Complete list of press releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Jennifer Witherspoon, (415) 216-9598, jwitherspoon@environmentaldefense.org
Sean Crowley, (510) 457-2232, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

(Sacramento, CA - January 9, 2007) - According to a briefing by administration officials today, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will call later today for the unprecedented creation of a low carbon fuel standard as part of the state’s efforts to limit global warming emissions.

“Once again, Governor Schwarzenegger and the State of California are pioneering new markets that will unleash the power of the private sector to combat global warming,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, which cosponsored AB 32, the state’s landmark global warming legislation. “And, for the first time, the fuels we all use will be part of the solution – as they should be.”

Biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel have the potential to contribute greatly toward battling climate change and strengthening energy security. But realizing this potential requires a way to evaluate fuels using the one criterion that addresses both issues: measuring carbon by per unit of energy (BTU). The governor’s proposed standard will result in at least a 10% reduction of carbon dioxide in all fuels in California by 2020 — with the metric of measure being CO₂ equivalent/BTU.

“There are many ways to get to low carbon fuels,” said David Yarnold, executive vice president of Environmental Defense. “One of the more exciting options using existing, available technology today is using manure from California’s dairy industry to serve as a fuel source for making ethanol instead of coal or natural gas. Since methane is 21 times more potent than the leading greenhouse gas, avoiding methane emissions will dramatically bring down the carbon content of fuels.”

The historic fuels standard will be implemented though regulations developed by the California Air Resources Board under AB 32, which the governor signed into law in September. That law will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. Read AB 32 summary [PDF]. 

“The critical thing that California has done today is to start the low carbon fuels race,” added Krupp. “Now, there is a reason and a real incentive to start measuring all fuels by their carbon content, a measure that is bound to benefit ethanol and biodiesel.”

“California’s action signals the beginning of a whole new era for fuels and for renewable energy,” concluded Yarnold. “What is so exciting about the California action today is that it launches a market for fuels that are made from ultra-efficient methods, begins to help reduce climate change, and gets us closer than ever to our nation’s energy security goals.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Meg Little, (202) 572-3387, mlittle@environmentaldefense.org
Tim Male, (202) 572-3313, tmale@environmentaldefense.org 

(Washington, DC – Dec. 29, 2006) - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced a landmark agreement to save five endangered birds in Hawaii that could serve as a national model for helping private farmers and ranchers recover endangered species. The Hawaii agreement marks the first time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and local Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Councils are becoming nationwide leaders in helping private landowners restore endangered species. The draft agreement appears in today’s volume of the Federal Register.

Under the Safe Harbor agreement, private landowners who are working with the USDA will receive assurances that future land use requirements will not be imposed because of their conservation efforts.   To be eligible, landowners must be enrolled in a USDA Farm Bill Conservation Program and making improvements to wetlands or habitat benefiting any of five endangered birds: Hawaiian Goose (Nene), Hawaiian Duck, Hawaiian Moorhen, Hawaiian Coot, and Hawaiian Stilt.

“Hawaii has a long history of using Safe Harbor agreements, but this one is really innovative and should be repeated everywhere across the country where private farms and ranches can provide habitat for endangered species with USDA’s help,” said Michael Bean, a leading authority on the Endangered Species Act and chair of Wildlife program at Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit group that worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other partners to create the first Safe Harbor agreement more than a decade ago.

The agreement will take effect after a public comment period and approval by the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USDA staff will help restore habitat and RC&D Councils will administer individual landowner agreements. State and federal wildlife agencies will provide their endangered species expertise.  

“The USDA spends $4 billion a year on conservation,” said Timothy Male, PhD., senior ecologist at Environmental Defense. “Finding ways to direct USDA dollars toward endangered species recovery is incredibly important and that’s exactly what agencies in Hawaii have figured out.”

“Lots of farmers and ranchers want to help save endangered species, but they are afraid the government will punish them for doing so,” said Jim Greenwell, Hawaii rancher and Past President of the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council. “This agreement could encourage more cooperative conservation across Hawaii.”

Nationally, Safe Harbor agreements have already been struck with several hundred landowners on approximately four million acres of land nationwide. Safe Harbor agreements were responsible for the reintroduction of the Hawaiian goose (the state’s official bird) to the island of Molokai, after an absence of more than two centuries, and the return of the northern aplomado falcon, North America’s rarest falcon, as a breeding bird in Texas after an absence of several decades.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
David Baron, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500
Elliot Negin, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-2405
Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense, (202) 550-6524-c, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Janice Nolen, American Lung Association, (202) 785-3355, x222

(December 22, 2006 - Washington, D.C.) A federal appeals court today struck down an attempt by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to weaken national rules limiting smog linked to asthma attacks, increased hospitalizations, and that puts millions of Americans at risk for respiratory problems. In a unanimous ruling, the Court held that EPA violated the Clean Air Act in relaxing limits on smog-forming pollution from large power plants, factories, and other sources in cities violating health standards. Earthjustice brought the court challenge on behalf of the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council.

“This decision is a victory for clean air,” said Earthjustice attorney David Baron. “The air in some cities is sometimes so dirty that kids can’t safely play outside. Health experts say we need stronger, not weaker limits on smog.”

Earthjustice argued that EPA’s action made no sense because it came after the agency found that the previous ozone standard was too weak to protect public health. “The rule allowed more pollution in cities where the air was already unhealthy to breathe,” said Baron. Cities that were at risk for increased pollution under EPA’s action included Chicago, Houston, Milwaukee, New York, Atlanta, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Philadelphia, Sacramento, Washington (DC), Beaumont-Port Arthur, Boston, Dallas, Providence, and San Joaquin Valley, CA, among others.

“Tens of millions of Americans in the nation’s most polluted urban areas will be able to breathe easier because the courts continue to reject this administration’s agenda to protect polluters at the expense of the rest of us,” said John Walke, Director of the Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The 1990 Clean Air Act required stronger anti-smog measures in cities violating ozone standards, including limits on pollution from new and expanded factories, requirements for annual cuts in smog-forming emissions, and caps on truck and car exhaust. In 1997, EPA found that the then-existing “1-hour” ozone health standard wasn’t strong enough to protect health, and adopted a new “8-hour” standard to provide greater protection. But paradoxically, the agency in 2004 adopted rules that weakened pollution control requirements for areas violating both the old and the new standard. That triggered the court challenge leading to today’s decision.

“The court’s decision to uphold the Clean Air Act is a victory for human health, not just the rule of law,” said John Balbus, MD, MPH, the Health Program Director at Environmental Defense, and former Director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University. “As a doctor, I know that enforcing this provision of the Clean Air Act will save lives and prevent suffering by protecting millions of children and seniors from ozone-triggered illnesses.”

“This is a splendid holiday present for the nation,” said John L. Kirkwood, President and Chief Executive Office for the American Lung Association. “The Court has given children and adults long burdened by dangerous, smoggy air the gift of breathing easier.”

The Court also rejected EPA’s decision to exempt many cities violating the new standard from the law’s most protective requirements. EPA argued that it should have discretion to apply weaker protections to these areas, but the Court held that Congress – frustrated with past failures to meet standards – required a stronger approach.

“EPA has a responsibility to protect our health and our environment from dirty, polluted air,” said Marti Sinclair, chairperson for Sierra Club’s Air Quality Committee. “Millions of Americans breathe air with unsafe ozone levels, and they deserve stronger, not weaker protection under the law.”

Ozone is associated with asthma attacks, coughing, wheezing, and other respiratory illness. Higher smog levels in a region are frequently accompanied by increased hospitalization and emergency room visits for respiratory disorders. Hundreds of counties across the country currently have unhealthful levels of smog, which limits outdoor activities, increases hospitalizations, and puts millions of Americans at risk for respiratory problems.

Read full version of today’s decision [PDF]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Janea Scott, (310) 728-9469-c
Sean Crowley, (202) 550-6524-c, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

(December 21, 2006 - Washington, D.C.) A new Environmental Defense report finds that diesel locomotive air pollution is linked to about 3,400 premature deaths and other serious health effects every year, and calls on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect human health by issuing overdue clean air standards. Environmental Defense’s report, “Smokestacks on Rails: Getting Clean Air Solutions for Locomotives on Track,” examines diesel train pollution nationally and in Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Detroit, Houston-Galveston and Los Angeles (see report and summary).

Most of the trains in America today are powered by diesel engines. Diesel exhaust contains particulate matter, a deadly form of air pollution that’s linked to lung cancer and other respiratory problems. Diesel exhaust also contains smog-forming oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, which falls back to earth as acid rain, and greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

In 2004, the EPA announced plans to issue proposed national locomotive emission standards in 2005 and to finalize such standards by mid-2006. But EPA has failed to act. Environmental Defense’s new report calls on the EPA to fulfill its public commitment and strengthen clean air standards for these high polluting “smokestacks on rails.”

“While trains capture the vivid imagination of children during the holiday season and are workhorses in American commerce, the pollution from locomotive smokestacks imposes a heavy burden on human health,” said Bill Chameides, Ph.D., chief scientist at Environmental Defense and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. “With EPA’s leadership, we can protect America’s lungs from locomotive pollution and deliver America’s freight with cleaner engines.”

The use of trains for freight transport has doubled in the last 35 years, and today trains release levels of smog-forming oxides of nitrogen (NOX) comparable to 120 coal-fired power plants. In Chicago, for example, locomotives discharged as much NOX into the air in one year as 25 million cars meeting today’s automotive emission standards. By 2030, EPA estimates that trains will be responsible for about one-third of all particulate pollution in the air from the transportation sector, unless more protective emission standards are put in place.

“Fortunately, solutions to clean up locomotive pollution are at hand,” said Environmental Defense staff attorney Janea Scott. “The cleaner fuel that enables advanced cleaner-diesel technology is already on the books, and emissions-reducing technologies are already being tested.”

Hybrid switcher engines for trains, called Green Goats, can cut fuel use by as much as 70% and emissions by up to 90%. New technologies can keep train engines warm while they are turned off so the trains don’t have to idle. But right now rigorous clean air solutions are not required by law.

The report also calls for new programs to encourage faster clean up of today’s dirty train engines, and full funding of grant programs to help lower harmful pollutants from diesel engines on the road today. The federal Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which was passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in 2005, authorized $200 million in annual funding for diesel retrofits but appropriations have fallen far short.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense (202) 550-6524, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Mike Harold, Audubon Naturalist Society, (301) 652-9188 x 22, MHarold@audubonnaturalist.org
Laura Olsen, Coalition for Smarter Growth, (202) 244-4408 x 4#, laura@smartergrowth.net

(December 20, 2006 - Rockville, MD) Residents along the controversial proposed 18-mile intercounty connector (ICC) toll highway in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties have joined environmental groups to challenge the legality of state and federal decisions that threaten communities and natural resources, including the Chesapeake Bay. One of two court challenges filed today is the first case nationwide to seek to hold federal transportation agencies accountable under a recently amended law that requires minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution to promote energy security and combat global warming.

“The Ehrlich Administration and federal agencies illegally dismissed a set of transportation projects that would provide more travel benefits and protect communities, parks and the Chesapeake Bay,” said Neal Fitzpatrick, Executive Director of the Audubon Naturalist Society. “These alternatives would cost far less than the proposed ICC. Clearly, the ICC is a bad deal, not a done deal.”

Individuals and organizations, including Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, Maryland Native Plant Society and Audubon Naturalist Society, have sought an objective analysis of options to address the traffic problems and transportation needs of area residents since Governor Ehrlich launched another study of the proposed ICC in 2003. The federal and state agencies failed to look at alternatives or adequately assess the health and environmental impacts, so these groups were forced to take their concerns to the courts in order to protect the interests of state residents.

“The science is in: toxic vehicle exhaust from major highways like the ICC can poison anyone in close proximity to the road,” said Connie McKenna, a member of both Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club. McKenna lives on Briardale Road in Derwood next to the proposed six-lane toll road that would allow 18-wheel trucks to spew diesel exhaust fumes as they pass by her home. “I am terrified for my son who, like many children along the ICC right-of-way, suffers from asthma. My cousin’s first asthma attack killed her.”

In fact, the state’s own study shows that the ICC would boost traffic on parts of I-370, I-270, I-95, the Beltway and on many local north-south roads, causing increased pollution at sensitive sites near these roads, such as Montgomery Blair High School and Holy Cross Hospital.

In two different legal cases, four environmental groups and several individuals are challenging the approval of the proposed $3 billion ICC.

Environmental Defense & Sierra Club

In DC District Court, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club are contesting the air quality analysis conducted by the Federal Highway Administration and Metropolitan Washington’s Transportation Planning Board. The plaintiffs also seek to reduce global warming impacts from transportation by enforcing the recently enacted Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, which requires transportation agencies to choose transportation alternatives that minimize greenhouse gas emissions. 1) The ICC was approved without a proper evaluation of its effects on local particle pollution. 2), the air pollution analysis failed to quantify the impacts of dangerous toxic pollutants for which Maryland has set standards, but EPA has not set federal standards. 3) Congress last year strengthened a requirement in federal transportation law requiring that the transportation projects added to a metropolitan transportation system be funded only if they “minimize fuel consumption.”

Audubon Naturalist Society, Maryland Native Plant Society & the Metcalf-Burton Family

In the US District Court for Maryland, Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Maryland Native Plant Society, and Roger Metcalf and Eve Burton, property owners who would lose their home in Derwood, MD to the ICC, are challenging the US Department of Transportation and other agencies’ approval of the ICC because the agencies failed to consider reasonable alternatives and the full environmental impact of the proposed toll road, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes. In addition, the agencies violated federal regulations by failing to consider whether the project would turn its back on Maryland laws protecting rare, threatened, and endangered species and habitat.

Air Pollution, Public Health

Environmental Defense and Sierra Club argue that the ICC was approved without a proper evaluation of the effects of the ICC on local air pollution and public health. The approval assumed that monitors located more than 1 1/2 miles from major highways are representative of the pollution levels experienced by neighborhoods, schools, and parks in immediate proximity to major highways such as I-95, I-270, and I-370. The ICC would increase traffic and pollution on these and other highways. Monitoring of soot pollution close to these roads is needed to ensure that the ICC would not exacerbate existing violations of federal air pollution health standards designed to protect the health of people living, working, or going to schools in our communities. View the full complaint at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5735_ICC_Complaint.pdf.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently recommended protecting children from the harmful effects of air pollution by not locating schools near highways. California has banned new schools from locations within 500 feet of major highways based on recent research that links motor vehicle emissions to adverse health effects suffered by children. Yet located within 500 feet of the proposed ICC route are: Drew Elementary School; East Norbeck Park; Northwest Branch Recreational Park; Layhill Park; Rock Creek Regional Park; and ball fields and playgrounds near Royal Forest in Colesville.

“The proposed ICC would deliver health risks without curing our transportation ills,” said John Balbus, MD, MPH, the Health Program Director at Environmental Defense who also is a Sierra Club member and founding Director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University. “Children and adults already suffering from asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis and heart disease will be most likely to be affected. Even fetuses appear to be vulnerable to the adverse health effects of motor vehicle-related pollutants.”

Consideration of Environmental Impacts & Reasonable Alternatives

In a separate legal challenge, Audubon Naturalist Society, Maryland Native Plant Society, and the Metcalf-Burton family argue the agencies violated their responsibility to consider reasonable alternatives that could improve mobility in the area with less harm to the environment, water quality, and parks. From the date of the NEPA’s enactment, courts have recognized that the alternatives analysis is the heart of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), yet the Ehrlich Administration refused throughout the study to consider anything but building a new east-west toll road on two significantly overlapping routes.

“Our challenge maintains that Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation so narrowly defined the scope, purpose, and need of the project during the NEPA process that anything other than the six-lane east-west toll highway was not considered,” noted Fitzpatrick. “The ICC would severely damage or destroy high quality natural resources and ensure continued governmental inattention to truly significant transportation problems in suburban Maryland which continue to plague millions for lack of funding.”

These groups are also challenging the approach used to assess and weigh impacts to air, forests, water quality, parks and rare and endangered species. The federal agencies rely on only what is in the study for their review and assessment, so incomplete, inconsistent or skewed information can bias the agencies review. This is how the deficiencies of the EIS have infected not only Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation’s project approvals, but also the Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of a permit that would allow Maryland agencies to fill in wetlands and other water bodies to construct the ICC.

“Throughout the study, the state failed to identify the extensive environmental impacts of the proposed 18-mile road,” noted John Parrish, Vice-President of the Maryland Native Plant Society. “Restoration of the Anacostia River and Chesapeake Bay depends on maintaining and restoring forest cover. Losing 700 acres of forest, including rare species, is simply unacceptable in light of better performing, less harmful alternatives.”

Independent experts found four practical, cost-effective options perform better than the ICC on most measures, including reducing traffic, air pollution and overall cost. These alternatives include enhancing bus and rail transit, upgrading existing highways, fixing local roads, time-of-day tolling, encouraging more development near Metro stations, and balancing job growth across the region.

“It is important to remember that state officials don’t have to wait for the courts to address traffic and protect communities and the environment. Governor-elect O’Malley and state and local officials have a new opportunity to rethink the state’s transportation needs,” said Betsy Johnson, Chair of the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club. “Now is the time to prioritize our limited transportation funds on transit in Baltimore and the Washington suburbs as well fixing local roads statewide.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Gwen Ruta 617-723-2996, gruta@environmentaldefense.org
Sean Crowley, 202-572-3331, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

(December 18, 2006 - Boston, MA) Environmental Defense praised Massachusetts’ officials for taking a strong step forward today in reducing the public health burden of diesel pollution, by dedicating $22.5 million to clean up emissions from publicly owned transit and school buses (see advisory below).

Diesel pollution aggravates symptoms of asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases, and increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Massachusetts has the highest health risk from diesel soot in New England. Dirty diesel causes tens of thousands of lost work days, thousands of asthma attacks, hundreds of heart attacks and premature deaths annually.

“This action to clean up school bus emissions is a winner for kids, parents and taxpayers in the Commonwealth,” said Gwen Ruta, Massachusetts Regional Director at Environmental Defense and former director of external affairs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Every dollar invested in filtering out pollutants in diesel exhaust yields at least $12 in health benefits, making this a very cost-effective way to cut air pollution. This is a great first step toward a comprehensive solution to dirty diesel.”

Ruta said that the next step s should be to address emissions from the construction sector by passing House Bill 4719 (full text of bill [PDF]). It targets emissions from construction equipment like backhoes and cranes that contribute to hot spots of pollution in urban areas and near construction sites.

“There are 14 days left in this legislative session,” Ruta added. “The legislature has a chance to take the Administration’s actions one step this year further by cleaning up emissions from the construction equipment. This move would give the private sector the incentives it needs to lead the way, and bring the cleanest technologies to more diesel fleets now.”

“Massachusetts needs a comprehensive plan for reducing diesel pollution, and the announcement today is a move in the right direction,” Ruta concluded. “The sooner a comprehensive program is in place, the sooner we can all start to breathe easier.”

MEDIA ADVISORY

COMMONWEALTH DEDICATES $22.5 MILLION TO RETROFIT ALL SCHOOL, TRANSIT BUSES IN THE STATE

Contact: Vanessa Gulati, (617) 626-1119

WHAT: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Secretary, Robert W. Golledge, Jr., Executive Office of Transportation Secretary John Cogliano, Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Arlene O’Donnell and advocates gather to announce $22.5 million to retrofit all school buses and transit busses in the state by 2010 improving air quality and reducing particulate matter.

WHO: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Secretary, Robert W. Golledge, Jr.; Executive Office of Transportation Secretary, John Cogliano; Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, Arlene O’Donnell; Office of Commonwealth Development Chief, Andrew Gottlieb; Asthma Regional Council Director, Laurie Stillman, and Breath Of Life youth group student, Alexandra Chery from Mt. Saint Joseph’s Academy, Along with other regional advocacy groups.

WHEN: Monday December 18, 2006 3:00 PM

WHERE: Government Center (Old Saltonstall Building) 100 Cambridge Street, second level back plaza

Contact: Paul Harrison, 202.572.3376, pharrison@ed.org
Sharyn Stein, 202.572.3396, 202.460.6512 (cell), sstein@ed.org

Washington, D.C. – Conservation group leaders criticized an interim report to Congress released by the Army Corps of Engineers that identified closing Mister Go to all navigation as the best option, but stopped short of providing a full plan for restoration while putting off a final decision until at least late next year. (Read the report [PDF]). The groups called on the Corps to expedite the restoration of protective wetlands in Louisiana and praised Senator David Vitter (R-LA) for demanding that the Corps use already-appropriated funds to begin closing the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, also known as “MRGO” or “Mister Go.” Mister Go is a dangerous channel that devastated New Orleans’ former natural hurricane protection.

The conservation experts said that the report was a good first step, but inadequate in light of New Orleans’ continued vulnerability to hurricanes.

“Hurricane Katrina taught us that there is no time to waste before closing the deadly Mister Go,” said Paul Harrison, Louisiana Coastal Project Director for Environmental Defense. “Senator Vitter hit the nail on the head when he said that the Corps should get started immediately and use authorized funds to close the channel at Bayou la Loutre.”

“The Corps often says that it doesn’t make the big decisions, Congress does,” said Mark Ford, Executive Director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. “Well, Congress has made the decision that $75 million is available to start closing Mister Go. Now all the Corps has to do is listen.” Earlier this month, environmentalists and local officials presented a report entitled “Mister Go Must Go” [PDF] that relied on scientific modeling to describe a complete fix of the Mister Go problem. Today, environmentalists were disappointed that the Corps report overlooked critical elements to be analyzed in next year’s Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) study.

“Critical wetlands restoration tasks like the freshwater diversion at Violet and marsh creation are not ‘opportunities,’ they are required actions,” said Susan Kaderka, Gulf Coast Regional Director for the National Wildlife Federation.

Environmentalists also noted that the report does not take steps to address storm surge or wave attacks on vulnerable levees. “Instead of fixing the problem, the Corps has decided to ignore science, in favor of taking baby steps,” said Melissa Samet, Senior Director of Water Resources at American Rivers. “This half hearted approach leaves thousands of people who live in New Orleans and St Bernard Parish at risk, and calls into question just how serious the Corps is about providing real hurricane protection to the area.”

Mister Go is an artificial channel built by the Corps in 1965 to be a shipping shortcut from the Gulf of Mexico to the New Orleans inner harbor. The Corps created the channel by slicing through the natural land bridge and barrier islands that separated New Orleans from the Gulf, which allowed millions of gallons of saltwater to flow into the area’s freshwater bayous and lakes. The salt water killed tens of thousands of acres of cypress forest that had served as a natural hurricane barrier.

The design of MRGO also allowed it to act like a funnel, accelerating the rate at which hurricane-churned wind and water headed toward the New Orleans area. The loss of natural hurricane barriers and the increased storm surge from the MRGO “funnel” allowed Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to slam into the coast at full force, putting unprecedented strain on manmade levees – some of which failed.

MRGO has been an economic disaster as well. It costs taxpayers almost $12 million each year for maintenance on the outlet, plus the cost of the near-constant dredging needed to keep it open, but MRGO is only used by about half a dozen ships a day. On average, taxpayers get $20,000 bill to taxpayers each time a ship uses the shortcut.

After Hurricane Katrina, Congress directed the Corps to develop a plan to stop deep-draft shipping on MRGO. Congress will need to take further action now that the Corps has delivered its interim report.

Contact: David Baron, Earthjustice (202) 667-4500
Janice Nolen, American Lung Association (202) 785-3355
Vickie Patton, Environmental Defense (720) 837-6239 – c; vpatton@ed.org
Mark Wenzler, National Parks Conservation Association (202) 454-3335

Washington, D.C. – Public health and environmental groups today filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for refusing to strengthen a nearly decade old national public health standard for particulate matter (PM) pollution to a level that could prevent thousands of premature deaths every year. Earthjustice filed the suit on behalf of the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, and the National Parks Conservation Association.

The suit stems from the EPA’s October decision to reject the advice of its own scientific advisory panel and its own staff scientists. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended strengthening the existing annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter for fine particulate matter – originally set in 1997 - to between 13 and 14 micrograms per cubic meter. The American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Thoracic Society and American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, all urged tightening the annual standard to protect children, the elderly, and others from the major health risks caused by PM pollution.

Airborne particulate matter (PM) is comprised of tiny particles of smoke, soot, metals and other chemical compounds emitted from sources like power plants, factories, and diesel trucks. Scientists say PM, which can travel deep into our lungs, is one of the most toxic forms of air pollution. They estimate that PM is responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths nationwide every year. It is linked to aggravation of respiratory illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, chronic obstructive lung disease, and pneumonia; it is also linked to premature deaths from other causes, such as lung cancer and heart disease.

“Particulate matter pollution is a major health threat and the evidence is stronger than ever,” said Earthjustice attorney David Baron. “But the EPA refuses to follow the advice of leading doctors, scientists and health advocates who say the standard won’t protect public health. We say the public deserves better under the Clean Air Act.”

“Unfortunately, the EPA ignored its own science advisory committee, it ignored the American Medical Association, and it ignored its bedrock duty under the Clean Air Act to protect public health from harmful air pollution,” said Vickie Patton, a senior attorney with Environmental Defense and a former attorney in the EPA’s General Counsel’s office.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to adopt primary air quality standards for particulate matter pollution to protect public health and secondary standards to protect public welfare, including visibility. The EPA must review these standards every five years and revise them based on the latest scientific information.

“Anyone who questions the need to lower particulate matter pollution standards should take a hike in Great Smoky Mountains or Sequoia national parks in August,” said Mark Wenzler, director of the Clean Air Program for the National Parks Conservation Association. “You will likely encounter a haze so thick you can barely see the next ridge. Imagine what that pollution is doing to your lungs.”

The EPA’s refusal to consider the advice of doctors and scientists means Americans are being forced to breathe dirty air, the groups contend. Earlier this month, the agency decided it would scrap procedures that have been in place for the last 25 years in setting these standards in favor of a new process that limits the role of scientists and doctors.

Contact: Kathryn Phillips, 916-893-8494, kphillips@ed.org

(Fresno, CA) –Three organizations representing residents of the San Joaquin Valley were granted the right today to support regulators’ efforts to protect public health by reducing air pollution caused by new development projects.

Following oral arguments, Fresno County State Superior Court Judge Donald S. Black rejected efforts by the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) to prevent the air quality advocacy organizations from intervening in a lawsuit filed by the CBIA. The three groups, Environmental Defense, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air (MAHA) and the Sierra Club, jointly argued to intervene in the Fresno County Superior Court case of California Building Industry Association, et al. vs. the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

“The court recognized in its decision that the public’s interest in clean air is at stake and deserves to be heard as the case goes forward,” said Kathryn Phillips, manager of Environmental Defense’s clean air campaign in the San Joaquin Valley. “I think this is just the first step in a court process that will demonstrate to the California Building Industry Association that they’re on the wrong side of history in this case. Their members are complying with the law, new houses and business centers are continuing to be built, but with the added bonus of cleaner air than we would have without the rule the trade association is challenging.”

“This is a victory for anyone who cares about traffic and air pollution,” said Lorraine Unger, Chair of the Sierra Club Kern-Kaweah chapter in Bakersfield. “It gives us a chance to make the case against highly-polluting development and make the case for common sense solutions to protect the health and safety of San Joaquin County.”

The groups’ motion supports the air district’s authority to implement the landmark “indirect source rule” it adopted last December. The rule requires that developers of larger new residential, commercial and industrial projects reduce indirect pollution caused by construction activities and traffic linked to the development through a range of actions that reduce traffic or improve energy efficiency. If a developer determines pollution can’t be reduced at the development site, the developer has the option of paying a fee that the air district uses to buy and apply emissions reduction technologies elsewhere in the district.

The air quality advocates are represented by the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a nationwide firm with offices in Palo Alto.

For details on the groups’ motion to intervene, go to: http://environmentaldefense.org/content.cfm?contentID=5573.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Colin Rowan, Environmental Defense, (512) 691-3416 or Jim Marston (512-289-5293)

(Austin – December 14, 2006) At a preliminary hearing on seven of TXU’s proposed coal plants today in Austin, the State Office of Administrative Hearings granted party status to a broad coalition of cities and other local governments that oppose then proposed plants. On other issues, they decided to implement Governor Rick Perry’s order to limit public and scientific review and scrutiny of the millions of tons of additional pollution that will be created by these plants, and ignore cleaner and cost-effective alternatives.

“Today showed that we have no alternative than to seek justice at the courthouse,” said Environmental Defense regional director Jim Marston. “Governor Perry has stacked the political deck in favor of TXU’s dirty plants and against the health of Texans. The good news is that there are talented and fair-minded judges in Travis Country to whom we will be presenting our case in the coming days.”

Contact:
Steve Cochran, Environmental Defense 202-387-3500
Keith Gaby, Environmental Defense 202-387-3500

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A telephone survey commissioned by Environmental Defense among 602 likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers reveals that over 2/3rds of caucus-goers – and more than 3/4ths of Democratic county chairs – consider global warming to be extremely or very serious.

• A 72% of majority of Democratic caucus-goers say they consider global warming to be extremely (32%) or very (39%) serious – while another 15% say it is fairly serious. Only 11% dismiss it as just somewhat (9%) or not at all serious (2%).
• Among a separate poll of Democratic county chairs and vice chairs, 77% think global warming is extremely (37%) or very (40%) serious – plus 14% who say it is fairly serious.

The research also included a separate poll of Democratic county chairs and vice chairs – perhaps the first time such a survey of Iowa Democratic party influentials has ever been released.

Democrats are More Prone to Support a ‘Global Warming’ Candidate but They Do Not Know Most Candidates’ Stands on the Issue

Large majorities of these active Iowa Democrats are also more likely to support a presidential candidate who makes cutting carbon pollution and global warming a centerpiece in their campaign – however at least two-fifths of caucus-goers do not know where the candidates stand on global warming.

• Fully 69% of caucus-goers and 80% of county chairs/vice chairs say they would be more likely “to support a presidential candidate who made cutting carbon pollution and global warming a big issue in their campaign.” Only 14% of caucus-goers and 9% of county chairs say they would be less likely to support such a candidate.
• Large blocs of caucus-goers – ranging from 43% to 86% — either do not know the candidates or more likely do not know their stands on global warming. In no case are a majority of caucus-goers able to offer an excellent or good rating of likely Democratic candidates’ performance on addressing the issue of global warming (ranging from 42% excellent/good for John Edwards to 28% for Tom Vilsack to 6% for Chris Dodd).

Just 16% of likely caucus-goers say their mind is made up on whom to support. The remaining caucus-goers are either initially undecided (8%) or say they could still be persuaded to support someone other than their first choice (75%).

Iowa Democrats are Widely Supportive of a Proposal to Reduce Carbon Emissions

A later survey question reveals that 72% of caucus-goers and 67% of county chairs favor a proposal to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. (based on a description that resembles a Senate bill entitled the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act – and the wording can be found in the attached appendix). The measure is opposed by 15% of caucus-goers and 25% of county chairs.

In terms of long-range problems, caucus-goers rank global warming on par with other leading problems such as health care and high government deficits – and well above issues such as terrorism, new diseases, and competition for jobs from developing countries.

Indeed, if one were to combine the closely related problems of global warming and energy shortages they would be ranked by Iowa Democrats as the top long-term problem facing America’s next generation.

“These various survey findings illustrate the breadth and intensity of support among Iowa Democrats for expecting the presidential candidates to not only address global warming on the stump but to actively promote a meaningful solution like carbon reduction,” said pollster and Iowa native Paul Harstad.

John Edwards Starts Out with a Substantial Lead in the Iowa Caucuses, but the Race is Very Fluid

John Edwards is well out front in the early preferences not only of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers (36%), but also among Democratic county chairpersons (40%), according to the dual surveys released by Environmental Defense.

Other prospective candidates scoring in the double-digits consist of Hillary Clinton (16%) and Barack Obama (13%) – while those prospective candidates scoring in single-digits include Tom Vilsack (9%), John Kerry (6%), Joe Biden (5%), Wesley Clark (3%), Bill Richardson (2%), and Evan Bayh (less than 1%). Overall, 8% of caucus-goers say they are undecided in their initial preference.

The surveys were conducted from October 12 to 19, 2006, among a cross-section of 602 likely Democratic caucus-goers and 100 Democratic county chair and vice chairs in Iowa. The research was conducted by HARSTAD STRATEGIC RESEARCH, INC., of Boulder, Colorado.

View results: Iowa Statewide Surveys of Likely 2008 Democratic Caucus-Goers and County Chairs - October 2006 [PDF]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Kris Coracini, Program Specialist, Environmental Defense, (919) 881-2922, kcoracini@environmentaldefense.org
Ivan Urlaub, Executive and Policy Director, NC Sustainable Energy Association, (919) 832-7601, ncseapolicy@mindspring.com

(December 13, 2006 - Raleigh, NC) The state Environmental Review Commission was told today that renewable energy and energy efficiency can be cost-effective options to meet North Carolina’s growing energy demand. That was the conclusion of a six-month study conducted on the state’s behalf on the costs and benefits of a renewable portfolio standard for North Carolina. The commission was told that a standard could produce savings of half a billion dollars over 20 years.

Environmental Defense and the NC Sustainable Energy Association said the analysis provided further evidence that the state should drop plans for new coal and nuclear plants and pursue clean energy sources that will keep rates stable, stimulate the economy, and create jobs, particularly in rural areas. The groups are calling for the General Assembly to adopt a renewable and efficiency portfolio standard in the 2007 session.

“This study confirms that we can have just as much confidence turning on our lights with renewable energy as we can with coal or nuclear power, and that’s at the same or lower cost,” said Kris Coracini, program specialist with the North Carolina Office of Environmental Defense. “Now lawmakers have the data to confidently pass legislation making North Carolina the first in the Southeast with a renewable portfolio standard. There’s just no need to keep building very expensive coal and nuclear plants to satisfy energy demand.”

“North Carolina spends $1.6 billion each year on fuels for electricity, importing 98% of fuel to generate our electricity,” said Ivan Urlaub, executive and policy director, NC Sustainable Energy Association. “We’re sending the money out of the state and then bringing energy into the state, instead of spending our dollars wisely on homegrown renewable resources right here in North Carolina. North Carolina can continue to grow, without utility rates going up more than they would with new coal and nuclear power plants.”

Meeting energy needs with renewables and efficiency also would prevent millions of tons of global warming pollution from entering the atmosphere.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Meg Little, (202) 572-3387, mlittle@environmentaldefense.org
Andy Darrell, (212) 616-1206, adarrell@environmentaldefense.org

(New York, NY - December 12, 2006) Environmental Defense applauded Mayor Bloomberg for announcing ambitious goals today to bring New York City the cleanest air of any major US city and cut climate emissions economy-wide by 30% by 2030. The organization said that the only way to achieve these goals is to move forward with new initiatives such as congestion pricing and other common-sense measures to reduce tailpipe pollution in city neighborhoods.  

“We applaud Mayor Bloomberg’s goals to make them a reality, but city officials in all five boroughs must take a hard look at solutions like congestion pricing that can bring traffic levels down citywide and help finance the innovative forms of transit we need to connect people in underserved communities to good jobs,” said Andy Darrell, New York Regional Director for Environmental Defense. “Emissions from transportation are the region’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases, and recent science tells us that local exposures to tailpipe pollution is extraordinarily important to reducing human exposure to pollutants linked to asthma, cancer and heart disease.”  

“New York can bring together economic performance, healthy communities and global leadership to solve climate change if it’s willing to address the fact that it will have a million more people in the city by 2030, which will make traffic congestion every day look like the Friday before Labor Day unless we build performance incentives into the transportation system citywide,” added Darrell. “The fumes from those cars and trucks will make asthma-triggering pollution commonplace.”  

“London already has used congestion pricing to reduce traffic congestion by 30% and pollution by 12-20%,” concluded Darrell. “If London can do it, there’s no reason why New York - the greatest city in the world - can’t do it.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Bob Glazer, GCFI, Bob.Glazer@gcfi.org, (305) 289-2330
Ken Lindeman, Environmental Defense, klindeman@environmentaldefense.org, (321) 271 7547

(Marathon, FL – December 12, 2006) The Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI) presented the third annual Gladding Memorial Award for commercial fishing conservation leadership to Mr. Carlton Young of Placencia, Belize and Mr. Ceylon Clayton of Little Bay, Jamaica, during its 59th Annual Meeting in November in Belize City, Belize.

The Gladding Memorial Award, established in 2004 by the GCFI Board of Directors, with major support from Environmental Defense and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, is named for the prominent Florida Keys commercial fisherman, Peter Gladding, whose vision and actions towards responsible fisheries management helped establish the landmark Tortugas Ecological Reserve in the Florida Keys.

Mr. Young is one of the wise elders of the fishing industry in Belize. As Chairman of the Placencia Fishermen Co-operative, and through his membership on the Fisheries Advisory Board of the Friends of Nature and the Glover’s Reef Advisory Committee, he has long advocated for the protection of grouper spawning sites and responsible long-term commercial fisheries management.

“Honoring exceptional conservation leaders within the industry encourages best practices for the benefit of the resources and the fishermen”, stated Dr. Ken Lindeman, Senior Scientist with Environmental Defense (www.environmentaldefense.org).

Mr. Clayton is an outstanding community leader, professional fisherman and founding father of the Negril Marine Park, having been a dedicated volunteer with the Negril Coral Reef Preservation Society since its inception in 1990. He has served on the Board of Directors since 1997 and is affiliated with the Negril Environmental Protection Trust and many other conservation organizations.

“These winners represent the best in responsible fishing in the Greater Caribbean and we are extremely pleased with the overwhelming interest in this initiative from all stakeholder groups in the region”, stated Bob Glazer, GCFI Executive Director.

Any commercial fisher in the Caribbean region, Florida, and Gulf of Mexico is eligible for the award which supports attendance at the annual GCFI meeting. Prior recipients have come from Florida, Barbados, Belize and Colombia.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Kathleen Goldstein, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3243, cell 202-841-0295

(December 7, 2006 – Washington, DC) Environmental Defense praises Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) and ranking member Daniel Inouye (D-HI) for spearheading efforts today to pass of one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation in this Congress. The House is expected to pass the bill, which reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, later today or early tomorrow.

“This historic legislation creates a cap and trade system that will provide an economic lifeline to fishermen and ensure a secure supply of fresh, local seafood for all Americans,” said David Festa Environmental Defense Oceans Program Director and former director of policy and strategic planning in the Commerce Department, which includes National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye deserve credit for leading the effort to enact this vitally important legislation.”

The bill gives a green light to cap and trade programs by mandating scientifically-determined caps on fishing catches and issuing clear guidelines on mechanisms to establish trading of catch “shares”, also known as “limited access privilege programs”(LAPPs).

“Catch share programs change the economics of fishing and conservation,” added Festa. “Just as shares in a company become more valuable when the company is well managed, shares in a fishery become more valuable as the fishery rebounds in response to conservation measures.”

These programs also give fishermen better control over when and how they fish, allowing them to reduce costs, increase personal safety and have higher quality fish, which raises the price they can get for their catch. That is welcome news for many struggling fishing communities.

A recent article in Science magazine predicted that the wild seafood supply would be exhausted in the next 40 years if we do not change course. By making sustainable fishing economically attractive, these programs have helped prevent overfishing in nearly every fishery where they’ve been implemented. This bill clears the way for their widespread adoption in the U.S.

Despite their advantages, catch shares are not magic bullets to the problems of overfishing. They need to be implemented in the context of strong conservation goals and standards to ensure fairness and public input to the design process. When done right, they help lead to economically viable fishing communities, better recreational opportunities and supplies of fresh, local seafood.

Other details of the bill include:

1. Requires caps on fishing to be set using the recommendations of the science and statistical committees of the eight regional fishery management councils in the U.S.
2. Issues guidelines to management councils to establish rules on trading of fish shares.
3. Mandates stopping overfishing in fisheries undergoing rebuilding.

In addition, the bill backslides on a few conservation points:

1. Provides only weak accountability in ensuring caps are met in all cases.
2. Delays the implementation of the requirement to stop overfishing for two-and-a-half years.
3.  Extends the deadline for rebuilding the Mid-Atlantic summer founder fishery until 2013 (an extra three years than under current law).
4. Bill may have unintended consequences that could undercut the Pacific groundfish cap and trade program currently under development.

“After ten years of ongoing negotiations and failing fisheries, we now have a solution that gets to the heart of the matter and addresses the economic incentives of overfishing,” said Amanda Leland Environmental Defense Policy Specialist. “With such a bright future on the horizon, we need Congress and the Administration to fully fund these programs to make that future a reality.”