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, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by $39,918,750 in the congressional district of Rep. John Boozman (R- Lowell/Fort Smith/Harrison) when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group. 

The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday.  The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.

“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”

The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.

The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.

To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

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

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

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

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

(Washington – July 24, 2007) Environmental Defense today welcomed a new bipartisan proposal from four key Senators to help companies manage the costs of federal climate change policies without compromising environmental effectiveness.

“We don’t have to abandon environmental goals to manage economic costs, and we don’t have to settle for solutions that leave economic opportunities on the table. This plan could offer a way forward for a bill that delivers real results for the climate and real benefits for business,” said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp.

The legislation unveiled today by Republicans John Warner and Lindsay Graham along with Democrats Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln offers a new alternative to proposals that would simply undo federal greenhouse gas emissions limits if their costs reach an arbitrary level, shutting down not only environmental protections but also investment in low-carbon technologies and new jobs.

Under the new proposal, businesses would have flexibility in managing short-term emissions levels while keeping the U.S. bound to an overall national emissions cap. It would create a new Carbon Market Efficiency Board similar to the Federal Reserve, with a set of tools for reducing costs to companies and consumers. Those include expanding the ability of companies to borrow emissions allowances from future years, and in rare cases, slowing the pace of national emissions cuts – without abandoning the long-term limits.

The new proposal will be offered as an amendment to broader climate legislation now under development in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where Warner has taken a leadership role in the process. The support of all four Senators will be vital for the passage of climate legislation in this Congress, and the co-sponsorship of Graham and Landrieu is another sign of growing bipartisan support for a bill. Lincoln is a co-sponsor of S. 280, the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Sean Crowley, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3331
Richard Denison, rdenison@environmentaldefense.org, 202 387-3500

(Washington, DC – July 24, 2007) – More than a year-and-a-half after it was supposed to be completed, a voluntary program run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make data on the hazards of 2,200 of the most widely used chemicals available to the public is failing to deliver on many of its promises. That’s the conclusion of a new report by Environmental Defense, one of the organizations that developed the framework for the program and has closely monitored it since its launch in 1998.

The report by Senior Health Program Scientist Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., gives overall grades of C-minus to EPA and D to the chemical industry for their performance in the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge (see report cards below). Under the program, manufacturers were asked to volunteer to develop and make publicly available a “base set” of screening-level hazard information on HPV chemicals, those produced in or imported into the U.S. in amounts of one million pounds or more annually.

“The Challenge has failed to produce much of the data it had promised to deliver well before now,” said Denison. “Equally disturbing are the decline in the average quality of the chemical industry’s submissions over time, and that data gaps remain even in final submissions.”

Denison’s report, High Hopes, Low Marks:  A Final Report Card on the High Production Volume Chemical Challenge, documents a series of shortcomings. Many companies are years late in providing the promised data and the government faces big hurdles in filling remaining data gaps and addressing data quality concerns. Since the HPV Challenge is voluntary, EPA has limited recourse to ensure full participation by manufacturers or the timely submission and high quality of hazard data sets. As a result:

·   Two-and-a-half years after final data sets were due, fewer than half (47%) have been submitted.

·   10% of eligible HPV chemicals were not volunteered for the Challenge by the companies that produce them; EPA has issued rules to compel testing for only 6% of these chemicals.

·   The grade point average for initial industry submissions has declined from a solid B-plus in 2001 to a C-minus in 2006.

High Hopes, Low Marks also discusses the status of two essential next steps: EPA’s assessment of the Challenge data, where it is making good progress, but is also finding that data gaps remain even in final submissions; and a failure by industry to commit to develop data for most of the nearly 600 chemicals that have reached HPV levels since the Challenge was launched. Important “lessons learned” for the design and execution of voluntary environmental initiatives are provided.

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, OVERALL GRADE                         D

Extent of sponsorship of HPV chemicals             B+

Extent of initial submissions                             B-

Extent of final submissions                              F

Quality of initial submissions                            C+

Providing public access to information               F

USEPA, OVERALL GRADE                                            C-

Extent of test rule development for orphans      D

Extent of EPA review of initial submissions         B-

Providing public access to information              C-

The report is available online at www.environmentaldefense.org/hpvreportcard.

Contact:
Scott Faber – 202-572-3315 or sfaber@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC - July 24, 2007) An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending in 348 congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill.  That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.

The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.

“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Environmental Defense Farm Policy Campaign. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”

The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.

The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.

To learn more about individual congressional districts, you can download an Excel spreadsheet of the analysis here. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Michael Shore, senior air policy analyst, Environmental Defense 

(Raleigh, NC - July 23, 2007) Environmental Defense today saluted the Energy and Energy Efficiency Committee of the NC House for improving and endorsing a proposed policy to establish the state’s first renewable energy and efficiency standard. The following statement may be attributed to Michael Shore, senior air policy analyst with the NC Office of Environmental Defense.

“This is a much better bill than the one lawmakers first discussed. A renewable energy and efficiency standard is a cornerstone for reducing global warming pollution and cleaning the air. It is one of a series of steps that the state should take to curtail the need for new, expensive nuclear and coal plants. Committee Chair Pricey Taylor Harrison is to be commended for strong leadership that achieved significant improvements in the bill.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Jane Preyer, 919-881-2912 or 919-740-6727 (cell)

(Raleigh, NC - July 19, 2007) The NC House Environment and Natural Resources Committee today endorsed Senate Bill 1465, which sets the stage for replacing hog lagoons with cleaner systems for treating waste.  The House Agriculture Committee approved the bill yesterday.  The following statement may be attributed to Jane Preyer, director of the NC Office of Environmental Defense.

“The committees’ approval breaks the log jam that has blocked progress toward resolution of the hog waste problem.  The bill bans lagoons on new farms, permanently establishes health and environmental standards, and will help reduce the cost of cleaner systems.  These are provisions that deserve applause. 

“Despite its merits, the bill has shortcomings.  There’s a lot more work to be done.  Hog waste is a renewable energy source that shows solid potential.  However, if public money is spent to help generate energy from waste, then the systems should meet health and environmental standards.  The General Assembly must keep a close eye on how hog waste is used to produce electricity.

“This bill gives North Carolina the ability to focus on reducing the cost of new, cleaner systems and creating markets for their byproducts so that lagoons are no longer the treatment technology of choice.  Failing or aging lagoons should represent an opportunity for producers to invest in cleaner systems, not lagoon replacement.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

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

(Washington – July 17, 2007) Environmental Defense today applauded a resounding statement from the 160 chief executive officers in the Business Roundtable that climate change poses a serious risk and that action must be taken now to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions.

“There’s a freight train of momentum for action, and everyone is on board,” said David Yarnold, executive vice president of Environmental Defense. “Leaders from across the political spectrum and throughout the business world are now on the record – the problem is real, we can fix it, and it’s time to get started.”

The Business Roundtable, whose 160 members from every sector of the U.S. economy represent $4.5 trillion in annual revenues and more than 10 million employees, today said in a consensus Climate Change Statement that the consequences of global warming are potentially serious and far-reaching and that steps should be taken now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Business Roundtable members supporting the statement include major energy interests, including the ExxonMobil Corporation, Peabody Energy Company, and Southern Company. According to the Climate Change Statement, “Because the consequences of global warming for society and ecosystems are potentially serious and far-reaching, steps to address the risks of such warming are prudent now even while the science continues to evolve.”

The group did not endorse a specific approach to reducing emissions, but it offered a set of key policy benchmarks as Congress weighs its options. According to the Business Roundtable, policies should be effective in reducing emissions, maximize the use of markets, encourage technology solutions, be cost-effective, provide certainty to companies, and foster innovation and new business opportunities.

Environmental Defense believes the policy that best meets those benchmarks is a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Cap and trade guarantees results by putting an enforceable limit on emissions, maximizes the use of markets by creating economic incentives for pollution reductions, and fosters innovation by freeing companies to invest in the best and least-cost emissions reduction opportunities.

Contact:

Scott Faber, sfaber@environmentaldefense.org , (202) 230-1899

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

(Washington-July 17, 2007) — Environmental Defense said today that a conservation proposal by the House Agriculture Committee falls short of meeting the needs of most farmers and the environment.

The proposal would increase USDA conservation spending by less than $3 billion over five years — far less than conservation proposals by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and the Bush Administration.

“This proposal will fall far short of what’s needed to clean up our rivers and bays, save rare species, and preserve our open spaces,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director at Environmental Defense.

New analysis by Environmental Defense shows that farmers and ranchers in the districts of more than half of the Committee members would be eligible for more benefits if Congress cut some subsidies to reward stewardship. Constituents in 24 of those districts would get more funding if Congress shifts $10 billion or more from direct subsidy payments to conservation programs.

The House Agriculture Committee is expected to finish work on the 2007 Farm Bill this week.

“Many legislators who vote for the status quo this week will be voting against the needs of their farmers and against the environment,” said Scott Faber. “There has never been a better time to reduce and restructure our subsidies. Farmers are eager to address environmental challenges, but are routinely turned away when they seek USDA conservation assistance. “

Faber applauded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for working with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) to begin debate on needed reforms such as payment limits and means testing.

“We hope that Speaker Pelosi will continue to work with Chairman Peterson and reform leaders to strengthen farm subsidy reforms,” said Faber. 

See the chart below for more information on all 24 districts.

For more information, go to Scott Faber’s blog, “The Ruminant,” —

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/healthyfarms/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Jerry Karnas, Environmental Defense, 941-587-1803 

Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-210-5791

(Miami – July 13, 2007) Environmental Defense today applauded the leadership of Florida Governor Charlie Crist and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on climate change and their call for immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger are sending a message to Washington – it’s time for Congress to do some heavy lifting,” said Jerry Karnas, Florida climate project director for Environmental Defense.

Governor Crist today was joined in Miami by Governor Schwarzenegger for the signing of three executive orders that make Florida a national leader in the fight against global warming. The orders call for Florida to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the middle of this century, direct state agencies to implement the clean cars standard adopted by California and 11 other states, limit emissions from electric utilities, set efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, and require a percentage of power generation to come from renewable energy sources.

Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006 made California the first state to put a firm cap on greenhouse gas emissions when he signed AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act. He joined the Florida Summit on Global Climate Change to support Crist, emphasizing the need for bipartisan action on climate change.

“We can only hope that Congress quickly follows these two visionary leaders and builds on their critical efforts to limit global warming pollution,” Karnas said.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Scott Faber, sfaber@environmentaldefense.org, (202) 230-1899-c

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

 
(Washington, DC – July 9, 2007) – A new report shows farmers in most districts represented by freshman members of Congress would benefit if Congress shifted some farm subsidies to voluntary USDA conservation programs.

The study, “Freshman Economics: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in Freshman Districts,” shows that farmers in 36 out of 55 freshman congressional districts would receive more support from USDA by shifting “direct” payments to provide more funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs. In addition, farmers in 12 districts would see little or no change from farm policy reform proposals.

Congress is debating a new five-year Farm Bill this summer and the House Agriculture Committee will consider whether to extend the current Farm Bill next week.

“Helping farmers help the environment would also ensure that more farmers and more regions receive a fair share of federal farm spending,” said Scott Faber, Farm and Food Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “Freshmen members who vote against reform and for the status quo are voting against the interests of their own farmers.”

Unlike farm subsidies linked to market conditions, direct payments are subsidies linked to a farmer’s production history and paid regardless of current crop prices or production. Most farmers do no grow crops eligible for the direct payments, and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 60 percent of all payments. 

Environmental Defense examined three scenarios — shifting $10 billion, $15 billion, and $20 billion over five years to USDA conservation programs — and found that farmers represented by following freshman members of the House from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin would benefit:

Democrats

Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson/Sierra Vista, AZ)

Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton/Stockton, CA)

Joe Courtney (D-Enfield/Norwich/Danielson, CT)

Christopher S. Murphy (D-New Britain/Meriden, CT)

Kathy Castor (D-Tampa, FL)

Ron Klein (D-Ft. Lauderdale/West Palm Beach, FL)

Tim Mahoney (D-Port Charlotte/Martin/Highlands, FL)

Mazie K. Hirono (D-Honolulu, HI)

John A. Yarmuth (D-Louisville, KY)

John P. Sarbanes (D-Annapolis/Towson, MD)

Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis, MN)

Paul W. Hodes (D-Concord, NH)

Carol Shea-Porter (D- Manchester/Dover, NH)

Michael A. Arcuri (D-Utica/Auburn/Cortland, NY)

Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-Glens Falls/ Hudson/Saratoga Springs, NY)

John J. Hall (D-Goshen/Carmel, NY)

Heath Shuler (D-Asheville, NC)

Zachary T. Space (D-Dover, OH)

Charles A. Wilson (D-Canfield/Marietta/Bridgeport, OH)

Jason Altmire (D-Aliquippa/Natrona Heights, PA)

Christopher P. Carney (D-Clarks Summit/Shamokin/Williamsport, PA)

Patrick J. Murphy (D-Bristol/Doylestown, PA)

Joe Sestak (D-Media, PA)

Ciro Rodriquez (D-San Antonio/Fort Stockton/Eagle Pass, TX)

Peter Welch (D-Burlington, VT)

Steve Kagen MD (D-Appleton/Green Bay, WI)

Republicans

Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield/Atascadero, CA)

Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs, CO)

Gus M. Bilirakis (R-Temple Terrace, FL)

Vern Buchanan (R-Bradenton/Sarasota, FL)

Bill Sali (R-Boise/Caldwell/Coeur d’Alene/Lewiston, ID)

Peter J. Roskam (R-Bloomingdale, IL)

Michele Bachmann (R-Woodbury/St. Cloud/Waite Park Office, MN)

Dean Heller (R-Reno/Elko/Las Vegas, NV)

Mary Fallin (R-Oklahoma City/Shawnee, OK)

David Davis (D-Kingsport, TN)

“Reforming farm policies would allow many more farmers to participate in USDA conservation programs,” Faber said. “Two out of three farmers are turned away when they offer to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat because of our misplaced spending priorities.”

For a breakdown of how farmers in freshman congressional districts would fare under these scenarios and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.

### 

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

(Washington – July 11, 2007)  Today’s introduction of a bill sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman, and backed by some utility interests, demonstrates new momentum for mandatory limits on global warming pollution. 

But despite improvements from previous drafts, Senator Bingaman’s bill still contains a fatal flaw that would seriously undermine climate protections. 

“The safety valve is a dangerous kill switch that could turn off the whole program,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense. “There are much better ways of managing costs than giving up on the environmental goal altogether.” 

The safety valve in Senator Bingaman’s bill would put a price ceiling of $12 per ton of carbon dioxide under an emissions cap and trade system. If emissions allowances traded by companies reached the price ceiling, companies could buy unlimited cut-rate emissions allowances from the government – effectively jettisoning the bill’s mandatory emissions limits.    

The safety valve included in Senator Bingaman’s bill:

• Undermines the fundamental goal of an emissions cap. Fixing the climate problem means capping and reducing carbon emissions. Previous government analysis of similar legislation has shown that the operation of a safety valve prevents climate bills from achieving their own emissions reduction targets. 

• Limits investment in new low-carbon technologies. Putting a ceiling on the price of emissions allowances puts a ceiling on the amount of private-sector capital that could flow to the development of the clean energy technologies needed to make deep reductions in U.S carbon emissions.

• Is bad for farmers and Rural America. A cap and trade system will create a major new market for emissions allowances, and anyone who can make emissions reductions can profit. If companies can buy allowances from the government at a below-market price, they have no incentive to buy allowances from farmers who could generate more than $8 billion worth of reductions through no-till farming, methane capture and other practices.

Senator Bingaman’s bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee, where subcommittee Chair Joe Lieberman and Ranking Member John Warner are preparing comprehensive climate legislation. The two senators recently announced that they expect to bring legislation to a markup in their subcommittee before the August congressional recess.