Complete list of press releases
Environmental Defense Praises Luminant Action To Build Two Texas Demonstration Plants
February 18, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jim Marston, Environmental Defense, 512.478.5161-w or 512.289.5293-w
Media Contact: Chris Smith, Environmental Defense, 512.691.3451-w or 512.659.9264-c csmith@environmentaldefense.org(Austin, TX – February 18, 2008) Luminant, a subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings (EFH), recently received 14 expressions of interest in response to its request for proposals from companies offering Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) or other coal gasification technologies with the ability to capture carbon dioxide emissions. The company plans to build two commercial demonstration plants in Texas and to seek input from a newly created EFH Sustainable Energy Advisory Board.
The following statement can be attributed to Jim Marston, director of the Texas Regional Office of Environmental Defense and a member of the EFH Sustainable Energy Advisory Board:
“We are pleased to hear about Luminant’s recent actions related to building two Texas demonstration plants. The company continues to fulfill commitments made last year surrounding the cancellation of more than a dozen new coal plants and such actions make significant strides toward future cleaner operations.”
Court Rules EPA Violated the Law by Evading Required Power Plant Mercury Reductions
February 8, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFebruary 8, 2008Contact: James Pew, Earthjustice (202) 667-4500Ann B. Weeks, Clean Air Task Force (617) 359-4077John Walke, Natural Resources Defense Council (202) 289-2406John Suttles, Southern Environmental Law Center (919) 967-1450Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense (202) 572-3331John Surrick, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (443) 482-2045Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club (202) 675-6279Scott Edwards, Waterkeeper Alliance (914) 674-0622 x13Washington, D.C. – A federal appeals court ruled this morning that a rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency violates the Clean Air Act by evading mandatory cuts in toxic mercury pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants violates the law. The decision invalidates the agency’s so-called “Clean Air Mercury Rule,” which would have allowed dangerously high levels of mercury pollution to persist under a weak cap-and-trade program that would not have taken full effect until well beyond 2020.A copy of the decision is available at: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200802/05-1097a.pdfFourteen states and dozens of Native American tribes, public health and environmental groups, and organizations representing registered nurses and physicians challenged the EPA’s suite of rules in 2005. The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rebuked EPA for attempting to create an illegal loophole for the power generating industry, rather than applying the toughest emission standards of the Clean Air Act. The states challenging this EPA rule are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin.EPA unlawfully decided to remove power plants from the most protective requirements of the Clean Air Act, reasoning they had the authority under the law to do so. “This explanation deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts,” the court wrote in its decision.“The federal court agrees with the American Medical Association that EPA’s flawed mercury program for coal plants is hazardous to our health,” said Vickie Patton, an attorney with Environmental Defense, which along with Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation was represented by Earthjustice in the lawsuit. “This decision is a victory for the health of all Americans, but especially for our children who can suffer permanent brain damage from toxic mercury pollution.”EPA estimates that as many as 600,000 babies are born annually at risk of serious harm from exposure to high maternal blood-mercury levels resulting from contaminated fish consumption.“Coal company claims of ‘clean coal’ will now be put to the test,” said Alice McKeown, coal analyst for the Sierra Club. “These mercury pollution reductions will be an important trial run to see if coal is still viable in a cleaner energy future.”The EPA’s actions declared unlawful today included first removing power plants from a regulatory list requiring the toughest Clean Air Act safeguards against toxic pollution. The agency then proposed to replace these standards with a much weaker mercury cap-and-trade program that failed to reduce mercury emissions from each power plant in the country, achieved weaker reductions at plants required to do something, and would have taken effect well beyond dates mandated in the Clean Air Act.“The court has now told EPA in no uncertain terms to follow the law as it is written. We are looking forward to working on rules that reflect the most stringent controls achievable for this industry, as the Clean Air Act requires,” said Ann Weeks, attorney for Clean Air Task Force who represented U.S. PIRG, Ohio Environmental Council, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Conservation Law Foundation in the case. “That’s what is needed now, if we are ever to alleviate the problem of mercury contamination in fish and wildlife.”Approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants spew 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat. Over 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination, with over half of those mercury advisories applying to all waterbodies in the state.“These two rules represented what was perhaps the biggest sellout to industry in the history of EPA,” said Waterkeeper Alliance Legal Director, Scott Edwards. “It’s a real tragedy that we’ve had to spend two years getting this industry-scripted scheme struck down while energy companies continue to poison our children with mercury.”Power plants also emit tens of thousands of tons of other air toxics, including hydrogen chloride, arsenic and lead.“The technology exists to dramatically reduce toxic mercury pollution, and it is years past time to put that technology to work,” said the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Litigation Director Jon Mueller.“With today’s decision, EPA will now have to get back to the business of protecting people’s health rather than higher profits for electric utilities,” said John Suttles, attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center who represented Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics in the lawsuit.The EPA rules generated controversy from the moment they were proposed in 2004, when it was discovered that industry attorneys – from the law firm from which EPA’s political management hailed – had drafted key language that EPA included verbatim in its proposal to let power plant companies off the hook. EPA’s internal auditor in the Office of Inspector General later discovered that EPA’s senior political management had ordered staff to work backwards from a pre-determined political outcome, “instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing [power plant] units were achieving in practice.”“Today’s ruling should show power plant companies and the EPA once and for all that they may cheat and delay required clean-up obligations, but the law will catch up to them,” said John Walke, attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Electric power plants are America’s worst polluters of mercury, smog, soot and global warming pollution, and their days of reckoning are long overdue.”“The Bush administration cannot ignore its responsibilities to bring power plants’ mercury pollution under control,” said Earthjustice attorney James Pew. “We hope the administration will gain some new respect for the law in its last year and start working to protect Americans from pollution and stop working to shield polluters from their lawful cleanup obligations.”Environmental Defense Works With Banks to Push Power Companies to Cut Carbon Emissions and Invest In Alternative Energy
February 4, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dan Cronin: 202-572-3354, dcronin@environmentaldefense.org(New York – February 4, 2008) Three of the world’s largest financial institutions announced today the formation of The Carbon Principles, climate change related investment guidelines for financial institutions and power companies investing in energy projects in the United States. The Principles commit institutions to take a portfolio approach to energy investments, prioritizing energy efficiency and renewables, and institute a rigorous review process when contemplating investments in coal-fired generation. Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley developed these principles in consultation with Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and several major U.S. electric utilities.
“The days of ‘business as usual’ for coal are over,” said Mark Brownstein, Managing Director of Business Partnerships for Environmental Defense. “Leading utilities and financial institutions recognize this, and these principles are a first step in facilitating an honest assessment of electric generation options in light of the obvious and pressing need to substantially reduce national greenhouse gas pollution.”
Under the Principles, power companies looking to build new coal-fired generation will have to produce specific plans to address the carbon dioxide pollution that would be created by their plants. Company-wide carbon caps and carbon capture and storage are among two of several options that must be considered. Costs of carbon reduction or mitigation are to be reflected in project finance decisions.
“Project developers and their investors can no longer claim that carbon dioxide pollution doesn’t matter,” said Brownstein. “These principles are a first and important step in the transition to a lower carbon economy. Doing anything less than what these principles call for simply wouldn’t be prudent.”
New York State Commission Approves Historic Congestion Pricing Plan to Cut Traffic, Improve Health by Reducing Transportation Emissions
January 31, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Evan Thies, 917 715 9265, Evan@berlinrosen.com
(
“Today’s vote for congestion pricing is a historic opportunity to solve
Even though only five percent of commuters into Manhattan’s central business district (CBD) drive to work, New York City is suffering from some of the worst traffic congestion rates in the country, costing workers and businesses billions a year in lost time and heavily contributing to New York’s nearly worst-in-the-nation air quality. In the face of adding an additional one million residents by 2030, the state charged the commission with developing solutions to protect New Yorkers from this transportation crisis—one in eight of whom are already suffering from asthma.
“
Today’s approved plan included the following elements:
1) A congestion pricing system for New York’s Central Business District (CBD) from 60th street to the southern tip of Manhattan, with a charge in effect only during the peak traffic times (6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday-Friday). The plan will cut traffic in the CBD and outside of the CBD by reducing through traffic destined for the CBD from Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and northern
2) A guarantee that about $500 million in annual revenue will be invested in transit expansion to help cut a $30 billion backlog in capital investment needs for major projects such as a Second Avenue subway line and bus rapid transit service in neighborhoods that lack transit options now.
3) A much simpler, less expensive system than
4) Recommended solutions to key concerns such as:
· A transit “lockbox” that guarantees revenue to new transit expansion
· Short-term transit improvements prior to the program’s start
· Residential parking permits and ongoing monitoring and mitigation efforts to reduce traffic and parking in surrounding neighborhoods
· A sound legal framework for environmental review
· Cutting cameras from 340 down to 25 (93% reduction) and putting strict limits on storing personal information to ensure privacy
· Increased enforcement of existing traffic laws and a crackdown on placards
· Tax relief for low income drivers with no transit alternative (who are fewer than 1% of all commuters to the CBD)
“The best way to keep
Energy Policy Specialist Tells Senate Committee New Technology to Cut Global Warming Pollution Could Work If Properly Regulated
January 31, 2008EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL: 2 p.m. ET, Thursday, January 31, 2008
Contact:
Scott Anderson, Environmental Defense, 512.565.3528-c Media Contact: Chris Smith, Environmental Defense, 512.691.3451-w or 512.659.9264-c or csmith@environmentaldefense.org(WASHINGTON D.C. – January 31, 2008) A promising new technology called carbon capture and storage (CCS) could significantly reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired plants and other industrial processes, but only if properly regulated. That was the conclusion of testimony during a 2 p.m. hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by a Texas-based energy policy specialist.
“We aren’t champions of coal, but we are realists. The fact that we support the development of CCS does not mean that we are coal advocates,” testified Scott Anderson, an energy policy specialist in the Austin, Texas office of Environmental Defense. “To the contrary, we believe that energy efficiency and renewable energy measures are smarter options. However, since the transition away from fossil fuels is likely to take a very long time, we foresee a long-term need to deal with coal-based emissions, and therefore, the sooner we begin to develop CCS technology, the better.”
Anderson was invited to testify specifically about “The Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Study Act of 2007” (S. 2144), which would require a feasibility study of constructing and operating carbon dioxide pipelines and sequestration facilities, and “The Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Act of 2007” (S. 2323), which would establish an interagency task force to develop CCS regulations.
CCS is the process of capturing carbon dioxide from industrial processes, such as those used in coal-fired power plants, and then injecting it into deep geological formations, including deep saline reservoirs and existing oil and gas fields, where it can safely remain for thousands of years. The result would be a significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
“Public acceptance of CCS will happen only if the public is confident that rigorous and credible regulatory oversight is in place,” Anderson said. “We must have an appropriate regulatory framework in place if the marketplace is going to achieve the kind of deep and sustained reductions necessary to avoid the worst consequences of greenhouse gas build-up.”
Environmental Defense considers CCS to be a key way to reduce the climate impact of coal, the world’s most abundant but most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, and accommodating it to a carbon-constrained future.
Duke Should Make Cliffside Carbon Neutral from Day One
January 29, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Jane Preyer, 919-881-2601 or 919-740-6727 (cell)Georgette Shepherd, 919-880-8033 (cell)(Raleigh, NC – January 29, 2008) The North Carolina Division of Air Quality today issued a permit for Duke Energy to build a coal-fired power plant outside of Charlotte. The following statement about the Cliffside facility may be attributed to Jane Preyer, director of the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense:
“This permit sends Duke back to the drawing board to reduce carbon emissions. The days of conventional coal are numbered. Cliffside can be carbon neutral the day it starts producing power. The state should push Duke Energy to aim for that date, not 2018.”
Global warming to bring risks, rewards for business and investors
January 29, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Lisa Wood, FVG LLC, Custom Publishers of BusinessWeek Special Ad Sections, (732) 701-1051; lisawood@fvg.com
Lydia Chapin, Associate Director, Operations, Customer Solutions BusinessWeek, (212) 512-6216; lydia_chapin@businessweek.com
Cynthia Hampton, VP, Marketing and Communications, Environmental Defense, (202) 387-3500(New York, NY – January 29, 2008) BusinessWeek Special Ad Sections and Environmental Defense will explore the implications of global warming for the $6 trillion world energy economy—and for all businesses—in a special advertising section this March. Global Warming: Big Risks, Big Rewards takes an insider’s look at businesses and investors now sizing up the financial risks of climate change and the opportunities to profit from new solutions.
BusinessWeek will publish the special section in its March 17, 2008, Global Edition (on newsstands March 7), reaching 4.9 million readers worldwide.
The special section will focus on topics including: Where is investment poised to flow as limits on carbon dioxide take hold? How will the new carbon markets affect business? What will post-Kyoto climate agreements look like beyond 2012? Which low-carbon energy technologies will market forces pick? And, an interview with Environmental Defense president Fred Krupp will touch on his forthcoming book about the green tech revolution, Earth: The Sequel, to be published in March.
This Global Warming section kicks off Business and the Environment 2008, a series of special ad sections in BusinessWeek on major environmental issues. In a unique partnership, Environmental Defense is providing the content for the series. With offices from Boston to Beijing, Environmental Defense is the leading nonprofit developer of market-based environmental solutions. It played a central role in the $45 billion buyout of TXU and the launch of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of major corporations with $2 trillion in revenue.
The Special Ad Sections group at BusinessWeek specializes in integrating the marketing objectives of its partner companies with the information needs of the BusinessWeek audience through the delivery of custom article content—via print, online and other media. Published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, BusinessWeek is the market leader, providing unparalleled insight and analysis to a worldwide audience of 4.9 million readers each week in 140 countries.
Advertising space may be reserved by contacting Lisa Wood of FVG LLC, Custom Publishers, at (732) 701-1051, lisawood@fvg.com. The deadline for space reservation is February 15, 2008. Exposure includes visibility on www.businessweek.com/adsections with direct links to companies’ websites.
EPA's Voluntary Program for Nanomaterials Still Too Little, Too Late
January 28, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Sharyn Stein, sstein@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3396
Sean Crowley, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3331
(Washington, DC – January 28, 2008) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited voluntary reporting program for engineered nanomaterials will not deliver critically needed information and serves only to postpone key decisions on how best to mitigate nanotechnology’s potential risks to human health and the environment, according to Environmental Defense. The group harshly criticized the EPA’s new Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, which is described in a notice published in today’s Federal Register.
“EPA is simply ‘kicking the can down the road’ by shunning approaches that could have delivered needed information faster, and by opting instead to pursue an open-ended approach with no end in sight,” said Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Senior Scientist.Nanomaterials – measuring in billionths of a meter – are already showing up in hundreds of consumer products, ranging from paints to cosmetics to stain-resistant treatments for clothing. Initial studies show that some of them may be able to enter the body and even individual cells and, once there, cause damage.“While EPA has added a few new specifics to its July 2007 proposal, the lack of clear ground rules governing what information volunteers will be called on to provide means that – even after the initial two-year program runs its course – EPA will still likely have only a partial understanding of what nanomaterials are in production and use, and what is known and unknown about their hazards and the nature of exposures to them,” Denison noted.The United Kingdom launched a similar program 16 months ago, which still has attracted only seven companies to volunteer. The loose design and open-ended timing of the EPA program is likely to yield similarly disappointing participation, resulting in a very selective and skewed picture of the state of nanotechnology.Among the deficiencies Environmental Defense has identified in EPA’s program are:- Despite inclusion of a six-month “target” date by which EPA “encourages” participants to submit already available information, the basic program will actually run for two years before EPA decides what to do next – which EPA indicates may be only a further extension of the voluntary program. Environmental Defense considers six months to be more than ample for submission of already available information, and believes that EPA’s approach serves only to invite delay on the part of potential participants and to put off its determination of the needed next steps.
- EPA also apparently intends to defer any decision as to whether even to initiate development of mandatory reporting rules until the initial program has run its course. Simultaneous development of such rules as a “backstop” for the voluntary program was recommended by EPA’s federal advisory committee more than two years ago.
- For each nanomaterial enrolled in the program, EPA will not require participants to:
- submit all of the information they have for each of the information elements specified by EPA; or
- identify – and justify – cases where they possess requested information but opt not to submit it; or
- indicate where they do not possess the requested information.
- These features invite partial or selective reporting and also mean that EPA will not know the actual extent of information that is either available to companies or not known to them.
- EPA apparently intends to initiate the in-depth program only after reviewing the results of the basic program’s first phase, leading to further delays in developing essential data on nanomaterial hazards and exposures.
- EPA helpfully clarifies that it will not exempt any participant in the voluntary program from having to comply with requirements applicable to producers of engineered nanomaterials under the Toxic Substances Control Act. However, EPA appears to be adopting an unacceptably lax approach to exercising its statutory authorities or enforcing these requirements:
- EPA states that where submitted information provides evidence of risk, EPA “may work with the participant to determine possible actions” it could take.
- If EPA finds that a participant should have but did not comply with requirements to notify EPA prior to manufacture of a new nanomaterial, EPA will merely “inform the participant of that situation.”
“We are deeply disturbed by EPA’s failure to use the full range of authorities available to it to ensure that the rapid development of nanotechnology does not present undue risks to health and the environment,” said Denison.Environmental Defense has been working since 2003 to ensure that the potential risks of nanoscale materials are identified and mitigated. The organization has advocated for more federal funding for health and environmental risk research and is the only U.S. environmental NGO active at the international level in efforts to address nanoscale material risks. For more information, see www.environmentaldefense.org/nano.###Conservation Groups Praise Jindal Executive Order Supporting Wetlands
January 25, 2008Contact:
(January 25, 2008) — National and local environmental advocacy groups united today to praise Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s new executive order for coastal restoration work in the state. The directive requires all official actions to follow the priorities set by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Master Plan.
Eight conservation groups – the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL), Environmental Defense (ED), the Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), the Sierra Club Delta Chapter (Sierra Club), the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (LPBF), Louisiana Wildlife Federation (LWF), National Audubon Society (Audubon), and National Wildlife Federation (NWF) — all praised Jindal, and said the measure will help ensure that efforts to restore Louisiana’s coastal wetlands will not be undermined by state agency actions.
“The Governor’s first official message on restoration and protection means the left hand can no longer claim that it’s not responsible for what the right hand is doing,” said ED Coastal Louisiana Project Manager
“The Executive Order looks like a signal that the new Governor knows the State must really make coastal restoration a top priority,” said Maura Wood, Senior Program Manager at NWF.
Sierra Club Regional Representative Darryl Malek-Wiley says the measure will resonate beyond
Other environmental leaders talked about specific impacts of the new executive order.
“In the past the State Department of Environmental Quality has interpreted its job in reviewing permits narrowly, allowing the Corps of Engineers to grant permits for developers to destroy thousands of acres of vital wetlands,” said Matt Rota, Water Resources Program Director at GRN. “The executive order means permit staff must now think broadly and consider whether granting a permit will reduce flood and hurricane protection or make restoration of the coastal wetlands system more difficult.”
“The new executive order means that the Department of Natural Resources will take a much harder look at new oilfield dredging projects,” said LWF Director Randy Lanctot. “We will know if the executive order is being followed if we start seeing permit requests being denied, or new conditions required like interim wetland stabilization measures and full restoration upon completion of production.”
The groups all offered their support in helping the state resolve the many remaining challenges to coastal restoration.
“With much of Coastal Louisiana under redesign and renovation, the Governor’s requirement that agencies adhere to the goals set forth in the master plan will reinforce the message that a vibrant economic future for Louisiana cannot happen without restoration of the wetlands system,” said Carlton Dufrechou, Executive Director of LPBF.
“We applaud the Governor’s actions in ensuring that permitted coastal activities are consistent with restoration and protection efforts laid out in the State’s Master Plan, said Mark Ford, CRCL Executive Director. “There are still many difficult issues to tackle and we look forward to working with the Governor to resolve them.”
Independent Research by The New York Times Reveals Unsafe Levels of Mercury in Tuna Sushi
January 23, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Katharine Burnham, (202) 415-5742, kburnham@environmentaldefense.org
Tim Fitzgerald, (914)419-8662, tfitzgerald@environmentaldefense.org(New York, NY – January 23, 2008) Tuna with unsafe levels of mercury is on dinner menus at some of New York’s most well known and expensive eateries, according to a report in today’s New York Times. At some restaurants, mercury levels in tuna sushi even exceeded limits set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Environmental Defense described the report as a wake up call that FDA was not protecting consumers from dangerous seafood.
“The FDA is failing the American people when it comes to seafood safety. As illustrated by recent news stories about illegal drug residues in Chinese seafood, FDA inspects less than one percent of imported seafood annually. Far less seafood is ever tested for environmental toxins such as mercury,” said Tim Fitzgerald, marine scientist with Environmental Defense in New York. “The FDA does so little mercury testing that they can’t even come close to enforcing their own safety standards. Unfortunately, the situation is ‘buyer beware’ for U.S. consumers.”
Consumers can learn more about making wise seafood choices at www.EnvironmentalDefense.org/seafood. The website includes a list of contaminated fish based on data compiled from 200 studies by academic and government scientists, as well as recommendations of seafood choices that are healthy for both consumers and the environment.
“The public needs a new way to ensure their seafood is safe,” said Diane Regas, an attorney and Oceans Program managing director at Environmental Defense. “Congress should allow citizens to take action to ensure food is safe. Similar provisions have made a tremendous difference in ensuring enforcement of environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act. They could do the same to ensure food safety.” “FDA also needs to update its science,” continued Fitzgerald. “Their ‘action level’ for mercury is based on 35-year-old science. Even if FDA were equipped to enforce its current action level, consumers would still not be protected based on today’s knowledge.” In an effort that should be duplicated by the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established considerably tougher limits on mercury for fish caught by recreational and subsistence fishermen in state waters. A report from the National Academies of Science in 2000 called EPA’s limits “scientifically justifiable level for the protection of public health.”
“The bottom line is that current federal oversight for mercury falls far short of what’s needed to protect consumers,” said Fitzgerald. “Until FDA both updates its mercury action level and that limit is enforced, consumers who think they are eating a healthy seafood diet may actually be causing themselves serious harm.”
Environmentalists Challenge State's Weak Adherence to Clean Air Act's Permitting Program
January 17, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Jim Marston, Environmental Defense, 512.478.5161 or 512.289.5293;
Ilan Levin, Environmental Integrity Project, 512.619.7287;
Timothy Ballo, Earthjustice, 202. 667.4500;
Neil Carman, Sierra Club, 512.288.5772 or 512.477.1729
Media Contact:
Chris Smith, Environmental Defense, 512.691.3451-w or 512.659.9264-c or csmith@environmentaldefense.org
(Austin – January 17, 2008) The state of Texas violates the Clean Air Act and its own State Implementation Plan through repeated weak permitting decisions concerning new coal plants and other large polluting facilities, according to a petition filed today with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Earthjustice and Environmental Integrity Project filed the petition on behalf of Environmental Defense and Sierra Club, citing seven ways that Texas routinely administers the Clean Air Act illegally.“The state fails to comply with legal requirements intended to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, when other states are doing their fair share,” said Jim Marston, attorney with Environmental Defense. “Federal law doesn’t allow Texas to be the lone ranger and ignore the law.”The petitioners request that the EPA use its authority to impose one or more of the following sanctions: prohibit construction of new stationary sources, such as large power plants or refineries; withhold highways funds; or implement reduction of offsets from other pollution sources in the state.“Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s air program has been acting illegally by issuing permits for new coal plants that allow unsafe levels of pollution,” said Neil Carman with the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter. “The state’s permits are effectively sabotaging efforts to reduce smog-forming pollution.”“In Texas, we’ve got a state environmental agency more interested in serving industry than in enforcing our pollution laws,” said Environmental Integrity Project senior attorney Ilan Levin, representing Sierra Club, “This is a state renowned for lax environmental enforcement, issuing weak permits, and basically thumbing its nose at federal law, so we’re asking EPA to do its job.”“Texas has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not the profits of these polluters,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Ballo. “Where this state has failed to follow the law, we now turn to the EPA to do the right thing and limit air pollution for all Texans.”# # #
For information on petitioner organizations, please visit:
www.environmentaldefense.org
www.earthjustice.org
www.environmentalintegrity.org
www.sierraclub.orgStakeholders Applaud Measure in FY 2008 Appropriations Act Calling on the National Academy of Sciences to Develop Nanotechnology EHS Research "Roadmap"
January 16, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Julie Huddleston, jhuddleston@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3369
Michelle Reardon, Michelle.S.Reardon@usa.dupont.com, 302-774-7447(Washington, DC – January 16, 2008) A diverse group of nanotechnology stakeholders (see list below) , including non-governmental organizations, large and small companies and research organizations, applaud the inclusion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 of a measure that will aid in the development and implementation of a comprehensive federal nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research strategy.
The legislation, signed by President Bush on December 26, 2007, expresses Congress’ intent that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract with the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST) to “develop and monitor implementation of a comprehensive, prioritized research roadmap for all Federal agencies on environmental, health and safety issues for nanotechnology.” Under the provision included in the legislation, Congress urges EPA “to contract or enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences’ Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology within 90 days of enactment” (by March 21, 2008) to develop and monitor implementation of the research strategy.
The diverse group that urged the Congressional measure is mindful of the significant efforts of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, but strongly believes that a comprehensive, independently developed research roadmap is urgently needed to identify the federal resources required to address the EHS implications of nanotechnology.
BEST’s groundbreaking work in devising and overseeing EPA’s research on the health effects of airborne particulate matter serves as a useful model for the work BEST is expected to undertake for nanotechnology EHS research. We anticipate that BEST will build upon its experience while taking into account ongoing related efforts, to develop and oversee execution of an integrated strategy to guide federal EHS research needed to support the safe development and use of engineered nanoscale materials and technologies.
Group members include:
Altair Nanotechnologies Inc.
Lux Research, Inc.
American Chemistry Council
NanoBusiness Alliance
Arkema, Inc.
Natural Resources Defense Council
BASF Corporation
Oxonica
Bayer
PPG Industries, Inc.
DuPont
Sasol North America
Elementis Specialties, Inc.
The Dow Chemical Company
Environmental Defense
Unidym (formerly Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc.)
Evonik (formerly Degussa)
Union of Concerned Scientists
Foresight Nanotech InstituteNational Commission Report Proves Federal Transportation Program is Broke, Former Federal Highway Administration Consultant Says
January 15, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Michael Replogle, 301-529-0351-c, mreplogle@ed.orgSean Crowley, 202-550-6524-c, scrowley@ed.org(Washington, DC – January 15, 2008) The report issued today by the National Surface Policy and Revenue Study Commission (see http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report) provides valuable ideas for improving America’s surface transportation system, according to a leading group in promoting more environmentally-friendly transportation policies. The group, Environmental Defense, said it would be a mistake for Congress to boost gasoline taxes and other revenues for transportation investment without first adopting significant reforms to ensure sound transportation spending.“America’s transportation system is broke and broken,” said Environmental Defense transportation director Michael Replogle, a former consultant to the Federal Highway Administration. “The impending bankruptcy of the federal Highway Trust Fund should not be addressed in isolation, but together with policies ensuring transportation spending contributes to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, as well as improved mobility and travel choices.”“New revenues from gas tax increases, tolls, or public private partnerships won’t solve transportation problems unless it’s clear what the goals are and unless the revenue measures, projects, and policies are designed to address them,” Replogle concluded. “We are pleased that the Commission’s report calls for more attention to performance and accountability for transportation investment – whether it comes from public or private sources.”###Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. www.environmentaldefense.orgNew Analysis Shows Death, Disease Toll from Overdue EPA Emissions Standards for Diesel Trains and Ships
January 15, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts:
Janea Scott, 213-386-5501 ext 102, jscott@environmentaldefense.org
Sean Crowley, 202-572-3331, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Washington, DC – January 15, 2008) A new technical analysis shows that even a one year delay by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in implementing overdue emission standards for diesel trains and ships will allow serious health effects to go unaddressed over the course of EPA’s program. The adverse health consequences include: 1400 premature deaths, 3000 heart attacks, and 24,000 asthma attacks. The technical analysis by the national nonprofit group Environmental Defense is based on EPA’s own data and methodologies, and is summarized in a one page fact sheet.
In 2004, EPA announced plans to put in place new standards for the nation’s fleet of diesel locomotives and ships by mid-2006, but missed the deadline. In March 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson issued draft federal standards that would reduce particulate pollution and smog-forming nitrogen oxides from each engine by 80 percent or greater when fully phased in. Collectively, this pollution reduction is equivalent to taking three-quarters of a million diesel trucks off the road each year. At the time the draft standards were released, Administrator Johnson said the agency would “finalize [the proposed rule] by the end of the year [i.e., 2007],” but EPA has now missed this deadline.
“EPA’s delay in adopting clean air standards for diesel trains and ships has serious human health consequences in the real world and will allow thousands of deaths, heart attacks and asthma attacks to go unaddressed,” said Environmental Defense staff attorney Janea Scott. “We urge EPA to fulfill its commitments to the American people by immediately adopting protective clean air standards for high-polluting diesel trains and ships.”
Most of the ships and trains in the U.S. today are powered by diesel engines. Diesel trains and ships, such as ferries and tugboats, are major sources of air pollution. Diesel exhaust contains toxic chemicals that together with diesel particulate matter pose a cancer risk greater than that of any other air pollutant. Each year, diesel locomotives and commercial ships together emit nearly two million tons of smog-forming oxides of nitrogen. Both are major sources of lethal particulate pollution.
Corporate Fleets Reducing Costs and Emissions with PHH GreenFleet
January 14, 2008News Release from PHH Arval and Environmental Defense
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Pilar Page, PHH Arval, (410) 771-2733, pilar.page@phh.com
Julie Huddleston, Environmental Defense, (202) 572-3369, jhuddleston@environmentaldefense.org(Sparks, MD – January 14, 2008) Fleets utilizing PHH GreenFleetSM have achieved significant reductions in their emissions while reducing lifecycle operating costs. This innovative program, developed by PHH Arval and Environmental Defense, helps fleet managers measure and reduce emissions by selecting more efficient vehicles, upgrading vehicle maintenance programs and providing green driving training to employees. With climate change now a leading global concern, many fleet managers are helping their companies identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is good for the environment and good for business.
PHH GreenFleet is North America’s first comprehensive greenhouse gas management program for fleet vehicles, and fleets of all sizes are benefiting from their participation. To date, more than 60,000 vehicles managed by PHH Arval have utilized the program’s tools. Fleets that have fully implemented the program have reduced their emissions on average by 14% and lifecycle operating costs by 4%. Among the success stories are:
- Abbott [NYSE: ABT]: The first company to partner with PHH Arval on PHH GreenFleet, Abbott has furthered its commitment to the environment by announcing that it will make its entire U.S. fleet “carbon neutral” in 2008. The company is now offering hybrid vehicles to its sales force and encouraging drivers to choose more environmentally friendly vehicles by offering upgrade incentives such as satellite radios and sunroofs. Abbott also made drivers aware of the environmental impacts of their choices. As a result, nearly 20% of drivers chose more fuel-efficient vehicles, decreasing projected per vehicle operating costs.
- Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation [NASDAQ: IPCC]: Infinity reduced annual fleet operating costs by 10%, improved fuel economy by 25% and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 16% by replacing its fleet of approximately 400 sport utility vehicles with the more fuel efficient Jeep Compass. In addition, Infinity purchased greenhouse gas offsets for the remaining emissions and made its entire fleet “climate neutral.”
- The Co-operators Group Ltd: The Co-operators set a fuel economy standard for all of its fleet vehicles without limiting the options available to their teams. Even with the new fuel economy standard, company car drivers continue to have a choice of several vehicles, including a new hybrid option. Executives can select any vehicle below a specified capital cost – as long as it meets the fuel economy standard. After rolling out PHH GreenFleet to its entire fleet, The Co-Operators expect to improve fuel economy by over 20% and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without increasing fleet costs.
“Environmental performance is an important metric for our clients today. PHH is proud of our record as the leader on the environmental management of fleets,” said George Kilroy, PHH Arval President and Chief Executive Officer. “What is most rewarding is our ability to help our clients meet their environmental goals while reducing their fleet costs.”
“The many successes of PHH GreenFleet demonstrate that managing fleet greenhouse gas emissions makes good business sense, too,” said Environmental Defense Project Manager Tom Murray. “We encourage all fleet managers to follow this cost-effective and systematic approach to continuously measure and reduce fleet emissions and operating costs.”
###
About Environmental Defense
A leading national nonprofit organization, Environmental Defense represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense 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.environmentaldefense.org.About PHH Arval
PHH Arval, a subsidiary of PHH Corporation [NYSE: PHH], is a leading fleet management services provider in the United States and Canada. PHH Arval provides outsourced fleet management solutions to corporate clients, including nearly one-third of the Fortune 500 companies. Through consultative expertise, flexible customer service, and award-winning Internet technology, PHH Arval helps clients reduce costs and increase productivity. For more information, visit www.phharval.com, or call 800 ONLY PHH.