Complete list of press releases

  • Report: Climate Change Threatens Economy and Agriculture in Illinois

    July 23, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact:
    Emily Diamond-Falk, 202-572-3365, ediamondfalk@edf.org
     
    (Washington, DC – July 23, 2008) –A new report released today details the devastating effects climate change will have on Illinois’s economy and crop production. The study was produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland. Environmental Defense Fund helped to finance the research and production of the report.
     
    The report found that climate change will have wide-spread consequences across Illinois, including:
     
    ·        Infrastructure. In 2007, Illinois suffered $272 million in insured catastrophic losses, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Those loses are likely to rise if climate change produces greater levels of precipitation. Lakefront and riverside properties are particularly vulnerable.
     
    ·        Agriculture. Climate change could cause Midwest agriculture sector profits to decrease by $9 billion annually should temperatures rise 4.5° F and precipitation increase 7%. 
     
    ·        Health. In 1995, the deadliest heat wave on record resulted in 753 deaths in Illinois. Scientists warn that climate change could bring warmer weather affecting urban cities, like Chicago, as temperatures in cities are typically 7°F higher than in rural areas.  
     
    The study was part of the report State Economic and Environmental Costs of Climate Change, which examined the impacts of global warming on 12 states around the country. NCSL released the report today during an energy conference at the group’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans. In addition to Illinois, the report looked at how climate change will impact the economy and environment of Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

    The overview of the project can be found at:     http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimatechangeOver.pdf
    The Illinois report can be found at: http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimatechangeIL.pdf
    Individual states have already begun to address the issue of climate change: Six states enacted mandatory greenhouse gas reduction laws; 13 states have set voluntary targets; and 26 states have passed renewable energy portfolio standards.
     
    “This report shows that climate change poses a great risk to the agriculture sector in Illinois,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney who specializes in farm policy at EDF.  “If Illinois crop production is disrupted, we could see far-reaching consequences throughout the state.”
     
    ###
     
    Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense Fund has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. For more information, visit www.edf.org.

  • Report: Climate Change Threatens New Jersey's Economy and Coastal Communities

    July 23, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact:
    Emily Diamond-Falk, 202-572-3365, ediamondfalk@edf.org
      
    (Washington, DC – July 23, 2008) –A new report released today details the devastating effects climate change will have on New Jersey’s economy and environment. The study was produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland. Environmental Defense Fund helped to finance the research and production of the report.

    “State-focused information on the economic impacts of climate change is crucial to policymakers. Since many of the responses by policymakers will require resources, we need to be able to prioritize our plans so that the fiscal implications are minimized, “said Senator Tom Kean from New Jersey.
     
    The report found that climate change will have wide-spread consequences across New Jersey including, but not exclusive to:

    ·        Economic Impacts. New Jersey’s coastline is home to 60% of the state’s population and land and property valued at $106 billion. A study by the U.S. EPA at Long Beach Island, NJ found that it would cost between $160 million and $790 million to protect coastal residents from a 1 to 3 foot increase in sea levels.
     
    ·        Coastal Development. Researchers predict that the temperature in New Jersey will increase from 2° F to 8° F by 2100, which will cause coastal sea levels to rise 2 to 4 feet during the 21st century.  This will trigger 1% to 3% of coastline to be lost to rising sea levels. 
     
    ·        Tourism. In 2005, New Jersey’s tourism exceeded $30 billion, 70% of which was generated in the coastal areas. Researchers predict that should climate change force a mere 1% decrease in tourists visiting the region by 2017, the indirect economic impact would be a deficit of $3.7% billion and a loss of 40,000 jobs.
     
    The study was part of the State Economic and Environmental Costs of Climate Change, which examined the impacts of global warming on 12 states around the country. NCSL released the report today during an energy conference at the group’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans. In addition to New Jersey, the report looked at how climate change will impact the economy and environment of Colorado, Illinois, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

    The overview of the project can be found at:     http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimatechangeOver.pdf
    The New Jersey report can be found at:http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimatechangeNJ.pdf
    Individual states have already begun to address the issue of climate change: Six states enacted mandatory greenhouse gas reduction laws; 13 states have set voluntary targets; and 26 states have passed renewable energy portfolio standards.

    “The Jersey Shore is critical to New Jersey,” said Mark Brownstein, Managing Director of Business Partnerships at Environmental Defense Fund and former member of New Jersey’s Renewable Energy Task Force.  “Failure to take immediate steps to cut greenhouse gas pollution threatens the Shore, and with it the multi-billion dollar tourism industry that drives New Jersey’s economy.”
     
    ###
     
    Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense Fund has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. For more information, visit www.edf.org.

  • Report: Climate Change Threatens Michigan's Economy and Shipping Industry

    July 23, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact:
    Emily Diamond-Falk, 202-572-3365, ediamondfalk@edf.org
     
     
    (Washington, DC – July 23, 2008) –A new report released today details the devastating effects climate change will have on Michigan’s economy and environment. The study was produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland. Environmental Defense Fund helped to finance the research and production of the report.
     
    The report found that climate change will have wide-spread consequences across Michigan, including:
     
    ·        Manufacturing Sector. Manufacturing is the largest economic sector in Michigan, and roughly 18% of goods produced are transported by water. Any disruption to the shipping infrastructure would vastly affect the manufacturing sector. Researchers predict that climate change will disrupt the shipping industry as dredging will be needed to cope with the decrease in the Great Lakes’ water levels.
     
    ·        Shipping Infrastructure. Michigan is home to more than 40 commercial ports, and the three largest ports oversee more than $1 billion in foreign imports and nearly $4.7 billion in exports. Under certain climate change scenarios, the entire Great Lakes-St. Lawrence shipping route would have to be dredged by 2030 due to lower water levels, costing between $92 million and $154 million annually.
     
    ·        Agriculture. A recent study conducted by Michigan State University found that 725,000 people are directly employed by the agriculture industry contributing $63.3 billion to Michigan’s economy. Researches say that if temperatures and precipitation levels rise causing soil erosion, the agriculture industry could see economic losses ranging from $11.5 billion to $20.7 billion annually.
     
    The study was part of the report State Economic and Environmental Costs of Climate Change, which examined the impacts of global warming on 12 states around the country. NCSL released the report today during an energy conference at the group’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans. In addition to Michigan, the report looked at how climate change will impact the economy and environment of Colorado, Illinois, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

    The overview of the project can be found at:     http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimatechangeOver.pdf
    The Michigan report can be found at: http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimatechangeMI.pdf
    Individual states have already begun to address the issue of climate change: Six states enacted mandatory greenhouse gas reduction laws; 13 states have set voluntary targets; and 26 states have passed renewable energy portfolio standards.

    “This report shows that climate change poses a great risk to Michigan’s manufacturing infrastructure,” said John DeCicco, Senior Fellow for Automotive Strategies at EDF who is based near Detroit. “If action is not taken to cut carbon emissions, Michigan’s shipping industry will lose thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue.”
     
    ###
     
    Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense Fund has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. For more information, visit www.edf.org.

  • Report: Climate Change Threatens Georgia's Economy and Environment

    July 23, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact:
    Emily Diamond-Falk, 202-572-3365, ediamondfalk@edf.org
    (Washington, DC – July 23, 2008) –A new report released today details the devastating effects climate change will have on Georgia’s economy and environment. The study was produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland. Environmental Defense Fund helped to finance the research and production of the report.
     
    The report found that climate change will have wide-spread consequences across Georgia, including:
    ·        Drought. Last year, Georgia experienced an extreme drought costing $1.3 billion in economic damage, much of that stemming from agriculture losses. Researchers predict that if climate change triggers an additional crop shortage of 5%, the economic impacts could cost nearly $110 million annually.
     
    ·        Infrastructure. Georgia’s expansive road, rail, and air transportation system is vulnerable to increasing disruptions and damage from extreme weather events brought about by climate change.
     
    ·        Coastal Areas: Scientists warn climate change could bring more powerful hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan caused $68.8 million in property damage in Georgia, and it is projected that the cumulative cost of sand for protecting Georgia’s coastline from another hurricane could cost as much $1.3 billion by 2100.
     
    The study was part of the report State Economic and Environmental Costs of Climate Change, which examined the impacts of global warming on 12 states around the country. NCSL released the report today during an energy conference at the group’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans. In addition to Georgia, the report looked at how climate change will impact the economy and environment of Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

    The overview of the project can be found at:     http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimatechangeOver.pdf
    The Georgia report can be found at: http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimateChangeGA.pdf
     
    Individual states have already begun to address the issue of climate change: Six states enacted mandatory greenhouse gas reduction laws; 13 states have set voluntary targets; and 26 states have passed renewable energy portfolio standards.

    “This report shows that climate change poses a great risk to Georgia’s infrastructure,” said Jerry Karnas, former Regional Outreach Coordinator for National Wildlife Federation in Georgia and now Florida Climate Project Director at EDF.  “If severe weather impacts Georgia’s transportation system, the entire U.S. would feel the consequences.”
     
     
    ###
     
    Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense Fund has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. For more information, visit www.edf.org.

  • EDF Urges MTA Board to Delay Transit Fare Hike; Proposes Investment in Innovative Transit and $230 Million in Federal Emergency Funds

    July 23, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Contact:
    Havelock Nelson, 212-576-2700, ext 235, hnelson@goodmanmedia.com 
    Heath Fradkoff, 212-576-2700, ext 232, hfradkoff@goodmanmedia.com
     
    (NEW YORK, New York – July 23, 2008) Andy Darrell, New York Regional Director of Enviromental Defense Fund (EDF), today urged the MTA to delay instituting a proposed eight percent fare increase. Instead, he proposed new investment in innovative transit solutions, and urged full use of alternative funding sources like congestion pricing to relieve pressure on the fare box. 
     
    Darrell, who also serves as EDF’s Vice President for Living Cities, further urged New York’s Senators to do their part. “A package of bills has passed the House that would make $230 million in emergency transit relief available to New York right away. $1.7 billion nationwide. It hasn’t been introduced in the Senate. Yet. Senators Clinton and Schumer could change that. I ask everyone here in this room today to call them to ask them to lead the charge for a transit stimulus package right now.”
     
    Darrell, who is a member of Mayor Bloomberg’s Sustainability Advisory Board and served as a member of the New York Traffic Mitigation Commission, made these comments in testimony given today at a meeting of the MTA Board. He is available to discuss his testimony, the meeting, and alternatives to MTA’s proposed fare-hike. The full text of Darrell’s statement follows:
     
    “My name is Andy Darrell and I am Vice President for Living Cities at the Environmental Defense Fund. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. News reports indicate that today, the MTA will propose an unprecedented 8% fare hike, following on the heels of a fare hike just last year.   Service cuts. Another fare hike. The news could not be worse for the riding public.
     
    “Especially now. High gas prices have pushed transit ridership to an unprecedented high. Not just here in New York, but nationwide. This map shows the cities in every part of the country that are facing soaring transit demand – 400,000 additional trips every day here in NYC’s subway system. 40% ridership increase in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale region. Southern California’s San Fernando Valley: 12%. Denver: 8%. Long Island Railroad (5.5% — 16,000 trips a day), Metro-North (4.3% — 12,000 trips a day).  
     
    “Americans are turning to transit like never before. And they’re finding an overcrowded, overburdened system that simply can’t meet demand. Last night, I stood outside Penn Station at rush hour: commuters were being turned away because the station was too full. A 15-minute delay caused the station to overflow. Have you ever seen the bus lines in Jamaica? They snake down the street and around the corner every day. The crisis is real. It is now.
     
    “Government must embrace this demand, not turn people away.   Washington, Albany and City Hall … the public is speaking with a powerful voice. Gas prices are high. The climate crisis is real. We need relief. And relief comes in the form of an affordable and sustainable ride to work: transit.
     
    “I ask you today to take two key steps. First, to reorder your capital priorities toward projects that will deliver results for the riding public quickly. That means bus rapid transit for neighborhoods that don’t have easy access to subways. You’ve taken a great step forward with your Select Bus Service in the Bronx – finally, express bus service that is truly express.   In Maplewood, New Jersey, commuters get to the train station not by car but by a local van that stops at the corner. For the eastern communities of Brooklyn and Queens, for Nassau, for Westchester – why not there?
     
    “Yes, I know that you will say that service like this can push up operating costs. And so it can. But with so many massive capital projects already under the gun, will we really notice another few years’ delay in a subway project that is already 20 years behind schedule … if we have fast, dependable bus service in our neighborhoods now? At a time when New Yorkers are lining up at the bus stop, the train station, the subway stop to demand more service: is this not the time for a radical reorientation of priorities?
     
    “And second, I ask you to make the fare hike the last option – the choice of last resort. Of course each of us who rides transit must pay our share – it’s only fair. But so must Albany. So must City Hall. So must every commuter – even drivers, with tolls and congestion pricing. And so must Washington. 
     
    “Last year, Albany turned away from congestion pricing – despite 67% public support and a 30-20 vote in favor in the City Council. If we had congestion pricing today, nearly 400 buses would be relieving overcrowding this year. New subway cars would be on order.   The MTA would be taking steps to meet demand, not turn it away. 
     
    “With a higher fare, what are New Yorkers to do? Drive? With gas at $4 a gallon? With our population growing by a million more people? Can you imagine if driving became the commute of choice? That would drive our economy and city into deeper economic gridlock. How can our job market compete with London, Shanghai and other world capitals if we can’t get to work in an affordable and sustainable way? Shanghai just built the world’s fastest train. Are we saying that New York can’t build a few new bus lines?
     
    “No, the fare hike must be the last resort. The Ravitch Commission is working to propose new funding sources, and we look forward to that result. And in addition to more State and City aid, Washington must do its part. A package of bills has passed the House that would make $230 million in emergency transit relief available to New York right away. $1.7 billion nationwide.   It hasn’t been introduced in the Senate. Yet. Senators Clinton and Schumer could change that. I ask everyone here in this room today to call them to ask them to lead the charge for a transit stimulus package right now. 
     
    “Pick up the phone. Let’s get that done. And delay the fare hike.”
     

  • New Report Says Providing Water for Fish is the Surest Way to Create Water Supply Reliability for California Farms and Cities

    July 23, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Contact:
    Sharyn Stein, 202-572-3396, sstein@edf.org
    Jennifer Witherspoon, 415-293-6067, jwitherspoon@edf.org
     
    (San Francisco – July 23, 2008)  California’s salmon are teetering on the edge of extinction and the salmon fishing industry is facing economic devastation, but a report released today establishes a framework to help address this crisis. The report concludes that providing a more reliable water supply for the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary could help save fish, including salmon, while also helping to ensure adequate water for farms, cities, and the 25 million Californians who rely on the Bay-Delta’s water.
     
    The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) report is titled “Finding the Balance: A Vision for Water Supply and Environmental Reliability in California.” The report outlines steps that state and federal leaders must take to end a vicious cycle of water shortages and environmental near-disasters, and instead create a stable and reliable water supply. That, in turn, should help guarantee environmental reliability – a condition where all necessary ecological, political and economic systems are in place to ensure the Bay Delta and its fisheries are self-sustaining into the future.
     
    “Our water supplies will remain vulnerable as long as we allow the environment to remain at the brink of disaster,” said Laura Harnish, EDF’s Regional Director in San Francisco and an author of the report. “For decades, water users have sought to pump additional water out of our Central Valley streams, then species have declined, and ultimately the courts are forced to step in to prevent an environmental catastrophe. This paper outlines a way to break our endless, self-defeating water cycle and improve both water supply and environmental reliability for California’s future.”
     
    California has been mired in water wars for much of its history, but the situation is now particularly severe. The state’s once prolific and profitable salmon fishery is at its lowest ebb in decades, and this year’s salmon season was closed for the first time ever, resulting in huge economic losses to the fishing industry. Parts of California’s famed agricultural economy also are suffering losses this summer because of severe drought, and courts have been forced to order water cutbacks to protect endangered fish, including salmon and the Delta smelt – the “canary in the coal mine” for the health of the overall Bay-Delta system.
     
    State and policy leaders have launched several efforts to address the crises, including creating the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Delta Vision Task Force, supporting an Assembly bill to release emergency funds raised by earlier bonds, and proposing a new $9.3 billion water bond just announced by the governor. A local think tank, the Public Policy Institute of California, also recently released a report supporting the construction of a new peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
     
    “We have great opportunity right now to create a reliable water supply for future generations of Californians and for salmon as well,” said Cynthia Koehler, an environmental lawyer and consultant for EDF, and an author of the report. “If the plans under development can meet the criteria we set out in this report, we can have a system that meets all our environmental and water supply needs in the long term.”
     
    The report’s recommendations include:
     
    • Provide adequate freshwater flows to restore fisheries and habitat in the Bay-Delta to self-sustaining levels, and make sure the projected levels take into account the looming effects of global warming;
    • Guarantee stable and secure funding so that key restoration projects are not merely planned, but executed;
    • Create financial incentives that will encourage all Californians to do a far better job of conserving water;
    • Create legally mandated performance measures and legal safety nets;
    • Improve enforcement so that water managers will be held accountable and promises will be kept.
    “We believe that California has enough water for its people, farms, and fish,” said Harnish. “If we manage our water better, we can protect our state’s economy and our environment. We can have a thriving fishing industry in the future, and we can make sure our farms are able to produce the food and jobs that we need.”

  • MEDIA ADVISORY FOR THURSDAY, JULY 24, 10 A.M. EDT: Geologic Sequestration of CO2 Will Require Rigorous Regulatory Framework

    July 22, 2008
     
    WHAT: Geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), could significantly reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired plants and other industrial processes, but only if properly regulated. The U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials will hear testimony this week related to CCS rules proposed last week by the Environmental Protection Agency.
     
    WHO: Scott Anderson, senior policy advisor with Environmental Defense Fund.
     
    WHY: CCS is a major part of the solution to climate change, though only a part. Public acceptance will require rigorous and credible regulations. CCS is feasible and knowledge will increase dramatically as the technology is deployed on a large scale, but even initial regulations need to protect drinking water. For wide scale deployment, carbon cap and trade legislation must be passed.
     
    WHEN: Thursday, July 24, 10 a.m. EDT
     
    WHERE: Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building
     
    CONTACT: Scott Anderson, 512.691.3410 or
    Media Contact: Chris Smith, 512.691.3451-w or 512.659.9264-c
     
     

  • Internal Review says World Bank Must Reform its Approach to the Environment

    July 22, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Contact:
    Korinna Horta, + 351 96 392 0759, khorta@edf.org
    Stuart Ross, 202-572-3235, sross@edf.org
     
     (Washington, DC – July 21, 2008) The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), the World Bank’s internal watchdog, is about to release its newest assessment of the Bank’s record on the environment, and according to Environmental Defense Fund, the news is not good. The evaluation analyzes the effectiveness of the World Bank Group in addressing the environmental sustainability of its programs in developing countries over the period of 1990-2007.[1]
     
    The carefully worded evaluation makes clear that the World Bank continues to perform poorly when it comes to a coherent integration of environmental goals into its country strategies and investment portfolios. Specifically, the evaluations find that:
     
    • Given the lack of a common framework that would allow the World Bank Group to understand the full range of environmental impacts of its interventions, there is the risk that its private and public sector branches work at cross-purposes;
    • The Bank must address the lack of internal coherence by reformulating its environmental strategy, taking into account the private sector and the protection of global public goods;
    • The Bank continues to do a poor job of monitoring and evaluating the environmental impacts of the programs it supports.
     
    The latter point repeats findings of a 2002 evaluation report which identified the Bank’s systematic weakness in monitoring and assessing its own operations.[2] “It is troubling that earlier recommendations by the Bank’s own evaluators have been largely ignored,” says Korinna Horta, a senior economist at Environmental Defense Fund. “Even now, the Bank does not have an appropriate accountability structure in place to ensure that its well-meaning environmental and social policies are actually implemented on the ground.”
     
    The new evaluation is published on the heels of the establishment of new climate investment funds at the World Bank by the Bank’s Executive Board and their endorsement by the G8 summit in Japan earlier this month. These climate investment funds, which are expected to funnel up to $ 10 billion to developing countries to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, are supposed to pave the way for a future agreement under the U.N. Climate Convention on longer-term financing mechanisms. Yet, as the evaluation report shows, the World Bank has a long way to go to put its internal house in order before environmental sustainability, including the interconnected problems of climate change, deforestation, water scarcity and the loss of biodiversity, all of which have the most severe impacts on the poor, receives the operational priority that both poverty reduction and the protection of global public goods urgently demand.
     
    While the international community welcomes World Bank’s new focus on climate change, the IEG evaluation makes clear that while the institution has been talking about environmental sustainability, it has paid insufficient attention to the broader environmental effects of its own activities. Disturbingly, the IEG review points to the risk that the Bank’s private and public sector financing branches may often work at cross-purposes, stating that the problem is especially relevant in climate-sensitive sectors such as energy, transport and agribusiness investments in tropical forest regions. For example, the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank’s private sector arm, may promote the expansion of industrial livestock, soy bean and palm oil plantations, all of which are drivers of tropical deforestation, while the public sector arm of the Bank simultaneously warns about the problems of forest loss and has created a fund to support avoided deforestation. The IEG notes that most Bank country strategies have not integrated the activities of its private sector branches in relation to the environment.
     
    The IEG calls on the Bank to urgently address this lack of internal coherence and to reformulate its environmental strategy, taking into account the role of the private sector and the protection of global public goods.
     
    Horta notes that while putting a better environmental strategy in place should be helpful, this is insufficient because strategies are well-meaning yet non-binding documents. More important is to actually have a full understanding of the environmental impacts of Bank operations and to find ways to avoid negative impacts or to address them. But here again the Bank faces a major problem. According to the IEG, the World Bank is still doing a poor job of monitoring the environmental consequences and assessing the impacts of the programs it supports. This is not the first time that Bank internal evaluators identify the Bank’s systematic weakness in monitoring and assessing its own operations. In 2002, an evaluation report noted the lack of consistent management commitment to the environment coupled with a lack of consistent management accountability.
     
    The IEG clearly identifies some of the internal constraints that have impeded the necessary reforms, such as competing priorities, insufficient technical and operational skills of staff and suboptimal use of administrative budgets.
     
    “Now that governments have entrusted the World Bank with financing the fight against climate change, the world needs an institution that not only talks about sustainability, but also creates the internal incentives to ensure that its own activities are environmentally sustainable,” says Horta. “The IEG recommendations are a good place to start and, if properly implemented, should lead to the overhaul of the Bank’s lending in areas such as energy which continues to be highly reliant on fossil fuels.”

    [1] Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), Supporting Environmental Sustainability – An Evaluation of World Bank Group Experience 1990-2007, Washington, D.C. July 2008.
    [2] Operations Evaluations Department (OED precursor to the IEG), Promoting Environmental Sustainability in Development – An Evaluation of the World Bank’s Performance, Washington, D.C., 2002, p.vii.

  • EPA Report Concludes Impacts of Climate Change will be Burden on Public Health System, Report Co-Author Says

    July 17, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Contact:
    Dr. John Balbus, (301) 908-8186, jbalbus@edf.org
    Sean Crowley, (202) 550-6524, scrowley@edf.org
     
    (Washington, DC – July 17, 2008) A report released today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concludes that the United States is likely to have the resources necessary to alleviate most direct health threats from climate change. However, the report also concludes there will be an additional burden on an already stretched public health system as a result of climate change.
     
    “The nation needs to know how climate change will impact people’s health within our own borders, and that additional public health protections will be needed to ensure our most vulnerable citizens are adequately protected,” said Dr. John Balbus, chief health scientist for Environmental Defense Fund and a contributing author to the report.
     
    The report, called Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6, is one of 21 five-year updates required under the Climate Change Science Program on the scientific literature about the impacts of climate change on human health, welfare and settlements. It also assesses the nation’s ability to adapt to climate change threats and where impacts may be greatest.
     
    In addition, the report notes the nation is likely to experience worsened heat stress, the health effects of higher ozone concentrations resulting from higher temperatures, health impacts of floods and drought-related wildfires, and increased spread of water and food-borne illness. The most vulnerable populations and communities in the nation, those already experiencing a disproportionate burden of ill health, are likely to experience the greatest impacts from climate change as well.
     
    Environmental Defense Fund has already released a report, “Are We Ready? Preparing for the Public Health Challenges of Climate Change,” which highlights the gaps in public health preparedness for climate change with a nationwide survey of public health departments. 
     

  • NC Passes Law to Protect Farms, Forests for Conservation

    July 16, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Contact:
    Will McDow, wmcdow@edf.org, 919-414-5293
    Georgette Shepherd, gshepherd@edf.org, 919-881-2927
     
    (Raleigh, NC - July 16, 2008) The NC General Assembly today gave final approval to House Bill 1889, which will give fair tax treatment to private landowners who manage their land for wildlife and conservation benefits. The bill passed the NC Senate on Monday, and the NC House concurred with a 107-4 vote this afternoon. 
     
    Prior to the bill, private farm and forest landowners paid significantly higher property taxes when they managed their lands for conservation benefits. Reduced property taxes previously were available only to landowners who engaged in commercial agriculture, forestry or horticulture. House Bill 1889 will let landowners enroll property in a new classification to protect wildlife habitat.
     
    The following statement may be attributed to Will McDow, policy analyst with Environmental Defense Fund:
     
    “North Carolina leads the nation in the loss of farm land, and high tax bills can be a crucial factor in decisions to sell property. This bill removes the penalties on landowners who manage their lands for conservation benefits. It gives equitable tax treatment to landowners, whether they actively grow trees to be harvested and sold for timber, or use their land to protect wildlife and clean water. 
     
    “Without property tax relief, many more landowners could be forced to sell their lands. This bill will keep more land in the hands of farm and forest owners and protect land for public benefits, including wildlife and water quality.”
     

  • Bill to Provide Relief from High Gas Prices Introduced in House

    July 16, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Contact:
    Sean Crowley, 202-572-3331, scrowley@edf.org
    Michael Replogle, 202-572-3321, mreplogle@edf.org
     
    (Washington, DC – July 16, 2008) A leading national environmental group today endorsed new bipartisan legislation in Congress that would offer Americans relief from high gas prices by providing expanded transportation and housing options.  
     
    The bill, “The Transportation and Housing Options for Gas Price Relief Act of 2008” (H.R. 6495), was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). It is cosponsored by U.S. Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA) and Hilda Solis (D-CA).  Both Tauscher and McNerney are members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation.
     
    Gas prices in the United States have tripled during the past seven years. As a result, Americans now spend an average of more than $2,000 a year on gas to commute to work. Transportation costs are now Americans’ second largest average expense after housing. 
     
    “This timely bill provides Congress with a great opportunity to show it is responding to Americans’ pain at the pump, insufficient public transit and costly housing options,” said Michael Replogle, transportation director at Environmental Defense Fund and a former consultant for the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the World Bank on sustainable transportation strategies.  “America has less than three percent of the world’s oil reserves, so we will never be able to produce what we need domestically. Our best bet is to use our limited domestic gas supply wisely and facilitate alternatives to driving where possible, as this legislation does.”


    “The Transportation and Housing Options for Gas Price Relief Act of 2008” would allocate funds to:
     
    • Expand public transportation and to help transit agencies deal with high fuel prices;
    • span style=”font-size: 10pt”>Encourage pay-as-you-drive auto insurance policies that discourage driving by rewarding low mileage drivers with lower insurance premiums;
    • Reduce commuting costs by providing incentives to employers and employees to take transit, bicycle, carpool, walk, or telecommute to work;
    • Help local governments create walkable, bikeable communities well-served by transit by providing funding to local governments to support programs to manage transportation demand and for transit agencies to make needed investments;
    • Help Americans make smart transportation and housing choices by educating them about their options;
    • Spur the availability of “Location Efficient Mortgages,” which make owning a home near transit more affordable for all Americans;
    • Make sure the Federal Government leads by example by:
    1.      Upgrading key websites for easier access to services without having to leave home and work; and
    2.      Encouraging federal agencies and offices to participate in local Transportation Management Agencies, which provide transportation options.
     
    “Public transit use and demand for other transportation options are continuing to rise throughout the country,” concluded Replogle. “This bill would support current transportation options while encouraging the creation of new and necessary transit alternatives. It would ultimately benefit all Americans by saving them gas money, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, alleviating traffic, and reducing pollution.”
     

  • California Lawmakers Move Forward on Vital Water Bill

    July 14, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
     
    Contacts:
     
    Jennifer Witherspoon – 415-293-6067 or jwitherspoon@edf.org
    Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@edf.org
     
    (Sacramento, CA – July 14, 2008) Senator Don Perata and Speaker Karen Bass announced today that California’s legislature has reached an agreement on SB 1xx, the appropriations bill that will distribute more than $800 million in existing bond money for emergency water needs. The bill is expected to pass in the next few weeks and then be sent to the Governor.
     
     
    “EDF is thrilled that this bill is moving forward, and we congratulate Senator Perata, Speaker Bass, and the members of the Legislature for their work. We need to make water reliable for our ecosystems, our farms and our cities. SB 1xx will get us going in that direction by using money that we’ve already raised to immediately fund these priority projects.
     
    Now we must take the next step and develop real solutions that simultaneously provide thriving fisheries and ecosystems while meeting our long-term water needs. We look forward to working with lawmakers on those challenges.”
     

  • EPA Chief Publically Slams Door on Today's Solutions to Address Global Warming

    July 11, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
     
    Contacts:
    Tony Kreindler – (202) 572-3378, (202) 210-5791 (cell) or akreindler@edf.org
    Vickie Patton – (720) 837-6239 or vpatton@edf.org
    Dr. Nathaniel Keohane – (212) 616-1271 or nkeohane@edf.org
     
    (Washington, DC – July 11, 2008) Today, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publicly refused to address global warming pollution despite a 2007 Supreme Court decision affirming EPA’s broad power to act under the nation’s clean air laws.  
     
    Instead, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson defiantly slammed the door on meaningful action in the nation’s fight against global warming during the remainder of the current administration.
     
    “This administration has turned its back on a golden economic opportunity, choosing instead to keep walking the path of costly delay,” said Nathaniel Keohane, PhD, EDF director of economic policy and analysis. “EPA’s own analysis says reducing heat-trapping pollution from motor vehicles would ultimately save American consumers over a hundred billion dollars a year at the gas pump.”
     
    A May 30, 2008 leaked version of the EPA document estimated that cutting greenhouse gases from motor vehicles would result in net benefits as high as $2 trillion dollars, in present value terms, over the next three decades. Those estimates take into account the costs of the regulation, and include fuel savings to consumers as well as the economic benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
     
    The final draft released today, however, leaves out the benefits of addressing global warming, and assumes that gasoline prices will be just over $2 per gallon for the period 2010-2020.  As a result, today’s analysis radically diminishes the value of action and instead states that the “net present value to society could be on the order of $340 to $830 billion without considering benefits of GHG reductions.”   (Pages 239-240)  
     
    The document nonetheless confirms the unequivocal authority of the agency to take meaningful action to address climate change, including the use of a cap and trade system to cost-effectively cut emissions.
     
    “It’s up to the next President, regardless of party, to move forward where this administration has denied the science and defied the law,” said Steve Cochran, Director of the National Climate Campaign at EDF. “By working with Congress to enact a national climate policy while moving forward aggressively under existing law, he can reap the economic and environmental benefits shown by every credible analysis, including EPA’s.”
     

    Background

    Supreme Court Decision and EPA’s Broken Commitment to Respond
     
    On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the EPA’s refusal to address global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act, finding that the statute clearly empowered EPA to address greenhouse gas emissions.   In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high Court instructed EPA to determine whether global warming pollution endangers human health or welfare and, if so, to establish greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles.   
     
    In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson repeatedly enunciated a commitment to take action.   Johnson testified before a November 2007 Congressional Committee hearing:   “The EPA plans to address the issue of endangerment when we propose regulations on greenhouse gas emissions for motor vehicles and fuels later this year.” “EPA is firmly committed to addressing the long-term challenge of global climate change.” To carry out the Administrator’s commitment, some 60 to 70 EPA officials were working on corrective action in response to the Supreme Court decision.  
     
    But on March 27th the EPA Administrator reversed course and informed Congressional leaders that EPA will take no meaningful action in response to the Supreme Court.   Today Johnson disparaged the nation’s clean air laws, defied the Supreme Court and closed the door on EPA action to address greenhouse gases in the current Administration.
     
    Leaked Draft Estimates Trillions of Dollars in Net Benefits Due to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts
     
    But a May 30th leaked version of the document propounded today shows the extraordinary benefits to society of reducing greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.    The draft estimates net benefits from EPA’s proposed approach of $0.5 to $2 trillion dollars in present value terms through the year 2040. (The low end of the range discounts benefits and costs in future years at 7% per year, while the higher end of the range uses a 3% discount rate, giving more weight to future benefits.) 
     
    “Our work to date indicates that there are significant reductions of GHG emissions that could be achieved for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, up to 2020 and beyond, that would result in large net monetized benefits to society.   For example, taking into account specific vehicle technologies that are likely to be available in that time period and other factors relevant to motor vehicle standard-setting under the CAA, EPA’s analysis suggests that substantial reductions can occur where the cost-per-ton of GHG reduced is more than offset by the value of fuel savings, and the net present value to society could be on the order of $0.5 to $2 trillion….” (EPA 5-30-08 DRAFT at p. 92, available from EDF contacts.)
     
    Although EPA does not provide a precise breakdown of the benefits, the analysis notes that in the year 2040, the estimated economic benefits of reducing global warming pollution amount to $67 billion (for an estimated reduction of 635 million tons of CO2). This amounts to roughly one-quarter of the net benefits in that year, with the remainder representing savings at the gas pump.
     
    The final draft released today, however, leaves out the benefits of addressing global warming, and assumes that gasoline prices will be just over $2 per gallon for the period 2010-2020.  As a result, today’s analysis radically diminishes the value of action and instead states that the “net present value to society could be on the order of $340 to $830 billion without considering benefits of GHG reductions.”   (Pages 239-240)  
     
    ###
     
    About Environmental Defense Fund
    Environmental Defense Fund is at the forefront of an innovation revolution, developing new solutions that protect the natural world while growing the economy. Founded in 1967 and representing more than 500,000 members, the group creates powerful economic incentives by working with market leaders and relying on rigorous science. For more information, visit edf.org.
     

  • EDF Calls for Immediate Corrective Action for Power Plant Pollution

    July 11, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
     
    Contacts:
    Tony Kreindler, (202) 572-3378 or (202) 210-5791, akreindler@edf.org
    Vickie Patton, (720) 837-6239,     vpatton@edf.org

    (Washington – July 11, 2008) A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. today overturned a clean air blueprint adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 to cut dangerous sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions from power plants across 28 eastern states and Washington, D.C., dubbed the “Clean Air Interstate Rule.”    
     
    When discharged from tall smokestacks, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen drift tens and hundreds of miles downwind where they exact a severe toll on human health and the environment. EPA estimated the program, one of the most health protective adopted under the Clean Air Act, would annually prevent 17,000 premature deaths by 2015. Today, the court found that EPA’s program had “several fatal flaws” and vacated the rule. The court reinstated a summertime program to cut smog-forming oxides of nitrogen from power plants across the East to minimize disruption in protecting human health.  
     
    Several other recent judicial decisions affect EPA’s authority to address pollution from the power sector.   In February, the same court overturned a trading program for mercury from coal-fired power plants, putting the Agency back on the path of cutting toxic mercury pollution through the maximum reductions at each plant.   In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate global warming under existing clean air laws.   
     
    “The government should take immediate corrective action to protect the millions of Americans hard hit by power plant pollution,” said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund. “Power plants must do their part to cut the smog that blankets our cities, the mercury that threatens our children’s development and the greenhouse gases that are recklessly warming the planet. Cost-effective solutions are at hand to protect human health and the environment from power plant pollution while ensuring the steady flow of affordable electricity.”
     
    The case, North Carolina, et al. v. EPA, No. 05-1244, was decided in a per curiam opinion by Judges Sentelle, Rogers and Brown who sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.  
     
    The Clean Air Interstate Rule was implemented in two phases beginning in January 1, 2009 for oxides of nitrogen and 2010 for sulfur dioxide.   EPA estimated that in 2010 the program would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 4.3 million tons across the eastern U.S. and 5.4 million tons in 2015.    Smog-forming oxides of nitrogen would be reduced 2 million tons annually under full program implementation, about 60% over today’s levels. 
     
    EPA also projected that the program, when fully carried out, would save 17,000 lives annually and secure health benefits that far outweighed estimated compliance costs. The court agreed with North Carolina that EPA must consider faster reductions that better reflect states’ obligations to restore healthy air and making pollution cuts that help prevent states from backsliding into non-compliance with health-based standards.   The court also agreed with North Carolina that EPA must tailor pollution cuts in upwind states with the level of impacts wrought on downwind jurisdictions.  
     
    The court also agreed with industry litigants that EPA erred in relying on or otherwise interfering with the allowance trading system established to address acid rain while affirming EPA’s broad remedial powers to require interstate air pollution abatement to protect human health.   The court agreed with gas-based utilities that EPA unfairly credited coal-based utilities in designing the program.   Finally, the court rejected utility claims seeking to exclude Florida and West Texas from the program.
     
    ###
     
    About Environmental Defense Fund
    Environmental Defense Fund is at the forefront of an innovation revolution, developing new solutions that protect the natural world while growing the economy. Founded in 1967 and representing more than 500,000 members, the group creates powerful economic incentives by working with market leaders and relying on rigorous science. For more information, visit edf.org.

  • NC Senate Creates Loophole for Polluting Hog Farms

    July 10, 2008
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    CONTACT:
    Dr. Joe Rudek, 919-881-2913
    Georgette Shepherd, 919-880-8033
     
    (Raleigh, NC - July 10, 2008) The NC Senate today passed H 822, a bill that guts 1995 set back requirements for hog houses that were adopted to protect neighbors from odor and air and water pollution. Earlier this week the bill was rushed though a Senate committee without sufficient opportunity for the public to comment. The bill now goes to the NC House. Among other measures, H 822 would bypass the requirement that hog producers must have the consent of neighboring property owners or a new permit before fundamentally changing the nature of their hog operation. 
     
    The following statement may be attributed to Joe Rudek, senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund:
     
    “This bill fails to respect the rights and health and well being of citizens living close to hog farms. The public should have the same opportunity as pork producers and senators to study this bill and comment on the implications for rural communities. This bill will create a loophole that will perpetuate outmoded ways of hog farming on the oldest hog farms, rather than transitioning swine production facilities to technologies more protective of public health.”