Complete list of press releases

Media Advisory

Environmental Defense and DuPont invite you to the launch of the Nano Risk Framework, a tool for evaluating and addressing the potential risks of nanoscale materials. The event will take place on Thursday, June 21, 2007 from 11:00 a.m. at the Woodrow Wilson Center Flom Auditorium in Washington, D.C.

Media interested in participating should RSVP to Melanie Janin at 202-572-3240 by 5:00 pm Tuesday, June 19th. The event will also be webcast by the Woodrow Wilson Center and can be accessed at http://vocuspr.vocus.com/VocusPR30/Url.aspx?100122x2647x84452 .. For directions to the event, please see http://vocuspr.vocus.com/VocusPR30/Url.aspx?100122x2646x89676 ..

Environmental Defense Director of Corporate Partnerships Gwen Ruta and DuPont Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer Linda Fisher will discuss the impetus for forming this partnership and the rationale for developing a guidance document for responsible use of engineered nanoscale materials. They will also discuss how this Framework adds to the growing public discourse on nanotechnology overall.

An overview of the Framework document will be provided by Scott Walsh (Environmental Defense) and Terry Medley (DuPont), followed by a panel discussion including Jim Willis, chairman, OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials; Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor, Woodrow Wilson Center-Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies; and Sean Murdock, executive director, NanoBusiness Alliance.

The Nano Risk Framework is designed to be a comprehensive, practical and flexible tool for documenting and communicating the steps a user has taken to evaluate and address potential risks of nanoscale materials. The Framework offers guidance on the key questions an organization should consider in developing applications of such materials, and on the critical information needed to make sound risk evaluations and risk management decisions.

Sincerely,

Melanie Janin
Environmental Defense
202-572-3240 — Office
mjanin@environmentaldefense.org

Michelle Reardon
DuPont Media Relations
302-774-7447 — Office
michelle.s.reardon@usa.dupont.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

(Washington, DC – June 15, 2007) — Applying fertilizers with greater precision in combination with other conservation innovations, the restoration of wetlands and the production of perennial crops, such as native grasses for biofuels, could dramatically reduce the 5,000 square mile “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Those are the key conclusions of a new book written by 25 leading scientists throughout North America entitled, From the Corn Belt to the Gulf, (Nassauer, Santelmann, and Scavia, eds., Resources for the Future Press). The book authors discussed their agriculture conservation reform proposals at a combined news conference/teleconference today less than two weeks before the House Agriculture Committee is scheduled to draft the Farm Bill on June 26-28.

The book concludes that adoption of best management practices and enterprise innovations by farmers, when combined with wetland and grassland restoration, could reduce the amount of nitrogen reaching the Gulf of Mexico by 40 percent and recommends that agricultural expenditures currently directed toward commodity program payments in the current Farm Bill that expires September 30 be redirected when the Farm Bill is reauthorized this summer to encourage a more effective, comprehensive approach to conservation.

Nitrogen is a component of fertilizer that contributes to low oxygen levels in the Gulf, a condition scientists call “hypoxia” that threatens commercial fisheries. About 65 percent of the nitrogen reaching the Gulf originates from agriculture, according to the book.

The book also concludes that most of the nitrogen reaching the Gulf originates in parts of nine states — southern Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, northern Missouri, Indiana, and western Ohio, eastern Nebraska, southeastern South Dakota, and western Kentucky.

“While Corn Belt watersheds account for less than nine percent of the land that drains into the Mississippi, land in these watersheds contribute about one-third of the nitrogen reaching the Gulf,” said Don Scavia, a University of Michigan scientist and editor of the book.

In particular, five watersheds in three states — the Great Miami River watershed in southwestern Ohio; Upper Illinois River watershed in Illinois; and the Des Moines River, Iowa River and Skunk River watersheds in Iowa —contribute far more nitrogen than other parts of the 31-state river basin.

The book reports on scientific assessments of three different future policy scenarios applied to small Iowa watersheds, including one scenario that measures the effects of widespread adoption of both familiar and innovative best management practices by farmers, the restoration of some wetland and upland habitats, and significantly more production of perennial crops like prairie grass. That scenario results in a 300 percent increase in the production of perennial grasses, which could be used for “cellulosic” ethanol and it compares favorably to the other scenarios in its economic returns and water quality results.

“Adopting measures that improve water quality in the Gulf could also improve water quality, reduce flood losses, and provide wildlife habitat from Minnesota to Mississippi,” said Scott Faber, Director of Environmental Defense’s Healthy Farms, Healthy Food Campaign. “Farmers are eager to share the cost of cleaner water, but two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to improve Mississippi River water quality due to funding shortfalls. Renewal of farm policies in the 2007 Farm Bill is a chance to reward — rather than reject — farmers when they take steps to help rivers like the Mississippi.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board is currently reviewing the findings of the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force established by the Clinton Administration.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

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

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

(Washington, DC – June 12, 2007) – A new study released today by two leading environmental groups shows that construction of the Intercounty Connector, a proposed 18-mile toll road between Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, would violate recently tightened federal air quality health standards and put children and others at risk of serious health impacts (see www.environmentaldefense.org/go/iccoptions). The groups called on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to withhold further approval of the Intercounty Connector (ICC) highway project pending review of this new study and other scientific research that shows significant new evidence of harm to human health from highway emissions.  Today’s petition by Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club says a supplemental environmental impact statement is required under several federal laws before the project can be approved for construction. 

“The independent detailed scientific modeling of the ICC’s effects on air pollution released today shows the road would cause violations of the Clean Air Act standards for fine soot pollution that went into effect in December 2006,” said Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense’s transportation director, a former transportation coordinator for Montgomery County, Maryland.

“New studies published since the initial environmental impact statement on the ICC indicate that exposure to the mixture of toxic pollutants coming from motor vehicles can worsen asthma, impair lung development among children, and contribute to heart disease and premature death,” said John Balbus, MD, MPH, Health Program Director of Environmental Defense. “These effects are especially apparent in children, who have heightened susceptibility to traffic-associated air pollution because of their smaller size, increased respiratory rates, actively developing lungs, and greater and more active time spent outdoors.”

“The National Environmental Policy Act imposes upon federal agencies a continuing obligation to gather and evaluate new information that is relevant to the environmental impacts of ongoing actions,” said Steve Caflisch, Transportation Chair for the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club. “Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency released an updated master list of more than one thousand chemicals emitted by mobile sources, including 93 chemicals emitted by motor vehicles that are well-recognized to have serious health effects from environmental levels of exposure, including cancer, respiratory irritation, and neurotoxicity. Given this disturbing new information, the DOT needs to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate its approval of the ICC.”

The petition demonstrates that:

1)      Emissions from the ICC will cause or contribute to violations of the revised 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on October 17, 2006;

2)      Emissions from the ICC will reasonably be expected to cause harm to the health of sensitive populations—including but not limited to—harm to children who reside, attend school or recreate within 500 meters of the ICC and other highways in the study area where average annual daily traffic levels will exceed 45,000 vehicle trips by impairing normal lung development and increasing the severity of asthma attacks thereby requiring more frequent emergency care or hospitalization, and harm to elderly residents; and

3)      Modeling tools are available to perform a health risk assessment for the purpose of estimating the likely community exposures to toxic air pollutants emitted from the ICC, and to estimate the likely public health consequences of these exposures to pollutants that are known human carcinogens and/or known to cause other severe life-threatening diseases.

Last December, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit to stop the ICC because state and federal agencies studying and approving the project failed to consider the reasonable alternatives that would better address traffic problems, while protecting public health and the region’s parks and natural resources.  Last fall, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a final revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for fine particulate matter pollution known as PM2.5. Based on numerous studies that documented the causal link between short-term inhalation of PM2.5 and premature mortality, heart attacks, and respiratory diseases, including lung cancer and asthma, the EPA concluded that the former “suite of primary PM2.5 standards, taken together, is not sufficient and thus not requisite to protect public health” and revised the former 24-hour standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter.

“The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards change the legal threshold for determining whether air quality resulting from the ICC will cause significant harm to health, and whether the proposed highway will no longer comply with the Clean Air Act,” said Bob Yuhnke, an attorney for Environmental Defense who filed the petition and represents Environmental Defense in the ICC suit.  “The National Environmental Policy Act mandates that a supplemental environmental impact statement be prepared to disclose these changes to the public and the decision-maker, to determine whether emissions from the ICC will violate the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and to evaluate alternatives and mitigation measures for their potential to eliminate, avoid or minimize potential violations of these standards.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

G8 Climate Agreement Puts New Focus on U.S. Congress to Lead With Emissions Cap

(Washington — June 7, 2007) The G8 agreement reached today is an important step forward in the global effort to address climate change, but the lack of agreement on a numerical target for reducing greenhouse gases puts new pressure on the U.S. Congress to enact a firm cap on emissions.

“The spotlight is now squarely on Congress. If America wants to lead, it’s up to U.S. lawmakers,” said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. “We need to take care of our own house before other countries will take care of theirs.”

Importantly, G8 leaders today agreed to negotiate a new accord by 2009 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — bound by the convention’s goal of averting dangerous climate change. 

The key to getting a meaningful agreement in future talks will be strong caps on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, without which other nations will be reluctant to move forward. The U.S. is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and has been the most reluctant to adopt fiirm emissions limits.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Tony Kreindler, 202-572-3378 or 202-210-5791 (Cell)

(Washington – May 31, 2007) President Bush today invited 15 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters to negotiate a new framework for addressing global climate change, with the aim of securing a new global emissions reduction goal by the end of 2008.

Environmental Defense welcomes the President’s recognition that international efforts are necessary to address global warming, and his commitment to developing a long-term emissions reduction goal and mid-term national targets is encouraging.

The requisite first step for the President to have credibility in convening other nations will be the enactment of bipartisan legislation, now under consideration in Congress, to reduce emissions through a mandatory cap and trade system. A growing number of leading U.S. companies have called for tough emissions reduction targets with trading, and the administration should set the example for the world by working constructively with U.S. lawmakers to pass a cap and trade bill.

Cap and trade will drive the investment necessary to fulfill the president’s goal of bringing clean energy technologies to market. By setting an enforceable limit on greenhouse gas emissions and letting companies find and fund the best ways to reduce them, cap and trade will unleash a wave of private-sector capital far greater than government subsidies.

The President’s willingness to convene a summit is a welcome signal — if he makes clear that the summit’s goal is to support the UN climate treaty’s objective of stabilizing the atmosphere to avert dangerous climate change. If that is the goal, it will translate into greater willingness on his part to work in Heiligendamm with the G8 and key developing country leaders that Chancellor Angela Merkel has engaged.

The bottom line test of the President’s promise will be whether he and his administration work with Congress to pass strong cap-and-trade legislation, and then build on that in outreach to other nations.

“A new willingness to engage in international negotiations is a positive step, but the administration needs to turn words into action,” said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. “The president will lose the opportunity to lead internationally if he fails to show leadership at home.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Jeff Greenblatt, 510-658-8008
Dan Cronin, 202-572-3354, dcronin@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – May 31, 2007) As Midwest states gear up to build more traditional coal-fired power plants, a report issued today by Environmental Defense shows how the region can run more on readily available clean energy sources while helping the climate and remaining competitive in a rapidly changing energy economy.

The Midwest, more than any other region in the U.S., has historically relied on coal as a cheap and abundant energy source to fuel economic growth. That way of doing business needs to change as states to the east and west put limits on greenhouse gas emissions and Congress gets closer to adopting a national emissions cap.

Environmental Defense’s report, Midwest Power: Less Coal, Less Carbon, More Choices, shows that the region can produce more than three times the projected increase in electricity demand while cutting carbon dioxide emissions, by taking advantage of available wind and biomass energy sources, energy-efficient equipment in homes, offices and factories, and adopting new clean coal technologies.

“Midwest states are sitting on a wealth of options for joining the new energy economy, but they are poised to make a choice that will shackle them to yesterday’s dirty coal technologies,” said Jeffery Greenblatt, PhD, High Meadows scientist at Environmental Defense and author of the report.

“Fortunately, the Midwest—sometimes called the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of wind and biomass energy—has many choices when it comes to clean energy,” he said.

Nearly 75 percent of the region’s power comes from coal, and 43 new coal-fired plants are on the drawing board. Those plants would contribute to an additional 137 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year by 2020.

Forecasts by the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicate that electricity demand in the area could increase 16 percent by 2020. According to the report, that demand could be not only met but exceeded through a combination of new approaches to power:

• The Midwest is uniquely situated to take advantage of wind energy. The region is well-endowed with wind — enough to provide four times its current energy needs. Wind could provide 20% of electricity demand by 2020, the equivalent of 47 coal plants.
• Just a fraction of biomass supplies in the region could power nearly 40 percent of the projected increase in energy demand – equaling 20 coal plants.
• Improved energy efficiencies in residential, commercial and industrial sectors could keep demand flat at today’s level – averting another 34 plants.
• New coal plants built in the Midwest could capture and store 85 percent of the CO₂ they ordinarily emit, using carbon sequestration technology such as integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). At least 18 coal plants could be built that way by 2020.

Download Report

• Executive summary [PDF]
• Full report [PDF]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Derek Walker, (410) 980-0939-cell 
Karen Douglas, (916) 798-9450 - cell
Jennifer Witherspoon, (510) 457-2250 - work and (415) 216-9598 - cell

(Sacramento, CA – May 30, 2007) - U.S. Automakers lined up at a U.S. EPA hearing in Sacramento today to decry a 2002 law that would require that cars emit 30 percent less global warming pollution by 2016.

“The automakers are playing ‘Chicken Little’ saying the sky will fall if they have to reduce the amount of global warming emissions from new automobiles,” said Derek Walker, deputy director of the state climate initiative for Environmental Defense. “It is ridiculous. They can meet these standards with off the shelf technologies.”

The automakers lined up to make their arguments at an EPA hearing in Sacramento today. They claimed that implementing the law would have no effect on global warming and they accused California regulators of admitting to this in a Vermont trial. Automakers filed suit in both California and Vermont to fight the clean car laws.

“We can’t make a dent in global warming pollution if automakers do not clean up their act,” said Karen Douglas, director of the California Climate Initiative. “Automakers resisted the catalytic converter and seat belts and air bags but they were able to do all of them and they have the ability to do the right thing here too.”

This is the second of two hearings that the EPA has held on California’s ‘Clean Cars Law’ passed in 2002. Since the law was passed, eleven other states have adopted the clean cars law, accounting for 40 percent of the U.S. auto market. Automakers have been challenging the California law, AB 1493 (Pavley), in lawsuits in both Vermont and California. The Vermont case has completed the testimony phase and the California case is expected to hold a status conference on June 18th in Fresno. Environmental Defense, a non-profit market and science based group, is a party in both cases and has also announced that it will join California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown in promising legal action to force a decision if EPA fails to take prompt action.

California had been requesting a waiver under the Clean Air Act to implement the law as a way to fight global warming. The EPA had refused to grant the waiver saying it had no authority to regulate global warming pollution until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that it does have that authority. Public comment is being taken until June 15, 2007, but EPA has given no indication of when it will rule on the waiver request.

“EPA has been dragging its feet for 17 months and now plans to hold meetings for 17 more,” said Environmental Defense Senior Attorney Vickie Patton. “It’s time for this administration to give states the green light to fight global warming instead of burying their plans in bureaucracy.”

Implementing the Clean Cars law is considered a vital component for reaching the goals of AB 32, another sweeping California law to limit global warming pollution. Passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks represent the largest sources of global warming pollution in California, and are responsible for approximately 40 percent of California’s total global warming emissions. A March 2006 National Academy of Sciences study closely reviewed and broadly affirmed California’s time-tested role in adopting breakthrough emission standards for motor vehicles. Now EPA needs to clear the way for California to continue its pioneering work on global warming pollution.

For more information, please visit: www.environmentaldefense.org

For more on California’s Clean Cars law please visit: http://www.calcleancars.org/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Mary Kelly, 512 691-3431 mkelly@environmentaldefense.org

(May 29, 2007 — Austin, TX) Weekend squabbling in the legislature did not slow down efforts to protect the state’s waterways and drinking water sources. Senate Bill 3 was adopted in the waning hours of the 80th legislative session.

“SB 3 is a major step towards ensuring future generations of Texans have flowing, healthy rivers and productive bays and estuaries and fisheries,” said Mary Kelly, director of Environmental Defense’s Land, Water and Wildlife team.

SB 3 contains “environmental flows” provisions that will move Texas towards setting aside water for fish and wildlife, while still meeting human water needs and protecting existing water rights of cities, agriculture and industry.

“These provisions are as advanced as anywhere in the western U.S.; if we implement this right, Texas will lead the way in showing how our water resources can be managed rationally.”

The bill also contains strong conservation programs that will help avoid the need for new reservoirs.

“Texans across the state will benefit, as conservation has proven to be the most cost effective way to meet future demands and help avoid the need for new environmentally-damaging reservoirs.”

Despite the many positive components of SB3 there are still portions of the bill that are not supported by the conservation and environmental community. The most troubling is the provision increasing pumping limits from the Edwards Aquifer. Also of concern to East Texas and private landowners were provisions to designate unique reservoir sites named in the 2007 state water plan.

“We think these designations were unnecessary, but it is important to remember that just designating a site in no way means the reservoir will be built. We think it can be shown as we move forward that there are good alternatives to most of the proposed reservoirs—alternatives that are cheaper for rate-payers and that avoid the loss of rare habitats and prime farm and timber lands. Overall, this bill is good for Texas. We’re pleased to see serious progress being made.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Scott Faber, 202-230-1899, sfaber@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – May 22, 2007) - A proposal to renew USDA conservation programs provides too little funding to meet America’s environmental challenges, according to Environmental Defense, a national environmental organization.

“The conservation title considered today by the Conservation Subcommiteee of the House Agriculture Committee provides far too little funding to meet America’s most pressing environmental challenges,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “By failing to increase overall conservation spending, the committee’s proposal will perpetuate farm policies that reject — rather than reward — farmers and ranchers when they offer to share the cost of clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat.

Faber applauded Reps. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John Salazar (D-CO) and Steve Kagan (D-WI) for proposing amendments to increase conservation spending.

The conservation proposal considered today by the Conservation Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee would increase funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), but would make new funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) contingent upon a special reserve included in the budget resolution and would postpone new enrollments into the Conservation Security Program until 2012.

The proposal also includes important reforms to conservation programs, Faber said, including reforms to CSP that will simply the innovative conservation program and ensure it generates more new environmental benefits.

“This proposal includes promising ideas that have little promise of being implemented without significantly more funding,” Faber noted. “In particular, the House proposal reforms USDA’s two primary working lands incentives programs — the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) — to provide more environmental benefits and better reflect local environmental priorities, and the proposal promotes the use of ‘cooperative conservation’ agreements to bring local farmers together to meet local environmental challenges. While the committee’s proposal provides a road map to a healthier environment, the bill provides too little fuel to reach the destination.”

“In particular, the proposal provides far too little funding for CSP and no mandatory funding for programs to restore lost wetlands and grasslands,” added Faber. “The next Farm Bill should make CSP available to all farmers who meet high environmental standards, should expand the Wetlands and Grassland reserve programs, should expand the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and should provide more resources to improve air quality.”

“Farmers and ranchers manage more than half of the American landscape, so agriculture has a dramatic impact on America’s air and water quality, the pace of sprawl, and the fate of our rare species,” said Faber. “Expanding and improving USDA conservation programs will not only help the environment but will help many more farmers and regions receive their share of federal farm spending.”

“Today, two out of three farmers who offer to provide a healthier environment are turned away because of our misplaced spending priorities,” concluded Faber. “By failing to provide more resources for voluntary USDA conservation programs, this proposal would do little to address the nation’s $3 billion conservation backlog.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Keith Gaby, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3336

Steve Cochran, Environmental Defense, 202-387-3500

(WASHINGTON — May 22, 2007) — Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) yesterday announced that he will co-sponsor legislation to cap carbon emissions across the U.S. economy, winning praise from Environmental Defense for bringing additional bipartisan support to the effort to enact comprehensive limits on global warming pollution.   

“Senator Coleman is showing strong leadership here. By endorsing a cap and trade bill that makes serious cuts in global warming pollution, he is demonstrating a real commitment to solving this problem.  Coleman deserves real credit from all Minnesotans concerned about our environment,” said Steve Cochran, Climate Campaign Director at Environmental Defense.

Sen. Coleman has agreed to co-sponsor greenhouse gas cap and trade legislation co-authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), S. 280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The bill would put a comprehensive cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and let businesses trade emissions credits to meet their reduction targets, spurring innovative and least-cost solutions to the climate problem.

“This is another indication of the momentum for good policy that is building on climate change.  We look forward to working with Senator Coleman as Congress moves ahead,” said Cochran.   Coleman joins fellow Minnesotans, Rep. Keith Ellison and Rep. Betty McCollum, who are also co-sponsoring strong global warming bills.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

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

Julia Bovey, NRDC, 202-289-2420 or 202-270-0768 (Cell)

(Washington – May 22, 2007) Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) today filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to force a long-delayed ruling on California’s request to establish new tailpipe emissions standards for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The groups join California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown in promising legal action to force a decision if EPA fails to take prompt action.  The governor in April said he would give the agency 180 days to reach a final decision before filing a lawsuit.

California needs a waiver from EPA under the Clean Air Act to implement landmark emissions standards that would significantly reduce global warming pollution from motor vehicles over the next decade. Eleven other states have adopted the standards and await EPA’s decision.

EPA has been sitting on California’s request for a waiver since 2005. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court overturned EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.  But instead of moving to swiftly approve the state programs to cut global warming pollution, President Bush last week directed EPA and other departments to come up with a new separate plan for addressing global warming pollution from the transportation sector by December 2008, a move that reflects further delay by EPA.

“EPA has been dragging its feet for 17 months and now plans to hold meetings for 17 more,” said Environmental Defense Senior Attorney Vickie Patton. “It’s time for this administration to give states the green light to fight global warming instead of burying their plans in bureaucracy.”

“The EPA has bottled up action in Washington, now it’s bottling up action in the states. The law is clear. The Supreme Court said so, and if it takes another judge to say so, that’s what will have to happen,” David Doniger, Policy Director of NRDC’s Climate Center said.

Environmental Defense and NRDC today sent a letter to the agency warning that they will file suit “to compel EPA’s unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld final action on California’s waiver request” if the agency does not make a decision within 180 days.

The filing comes on the day of EPA’s first public hearing on California’s waiver request. EPA plans to take public comment through June 15, but agency officials have refused to commit to a timeline for issuing a final decision.

California’s Clean Cars law (AB 1493), also known as “Pavley,” phases in reductions of global warming pollution beginning in model year 2009 and ultimately achieves a 30 percent decrease in fleetwide emissions. Passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks represent the largest sources of global warming pollution in California, and are responsible for approximately 40 percent of California’s total global warming emissions.

The eleven states that have adopted California’s Clean Cars law include Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Maryland.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Scott Faber, 202-230-1899, sfaber@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – May 18, 2007) - “The Farm Bill conservation proposal released by the House Agriculture Committee this week provides a road map to a healthier environment but includes grossly insufficient fuel to reach the destination,” said Environmental Defense Farm Policy Campaign Director Scott Faber.

“This proposal includes promising ideas that have little promise of being implemented without significantly more funding,” Faber noted. “In particular, the House proposal reforms USDA’s two primary working lands incentives programs — the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) — to provide more environmental benefits and better reflect local environmental priorities, and the proposal promotes the use of ‘cooperative conservation’ agreements to bring local farmers together to meet local environmental challenges.

“Unfortunately, the proposal provides far too little funding for CSP and no mandatory funding for programs to restore lost wetlands and grasslands,” added Faber. “While we support efforts to expand EQIP and the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, as the Committee has proposed, we urge the Committee to make CSP available to all farmers who meet high environmental standards; to expand the Wetlands and Grasslands reserve programs; to expand the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; and to provide more resources to improve air quality.

“Farmers and ranchers manage more than half of the American landscape, so agriculture has a dramatic impact on America’s air and water quality, the pace of sprawl, and the fate of our rare species,” concluded Faber. “The next Farm Bill should reward — not reject — farmers, ranchers and forest landowners when they offer to share the cost of clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat. Today, two out of three farmers who offer to provide a healthier environment are turned away because of our misplaced spending priorities.

“By failing to provide more resources for voluntary USDA conservation programs, this proposal would do little to address the nation’s $3 billion conservation backlog and fall far short of meeting some of the nation’s most pressing environment challenges. Expanding and improving USDA conservation programs will not only help the environment but will help many more farmers and regions receive their share of federal farm spending.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Sharyn Stein, 202-572-3396, sstein@environmentaldefense.org
Meg Little, 202-572-3387, mlittle@environmentaldefense.org

(May 14, 2007 - Washington, D.C.) – For the first time, Minnesota officially topped longtime leader Florida as the number one ranked state in the continental U.S. for nesting bald eagles population, according to an announcement today by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The agency’s statistics show that Minnesota is leading the continental U.S. as a home for our national symbol with 1,312 nesting pairs. The bald eagle population in the lower 48 states has climbed to 9,789 breeding pairs, from an all-time low in 1963 of barely more than 400 pairs, which is what led to the eagle being put on the endangered species list. The bald eagle is not found in Hawaii and never was endangered in Alaska

“The population of our national symbol clearly is flying high, and if we continue to provide eagles with a reasonable degree of protection from disturbance they’ll have a bright future,” said Tim Male, a senior wildlife scientist at Environmental Defense, which helped lead the effort to ban DDT in the United States because the pesticide weakened the shells of eagle eggs and made it impossible for chicks to develop and hatch. “This is exciting news for all Americans, but especially for Minnesotans. Minnesota now has more than three times the number of eagles that the entire lower 48 states had a few decades ago.”

Since the U.S. DDT in 1972, bald eagles have recovered steadily, graduating from the endangered species list to the threatened species list; they are expected be de-listed altogether this summer.

However, the Bush Administration is considering changes in interpreting federal law that could put bald eagles back in danger. If the eagles are taken off the endangered species list, they would still be protected under The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, an older law that set up basic safeguards for the patriotic symbol. One of those safeguards is a ban on “disturbing” eagles, but the proposed interpretation is that eagles are not “disturbed” unless they are killed, injured, or forced to abandon a nest.

“The change would make it all but impossible to enforce the law and protect bald eagles,” concluded Male. “It also flies in the face of logic. It’s like saying that you can’t complain that your neighbors’ noisy party is disturbing your sleep unless you are bleeding to death. We are finally making real progress to save the bald eagle, and we need the government to enforce basic common-sense regulations to keep eagles from sliding back onto the endangered species list.”

A bipartisan group of twenty-five members of the House of Representatives have already called on the Administration to change its proposal, calling the Administration’s regulatory language “almost unenforceable.” The proposal has also attracted criticism from many state wildlife agencies. Environmental Defense and other conservation groups have urged the White House to provide better protections to eagles from human activities that would clearly disturb them and significantly affect eagle behavior and ultimately, their survival.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Tony Kreindler, 202-572-3378, 202-210-5791 (Cell)

(Washington — May 14, 2007) President Bush today issued an executive order that directs the Environmental Protection Agency to write new rules under the Clean Air Act in an attempt to reduce gasoline consumption and address climate change by expanding alternative fuels and tightening fuel economy standards.

Environmental Defense welcomes President Bush’s interest in reducing global warming pollution from cars and his acknowledgement that EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. But the initiative will fall far short of fixing the climate problem if it does not include a firm cap on carbon.

“Whether EPA will lead the fight against global warming or lead us to a hotter planet remains to be seen,” said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. “The litmus test must be real reductions in carbon emissions, and those can only come from real limits.”

“It’s time for this administration to join with the mainstream of American businesses and support a cap on carbon,” Krupp said.

Environmental Defense is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of leading U.S. businesses and environmental groups calling on this Congress to adopt an economy-wide cap and trade system for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The group’s 22 members from across the U.S. economy include GE, Caterpillar, AIG, Shell, DuPont and GM.