with a warming potential 72 times that of carbon dioxide over the short-term (20 years).

“The good news is that there are existing, cost-effective solutions at hand. EPA’s proposal builds from regulations in place in states such as Colorado and Wyoming. EPA actually worked with oil and gas companies to identify more than 100 technologies and best management practices to recover more product and reduce emissions from upstream activities,” Alvarez added. Many of these solutions form the basis for EPA’s proposed rules.

Smart standards would ensure that our domestic resources are being used wisely, avoiding the waste of a valuable energy source. Companies that recover more gas get more product they can sell that’s worth millions of dollars. The EPA has estimated that the natural gas industry lost more than $1 billion in profits in 2009, due to venting, flaring and so-called “fugitive emissions” of pollutants released into air from leaks in pressurized equipment, such as well heads, tanks, pipe lines, compressor engine seals, and valves. The return on the initial investment for many of these practices can be a few months to almost always less than two years.

Achieving EPA’s proposed standards is cost-effective and proven to reduce pollution. They are similar to current state-level regulations in Colorado and Wyoming where, according to a recent EDF analysis, the oil and natural gas sector in these states experienced considerable growth while meeting state air pollution standards comparable to those proposed by EPA.

‘It’s vitally important for EPA to continue to improve the protection of human health and the environment and it has already shown that these practices are delivering economic benefits to the companies that use them,” Alvarez said.

The rules go a long way toward maximizing the multiple benefits that come from using readily available technologies and practices. Yet there is still room for improvement as EDF’s analysis points out. The proposal fails to reduce emissions from many existing sources, which means that they will continue to contribute to unhealthy levels of air pollution for years to come. EPA’s proposal also declines to reduce methane emissions directly. While reductions in this potent greenhouse gas will occur as a co-benefit of compliance with many of the proposed requirements, additional opportunities to prevent waste of natural gas, primarily comprised of methane, were not included.

About EDF

Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Follow us at Twitter.com/EnvDefenseFund and at Facebook.com/EnvDefenseFund.

(Washington, D.C. – September 26, 2011) Half of Minnesota’s Congressional delegation voted to block key clean air regulations last week, in spite of the increased health risk for voters back home.

Reps. John Kline (R-MN-2), Erik Paulsen (R-MN-3), Collin Peterson (D-MN-7) and Chip Cravaack (R-MN-8) voted in favor of the TRAIN Act (H.R. 2401), a sweeping anti-clean air act that passed the U.S. House of Representatives late Friday. The legislation would block many critical public health safeguards, and would indefinitely delay two important and long-awaited air pollution standards – the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

The TRAIN Act would delay those two standards until 2018 at the earliest, and the delay could be indefinite.

The TRAIN Act would result in more than 25,000 premature deaths in the first year alone due to smog, soot, and toxic air pollution. There would be more than 175,000 more asthma attacks, many of them in children.

In Minnesota, the delay of those two standards would cost more than 350 lives per year.

 “This bill would give us more pollution and endanger our children’s health. The congressmen who voted for more smog, soot and mercury – including some who have supported common sense limits on these pollutants in the past – need to explain themselves to Minnesota voters,” said Bill Petty of Environmental Defense Fund. “Now it’s up to the Senate to stop this destructive bill.”

###

(Washington, D.C. – September 26, 2011) Seven members of North Carolina’s Congressional delegation voted to block key clean air regulations last week, in spite of the increased health risk for voters back home.

Reps. Renee Ellmers (R-NC-2), Walter B. Jones (R-NC-3), Virginia Foxx (R-NC-5), Howard Coble (R-NC-6), Mike McIntyre – (D-NC-7), Sue Myrick (R-NC-9), and Patrick McHenry (R-NC-10) voted in favor of the TRAIN Act (H.R. 2401), a sweeping anti-clean air act that passed the U.S. House of Representatives late Friday. The legislation would block many critical public health safeguards, and would indefinitely delay two important and long-awaited air pollution standards – the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

The TRAIN Act would delay those two standards until 2018 at the earliest, and the delay could be indefinite.

The TRAIN Act would result in more than 25,000 premature deaths in the first year alone due to smog, soot, and toxic air pollution. There would be more than 175,000 more asthma attacks, many of them in children.

In North Carolina, the delay of those two standards would cost more than 2400 lives per year.

 “This bill would give us more pollution and endanger our children’s health. The congressmen who voted for more smog, soot and mercury – including some who have supported common sense limits on these pollutants in the past – need to explain themselves to North Carolina voters,” said Bill Petty of Environmental Defense Fund. “Now it’s up to the Senate to stop this destructive bill.”

###