Complete list of press releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Aislinn Maestas, National Wildlife Federation, 202-797-6624 or maestas@nwf.org
William Lutz, Defenders of Wildlife, 202-772-0269

Washington, D.C. – The leaders of three leading national environmental groups today praised Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) for introducing and Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) for cosponsoring a new bill to provide financial incentives for private landowners to help save endangered plants and animals. The bill introduction is significant because all four senators are key members of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax credit legislation; Senators Grassley and Baucus are the top ranking Republican and Democratic members of the committee.

Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife sent a letter thanking Senators Crapo, Lincoln, Baucus and Grassley for sponsoring The Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2006 (S. 4087) [PDF]. The legislation would provide $400 million annually in new tax credits, plus additional deductions and exclusions, for private landowners who take steps to help endangered or threatened species on the properties they own, such as the northern Idaho ground squirrel, the red-cockaded woodpecker in Arkansas, the bull trout in Montana, and the Topeka shiner (a fish) in Iowa.

The bill provides new tax credits for landowners who agree to put easements on their property or agree to restore, enhance or manage endangered species habitat on their land. It also expands tax deductions for any landowner who takes part in the recovery plans specified under the Endangered Species Act, and allows landowners to exclude from taxable income certain federal payments under cost-share conservation programs.

“We need programs like this one that provide farmers, ranchers, family forest owners and other landowners with the financial tools they need to protect the hundreds of endangered animal and plants in our country that depend heavily on private lands,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, which recently convinced the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency to initiate a program to restore up to a quarter million acres of longleaf forests that will rebuild rare wildlife habitat, and boost bob-white quail and turkey populations. “Environmental Defense has proposed and supported cooperative conservation programs for years, so we naturally support this effort. We thank Senators Crapo, Lincoln, Baucus and Grassley for their leadership on this vital issue.”

“This bill represents the future of wildlife conservation in America,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “Providing landowners with real economic incentives to save America’s imperiled wildlife has been the missing puzzle piece in protecting endangered species. Senators Crapo, Lincoln, Baucus and Grassley have set a high mark for what legislation in the next Congress should look like.”

“Partnering with private landowners on wildlife conservation is absolutely critical,” said Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen. “This legislation provides key incentives to enlist more landowners in this effort, which benefits people and endangered species alike. Senators Crapo, Lincoln, Baucus and Grassley are to be congratulated for their foresight on this vital issue and we look forward to working with them in the new Congress.”

The full text of the letter is below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Kathleen Goldstein, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3243
Jenny Powers, NRDC, 212-727-4566

ALBANY, NY (December 5, 2006) – A coalition of national, state and local environmental groups today outlined a series of key actions Governor-Elect Eliot Spitzer should take to reverse the decline of New York’s ocean health and make the state a national leader in ocean and coastal protection. The next steps include creation of an Ocean Health Index as an annual report card of the state’s ocean health, convening the Mid-Atlantic Governors to address regional ocean issues and supporting and funding the recently-established New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council’s work.

“New Yorkers depend on their ocean and coasts for food, recreation and valuable jobs, but these resources are in a state of silent crisis caused by pollution, destruction of productive marine habitat and increased strain on fish stocks,” said Sarah Chasis, Ocean Initiative Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Governor-Elect Spitzer should strengthen coastal and ocean protection efforts and establish an annual ocean check-up to highlight what’s needed to sustain our coastal and ocean resources and the goods and services they provide. A state Ocean Health Index would serve as a diagnostic tool to help guide conservation and restoration efforts.”

“Governor-Elect Spitzer has a great opportunity to manage New York’s ocean resources to help protect our communities, provide fresh supplies of seafood and secure economic and recreational opportunities for everyone,” said Environmental Defense scientist Dr. Jake Kritzer. “By convening a Mid-Atlantic Oceans Summit of his fellow-governors, Spitzer will keep New York in the lead in ocean conservation, regionally and nationally.”

As underscored by a recently-released study in the journal Science and the findings of two recent national ocean commissions, ocean and coastal resources worldwide are in decline and New York is not immune to this crisis. In New York, more than 40 percent of estuary and bay waters are impaired or threatened and more than 35 percent of the most important commercial and recreational saltwater fish and shellfish are depleted or being harvested at unsustainable rates.

Last June, state lawmakers unanimously passed the New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Act to help restore and protect the state’s marine resources. The landmark legislation established an interagency Council to help coordinate marine resource management and adopted an ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach for ocean and coastal resources. EBM – which was called for by both national ocean commissions and the Science study – is an important alternative to managing only on a species-by-species, problem-by-problem basis; it instead considers the interplay between different species, including humans, their habitats, and the combined impact of activities on the system.

“Ecosystem-based management allows us to create innovative and comprehensive solutions by looking at the whole system,” said Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment. “Governor-Elect Spitzer needs to support and expand the Council’s efforts to move us toward EBM to increase our efforts to restore our estuaries and Great Lakes and begin the process of addressing the needs of restoring our oceans.”

The New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council is also tasked with developing an atlas of ocean and coastal resources. “The atlas will help ensure that accurate information about the state of the ocean is available at all levels of government,” said John Stouffer, Legislative Director of the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter. “We are asking Governor-Elect Spitzer for a corresponding Ocean Health Index to help distill this data into a snapshot of ocean health so we can move forward on restoration plans.”

To fund these protection and restoration efforts, the coalition is requesting, as part of an expanded $500 million Environmental Protection Fund, $15 million toward ocean and bays restoration and protection and $10 million for the Great Lakes.

“In the past year, New York has taken some important steps forward to ensure that our ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems will be cleaner and healthier for future generations to enjoy,” said David J. Miller, Executive Director of Audubon New York. “We need to continue to increase state funding for these efforts so that New York can match new federal funding sources, like the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act and Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, and continue to restore these important freshwater and marine habitats and the hundreds of bird species that rely on them.”

“A new era has begun in New York State for ocean and coastal resources protection,” said Friends of the Bay Executive Director Kyle Rabin. “We are at a critical juncture and we look to the incoming Governor to continue the great progress that has been made to protect these critical environmental and economic resources.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Sean Crowley, (202)572-3331, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Meg Little, (202)572-3387, mlittle@environmentaldefense.org

(Lana’i City, HI - December 5, 2006) Hearings begin today on 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 wildlife in any state where private lands provide vitally important wildlife habitat. The Hawaii agreement marks the first time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and local Resource Conservation District staff are taking a leadership role in helping private landowners restore endangered species throughout a state.

Under the Safe Harbor agreement, private landowners who are working with the USDA to restore wetland and other habitats will receive assurances that future land use requirements will not be imposed because of conservation efforts carried out under Farm Bill conservation programs statewide. 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. For more details, see http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/pubs/index.html.

“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 the 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 deliver the Farm Bill portion of the agreement, and Hawaii’s Resource Conservation Districts will administer individual landowner agreements and conduct outreach. State and federal wildlife agencies will provide expertise on endangered species.  

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

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.

EMBARGOED UNTIL 1pm ET, December 5, 2006

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

(December 5, 2006 – Washington, D.C.) – National and Louisiana environmental experts released a new report today calling for closing the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), a little-used shipping canal that costs U.S. taxpayers tens of million of dollars a year to maintain, has destroyed large parts of Louisiana’s coastline and contributed to the devastating storm damage in New Orleans. The report, Mister Go Must Go: A Guide for the Army Corps’ Congressionally-Directed Closure of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet [PDF], was released during a 1pm news briefing at the Rayburn House Office Building (Room 2325). MRGO is an artificial channel that the Corps of Engineers built in 1965 as a shipping shortcut from the Gulf of Mexico to the New Orleans inner harbor. MRGO was supposed to bring more business to New Orleans, but it has been a huge economic disappointment.

“Closing the deadly MRGO and fixing the damage it caused is a win-win situation for both American taxpayers and Gulf Coast residents,” said Paul Harrison, Coastal Louisiana Project Manager at Environmental Defense. “MRGO remains an enormous physical danger for New Orleans, has degraded its environment, and cost the American taxpayer as much as $45 million each year to maintain, yet it is used by fewer than 10 ships a day.”

The report comes 10 days before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ legal deadline of Dec. 15 to present Congress with a plan for closing the channel to oceangoing ships, and possibly to all water traffic. However, putting the plan into effect and expanding it to include restoration of the surrounding area would require further congressional action.

The new report relies on scientific modeling by Louisiana State University and the University of New Orleans to show what the Army Corps of Engineers must do to reverse the damage and restore the natural landscape that used to protect New Orleans from storm surge (see full text of Mister Go Must Go [PDF]). The report includes the following seven recommendations:

1. Deauthorize MRGO as a federal navigation channel and cease maintenance dredging
2. Restoration of the Ridge at Bayou la Loutre
3. Channel Severance or Constriction at Other Locations
4. Restoration/Maintenance of the Narrow Land Between Lake Borgne and the MRGO
5. Expand Riverine Influence
6. Restoration/Rehabilitation of Bank Lines Along the MRGO
7. Natural Infill of the Channel

In addition to Environmental Defense, the report is endorsed by the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, National Wildlife Federation, Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, and St. Bernard Parish President Henry “Junior” Rodriguez.

“The MRGO has been a nightmare for St. Bernard since it was dredged,” said Rodriguez. “We’ve been trying to close it for 30 years.  It’s got to be closed now for St. Bernard to survive.”  

“This report leaves no doubt that MRGO needs to be shut down so that the natural conditions that used to protect New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish from storm surge can be restored,” said Carlton Dufrechou, Executive Director of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. “We’ve found some viable ways to accomplish those goals.”

“We are asking Congress to oversee the Corps’ continuing planning and make sure an effective, sensible and environmentally sound plan is presented to them,” said Mark Ford, Executive Director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.

Louisianans have been calling for closure of MRGO, commonly called “Mister Go,” for decades, but the issue received national and congressional attention after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. Mister Go Must Go painstakingly details the damage MRGO has done, including how it exposed New Orleans and surrounding communities to hurricane storm surge that breached levees.

“The Corps of Engineers’ plan to close and fix MRGO was designed by Congress to be an integral part of the Corp’s Category Five protection study,” said Cyn Sarthou, Executive Director of the Gulf Restoration Network. “The study will foreshadow whether the Corps is going to make the right choices for protecting all of coastal Louisiana.”

“Closing MRGO and restoring the natural ridges and wetlands that used to protect New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish is a litmus test of whether the Army Corps and Congress are serious about protecting the New Orleans area from hurricanes,” said Melissa Samet, Senior Director for Water Resources at American Rivers.

The Corps of Engineers created the MRGO by slicing through the natural land bridge and barrier islands that separated New Orleans from the Gulf. It allowed millions of gallons of saltwater to flow into the area’s freshwater bayous and lakes, killing tens of thousands of acres of cypress forest and wetlands 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 Hurricane Katrina to slam into the coast at full force, putting unprecedented strain on manmade levees, many of which failed.

“MRGO destroyed wetlands that protected levees from the huge waves created by hurricanes, so Congress did the right thing when it directed the Army Corps of Engineers to plan closure of the channel and restoration of those wetlands,” said Susan Kaderka, Director of the Gulf States Natural Resource Center at the National Wildlife Federation.

“We must view this in light of the larger problem,” said Randy Lanctot, Executive Director of the Louisiana Wildlife Federation. “Louisiana’s wetlands provided protection, but 2,000 square miles have already disappeared and we lose another 10 to 20 square miles each year even when there aren’t major hurricanes.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Meg Little, mlittle@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3387
David Greenblatt, dgreenblatt@environmentaldefense.org, 917-763-3257

(Chester, NJ – November 30, 2006) Environmental Defense stated that it is encouraged by the draft regional master plan unveiled today by the New Jersey Highlands Council because it as an important step to preserve natural ecosystems and protect drinking water for all state residents. The plan was presented at a public working session featuring comments from residents and activists.

“Conserving natural areas in the New Jersey Highlands region represents the best hope for protecting the drinking water for local residents and northern New Jersey’s urban population,” said David Greenblatt, an analyst at Environmental Defense. “It also will preserve the natural areas that define so much of what is beautiful and ecologically valuable in this part of the state. That’s why Environmental Defense supports the most ambitious land conservation program possible.”

The plan features an ambitious transfer development rights program (TDR) that allows developers to pay for the rights to build at greater densities in designated growth areas that meet regional master plan standards and are approved by the affected municipalities than ordinarily allowed. The TDR program could help pay to save tens of thousands of acres of natural areas in the New Jersey Highlands region.

“A well-designed transfer of development rights program will be a win-win for the New Jersey Highlands,” said James T.B. Tripp, general counsel at Environmental Defense. “It will improve land conservation, help provide equity for impacted property owners and spur development that will minimize the environmental footprint of growth.”

Environmental Defense has been working with the Regional Plan Association and New Jersey Highlands Council staff on the refinement of our geographic information system (GIS) tool which is used to select appropriate areas for higher development that can serve as appropriate receiving areas for transferred development rights and calculate the amount of dollars that could be generated for land preservation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Charles Miller, Environmental Defense, (202) 572-3364
Vickie Patton, Environmental Defense, (720) 837-6239

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday, November 29th in a historic case over the power of the federal government to limit global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. The Bush Administration opposes the legal position of 18 states, leading climate scientists, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a bipartisan group of former EPA administrators, Entergy and Calpine Corporations, and numerous health and environmental organizations. The legal challenge is Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120. Environmental Defense is a party to the case.

“The Clean Air Act plainly gives the federal government the power to regulate greenhouse gas pollution, as surely as the Safe Drinking Water Act allows the government to regulate arsenic in drinking water,” said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. “The only real question here is whether the government will use the power the Clean Air Act clearly provides, instead of dodging its responsibility.”

The case arises from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of a petition to regulate global warming pollution from new motor vehicles. EPA reasoned that global warming pollution did not constitute an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the federal Clean Air Act. But the term “air pollutant” is expansively defined in the Act to encompass any “substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.”

The federal government also claims that the states and environmental organizations are not injured by global warming pollution, although substantial evidence demonstrates serious and direct effects on human health and the environment.

The U.S. transportation sector currently releases some 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions each year. The Energy Information Administration forecasts that global warming pollution from this sector will soar to 2.7 billion tons annually in 2030. U.S. motor vehicles, only part of the overall transportation sector emissions, are responsible for 23 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide pollution and 6 percent of carbon dioxide pollution worldwide.

The disposition of this case will have immediate consequences for parallel litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., over EPA’s refusal to limit global warming from new coal-fired power plants. In February 2006, EPA finalized national emission standards for new coal-fired power plants and refused to include global warming pollution, invoking the same legal theory in question here. A coalition of state and environmental organizations, including Environmental Defense, filed a legal challenge. That challenge is now held in abeyance pending the outcome of Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA. Currently, the power sector discharges some 2.5 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions each year. The Energy Information Administration forecasts that these pollution discharges will increase a staggering one billion tons annually by 2030.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Colin Rowan, Environmental Defense, (512) 691-3416

(November 16, 2006 – Austin) The federal government, TXU and Alcoa have cut a back-room deal that would circumvent the consent decree concerning the electric power generators at the Alcoa smelter near Rockdale, TX.

The consent decree requires Alcoa and its successors to retrofit existing power units at Alcoa’s Rockdale facility, replace the units with new, clean technology, or shut them down. Alcoa had elected to pursue the replacement option, but has fallen severely behind schedule and will miss the legal deadline. TXU has a power plant named Sandow 4 on the Alcoa site, and wants to step in for Alcoa to build the replacement units that Alcoa had agreed to construct.

This week’s secret deal was struck without the involvement or consent of the local environmental and citizen groups (Environmental Defense, Public Citizen and Neighbors for Neighbors) that were parties to the original 2002 lawsuit and resulting consent decree. These local groups object to both the process and the substance of the proposed deal.

A motion to codify this settlement was made before U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks by the federal government, TXU and Alcoa, without the involvement or approval of Environmental Defense, Public Citizen or Neighbors for Neighbors.

“This is a shady, back-room deal, and we will ask Judge Sparks to deny it,” said Environmental Defense regional director Jim Marston. “TXU, Alcoa and the government negotiated this secret settlement without including the very groups that brought the suit and signed the consent decree. Judge Sparks has followed the letter of the law in this case, and we will ask him to do so once again.”

Alcoa has not met the requirements of the consent decree. Yet approval of this deal would allow TXU to build a new plant (Sandow 5) at the Rockdale facility that is even dirtier than the other coal plants the company has proposed in Texas. Not only would this plant not be the cleanest plant in the country (a marketing claim TXU has made about its planned coal plants), but it wouldn’t even be the cleanest plant in Milam county.

The secret deal is being touted by EPA as better than the Alcoa consent decree. In fact, the deal between EPA and TXU is much worse than what would otherwise be required by the existing consent decree. The language of the consent decree is being twisted to allow TXU to construct a new unit under an old permit issued to Alcoa that does not require today’s best pollution control technology.

“When you buy property from someone, you have to honor that property’s prior deed restrictions,” said Marston. “TXU knew about this agreement beforehand, and chose to proceed down this risky legal road anyway. And now they’re acting like they’re being victimized by the law when they’re simply being asked to follow it.”

The secret deal would not require TXU to use the same pollution control technology at the new unit that the company plans to use on the plant right next door (Sandow 4). There is no technical reason why TXU cannot build a cleaner plant on this site.

“Another day, another attempt by TXU to skirt the law,” Marston said. “Alcoa agreed to these terms, and TXU is trying to change the rules and avoid its obligations under the Clean Air Act.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Michael Shore, Senior Air Policy Analyst, (828) 582-3141, mshore@environmentaldefense.org

(November 16, 2006 - Raleigh, NC) Duke Energy Carolinas today announced that its proposed coal-fired Cliffside Project will cost $3 billion. Last June Duke Energy said the project would cost $2 billion. The following statement on the $1 billion rise in cost can be attributed to Michael Shore, senior air policy analyst with the North Carolina Office of Environmental Defense.

“The revised $3 billion price tag is a big red stop sign for the Cliffside project. The $1 billion increase is mind boggling. It should send Duke Energy and the utility commission running back to the drawing board to re-think how to meet energy demand in this state.

“The cost of clean, renewable energy keeps on coming down, but the cost of dirty coal keeps on rising. Energy efficiency and local renewable energy sources will enable us to meet demand and keep prices low.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Colin Rowan, Environmental Defense, (512) 691-3416

(Austin – November 15, 2006) An analysis released today by Environmental Defense shows that Texas can meet future power needs through 2011 — without TXU’s 11 proposed coal-fired power plants — and remain safely above the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) target reserve margin.

The analysis can be downloaded at www.stopTXU.com.

Through a mixture of efficiency and untapped load reduction techniques, the scenario presented in the analysis could cut in half annual growth in power demand that ERCOT uses to predict whether Texas will have enough power to keep the lights on. The reserve margin represents Texas’ available power capacity above and beyond the highest projected peak demand. ERCOT’s “safe” margin is 12.5%. ERCOT’s status quo scenario — much touted by TXU as proof that its dirty coal-fired plants are necessary — suggests that the reserve margin will drop to 11.4% in 2008, 8.5% in 2009 and 6.8% in 2010.

TXU’s proposed coal plants would not be online fast enough to address the 2008 and 2009 reserve margin problem. The Environmental Defense scenario improves those numbers to 14.5% in 2008 and 12.5% in 2009. With the addition of just 700 megawatts (MW) of new clean capacity in 2010 and 2011 – a fraction of TXU’s massive proposal – Texas would be able to stay above the 12.5% mark.

“This simple analysis shows that our state leaders shouldn’t rely on TXU’s word when it comes to making energy decisions for Texas,” said Environmental Defense regional director Jim Marston. “If our leaders thought they had some time to address this calmly, I don’t think they would support 11 dirty coal plants. Our alternative is quicker, cheaper and cleaner than what TXU has proposed.”

The energy scenario in the analysis was vetted by industry experts and was judged to be affordable and achievable. It relies on a combination of aggressive but realistic efficiency measures and implementing commercial and industrial demand response strategies.

“It might be time to ask someone other than TXU what Texas needs,” Marston said. “If you ask a power company if you need more power, it’s going to say yes. If you ask a company that owns coal mines what kind of power you need, it will say coal-fired power. Texas should be asking ‘How can we use power more wisely?’ but our governor has been too busy fast-tracking TXU’s permits, attending TXU’s press conferences and writing TXU’s propaganda.”

Last October, Gov. Perry issued an executive order fast-tracking the permits for coal-fired power plants. In April, he stood beside TXU CEO John Wilder when the company held a press conference to announce the 11 proposed coal plants. This summer, he penned an opinion column in the Dallas Morning News that touted the dire need for more power and hailed TXU’s proposal. Unfortunately, few at the Capitol have questioned Perry’s zeal for 1950s-style coal plants that will threaten our children’s health and exacerbate the global warming crisis.

“Instead of taking TXU’s word for it that we need all these plants, our elected officials should demand a careful examination of how Texas can meet our future power needs more cleanly, cheaply and quickly,” Marston said. “In one month, our organization identified a scenario that took the most prevalent rationale for TXU’s coal plants — the need for more power — and blew it out of the water. Imagine what the great state of Texas could come up with if it put resources behind finding better alternatives to dirty coal.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:
Terri Hathaway, International Rivers Network, (In Cameroon) +237 530 25 95, terri@irn.org
Korinna Horta, Environmental Defense, (In Portugal) +351 96 392 0759, khorta@environmentaldefense.org

(November 7, 2006) Environmental campaigners welcomed yesterday’s decision by the World Bank to debar German-based Lahmeyer International for bribing officials to win contracts for Africa’s largest inter-basin water transfer scheme, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP).

Korinna Horta of Environmental Defense said, “We welcome the World Bank’s decision to suspend Lahmeyer International from doing business with the Bank for a period of seven years. This decision represents an important departure from just talking about corruption to taking serious action. It sends an important signal to international companies that bribery of foreign officials carries considerable risk.”

However, the Bank’s decision comes three years after the Lesotho court found Lahmeyer guilty of corruption, during which time Lahmeyer received at least 18 Bank contracts totaling nearly US $15 million. Four contracts worth a combined US $1.4 million were granted since the Bank reopened its debarment investigation of Lahmeyer in August 2005.

Terri Hathaway of International Rivers Network said, “Although we welcome this decision, the World Bank’s sluggish response has only been to Lahmeyer’s advantage. Future action must come more swiftly. The Bank can not be serious about fighting corruption if it chases criminal companies, but gives them a generous lead time.”

Environmental Defense and International Rivers Network call on the World Bank to ensure that future court convictions for corruption occurring under World Bank contracts carry immediate debarment and for the Bank to work with other multilateral development banks and bilateral aid agencies to obtain cross-debarment of guilty contractors.

Besides serious allegations of corruption, the LHWP has caused the vulnerable Highlands population to lose fields, grazing lands and access to fresh water sources. Despite promises, their livelihoods have not been reestablished, and poor people have been pushed closer to the edge in their struggle for survival. Problems of erosion and the downstream effects of massive water diversion are disrupting ecosystems and people’s livelihoods.

“In addition to corruption, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project has been marred by environmental problems and impoverishment of the affected communities. The World Bank should not close its books on the project as long as these serious problems remain to be solved,” said Horta.

Background

Lahmeyer International was part of the consortium which carried out the 1986 feasibility study for the LHWP. The Project’s first phase is complete, including the Katse Dam, the Muela Dam, 82 km of water tunnels, and 200 km of access roads at an estimated total cost of US$2.5 billion. If completed, the entire scheme would divert about 40% of the water in the Senqu river basin to South Africa’s industrial Guatang region.

In 2002, the Lesotho courts handed down its first corruption conviction, to Acres International of Canada. The World Bank delayed its decision to debar Acres for more than two years after the conviction, allowing the company to receive at least four Bank contracts, including just one week prior to debarment. Acres was debarred from receiving Bank contracts for a period of three years.

The World Bank decision makes Lahmeyer ineligible to receive Bank contracts for a period of seven years, although this may be reduced to only three years should Lahmeyer meet the Bank’s criteria. For more information, see the World Bank’s Press Release.

For more background on project corruption and environmental and social issues, visit IRN’s Lesotho Highlands Water Project webpage.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Lisa Hanna, (202) 466-9633, lisa@turnerstrategies.com

(Washington, DC - November 1, 2006) – U.S. car buyers now have a simple way to compare the “greenness” of their automotive choices. Environmental Defense has partnered with Yahoo! Autos to make Green Ratings widely available to consumers—right next to vehicle prices and other common car specs anyone can access on the Internet.

“Consumers can think of the Yahoo! Green Rating as a yardstick that measures how well a given car cuts pollution,” said John DeCicco, Senior Fellow for Automotive Strategies at Environmental Defense. “The Yahoo! Green Rating covers all of the major environmental impacts associated with a motor vehicle, from health-harming tailpipe pollution to greenhouse gases that cause global warming.”

Rated on a scale of 1-100, the Yahoo! Green Rating reflects a vehicle’s total environmental impact. The higher the rating, the greener the car and the lower its harm to humans and the planet. Car shoppers can find the most environmentally friendly model by just picking the car or truck that has the best Green Rating among the models they are considering.

“Americans’ care for their environment runs deeper than the ups and downs of gas prices,” said DeCicco. “The Yahoo! Green Ratings provide a lasting way for consumers to act on their values and comparison shop with the environment in mind.”

Because fuel efficiency factors into the Green Ratings, greener choices cut oil use and help U.S. energy security while protecting the planet.

“Driving green is good for our health, good for our nation and good for our planet,” said DeCicco. “Yahoo!’s Green Ratings empower car buyers to choose the greenest model that meets their needs and fits their budget.”

To access the Green Ratings and see the Yahoo! Autos new Green Center, go to http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Kathryn Phillips, (916) 798-3239, kphillips@environmentaldefense.org

(Fresno, CA - October 31, 2006) - Three organizations representing residents of the San Joaquin Valley will take legal action today to support regulators’ efforts to protect public health in one of the most polluted air basins in the country by reducing air pollution caused by new development projects.

Environmental Defense, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air (MAHA) and the Sierra Club will jointly file a motion today 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 motion supports the air district’s authority to implement the landmark “indirect source rule” it adopted last December. It 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 it is not feasible to reduce pollution at the development site, the developers have the option of paying a fee that the air district uses to buy and apply emissions reduction technologies elsewhere in the district.

“The indirect source rule is an indispensable piece in the puzzle to clean up the air in one of the most polluted air basins in the country,” said Kathryn Phillips, manager of Environmental Defense’s clean air campaign in the San Joaquin Valley. “Clean air depends on everyone playing a part in the clean up. Unfortunately, the California Building Industry Association is resisting being part of the solution.”

“I see children and adults everyday who are suffering from lung disease aggravated by the region’s air pollution,” said Kevin Hamilton, a Fresno-based respiratory therapist and co-founder of MAHA. “We can’t continue to stand by and do nothing. The California Building Industry Association’s lawsuit essentially suggests that developers shouldn’t look for ways to stop air pollution, and I just don’t buy that.”

Sierra Club members in the San Joaquin Valley have actively challenged developers’ efforts to build without mitigating environmental impacts, especially in Kern County.

“We supported the indirect source rule because it provides a way for developers to systematically address the air pollution they cause through the choices they make about where to site projects and how to design projects. A number of developers down here agree,” said Gordon Nipp, a Sierra Club member in Kern County. “It’s disappointing that the industry’s statewide trade association is so out of sync with its local member companies.”

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 motion, go to: http://environmentaldefense.org/content.cfm?contentID=5573

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Vickie Patton, 303-447-7215, vpatton@environmentaldefense.org
Meg Little, 202-572-3387, mlittle@environmentaldefense.org

(24 October 2006 – Washington, D.C.) Last night, the Bush administration filed a major legal brief in a historic Supreme Court case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120). The brief argues that global warming pollution may not be addressed under the nation’s clean air laws (see brief at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/content.cfm?contentID=5565), taking a position opposite 18 states, leading climate scientists, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, several former EPA administrators, including Carol Browner, William Reilly, Douglas Costle, Russell Train, the National Council of Churches of Christ, Entergy and Calpine Corporation, and numerous health and conservation organizations.

New analysis by Environmental Defense, a party in this case, shows how the nation’s clean air laws have delivered historic benefits for the American people while our economy has briskly expanded. It also shows that if dangerous air pollutants like lead and sulfur dioxide had been regulated under the Bush administration’s current approach to global warming instead of protected under the nation’s Clean Air Act, the pollution in the air today would be devastating.

“It is deeply disappointing that the Bush administration is preventing efforts to protect the nation against the urgent problem of global warming that threatens human health and welfare,” said Vickie Patton, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense and a former attorney in the EPA’s General Counsel’s office. “For over three decades the nation’s clean air laws have protected American’s health while our economy has grown. The United States government should be using the nation’s time tested clean air tools in the fight against global warming, not derailing legal protections.”

What if EPA Had Approached Lead Pollution the Same Way it is Approaching Global Warming Pollution?

When the U.S. Congress passed the modern Clean Air Act in 1970 through bipartisan leadership, it recognized that growth in air pollution needed to be reversed. As a result, since 1970, the country has reduced: smog-forming oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 24%, particulate-forming sulfur dioxide (SO₂) by 49%, and toxic lead emissions by more than 98%, while Gross Domestic Product has increased by 160%. As shown in the figure above, EPA estimates that the nationwide emissions reductions achieved just from 1970 to 1990 prevented 206,000 deaths each year, along with hundreds of thousands of cases of serious respiratory or cardiovascular illness. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010, EPA 410-R-99-001, available at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/1990-2010/fullrept.pdf.

This landmark commitment to clean air stands in sharp contrast with the administration’s approach to global warming pollution. Rather than working to lower emissions of greenhouse gases through binding limits, the administration has proposed only to try to slow their rate of growth through voluntary measures to reduce “greenhouse gas intensity,” specifically, the quantity of pollution released per unit of economic activity.

Environmental Defense examined what pollution levels would be like today if Congress in adopting the Clean Air Act had used a similar economic intensity approach for lead and other major air pollutants. If the Bush administration’s intensity targets had been pursued in 1970, emissions of NOx, SO₂, and lead would have been 160%, 310%, and 13,200% higher in 2000 than they actually were with the reductions achieved under the mandatory protections of the Clean Air Act. The actual pollution levels of lead, NOx, and SO₂ in 2000 are compared below with the dramatically higher pollution levels that would have been allowed in 2000 under the emissions intensity metric that the Bush administration is employing as part of its flawed policy for global warming pollution.

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Emissions Trends - Continued Progress through 2003, 2004.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Calculated based on GDP data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Colin Rowan, Environmental Defense, (512) 691-3416

(October 24, 2006 – Austin, TX) Environmental Defense will begin running ads in Texas news outlets this week as it and other organizations step up their efforts to educate citizens about the environmental consequences of TXU’s plan to build 11 coal-fired power plants across the state.

“TXU is spending millions on TV, radio and print ads that sugarcoat the truth about its coal plants,” said Colin Rowan, director of regional communication for Environmental Defense. “We can’t compete with them dollar for dollar, but we think Texans will prefer our facts to TXU’s fiction.”

Though the list of environmental threats of TXU’s proposed plants is long, the first ad will focus on TXU’s failure to address its contribution to global warming. TXU is the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in Texas. Its proposed coal plants would more than double the company’s annual CO₂ emissions.

“Despite growing concerns about global warming, TXU has failed to address carbon emissions that will spew from their proposed plants,” said Rowan. “It is important that Texans know what these plants will do to our environment – and that there are cleaner alternatives. Fighting global warming will take cooperation from all segments of our society and economy, and Texas’ largest CO₂ polluter shouldn’t be able to thumb its nose at our children’s future.”

A .jpg of the first ad can be downloaded at: http://homepage.mac.com/crowan/.Public/TXU/TXUAd_Sample.jpg

The print ads will run this week in the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal and the Waco Tribune-Herald. Ads for television, radio, outdoor and other media are in development.

For more information about TXU’s dirty coal-fired power plants, visit www.stopTXU.com.