Complete list of press releases
EPA Rejection of California Clean Cars Standards Threatens Public Health
January 10, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
To arrange interviews with Environmental Defense staff, please contact:Environmental Defense Media:Jesus Mena, 415-948-4220, jemena@ed.orgJennifer Witherspoon, 415-378-1985, jwitherspoon@ed.org
(Los Angeles – January 10, 2008) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recent refusal to allow California to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, the largest single source of global warming pollution in California, has adverse consequences for the health of California’s urban residents, especially children and the elderly. That’s the conclusion of an assessment of major studies that have examined the implications of global warming for urban smog. The analysis was released on the same day that Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) holds a hearing in smog-plagued Los Angeles examining the EPA’s decision.
The assessment of independent studies shows that global warming is predicted to substantially increase ozone in urban areas. Ninety percent of California residents live in areas that violate the state air quality standard for either ground-level ozone or particulate matter.
Ozone is a strong oxidizing gas that chemically burns the cells lining the respiratory tract. Exposure to ozone can cause shortness of breath, wheezing, coughing, and lung inflammation. Researchers have documented increases in hospital admissions, asthma development and even premature mortality associated with exposure to ozone.
The studies reviewed by Environmental Defense were published in the well-regarded medical journals including: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lancet, and the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The review also included studies conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Climate Change Center and EPA.
Particularly compelling were the projected health impacts on children, the elderly and those with lower income if the no action is taken to curb heat-trapping gases.
Children are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of ozone pollution. Active children in Southern California communities with high ozone levels are more likely to develop asthma. Long-term exposure to ground-level ozone is also associated with decreased lung development in California college students. Recently, the California Children’s Health Study analyzed the relationship between lung function in 1,700 children and their community’s air pollution over a four year period. Decreases in lung function were observed in children who reported spending more time outdoors.
“We have a responsibility to ensure that the health of our citizens is protected from global warming and urban smog,” said Janea Scott, an Environmental Defense attorney in Los Angeles. “Los Angeles residents suffer from some of the worst air pollution in the country, so it is common sense that we use all available solutions to protect human health from automobile emissions.”
The heat spells anticipated if greenhouse gas pollution continues unabated will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke, exhaustion, heart attack, stroke and respiratory distress. Extreme heat events in urban centers such as Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Bernardino could increase heat-related deaths by two to three times over current levels. Low socioeconomic status confers an additional burden because it restricts access to air conditioning and medical assistance.
During the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the EPA decision today in Los Angeles, Environmental Defense staff will be on hand to answer questions or to comment on the health threats from global warming as well as legal challenges to the EPA’s decision. The hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time in the Los Angeles City Hall, City Council Chamber, Room 303, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Environmental Defense and four other conservation groups are challenging the EPA’s decision in federal court. The petitioners - the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club - filed the suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The State of California also filed its own legal challenge to EPA’s decision in the same court.
###
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.org
Please go to our website ( http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=15503 ) for more detailed background.
Environmental Defense Hires Elena Craft
January 9, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Chris Smith, Environmental Defense, 512.691.3451-w or 512.659.9264-c csmith@environmentaldefense.org(Houston – January 9, 2008) Elena Craft, Ph.D., has joined Environmental Defense as Air Quality Specialist for the greater Houston area.Craft will formulate and implement outreach strategies to promote adoption of air pollution reduction measures seeking support from local government, civic, business and other influential groups, especially with regard to diesel vehicles and equipment, and industrial air toxic emissions. She will also work with Environmental Defense staff in Austin and other offices to design regulatory, voluntary, legislative, contractual or technical solutions to air quality challenges.Previous roles include scientific consulting and research related to human health risk assessment. Craft’s research using a variety of molecular biological techniques has been published in peer-reviewed publications and presented at professional scientific symposia.Craft earned her doctorate in toxicology from Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth and Ocean Sciences and received the Karen Wetterhahn memorial award for research in metals from the Superfund Basic Research Program in 2002, as well as a Young Scientist Award at the Fifth International Meeting on Metallothionein in Beijing, China in 2005.# # #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.orgEnvironmental Defense Appeals Intercounty Connector Ruling
January 7, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense, 202.550.6524, scrowley@ed.org
(Richmond, VA – January 7, 2008) Environmental Defense today filed an appeal of a federal judge’s ruling in favor of government agencies that approved the proposed Intercounty Connector. The Audubon Naturalist Society has decided not to file an additional appeal of the issues it had raised in the case, choosing to support the claims based on the state’s failure to prevent the serious air quality and human health threats raised in the appeal by Environmental Defense, and a separate appeal by Sierra Club based on the National Environmental Policy Act.
The appeal seeks review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of the November 8 ruling by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division. It maintains that agencies violated the Clean Air Act and other federal laws when they approved the ICC. The Washington, DC-Maryland-Virginia area already violates the Environmental Protection Agency’s air pollution standard for tiny particulate matter (2.5 millionths of a meter or less in diameter), a dangerous pollutant that is associated with heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, asthma attacks, reduced lung function, bronchitis, and premature death. The region also violates the federal standard for ground-level ozone, a major component of smog.
“The court’s ruling falls woefully short of the bar and fails to address the serious health threat of air pollution generated by traffic on the ICC and other roads,” said Michael Replogle, a civil engineer, transportation director for Environmental Defense, and a former consultant for the Federal Highway Administration. “The court’s ruling gave unwarranted deference to government agencies to ignore what the law requires.”
Environmental Defense maintains that ICC approvals violated federal law because the agencies based their assessment of compliance with air quality standards on measurements made well beyond the zone of impact where highway emissions would violate the national standards. Appellants also will argue that the court unlawfully allowed the agencies to ignore the public health impacts of air pollution within the zone where highway emissions have been shown to impair lung development among children, and exacerbate the serious danger to health from asthma and heart attacks.
The ICC is a proposed six-lane, 19-mile toll highway connecting I-95 and US-1 in Prince George’s County with I-270/I-370 at Shady Grove in Montgomery County. The agency approvals assumed that monitors located more than 1.5 miles from major highways could represent the pollution levels experienced by neighborhoods, schools, and parks in close proximity to major highways such as I-95, I-270, and I-370.
“In his written opinion, the judge admitted that our arguments that air pollution monitors miles away from I-95 did not fairly represent pollution next to the road had ‘resonated with the court,’ but then proceeded to give deference to the agencies to disregard these serious problems,” concluded Replogle. “The flaws in this legal opinion leave us with no alternative but to appeal this decision in the hope that the higher court will more effectively consider clear Clean Air Act requirements that would better protect the health of the thousands of people living close to the proposed ICC and I-95.”
Environmentalists Sue to Challenge EPA Ruling on Clean Cars
January 2, 2008FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Tony Kreindler, 202-572-3378, tkreindler@edf.org
Jesus Mena, 415-293-6097, jemena@edf.org
Jennifer Witherspoon, 415-293-6067, jwitherspoon@edf.org(San Francisco, CA – January 2, 2008) Five nonprofit groups today filed a lawsuit challenging the December 19th decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny California its request to implement its landmark law limiting global warming pollution from new automobiles. The petitioners - the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) and the Sierra Club - filed the suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The State of California today also filed its own legal challenge to EPA’s decision in the same court. It is expected that 15 states will immediately file a motion to intervene in support of California.
“While global warming marches onward, EPA continues to drag its feet,” said Jim Tripp, general counsel of Environmental Defense. “The agency’s decision defies the law, the science and the will of states representing nearly half of the U.S. population.”
At stake are historic California standards to lower global warming pollution from passenger cars and trucks. The California standards are scheduled to take effect in model year 2009 and secure a 30 percent fleet wide reduction by 2016. The state program would be the first binding program in the nation to strictly limit global warming pollution.
Until now, EPA has consistently granted more than 50 such requests from California over the past 40 years for waivers under the Clean Air Act. The federal law broadly guarantees California’s right to adopt its own motor vehicle emission standards so long as they are more protective than the federal emission standards. There are no federal greenhouse gas emission standards in place for any pollution source.
Sixteen other states have adopted or have committed to adopt the California standards including: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. Collectively, California and the other states account for nearly one-half of the U.S. population and about 45% of all new vehicle sales nationwide.
“The Administrator’s denial of California’s request relies on a flawed argument that the federal courts already have rejected,” added Tripp. “We’ve won before in the federal courts, so we expect to win again this time too.”
“California has long played a pioneering role in clean air efforts,” said Karen Douglas, director of the California Climate Initiative of Environmental Defense. “We can and must reduce global warming pollution from automobiles.”
California’s binding statewide cap on global warming pollution calls for cutting pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 as called for in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The cap will drive further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles between 2016 and 2020, so several phases of reductions, advancing new generation of technologies, will be implemented in California.
One-Year Review Shows Major Success of Catch Share Program as Model for Recovering Fisheries
December 27, 2007For Immediate ReleaseFor more information contact:Katharine Burnham, 202-415-5742Pam Baker, 361-510-5743
(Washington, DC – December 27, 2007) One year after an innovative management system was applied to the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, preliminary data shows that wasteful discards are down by at least 50 percent, the fishing season has tripled, and the value of the fish at market has increased.“The rules we worked under for a decade weren’t working,” according to Captain Donny Waters, a 20-year veteran of the red snapper fishery. “Long season closures coupled with size restrictions and daily catch limits were intended to save fish, but instead they forced fishermen to discard huge numbers of dead fish. The ‘race-for-fish’ cut my profits, put my life at risk and wasted so many fish that we couldn’t rebuild the stock.”These changes have come from the implementation of a catch share program called an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system. Regulators allocate a portion of the catch to each fisherman as a secure fishing privilege. Fishermen then have the flexibility to buy and sell shares with other boats, and catch their allotment any time during the year when weather and market conditions are right. In turn, they comply with strict high-tech, real-time accountability requirements that closely track fish and fishing activities.“This is an impressive victory for the Gulf fishermen who worked to build support for the catch share system. The success of this program proves that when fishermen have an economic stake in the health of a fishery, big improvements are possible,” said David Festa, Oceans Program Director for Environmental Defense.With implementation of an IFQ system, the red snapper fishing season transitioned from a 10- day–per-month fishing season to unrestricted days at sea. This flexibility now allows fishermen to catch and sell red snapper throughout the year, resulting in safer and more sustainable fishing practices, a stabilized market, and a higher price for the commodity.In addition, a size limit was lowered to reduce the waste of fish. By decreasing the size from 15 inches to 13 inches, fishermen can now keep and sell fish that they, under the old system, would have thrown back into the ocean dying or dead. The practice of discarding unwanted fish is a major contributor to the overfishing problem in the U.S. and around the world. A reduction in discards was shown in a recent report by Environmental Defense to be a constant where catch shares systems are adopted.“Before IFQs, regulations forced us to throw away huge numbers of fish that were smaller than the limit or caught out of season,” said Waters. “Now I can harvest and account for the fish I catch while getting record prices.”The red snapper catch share program is the first such program enacted for a major fishery in the United States since Congress put new rules in place to end overfishing. The success of the program bodes well for similar programs proposed in New England, the Gulf, and the West Coast.“The positive change in the health of the red snapper fishery over the past year should be welcomed by other fishermen and regulators currently reviewing whether a catch share system is right for additional troubled species,” said Festa.In addition to the environmental successes of the red snapper catch share, consumers also benefit from the new system. Now that boats are delivering a constant supply of product, consumers can buy healthy, local, fresh seafood year round.Ed note: To arrange an interview with participating fishermen please call contacts above.###
Environmental Defense, a leading national 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.orgGovernor Kaine's New Climate Commission Shows Growing National Momentum for Fighting Climate Change
December 21, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dan Cronin: 202-572-3354, dcronin@environmentaldefense.org(Washington – December 21, 2007) Virginia Governor Tim Kaine joined a growing list of governors from both parties who are taking steps to deal with climate change by announcing the creation of a Climate Change Commission today.By establishing the Commission, Governor Kaine is fulfilling one of the recommendations of the Virginia Energy Plan, which was completed in September of this year and sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change by 30 percent by 2025, bringing emissions back to the 2002 levels. This goal will be partially achieved by energy conservation and renewable energy actions identified in the Energy Plan. The Commission on Climate Change will study other emission reduction measures and formulate a plan to fully achieve this goal.“Governor Kaine is giving everyone who cares about our environment an early Christmas present,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense. “He is showing real leadership by making Virginia a leader in the fight against climate change. Now we need Congress to show the same kind of leadership and pass Senator Warner’s Climate Security Act.”The bipartisan Climate Security Act (S. 2191) would reduce global warming pollution by roughly 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 for covered sources, and around 70% by 2050. The bill would achieve these goals by using a market-driven cap and trade system that puts a shrinking cap on carbon emissions while giving companies the flexibility to decide when, where, and how to reduce emissions. Two weeks ago, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed this legislation and the full Senate is expected to consider it next year.“Climate change does not stop at the Virginia border, so we need national action and Congressional leadership if we are going to fight climate change,” concluded Cochran. “Governor Kaine has shown the kind of bipartisan leadership we need to solve this problem; hopefully Congress will follow his example next year.”###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.orgCap and Trade Climate Bill Set for Introduction in House in Early 2008
December 20, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Tony Kreindler 202-572-3378 (office) or 202-210-5791 (cell)
(Washington – December 20, 2007) Environmental Defense today welcomed an announcement by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell that he plans to introduce legislation early next year to put a cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
“The stage is set for 2008. With a bill moving forward in the Senate and a renewed commitment in the House, Congress can pass a bill that finally begins to solve the climate change problem,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense.
Dingell today said he plans to introduce a cap and trade bill that will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 60 to 80 percent below current levels by 2050, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said passage of comprehensive climate legislation will be a priority. The chairman said he would be “moving forward in the early part of next session” with the bill.
The Senate is expected to vote next year on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, a cap and trade bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee in early December. That bill would cut emissions roughly 70 percent below current levels by 2050.
“We’re very encouraged that Congress will be moving quickly in the new year. There’s no time for delay,” Cochran said.
###
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.org
Texas CFL Campaign Gets Boost from Energy Bill
December 19, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Ramon Alvarez, Environmental Defense, 512.691.3408-w
or 512.788.2246-c
Media Contact: Chris Smith, Environmental Defense, 512.691.3451-w or 512.659.9264-c(Austin – December 19, 2007) President Bush’s signing of the energy bill today provides further support for the “Lighten Up Texas” campaign launched Nov. 30 by seven big-city Texas mayors encouraging Texans to buy compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).The following statement can be attributed to Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D., scientist in the Texas office of Environmental Defense:“The energy bill provision related to the phasing out of standard, incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient light bulbs is a big step. The writing’s on the wall – incandescent bulbs will soon be a thing of the past. Texans can speed the transition by buying CFLs as stocking stuffers or as part of their 2008 New Year’s resolutions. In addition to reduced utility bills, if every Texas household replaced just one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a CFL, the global warming pollution reduced would be the same as removing 55,000 cars from the road – a string of cars that, end-to-end, would stretch roughly from Austin to Houston.”# # #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.orgEPA Denies States the Right to Fight Global Warming
December 19, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASETo arrange interviews with Environmental Defense staff, please contact:Environmental Defense Media:Tony Kreindler, 202-210-5791, tkreindler@ed.org;Jesus Mena, 415-293-6097, jemena@ed.orgJennifer Witherspoon, 415-293-6067, jwitherspoon@ed.orgThe following Environmental Defense experts are available for comment:Fred Krupp, PresidentVickie Patton, Deputy General CounselJim Marston, Senior AttorneyJim Tripp, General Counsel(Washington DC – December 19, 2007). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stunned the nation today by denying California and 17 other states the right to proceed with regulations that would reduce global warming pollution from new automobiles.“EPA is not following science or the law,” said Jim Tripp, general counsel for Environmental Defense.“This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense “For 40 years, EPA administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new standards to fight pollution.”The Supreme Court ruled decisively in April 2007 that EPA does have the authority and the obligation to regulate global warming emissions. Two other federal courts – the 2nd district court in Vermont in September and the 9th district court in California earlier this month – also enforced states’ rights to proceed with clean car rules. The federal courts also dismissed automakers’ claims that they did not have the technology to meet such standards.EPA denied California’s waiver, saying that new CAFE standards in the recently authorized energy bill would suffice to reduce global warming emissions from new automobiles.“The administration is putting the brakes on state action to address the global warming crisis,” said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for Environmental Defense and a former attorney in the EPA’s General Counsel’s office. “The Administration’s first bold act on global warming – and it’s to stop the states who are trying to do something about the problem. It is just plain shocking.”“New CAFE standards, if they go into effect, do not fully phase in until 2020,” said Jim Marston, general counsel for Environmental Defense. “The California greenhouse gas limits will occur earlier - beginning in 2009 and fully phased in by 2016. With the mounting evidence of climate change impacts occurring now, it is imperative that we are take action immediately.”Nationwide 17 states have awaited a decision by EPA to move forward with clean car standards modeled after California’s including: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. California and these states account for nearly 50% of the total U.S. population and account for approximately 45% of new automobile sales in the country. Implementation of the Clean Cars program in these states would lead to groundbreaking reductions in global warming pollution. By 2020, the program would prevent annual emissions equivalent to 100 million tons of carbon dioxide, a principal heat-trapping greenhouse gas. These savings would be equivalent to closing over thirty 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants or removing 20 million cars from the road.Background information:In 2003, California used its special authority under the Clean Air Act to pass legislation requiring the state’s air agency, the California Air Resources Board, to issue regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars. The Clean Cars law, also known as the Pavley law, will reduce carbon emissions by 22 percent by 2012 and by 30 percent by 2016.On December 21, 2005, California submitted a request for the EPA to waive the Clean Air Act’s preemption bar to cleaner car standards – an action EPA has consistently taken more than 50 times during the past 40 years. EPA initially argued that it did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act until the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA found otherwise.The Pavley/Clean Cars standards were developed over four years (Legislation: 2002, Regulation: 2003, 2004, Administrative law review: 2005) with careful and measured technical review and public input. In contrast, the waiver denial seems to have been developed during the course of a couple of weeks, once the White House directed EPA to deny the waiver. The decision doesn’t appear to have any connection to the testimony and public comment received, in which EPA received a record-setting number of comments, and heard from some of the world’s leading scientists, engineers, government officials and even former EPA administrators. Only the auto industry opposed granting the waiver.The State of California, under the auspices of Governor Schwarzenegger and the Attorney General’s office, filed a lawsuit against the federal EPA to force a decision on the state’s waiver request to implement its clean cars law, AB 1493. Please go to our website (http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=15503) for more detailed background.###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.orgDelta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force Praised by Steering Committee Member
December 18, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Laura Harnish, 510-290-5794 (cell) lharnish@environmentaldefense.orgSpreck Rosekrans, 415-293-6050 or 510-393 4593 (cell) srosekrans@environmentaldefense.org
Jesus Mena, 415-293-6097 or 415-948-4220 (cell) jemena@environmentaldefense.org
(San Francisco – December 17, 2007) Governor Schwarzenegger’s Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force has taken a giant step forward today by highlighting both the estuary’s immediate and long-term priorities and the need to establish an independent governance structure to manage the state’s water supplies while protecting the Delta itself. That’s the conclusion of a leading environmental group that is a member of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan steering committee, which is developing a long term plan in 2008 to protect and restore the Delta ecosystem while providing reliable water supply to California’s farms and cities.“We applaud the Task Force’s work, especially for acknowledging the irrefutable fact that water diversions are a major cause of the environmental collapse in the Delta and the recommendation that a revitalized Delta ecosystem will require a reduction in diversions,” said Laura Harnish, Deputy Regional Director for Environmental Defense. “It will be essential to create a governance structure that integrates water supply decisions with the requirements of the Delta ecosystem. We look forward to working with the Task Force as it develops its implementation plan.”Harnish said the most difficult task will be developing a comprehensive and fiscally responsible finance plan that protects public resources, while ensuring that stakeholders pay for the water supply benefits they receive. The next step for the Task Force is to develop an implementation plan, due to be completed in October 2008, which is expected to contain detailed recommendations for both governance and finance.The Delta is the largest estuary on the west coast and is home to more than 750 animal and plant species, including some that are listed for protection under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. As much as 15% of California’s total municipal and agricultural water supply passes through the Delta. The Delta’s environment and communities, as well as the state’s water supply system, are threatened by the Delta’s notoriously weak levee system. The Task Force report lays out 12 “integrated and linked recommendations” and seven “near-term actions” as part of a restoration plan that may take a decade or more to complete.“The Task Force has identified near-term actions that are broadly supported and urgently needed,” said Spreck Rosekrans, senior analyst for Environmental Defense. “These critical actions include repairing our most vulnerable levees to prevent a New Orleans-type catastrophe in the Delta and restoring habitat for fish, including endangered species, and wildlife.“The longer term recommendations related to conveyance alternatives and additional storage will require serious study,” continued Rosekrans. “At this point, we know neither who would benefit from and pay for the proposed projects, nor how their operating guidelines would ensure that the environment would be protected from further harm. Discussing these essential parameters within a stakeholder forum is far preferable to making a commitment to build the projects through a bond proposal and arguing about the parameters later.”###Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 supporters. 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.orgEnvironmental Defense Applauds Passage of Energy Bill
December 18, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Tony Kreindler 202-572-3378 (office) or 202-210-5791 (cell)
(Washington – December 18, 2007) Environmental Defense today applauded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the passage of legislation that will promote fuel efficiency and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.“Speaker Pelosi has helped move America toward a cleaner energy future,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense.The speaker has said the energy bill will lay the groundwork for the Congress to move forward next year with comprehensive action on global warming. “We look forward to working with her in 2008 to put a cap on global warming pollution, the next big step on the road to solving climate change,” Cochran said.###
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.orgSenate Blasted for Squandering Farm Policy Reform Opportunities by Leading Environmental Group
December 14, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, D.C. – December 14, 2007) – The U.S. Senate today squandered a golden opportunity to reform U.S. farm policy, cut excessive subsidies, and strengthen vital programs to help farmers clean up the environment and improve public health, a leading environmental group said today.The Senate passed the 2007 farm bill today after Senate leadership effectively thwarted the will of a majority of lawmakers who supported two important reform amendments on payment limits and a reasonable means test by requiring them to meet a 60-vote supermajority.“We are extremely disappointed that Senate leaders threw away this historic opportunity,” said Sara Hopper of Environmental Defense. “A clear majority of senators voted in favor of common-sense reforms, but the deck was stacked against them because the Senate leadership decided to require sixty votes for passage of reform amendments, rather than the usual simple majority.”Fifty-six senators voted in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to cap total annual farm payments to any individual or married couple at $250,000 per year. The measure would have provided savings of $513 million over five years that would have been used to increase funding for conservation, nutrition, rural development, and other important programs.A majority of senators also voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that would have imposed a reasonable means test on recipients of farm subsidies. The Klobuchar amendment would have barred any household with an adjusted gross income of $750,000 or more from receiving subsidies. The vote in favor of this amendment was 48-47. Sixty votes were needed for passage for both amendments.“Because Senate leaders required a supermajority for reform amendments, the farm bill passed by the Senate will continue to allow millionaires to collect unlimited farm subsidies while leaving conservation programs and other critical programs underfunded,” said Hopper. “This is bad policy under any circumstances, but makes even less sense in a year when prices are high and net farm income is breaking records.”The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that net farm income this year will be a record-high $87.5 billion. (Check USDA web site) The Congressional Budget Office, USDA, and other economists all predict that prices will remain high throughout the five-year life of the 2007 farm bill. Despite strong market conditions, the Senate farm bill fails to include any hard cap on the total amount of subsidies an individual or married couple can receive. The bill also allows farmers to collect subsidies no matter how wealthy they are, as long as at least two-thirds of their income is derived from farming.Instead of reducing farm subsidies, the Senate farm bill actually increases them by hiking support levels for some crops, adding new crops to the subsidy roll, and creating a new $5.1 billion “permanent disaster program.” That program will provide higher support levels for farmers who are growing crops on marginal lands, wasting taxpayer dollars and harming the environment.The Senate bill does increase funding for some conservation programs, but the additional funding is insufficient to meet the demand from the two-out-of-three farmers who are currently rejected from conservation programs due to lack of funding.“The farm bill will soon be in the hands of a House-Senate conference committee,” said Hopper. “The votes on payment limits and a reasonable means test show that a bipartisan majority of senators back real reform and a better, fairer farm bill. That’s something the farm bill conferees should take into account. The president has threatened to veto both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill; if Congress wants to avoid a train wreck, the conference committee members must support simple, common-sense reforms that will benefit farmers, taxpayers and the environment.”
New Study Links Rapid Wild Salmon Decline In Canada to Farmed Salmon Parasites
December 13, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Katharine Burnham 202-415-5742
(December 13, 2007) A study published today in the journal Science shows that parasitic sea lice infestations caused by salmon farms in British Columbia led to rapid declines in populations of wild pink salmon over four years, driving affected wild populations towards extinction.Here in the United States, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) proposed National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 is intended to greatly expand fish farming in U.S. ocean waters. Introduced to both the House of Representatives (H.R. 2010) and Senate (S. 1609), this legislation would create a new permit system for fish farms in offshore marine waters managed by the federal government, usually three to 200 miles from shore.“At the same time as Canadian scientists are documenting alarming impacts from salmon farming, the U.S. government is pushing development of similar fish farming systems in our marine waters,” said Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist at Environmental Defense in New York. The Canadian study concludes that aquaculture development to grow new fish species in other geographic regions “can create parasite outbreaks that contribute to the decline of ocean fisheries and ecosystems.”The Bush Administration has articulated their general support of aquaculture and issued a proclamation citing offshore aquaculture development one of their priorities for the ocean.“This legislation promotes the business of fish farming over environmental and consumer protection,” added Goldburg. “The bill requires that environmental impacts be considered, not that they must be minimized or kept to a safe level. Under NOAA’s legislation, our wild fisheries would be at risk.”Citation: Krkošek,M., J.S. Ford, A. Morton, S. Lele, R. Myers, and M.A. Lewis. Declining Wild Salmon Populations in Relation to Parasites from Farm Salmon. Science, December 14, 2007.###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.orgChamber of Commerce Water Bond Proposals Fail to Address Root Causes of State's Water Supply Problems, Environmental Group Says
December 13, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Tom Graff, 510-593-3899 (cell) tgraff@environmentaldefense.orgAnn Hayden, 510-508-2557 (cell) ahayden@environmentaldefense.orgJesus Mena, 415-293-6050 or 415-948-4220 (cell) jemena@environmentaldefense.org
(Sacramento – December 13, 2007) Four water bond initiatives proposed by the California Chamber of Commerce are deeply flawed and would force California to spend billions of tax dollars on dams that will harm the environment and fail to supply the clean, safe drinking water the state needs for the future, a leading environmental group said today.
“These bond proposals are deeply flawed because they fail to adequately address the root causes of California’s serious water supply problems,” said Ann Hayden, senior water resource analyst for Environmental Defense during a 10am news conference in Sacramento with Senate President pro Tem Don Perata (Oakland), Senator Mike Machado (Linden), leading environmental groups, and water agencies.
Hayden is also a member of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan steering committee that is developing a long term plan in 2008 to protect and restore the Delta ecosystem while providing reliable water supply to California’s farms and cities. “These bonds would circumvent the normal approval process for major infrastructure and subsidize questionable projects, spending unprecedented amounts of taxpayer dollars.”
The Chamber filed four different versions of a potential water bond, deferring to a later date the one they would submit for voter approval on the November 4, 2008, ballot. All versions include funds and mandate construction of three reservoirs without specifying how they would be operated, who would get the water and pay for the local cost-share portions, or how the reservoirs would affect the environment. Some versions of the initiative would provide authorization to build a peripheral canal that would divert freshwater from the Sacramento River before it gets to the Delta for delivery to farms in the San Joaquin Valley, urban southern California and parts of the Bay Area. Environmental Defense opposes authorizing a peripheral canal by initiative, as it would be an end run around ongoing stakeholder processes and would mandate crucial aspects such as its size, operating principles, financing and governing structure.“Mandating a peripheral canal through the ballot initiative is a recipe for disaster,” said Tom Graff, regional director for Environmental Defense and a former member of the Bay-Delta Advisory Council. “It is not the right approach for the environment or for major policy and science decisions involving the management of California’s water resources.”Environmental Defense is working cooperatively with many other parties, through both the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, to develop a long term plan to protect and restore the Delta ecosystem while providing reliable water supply to California’s farms and cities. The Chamber’s initiatives would preempt those efforts and prejudge the findings of hundreds of biologists, engineers, water agencies, Delta communities, fishermen and environmental groups, leaving the California taxpayer to pick up the tab.“We call on the Chamber to withdraw these reckless initiatives,” Graff concluded. “We urge them to roll up their sleeves and join those of us who are working thoughtfully and cooperatively to solve California’s water supply and environmental problems.”###Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 supporters. 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.orgFederal Court Rebukes Auto Industry Challenge to Clean Car Program as "the Very Definition of Folly"
December 12, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Tony Kreindler 202-572-3378 (office) or 202-210-5791 (cell)
(Washington — December 12, 2007) Federal district court Judge Anthony Ishii issued a strong rebuke to the automobile industry’s attempt to derail the California Clean Car program that would reduce global warming pollution from motor vehicles. The car companies claimed that the nation’s fuel economy law preempted the regulation of global warming pollution by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Air Act.
“This is a huge win for clean air and a cooler planet. Judge Ishii’s opinion leaves no doubt that the EPA must act now to pave the way for the innovative clean car programs being advanced by California and 16 other states across the nation,” said Vickie Patton, senior attorney with Environmental Defense, a defendant-intervener in the case.“EPA Administrator Steve Johnson should immediately grant California’s request to move ahead with this program. All similar California air pollution requests have been approved. Not one has been turned down in EPA history,” said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp.
Judge Ishii wrote: “Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded from action….”
Judge Ishii sits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (in Fresno, California). In September 2007, a federal district court judge in Vermont similarly rejected automobile manufacturers’ claims that the Clean Car program was preempted by federal law and claims that the program is not feasible – after an exhaustive 16 day trial.
On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA squarely affirmed EPA’s power to regulate global warming pollution from motor vehicles and paved the way for state clean car programs nationwide.On December 21, 2005 California submitted to EPA a waiver request for the Clean Car program which has been pending before EPA for nearly two years. A final decision is imminent. Some 98,000 comments were submitted in response to EPA’s request for comment on the waiver, conveying overwhelming public support; only one individual automobile manufacturer and some automobile trade associations submitted negative comments. EPA’s waiver of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act is the last step for the Clean Car program to rev up in states across the nation. EPA has consistently granted such waiver requests some 53 times over the last 40 years.
KEY FACTS ON CLEAN CARS1. Cars and light trucks are one of America’s largest sources of global warming pollution, and by far the fastest growing. Cars and light trucks account for 16% of U.S. global warming pollution. This pollution soared by 25% between 1990 and 2005.
2. Seventeen states led by both Republicans and Democrats are advancing clean car programs that would lower global warming pollution using available technology, save American families money at the pump, and strengthen energy security: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.
3. These 17 states reflect some 139 million people, nearly half the U.S. population.
4. Politically, these 17 states encompass 202 Congressional districts with 73 Republican and 129 Democratic representatives, 10 House Committee Chairmen, and 11 Senate Committee Chairmen.
5. The Clean Cars program would reduce global warming pollution an estimated 110 million metric tons annually by 2020. The program is implemented through a flexible fleetwide average that will cut global warming pollution about 30% in its second phase.
###
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.org