Complete list of press releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Colorado would receive $20,326,568 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.*  USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development.  Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.

Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl.  The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.

Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments.  Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.

“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense.  “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers.  Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.” 

USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.

“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Colorado’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”

*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:

For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.

For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Contact:

Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Alaska would receive $1,326,730 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.*  USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development.  Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.

Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl.  The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.

Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments.  Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.

“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense.  “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers.  Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.” 

USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.

“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Alaska’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”

*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill: 

Over the last year I have researched the technologies to reduce global warming pollution from both new and existing coal plants, technologies to allow us to burn coal without burning our planet.

Coal is far from our only option ?renewable energy and energy efficiency are a huge part of the answer. But the world burns a lot of coal, so it makes sense that this panel is focused on how coal fits into the larger challenge.

As part of my research, I’ve met with European and American coal burning power companies and with an Israeli engineer working with the French company Alstom which is pioneering the chilled ammonia process.

I’ve discussed the development of new technologies with venture capitalists and the CEO’s of companies developing the IGCC process. And I’ve met with researchers from the head of the Electric Power Research Institute to university scientists studying the available technologies.

What I’ve learned is that we have technologies to capture and store CO₂ but they won’t be deployed without a “driver.” Companies will not cut their global warming pollution from new or existing plants until there is a legal limit requiring them to do so.

The truth is that our greatest need is not the wherewithal to develop and deploy technology for low carbon power generation.

Our greatest need at this moment isthe willto enact a system that will focus our collective energy, intellect, and investment on the problem.

Innovative solutions for burning coal cleaner will not move off the desks of engineers and industry planners and into practice without the driver of mandated caps.

So before we concentrate too narrowly on the methods;

We should focus on enacting the policiesthat will make those methods possible.

We can all agree that time is running short. With each passing day, the risk of serious consequences becomes greater. And cost of delaying the inevitable solution grows higher.

As California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said to the UN General Assembly earlier this week, “It is time to stop looking back in blame or suspicion. The consequences of global climate change are so pressing … it doesn’t matter who was responsible for the past. What matters is who is answerable for the future.”

And more than anyone, that means the nations represented in this room today, including The United States.

It is only realistic to recognize that a big challenge like global warming requires action and leadership from the United States. And everyone in this room knows what few have been willing to say aloud: No caps, no real progress. The world cannot sufficiently address the climate challenge until the US embraces binding short- and long-range declining caps ? determined by what the scientists say is necessary.

This conference, with great nations gathered to discuss this issue, presents a moment for such leadership.

And the nations here, by your actions, must make this gathering a bridge to ? not a detour from ? the road to Bali.

All of us ? including President Bush and the leaders in our Congress ? agree on much that is fundamental to solving this problem: That climate change is happening, we have caused it, and we must stop it. That cutting our output of greenhouse gases will not only help us avert the worst impacts of climate change — but will reduce air pollution. Cut our collective dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world. And choke off funding to many who wish harm to civilized nations.

These are goals we all share ? but that we have been frustrated in achieving.

Unfortunately, voluntary action, sector approaches and country plans to reduce greenhouse gases and achieve these results, as called for by the Framework Convention of 1992, allowed global warming pollution to grow dramatically.

This gathering must not simply repeat what we did 15 years ago. That did not, and will not, solve the problem.

Instead, I would turn to a different ? and successful ? model embraced just about the same 15 years ago.

The solution, in broad terms, adopted by the nations of the European Union and the People’s Republic of China, among others, was invented here in America. “Cap and trade” was proven a success under the first President Bush in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

And is consistent with our current president’s commitment to private sector leadership.

I respectfully urge the President to seize the moment presented by this gathering to chart a new course ? and to take bold steps necessary to pre-empt this grave danger to humanity. Our Congress is already debating such a course.

We are here to this afternoon to discuss the production of power. I have no doubt that given the right mandate and incentives, our businessman, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs will produce cleaner power.

More important, I would argue, is for governments to use political power to drive this change.

Thank you.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Julie Huddleston, jhuddleston@environmentaldefense.org

(Dallas, TX – September 26, 2007) Experts from government, academia, consulting companies, non-profit organizations and industry will gather to hear Dr. John Balbus, Chief Health Scientist for Environmental Defense offer the most up to date information on the potential toxicity of nanoparticles in an afternoon plenary “Quantum Leaps: Knowledge gaps in nanotechnology health and safety” on October 3 at the Dallas Convention Center during International Nanotechnology Week.

“Makers and users of nanoparticles need to understand the latest science on potential harm arising from these materials,” remarked Dr. Balbus. “The experts at the nanotech health and safety summit will provide just that.”

Dr. Balbus will also convene panels to discuss workplace protections for handling nanoparticles and the frameworks available to help companies manage nanomaterial risks.

The first panel “Nanoparticles- Do protective measures really protect workers?” will answer questions about whether filtration and personal protective equipment works for nanoparticles and how medical surveillance programs can address potential risks from nanoparticle exposure. Speakers from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Heatlh (NIOSH), University of Minnesota and TSI will be featured in this panel on October 3 at 1:30 pm CST.

On the following day, at 10:30 am CST, Dr. Balbus will speak on the panel “Containing the unknown: Risk management frameworks for nanotechnology product development” which will offer the latest frameworks for minimizing exposures and managing health and safety risks for nanoparticles. This panel will feature discussions of the Environmental Defense-Dupont NanoRisk Framework and lifecycle and exposure-based assessment and risk management programs that are currently being implemented by consultants from Gradient and Cadmus corporations.

More information can be found at http://www.nanotx.biz

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3378 or 202-210-5791

(Washington – September 24, 2007) A new analysis released today by Environmental Defense shows that energy legislation passed by the House and Senate would let greenhouse emissions continue to increase for the next three decades, even if the best fuel-saving and renewable energy provisions in both bills were combined in conference committee.  

The analysis underscores the urgent need for this Congress to pass comprehensive climate change legislation that reduces emissions far below today’s levels by the middle of this century.

 “Most scientists say we need to cut emissions around 80% below current levels. These bills cut 0% below current levels,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense. “They certainly have important provisions and we hope they pass, but they cannot be the last word on climate change from this Congress.”

 “These energy bills aim at some important goals – promoting energy independence, boosting renewable energy sources, and raising auto efficiency standards. But they will not manage the global warming problem,” said Elizabeth Thompson, legislative director at Environmental Defense. “Even the best energy bill cannot substitute for comprehensive climate legislation” added Thompson. 

Congress is poised to begin conference negotiations to reconcile the two energy bills, H.R. 6 passed by the Senate and H.R. 3221 passed by the House. Each contains different provisions designed to reduce dependence on fossil fuels: among other things, the House bill includes a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that would boost the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources to 15% in 2020 and maintain that level through 2039, and the Senate bill aims to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for cars and light trucks to 35 miles-per-gallon in 2020. 

Environmental Defense’s analysis examines how well U.S. greenhouse gas emissions might be reduced under a law that incorporates the key provisions of both bills. The result is a set of emissions reduction scenarios for more optimistic and less optimistic expectations for the outcome of the conference and implementation of the final law.

Under the more optimistic scenario – one that assumes the best bill out of conference and full implementation by federal agencies – greenhouse gas emission levels would still be where they are today in 2020, and 11 percent higher in 2040. Under the less optimistic assessment – which assumes weaker CAFE standards and fewer actions on oil savings – emissions would be 35 percent above 2005 levels in 2040.

The full analysis is available online at www.environmentaldefense.org/energybill.

The chart below depicts the more optimistic and less optimistic energy bill emissions reduction scenarios, compared with business-as-usual U.S. emissions projections and the climate protection goals outlined by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Sharyn Stein, 202-572-3396 sstein@environmentaldefense.org

Sean Crowley, 202-572-3331 scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

Washington, D.C. – September 21, 2007 – The following is a statement by Michael Bean, Wildlife Program Chairman for Environmental Defense, on Senate Finance Committee passage of the Habitat and Land Conservation Act:

“This is a vital bill for America’s conservation efforts because most of the rare species in America live on privately-owned land. It will give us unprecedented tools to help preserve our natural resources by providing tax incentives to make it financially possible for private citizens who want to be good stewards to help conserve the rare plants and animals that live on their land.

We applaud the Senate Finance Committee for approving the bill and especially Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) for their leadership on this issue. It’s not often you see any major piece of legislation with this much broad-based support. It has bipartisan backing in Congress and support from groups across the political spectrum — from the Farm Bureau to major environmental organizations, including Environmental Defense. Hopefully, that will mean the measure will continue its quick and smooth journey to passage by the entire Senate, and then the House of Representatives.”

Contact:

Sharyn Stein, 202-572-3396 sstein@environmentaldefense.org

Sean Crowley, 202-572-3331 scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – September 20, 2007) Ethanol and other biofuels have remarkable potential to help fight global warming but have many potential downsides if they’re not produced carefully, according to a new report released today by Environmental Defense.

The report, Potential Impacts of Biofuels Expansion on Natural Resources: A Case Study of the Ogallala Aquifer Region focuses on the Ogallala Aquifer region, a vast expanse of plains across eight states that was the center of the Dust Bowl in the 1930’s. (The report and more information, including maps and state-by-state data, are available at environmentaldefense.org/ogallala)

“The Ogallala Aquifer is a microcosm of the challenges we’ll face in America as we develop renewable fuels,” said Martha Roberts, co-author of the report and a fellow at Environmental Defense. “Nine new ethanol plants are already planned for some of the most water-depleted areas of the Ogallala Aquifer, even though those areas are vulnerable to erosion and the entire region’s water resources are stretched thin.”

The Ogallala is one of the world’s largest aquifers and is an important water source for parts of eight states: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. However, over-pumping has already caused dramatic water table declines in the area. Water demands from new ethanol plants would further strain the aquifer, increasing demand by as much as 2.6 billion gallons a year just to process the corn and produce the fuel. Even worse, another 120 billion gallons a year could be needed for irrigation to grow more corn in the region, and any increased corn production on land that’s now left idle could cause Depression-style dust bowls.

“Biofuels are one of our best potential weapons to fight climate change, but not all biofuels are created equal,” said co-author, Dr. Timothy Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “Expanding ethanol without protecting our 70 years of progress in conserving soil, water, and rare grassland habitat would be the environmental equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

The report recommends maintaining or expanding two federal conservation programs: the Conservation Reserve Program, which provides cost-share and rental payments to farmers and ranchers who retire cropland to grass cover; and the Grasslands Reserve Program, which pays farmers and ranchers permanent easement or rental payments to protect, restore or enhance grasslands or grazing operations. Both programs are part of the Farm Bill, the country’s largest agricultural policy legislation, which Congress is due to reauthorize this year.

“This report provides even more proof that America needs a conservation-focused Farm Bill and a ‘sodsaver’ policy that eliminates government subsidies that perversely reward converting grasslands to cropland,” said Male.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported this week that more than 25 million acres of grasslands have been converted to cropland since 1982, partly encouraged by subsidies. The GAO also reported that the loss of these grasslands creates a further drain on federal resources because they lead to higher disaster and crop insurance payments.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-210-5791 cell
Peyton Fleming, Ceres, 617-247-0700 x20 or 617-733-6660 cell

• Physical risks associated with climate change that are material to the company’s operations or financial condition;
• Financial risks and opportunities associated with present or probable greenhouse gas regulation;
• Legal proceedings relating to climate change.

About Ceres: Ceres is a leading coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of 60 institutional investors with collective assets totaling more than $4 trillion. For more information, visit http://www.ceres.org or http://www.incr.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE