Complete list of press releases
Veto Threat Imperils 17-State Clean Car Program As EPA Decision Pending
December 7, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts:
Tony Kreindler 202-210-5791
Vickie Patton 720-837-6239
(Washington, DC – December 7, 2007) Yesterday’s White House veto threat of the Energy Independence and Security Act signaled a hostile reception to the 17 states adopting a landmark program to reduce global warming pollution from motor vehicles. The veto threat pointedly complains that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory role in addressing motor vehicles is left “ambiguous.” But current law could not be clearer in empowering motor vehicle programs that cut greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.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. Changing this legal framework as suggested in the veto threat would radically reverse the high Court’s opinion: depriving EPA of the authority to establish federal greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles and precluding the innovative state clean car programs across the nation. The veto threat comes as EPA is in the final stages of decision making on the landmark state clean car program.“You cannot be ‘serious’ about global warming and work to stop the historic state leadership that has produced the only tangible American progress on the issue,” said Environmental Defense Legislative Director Elizabeth Thompson.NEW ANALYSIS OF 17 STATE INNOVATIVE CLEAN CAR PROGRAM AND WHITE HOUSE OPPOSITIONAn Innovative State Global Warming Program with Broad Political Support1. 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.While Imperiled by the Veto Threat, the Clean Car Program has Withstood Legal Attacks1. On April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the Clean Car program when it affirmed EPA’s power to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. EPA had attempted to evade responsibility for approving the Clean Car program by reversing a long-standing legal opinion that EPA had ample authority to regulate global warming pollution.2. In September 2007, a federal district court judge in Vermont rejected automobile manufacturers’ claims that the Clean Car program is not feasible – after an exhaustive 16 day trial.3. In April 2006, the Department of Transportation inserted advisory language in the corporate average fuel economy standards for light trucks to preempt the state Clean Car program. Last month, a federal court of appeals found that the preemptive language was not legally binding.4. 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.5. California’s December 21, 2005 waiver request for the Clean Car program is pending before EPA and 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.
###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.orgCalifornia Establishes Historic Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program
December 7, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:
Karen Douglas, (916) 492-7076, kdouglas@environmentaldefense.orgJesus Mena, (415) 293-6097, jemena@environmentaldefense.org(Sacramento, CA – December 6, 2007) California became the first state in the country that will require industries that emit green house gases to report how much they are spewing into the air, starting in 2008.The California Air Resources Board (CARB) today set mandatory reporting guidelines for a wide array of emissions sources such as refineries, cement plants, power plants and other large combustion devices. These industries have been reporting other pollutants to CARB for years but the requirement that they report green house gases is a first.“The new regulations are the foundation for what will probably be the most comprehensive greenhouse gas guidelines in the world,” said Karen Douglas, director of the California Climate Initiative. “This pioneering effort to begin clamping down on global warming pollutants is reflective of California’s leadership both nationally and internationally.”In other action, CARB also finalized the process of quantifying the amount of greenhouse gases released from all sources in the state in 1990. Quantifying these pollutants in 1990 is critical for implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which sets the 1990 level as the maximum allowable quantity of global warming pollution in the state for 2020.Douglas said that, in many ways, this quantification is almost as critical as is the mandatory reporting of green house gases.“California now has a tangible goal around which it can build regulatory programs for AB 32,” she said. “This data is imperative for programs like cap-and-trade, which give polluters the flexibility to either reduce emissions on-site or purchase reductions from others who have over-complied with emissions limits.”###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.Environmental Defense Praises Energy Bill Passage, Commitment to Comprehensive Climate Action
December 6, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3378 (work) or 202-210-5791 (cell)
(Washington – December 6, 2007) Environmental Defense today congratulated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the passage of legislation that will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and promote energy efficiency.“The Speaker is showing that she has the will, and the power, to produce real results on issues important to the American people. We’re pleased that she has pledged to use that same focus to pass a comprehensive climate bill in 2008,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director for Environmental Defense.Speaker Pelosi has previously said the energy bill passed today by the House “will lay the groundwork for the Congress to move forward next year with comprehensive action to address climate change.”
###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.Key House Democrat Commits to Comprehensive Climate Change Action Next Year
December 6, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3378 (work) or 202-210-5791 (cell)
(Washington – December 6, 2007) Environmental Defense today applauded House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher for his commitment to pursue mandatory, economy-wide climate change legislation in 2008.“With a landmark vote in the Senate yesterday and renewed commitments to action in the House, we have a real chance of tackling the global warming problem in this Congress,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense. “Chairman Boucher is a thoughtful leader who chooses his words carefully, so we take this statement today as a very optimistic sign.”The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday approved the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would put a mandatory, economy-wide cap on emissions. The bill could reach the Senate floor early next year.Boucher said this afternoon that the House next year will pursue “a mandatory approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions” that is economy-wide. Boucher chairs the subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee with jurisdiction over climate change legislation.
###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.Environmental Defense Hails Landmark Vote on Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill
December 5, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-210-5791 (cell) or 202-572-3378 (office)
(Washington – December 5, 2007) Environmental Defense today applauded the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s historic approval of bipartisan climate change legislation.“This bill hits all the right notes — it would drive the reductions we need now and fuel American innovation. Finally, there’s a path to real action on global warming on the floor of the Senate,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. “The authors and Chairman Boxer deserve credit for crafting a strong bill that can win support from both sides of the aisle.”The bill was approved by a vote of 11 to 8, with Republican John Warner joining all committee Democrats and Independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders in voting to report the bill to the full Senate.“We’re grateful that Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he will bring bipartisan climate legislation to the Senate floor. There is no time for delay,” Krupp added.Waiting just two years to enact the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act or similar legislation would double the rate at which the U.S. will need to cut emissions – from just under 2% a year to more than 4.3% a year – in order to bring emissions down to where they need to be by 2020.The Climate Security Act (S. 2191) would reduce emissions by almost 20 percent below current levels by 2020, largely through an emissions cap and trade system, putting the U.S. on a path that is consistent with the roughly 80 percent reductions scientists say we need by mid-century to avoid a dangerous climate tipping point. The strong short-term emissions goal is essential to deploying the technology we already have to combat climate change, and sparking the innovation and investment we will need for the long term.A groundbreaking analysis released last week by the management consulting firm McKinsey & Company found that the U.S. can cut its projected emissions by as much as a third to one-half by 2030 at little cost and without major new technology or lifestyle changes – provided we have the right policy incentives and start soon.“We can meet bold targets with today’s technology and create the new jobs that will power our economy in the 21st century, we just need a smart national policy like cap and trade. We also need a quick start. The longer we wait, the faster those opportunities will slip away,” Krupp said.The Climate Security Act’s cap and trade system is a time-tested approach to reducing pollution that sets a mandatory limit on emissions and frees companies to hunt for the lowest-cost reductions. Coupled with energy efficiency provisions in the bill, the cap will result in reductions greater than 60 percent below current levels by 2050. The bill also contains a “look back” provision requiring the National Academy of Sciences to periodically update Congress on the latest climate change science.Other key provisions include: a system of carrots and sticks to prompt action from major emitting developing countries, a sensible approach to managing costs, and assistance workers and low-income consumers impacted by climate policy.Environmental Defense will work to continue to strengthen the bill as it moves to the Senate floor, in particular to strengthen the long-term emissions reduction target and the scientific look-back provision.###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.Weiner, Fidler, AAA Alternatives to Congestion Pricing Fail Reality Test, Transportation Expert Analysis Shows
December 5, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Michael Replogle, mreplogle@environmentaldefense.org, 301-529-0351Neil Giacobbi, neilgiacobbi@gmail.com, 202-572-3331(New York, NY – December 5, 2007) – Alternative traffic relief proposals to PlaNYC congestion pricing by Brooklyn Congressman Anthony Weiner, Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler and The Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free Plan fail the reality test for timeliness, ability to cut traffic and ability to fund mass transit.That’s the conclusion of a detailed, side-by-side analysis comparing the three alternative plans to PlaNYC congestion pricing. The report by Environmental Defense and The Pratt Center for Community Development in Brooklyn, is entitled: “Does the Rubber Meet the Road? Investigating the Alternatives to Congestion Pricing.”“The rubber does not meet the road with the Weiner, Fidler and The Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free Coalition plans,” said Michael Replogle, transportation director for Environmental Defense and the primary author of the report who has advised the Federal Highway Administration, World Bank, Congress, and governments world-wide over 30 years. “Unlike congestion pricing, these alternatives would encourage driving - not discourage it - and as a result attract more traffic in the long term. They also fail to match the criteria required by the federal grant, by state law, and the reality test for effectiveness, timeliness and revenue potential.”The U.S. Department of Transportation has offered $354 million in funding for transit and congestion relief initiatives to New York City if the State Legislature adopts an effective congestion pricing implementation plan meeting specific performance objectives by March 31.“Congestion pricing would provide a new revenue stream to help pay for the transit improvements that the city and region desperately need,” said Joan Byron, Director of the Sustainability and Environmental Justice Initiative of The Pratt Center for Community Development. “Alternative proposals to fund mass transit through broad income and payroll tax increases are like taking a sledgehammer to a nail because they place special burdens on low and middle income residents. In contrast, a congestion pricing plan benefits lower-income folks most and burdens them least since the vast majority of them rely on public transportation, and do not drive into Manhattan’s zone.”Listed below are some of the problems with specific alternative proposals to congestion pricing.• Brooklyn Congressman Anthony Weiner’s Plan: “Reducing Traffic and Improving Our Environment: An Alternative to the Car Tax”Many aspects of this proposal are similar to the PlaNYC’s original congestion pricing scheme. However, Congressman Weiner would limit congestion pricing to trucks only and would take a series of steps to open up more existing road space for faster-moving traffic, such as reducing alternate side street parking, and increasing traffic law enforcement, that would attract more traffic in the long run. He also suggests large-scale, long-term capital investments, such as building a Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel, that while essential for long-term regional planning, cannot address traffic with the immediacy and revenue-generating capacity of congestion pricing.• Brooklyn New York City Councilman Lew Fidler’s Plan: “The 9 Carat Stone Plan”This plan to fund long term transportation projects, including three major tunnels requiring massive capital investment, essentially levies a regional payroll tax that would support the state’s general fund and not be dedicated to transportation investment, unlike tolls. Councilman Fidler proposes hydrogen powered cars, which automakers and scientists agree are many years and breakthroughs away from being practical and commercially viable. He supplements these ideas with short term measures such as increased truck loading zones and enforcement of traffic laws that, while perhaps good to speed traffic flow and ensure better safety, are not likely to achieve significant reductions in traffic volumes. Other elements of Councilman Fidler’s plan, such as moving government offices from Manhattan to the other boroughs, would simply displace current traffic to new locations, and to the extent that those locations are less centrally-located in the transit system, there would likely be a net increase in traffic overall.• The Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free Plan: “Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District”This plan, primarily supported by AAA, the Metropolitan Parking Association and the Queens Civic Congress, among others, combines several separate measures that collectively claim to meet and exceed the 6.3% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction of the mayor’s plan. In fact, many will simply make driving easier in the Central Business District, thus probably attracting more drivers over time. Furthermore, the report’s additive approach for totaling VMT reduction overstates the results dramatically, double-counting many overlapping traffic reduction measures.###Groundbreaking Analysis Finds Abundant, Low-Cost U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Opportunities
November 29, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-210-5791(Washington – November 29, 2007) A groundbreaking independent analysis of greenhouse gas emissions reduction opportunities across the U.S. economy shows that projected emissions could be cut by as much as one-half by 2030 at a manageable cost, and without major technological breakthroughs or significant changes in consumer behavior.
“This study shows that with the right national policy – and a quick start – we can go almost all the way with the technologies and lifestyles we have today,” said Peter Goldmark, Director of the Climate and Air Program at Environmental Defense, a sponsor of the report. “Few of these opportunities can be realized without the right policy incentives, and many of them could slip away if we don’t grab them soon.”“It’s up to Congress now to help companies grab the low-hanging fruit with a smart, market-driven policy,” Goldmark added.The study, Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, found that emissions reductions along the lines of climate change legislation pending in Congress can be achieved by 2030 with proven and emerging technologies, and that nearly 40 percent of 250 potential emissions reductions opportunities would more than pay for themselves and create net savings for the economy. The analysis was conducted by management consulting firm McKinsey & Company and published jointly with the Conference Board, a business research organization.McKinsey’s landmark study looked at opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the main carbon-emitting sectors of the U.S. economy in unprecedented detail. The independent analysis drew on actual industrial experience, assumed that consumer behavior and preferences would remain in line with current trends, and did not assume major technological breakthroughs.Key implications of the study’s findings include:- Emissions reductions totaling 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons are achievable by 2030 at manageable cost using existing and presently emerging technologies;
- Achieving identified emissions reductions will require an economy-wide strategy and clear policy framework ;
- Delaying implementation of a comprehensive national strategy will lead to higher costs because energy efficiency opportunities become more expensive over time; and,
- Capital expenditures necessary to realize emissions reductions opportunities between now and 2030 will represent an increase of about 1.5 percent in the $77 trillion in real investment the U.S. economy is expected to make over the same period.
Along with Environmental Defense, other sponsors of the study include DTE Energy, Honeywell, National Grid, Natural Resources Defense Council, PG&E and Shell.Full text of the study will be available after 12 noon online at www.mckinsey.com/greenhousegas.###Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 400,000 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 Study Recommends Faster, More Cost-Effective Ways to Clean Up Chesapeake Bay
November 29, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.orgJennifer Andreassen – 202-572-3387 or jandreassen@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, D.C. – November 29, 2007) Fundamental changes are needed in both public policy and private practices in order to save the Chesapeake Bay and to preserve the $1 trillion-a-year in economic benefits it generates for the regional and national economies. That’s the conclusion of a new report released by Environmental Defense today, less than one week before the annual meeting of the Chesapeake Executive Council next Wednesday.The report, Farming for Clean Water , outlines a roadmap for Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts, which have been moving far too slowly in spite of widespread understanding that the Bay is in trouble. The primary focus of the study is improving conservation efforts to reduce soil and nutrient runoff from farms, which offer one of the greatest opportunities to restore the health of the Bay.“The Chesapeake Bay is in critical condition, but we can take steps to restore its health by cleaning it up faster and more cost-effectively than we are now,” said Suzy Friedman, a report co-author and agricultural projects manager for Environmental Defense. “Farms are the largest and the most indispensable part of the solution. We must help farmers, who already are taking steps to help the Bay, deliver even greater benefits.”The Chesapeake Bay watershed is home to 16 million people in six states – Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, and West Virginia. (For state-by-state information related to the report, click here). The Bay has been in jeopardy from environmental degradation for many years. Crab and oyster catches are at historic lows, and local rivers and streams connected to the Bay are degraded.“We have a long way to go, but we can restore the Bay – if we fundamentally change how we fund, deliver, credit and verify agricultural conservation,” said Eileen McLellan, a report co-author and Chesapeake Bay project coordinator for Environmental Defense. “We need more money, but we also must do a better, more cost-effective job with the limited resources at our disposal.”The report’s recommended objectives include:- Targeting funds and attention to conservation practices that have proven most cost-effective in reducing farm runoff
- Making traditional conservation practices — such as nutrient management, conservation tillage, and cover crops — more effective by shifting emphasis to performance and outcomes, and by finding ways to make practices pay for themselves
- Increasing research and education on practices — such as dairy feed management and alternative cropping systems — that can help both the Bay and farmers’ bottom lines
- Increasing technical assistance resources for farmers, and creating market-based financial rewards for farmers who produce clean water and other environmental benefits
- Improving our abilities to track conservation funding, verifying what practices are actually implemented, and determining the nutrient and sediment load reductions they generate
“It is critical that we remain focused on delivering the agricultural piece of a clean Bay,” said Friedman. “We hope that the city, federal and state representatives of the Chesapeake Executive Council take advantage of their meeting next Wednesday to increase attention on the role farms can play in developing innovative and cost-effective initiatives.”The report has drawn support from other groups concerned with the future of the Bay.“The report breaks new ground on the dialogue among agricultural stakeholders, government agencies and private efforts to achieve a healthy Chesapeake Bay,” said Bill Angstadt, executive secretary of the Delaware Maryland Agribusiness Association. “Conservation practices can pay for themselves and deliver win-win results, with economic benefits for farmers and lessened environmental impacts.”“Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay is essential to the economy, heritage, and community fabric of the entire region,” said Ann Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission. “We need to find and promote those practices that are good for farmers.”Leading Scientists Urge EPA to Find that Global Warming Pollution Endangers Human Health and Welfare
November 28, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASECONTACT:Tony Kreindler, 202-210-5791, tkreindler@environmentaldefense.orgJohn Balbus, 301-908-8186, jbalbus@environmentaldefense.orgVickie Patton, 720-837-6239, vpatton@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, DC – November 28, 2007) Citing extensive scientific evidence that climate change constitutes a severe threat to human health and welfare, 23 leading scientists and physicians submitted a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson asking him to follow science in regulating global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. EPA is preparing to announce its proposed response to the April 2nd Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, a decision rejecting EPA’s claim that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.As a threshold to potential greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles and fuels, EPA is preparing to determine whether global warming pollution “endangers” public health and welfare. This “endangerment” finding is the first action to be taken by the EPA in response to the Supreme Court’s remand in which the high Court sharply instructed EPA that the Agency does not have “a roving license to ignore the statutory text.” The scientists are concerned that EPA will give short shrift to the body of science documenting the considerable health impacts of global warming.“The nation’s leading scientists are asking EPA to carry out its fundamental responsibility to protect human health from the severe threat of global warming pollution,” stated Dr. John Balbus, Chief Health Scientist for Environmental Defense and one of the letter’s signers. “Global warming means more death and disease from heat waves, rising air pollution, and infections, and it is EPA’s duty to take immediate protective action.”The November 27th letter cites the conclusions of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which state that increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are projected to raise global temperatures by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Centigrade, with concomitant changes in ice cover and sea level rise. Human health consequences of these changes in climate are projected by the IPCC to include more frequent and severe harmful heat waves, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases from higher levels of ozone air pollution and pollens, increases in infectious diseases in many regions, and worsened food insecurity among vulnerable populations. The letter concludes, “It is clear to the scientific community that ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere constitute a severe threat to human health and welfare both within the United States and for other nations.”The letter is available at: www.environmentaldefense.org/epaletter###Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 400,000 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 Hires Thomas Glenn
November 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact:csmith@environmentaldefense.org
(
Glenn brings extensive policy and legislative experience to his new role, which includes local government outreach to promote the adoption of energy efficiency policies related to building codes for new construction, efficiency measures in existing public facilities, best practices in combined heat and power and more.
Previous roles include business development management for the engineering/construction industries, legislative liaison for Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, special assistant for natural resources to Texas Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff, and legislative liaison/policy analyst in the office of Texas Attorney John Cornyn. Glenn has also served as legislative aide in the offices of Rep. Al Price, Rep. Sylvester Turner and Rep. Joe Crabb.
Glenn is a current member of the Humble Independent School District 2008 Bond Steering Committee, and member of the Greater Houston Partnership’s Green Building Committee. He earned a master of public administration degree from Texas State University-San Marcos and a bachelor of science degree in political science from
# # #
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
The Co-operators vehicle fleet goes green to reduce global warming emissions
November 26, 2007News Release from The Co-operators, PHH Arval and Environmental Defense
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Leonard Sharman, The Co-operators, 1-877-795-7272 ext. 2707, leonard_sharman@cooperators.ca
Pilar Page, PHH Arval, (410) 771-2733, pilar.page@phh.com
Julie Huddleston, Environmental Defense, (202) 572-3369, jhuddleston@environmentaldefense.org(Guelph, ON ? November 26, 2007) The Co-operators Group Ltd., the leading Canadian-owned, multi-product insurance company, today announced that it is reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its vehicle fleet. Greenhouse gas emissions are the leading cause of human-induced global warming.
The Co-operators is beginning its sustainability journey and, as one of its first steps is seeking to reduce emissions from its fleet of more than 400 vehicles throughout Canada. Vehicles are a significant source of global warming gases because they emit more than two kilograms of these gases for every liter of gasoline they consume. The PHH GreenFleet program was developed by PHH Arval and Environmental Defense to guide organizations through choosing more efficient vehicles, upgrading vehicle maintenance programs and providing additional training to drivers.
Through PHH GreenFleet, The Co-operators expects to improve its fuel economy and cut emissions. After rolling out PHH GreenFleet to its entire fleet, the organization expects to improve fuel economy by over 20 per cent, without increasing fleet costs. All fleet vehicles The Co-operators group of companies acquires will now meet their new fuel economy requirements and help achieve their goal of significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
“We are committed to protecting the health and welfare of our communities and our planet ? this includes recognizing and reducing the impact of our vehicle emissions on the climate,” said Kathy Bardswick, The Co-operators president and CEO. “As an organization that insures more than a million vehicles in Canada, we felt it was important that we assess our own fleet and do what we can to minimize the impact our vehicles have on the environment. Implementing PHH GreenFleet will help us do just that.”
None of the organizations belonging to The Co-operators group of companies will order any new trucks, vans or eight-cylinder vehicles, and every driver in its fleet program will have the option of selecting a hybrid vehicle.
“We are excited to have our first Canadian partner in the PHH GreenFleet program,” said Jim Halliday, senior vice president and general manager of PHH Arval’s Canadian operations. “The Co-operators is leading the way by demonstrating a cost-effective method to minimize the impact of fleet vehicle emissions.”
“There’s an exciting buzz and a lot of momentum around improving the environmental performance of vehicle fleets,” said Environmental Defense Project Manager Jason Mathers. “We applaud The Co-operators for taking a comprehensive approach to measuring and reducing emissions that will produce real, measurable results for their business and the environment.”
###
About The Co-operators
With assets of $7 billion, Co-operators Group Ltd. is the leading Canadian-owned, multi-product insurance company. The Co-operators is a national group of companies owned by 37 Canadian co-operatives, credit unions and like-minded organizations, which provide insurance, investment products and property development. The co-operative organization is well known for its community involvement and is listed among the 50 Best Employers in Canada.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, and government agencies. 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.New Analysis Shows Majority of Traffic Mitigation Commission Hearing Witnesses Suggested Improvements to Make Congestion Pricing Work
November 20, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Neil Giacobbi – 917-817-0194 or neilgiacobbi@gmail.com
Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org(New York City – November 20, 2007) Fifty-seven percent of witnesses who testified at the recent hearings by the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission support the concept of congestion pricing as a tool to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, according to a detailed analysis by Environmental Defense. The timing of the analysis is important because the Traffic Mitigation Commission is meeting for the first time today since the hearings were completed.“The public hearings show that New Yorkers do in fact support the concept of congestion pricing, although they may want to see the original proposal tweaked and they want to see the revenues spent on transit improvements,” said Neil Giacobbi, a consultant for Environmental Defense who attended five of the seven hearings. “Polls showing majority opposition to the original congestion pricing plan don’t take these facts into account.”Environmental Defense staff attended all seven commission hearings in the five city boroughs, Long Island and Westchester County between Oct. 24 and Nov. 5, and analyzed the testimony of 149 people who testified. Since the hearing transcripts are not available yet, Environmental Defense summarized the testimony of the 21 witnesses for whom written testimony could not be obtained.While an equal number of people testified in support of, and against the Mayor’s specific congestion pricing proposal (26% support, 26% oppose), a startling 40% of people testifying at commission hearings suggested improvements to the current plan.Positions of people testifying at commission hearings:#Persons%PersonsPosition3926%Support congestion pricing as proposed by Mayor Bloomberg in April 2007 PlaNYC proposal4631%Support the concept of pricing, have concerns and recommend changes/additions to Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal139%Express serious concerns with the current proposal and offer suggestions for improvement3926%Oppose congestion pricing, suggest other strategies for alleviating traffic128%Do not address congestion pricing149Thirty percent of people who testified represented civic organizations, followed by people unaffiliated with an organization (28%). Twenty-one percent of witnesses were affiliated with either the organized opposition to congestion pricing, or the Campaign for New York’s Future, the principal group advocating congestion pricing. The remaining witnesses (21%) were elected officials.These elected officials cited 32 specific issues and recommendations to reduce traffic congestion and to improve the current plan.The top five issues and improvements raised by elected officials were:1. Concerns about use of congestion pricing revenues2. Residential permit parking/boundary parking issues3. In-zone charge/zone exit charge4. Enforce existing traffic laws in addition to congestion pricing5. Concerns about 86th Street boundaryA complete tally of all issues raised by elected officials as well as summary analysis and a detailed inventory of all testimony can be obtained by contacting Environmental Defense.
Click here to SEE TESTIMONY REPORT
# # #
Potential Model for Restructuring National Nanotechnology Initiative Offered to Better Address Nano Risks
November 19, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Washington, DC – November 19, 2007) Amid growing public concern that the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is not effectively addressing the potential risks of nanotechnology, Environmental Defense today pointed to a precedent and potential model to resolve the conflict between NNI’s dual charges to both promote and oversee the technology. The model is drawn from our nation’s past experience in managing another controversial and potentially risky technology: nuclear power. Environmental Defense discussed the model in a supplement to its October 31 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Science and Technology Committee.
Like the NNI, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), first established in 1946, was tasked with both encouraging the development and use of nuclear power and regulating its safety. Concerns about this dual charge led Congress to abolish the AEC in 1975, and to assign its risk research and oversight functions to a new entity, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Research and development efforts have continued under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
“Congress’ decision to clearly separate the promotional and oversight functions was deemed necessary to reverse the loss of public trust in the Federal Government’s ability to manage both roles,” said Environmental Defense Senior Scientist Dr. Richard A. Denison. “While we make no representation as to the NRC’s performance, we believe this prior experience may offer important lessons for managing the Federal role in nanotechnology.”
Unlike the nuclear energy case, Denison emphasized that Environmental Defense is not calling for the creation of a whole new agency charged with regulating nanotechnology. Instead, an entity under the NNI – either newly formed or significantly elevated in status – needs to be given independent budgetary and management authority, responsibility, accountability, and sufficient resources to develop and direct the overall Federal nanomaterial risk research strategy.
“This entity should be directed by senior officials with environmental health training and experience,” said Denison. “And there should be a clear separation in decision-making and management from the parts of the NNI whose mission is to help develop and advance nanotechnology.”
As one illustration of the need for a clear separation in roles, Denison included in his supplemental testimony statements made by senior officials at last month’s hearing that seek to minimize evidence indicating nanomaterials may pose risks and suggest that nanotechnology’s risk are being overblown. “These officials’ characterizations of the available nanotoxicology literature are at odds with those of scientists within NNI agencies and independent experts,” Denison noted. “They appear to reflect both the dearth of health and environmental expertise within the management of NNI, and a view that concerns about risks should be downplayed lest they impede nanotechnology’s development. In contrast, we and most other stakeholders believe that the best way to ensure the enormous promise of nanotechnology is realized is to put in place a robust process to identify and address its potential risks.”
Denison pointed to a review just published in Nanotoxicology that found that the “vast majority” of nearly 430 journal papers reporting on toxicity testing of various nanoparticles identified adverse effects in laboratory animals or cell lines. (Hansen, Steffen Foss, Larsen, Britt H., Olsen, Stig I. and Baun, Anders, “Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials,” Nanotoxicology, published online November 13, 2007.)
Environmental Defense noted another lesson that could be gleaned from the nuclear energy example: A robust safety research program can be conducted in a manner that takes full advantage of “cross-fertilization” from research done to advance technology development, while putting in place measures to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided. NRC conducts cooperative research with DOE and other Federal agencies, the nuclear power industry, U.S. universities, and international partners. In doing so, NRC has developed specific procedures to avoid conflicts that could arise, for example, from its use of DOE laboratories or contractors who have also worked on or are competing for DOE contracts.
“In considering changes that are needed in the management of NNI, we believe Congress should seriously consider the precedent of the NRC and lessons it may provide,” Denison added. “Doing so may help to provide a means to ensure that nanotechnology’s risks get the attention they need, even as the Federal investment in nanotechnology development proceeds.”
Environmental Defense’s testimony is at www.environmentaldefense.org/NNIrecs
Court Rejects Federal Fuel Economy Standards
November 15, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Vickie Patton, Environmental Defense attorney, 720.837.6239
Jennifer Witherspoon, 510.457.2250 or 415.216.9598 (cell)
(
The court determined that the Department of Transportation had set fuel efficiency standards too low to meet
The standards were challenged by 11 states and a coalition of environmental organizations including Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity.
“The court’s decision underscores the failure of the Bush administration to address the global warming crisis and energy security,” said Environmental Defense counsel Sean Donahue who argued the case for the environmental petitioners. “There are cost-effective solutions to save millions of Americans hard-earned money at the gas pump and curb global warming pollution,” said Donahue.
In a sharp rebuke to the Department of Transportation for its failure to carry out the law (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975), the court stated: “The need of the nation to conserve energy is even more pressing today than it was at the time of [the statute’s] enactment.”
Among other flaws, the court found the Department of Transportation:
1. Failed to account for the value of reducing heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions in setting the meager standards,
2. Failed to close the SUV loophole,
3. Failed to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 pound gross vehicle weight class, and
4. Failed to carry out an adequate environmental assessment including analysis of global warming pollution impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The fuel economy standards will continue in effect under the court’s ruling but the court ordered the Department of Transportation “to promulgate new standards consistent with this opinion as expeditiously as possible and for the earliest model year practicable.”
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
Statement of Environmental Defense on the environmental aspects of Wal-Mart
November 15, 2007(Washington, DC - November 15, 2007) The following statement may be attributed to Gwen Ruta, Director of Corporate Partnerships at Environmental Defense:
A sustainability report is meant to give a panoramic snapshot of where company is with its environmental efforts and to provide companies and their shareholders and stakeholders a way to track progress over time.
As the only environmental group with an office in Bentonville, Environmental Defense knows that Wal-Mart is serious about its sustainability program. The company is moving in the right direction, and learning as it goes.
Preparing this first-ever sustainability report was a huge undertaking for a company of the size and scope of Wal-Mart. The report reveals areas where Wal-Mart has made progress, and areas where they have more to do. It shows many encouraging pieces of the picture, and predictably, has shortcomings. It would benefit by providing more transparency, context and a more systematic assessment of progress relative to environmental goals. Some examples include:
• Energy use –The report states that LED lighting installations have saved approximately 66% of the energy used for lighting in those stores where they have been installed. Providing information on the number of stores where installations have occurred and the energy used at those stores relative to the total number of stores and energy used would allow readers to understand the magnitude of change that has already occurred and to track progress over time.
• Water use – The report states that newly-installed restroom sinks in many stores use sensor-activated, low-flow faucets that reduce water flow by approximately 80%. Again, reporting the number of new faucets installed relative to the number remaining to be installed and actual water use before and after installation would provide the needed context for understanding and tracking progress.
• Seafood – The report states that Wal-Mart has 22 products available in all stores that are MSC-certified; again context on the total number of wild seafood products sold at Wal-Mart stores, and the percentage of seafood sales that come from wild and farmed fish would aid understanding.
We’d also like to see Wal-Mart present more data that allows readers to verify the information presented. For example, the limited data presented on improvement to fuel efficiency in the truck fleet – an area where we know that Wal-Mart has made progress –leave room for confusion. The 15% increase in fuel efficiency reported would translate to a reduction in CO2 emissions of approximately 13%, yet the data presented in the report show a less than 2% reduction in CO2 emissions. Information on the number of trucks that have been retrofitted with new tires and truck, trailer and engine improvements would help to understand the numbers.
Our take-away is that over the last two years, Wal-Mart has built the foundation for a robust environmental program with many innovative and potentially transformational projects underway. And they have clearly identified some important challenges, such as reducing their overall carbon footprint as the business grows. This report underlines the need to focus on those challenges and to develop more transparent accountability systems that include clear baselines against which to measure progress.