Complete list of press releases

Congressional leaders refused to extend the life of most farm subsidies until 2011 in the Deficit Reduction bill.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) led efforts to extend most farm subsidy programs until 2011. But, the House Agriculture Committee and the White House opposed an extension.

Under current law, farm and food programs must be renewed in 2007.

“Extending most farm subsidies but allowing other food and farm programs to expire in 2007 would have been bad for farmer, bad for trade and bad for the environment,” said Scott Faber of Environmental Defense.

Faber praised House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) as well as Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who led Senate efforts to oppose the extension. Faber also praised the White House, which also opposed the extension.

“But for the leadership of the White House, Speaker Hastert and Chairman Goodlatte, farmers would have been forced to wait five years for the chance to reform farm programs to help more farmers and the environment,” Faber said. “More than 90% of America’s farmers receive little or nothing from current subsidy programs because of the crops they grow. Renewing farm programs in 2007 creates a chance to reform farm programs to reinvest in rural America.”

Extending most subsidy programs until 2011 would have also hindered efforts to reach a global trade deal to open overseas markets to our farm exports. In addition, extending trade-distorting subsidy programs until 2011 would have invited more retaliatory tariffs on all American exports, including farm exports.

Extending subsidy programs until 2011 – but allowing most conservation, rural development, and nutrition programs to expire in 2007 – would have placed many important programs in limbo, including programs that restore wetlands, grasslands and other wildlife habitat and that help protect farmland and ranchland from sprawl.

The deficit reduction bill made disproportionately deep cuts to conservation programs, said Faber, including a promising new “green payments” program that links payments to environmental performance. But, the bill does not reduce the number of acres that can be enrolled into the Conservation Reserve Program, as the Senate had proposed.

Environmental Defense is a leading national nonprofit organization representing more than 400,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. We dedicate ourselves to protecting the environmental rights of all people, including the right to clean air, clean water, healthy food and flourishing ecosystems. Guided by science, we work to create practical solutions that win lasting political, economic and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost-effective and fair.

Contact:
Kathleen Goldstein, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3243

(December 15, 2005 – Washington, DC)  Today, the Senate considered changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which governs all fishery management activities within the federal 200-mile limit through eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.  The bill contains several important conservation reforms, including limited access privilege programs (LAPPs), key management tools that can make our fisheries more sustainable and profitable.  Although the original legislation introduced last month contained provisions that hampered the LAPP process and limited their effectiveness, Environmental Defense successfully joined with fishermen and community leaders to amend these provisions, and new language was included in the bill today.
 
“The Commerce Committee’s action takes the country a step closer to a new era for ocean stewardship in which conservation can make good business sense for fishermen,” said Environmental Defense Oceans Program Director David Festa.  “This will lead to economically viable fishing communities, better recreational opportunities and supplies of fresh seafood.  Environmental Defense commends the Senate for working actively with fishermen and the conservation community to craft a workable solution.”
 
LAPPs – catch shares - have proven to be environmentally and economically effective in New Zealand, British Columbia and Alaska.  Under this system, fishermen are allocated shares of the annual catch, which they can buy and sell with other fishermen.  Unlike government mandates limiting fishermen’s flexibility, catch shares allow fishermen to work year-round when market and weather conditions are most advantageous.  Catch shares help fishermen cut costs, improve the quality of their fish, maximize dockside prices and prevent the waste of millions of fish each year that must be discarded.  Just as shares of a company become more valuable if the company is well-managed, fishermen’s shares gain value when fish populations increase through a well managed fishery.  The fishermen now have a financial interest in conservation measures that protect the ocean.
 
At the same time, the bill includes important design features that affect whether a system of catch shares will be fair, equitable and promote good stewardship of our nation’s fisheries.  These features include methods for determining who gets initial allocations of catch shares, how shares can be traded and the nature of conservation and other safeguards.
 
“The recent U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended catch shares as a key management tool.  And, in September, the Administration explicitly called for doubling the existing number of these programs,” said Environmental Defense Oceans Program Deputy Director Johanna Thomas.  “Clearly there is broad political support for these programs.”
 
There is stakeholder support as well.  Environmental Defense is working with several fishing groups in New England to support their efforts to develop fishing cooperatives, working in California to promote working waterfronts and in the Pacific to develop a quota system for groundfish.  We are also working closely with fishermen, government officials and other partners in the Gulf of Mexico to design fishing quota systems for red snapper and reef fish, shrimp and other key fisheries.  Gulf snapper fisherman Captain Donald Waters acknowledges that “we need quota programs to save the fish and our livelihoods, which are jeopardized by overfishing caused by out-of-date regulations.”  Recent hurricanes have only highlighted the need for better fisheries management to improve the Gulf’s struggling fisheries.
 
Fishermen in these fisheries strongly support catch share programs, but in its original form, the Senate bill placed unnecessary obstacles to establishing these programs by creating onerous, bureaucratic hurdles. The earlier bill called for  a 50% vote by permit holders to discuss enacting a catch share program, and an additional 2/3 majority vote of permit holders in New England and the Gulf of Mexico before finalizing a plan.
 
Environmental Defense quickly coordinated a strong response by community leaders and fishermen to reach an agreement with the Senate Commerce Committee on how to move forward with these innovative tools.  The committee passed an amended bill today that allows for flexibility in starting catch share programs, allowing catch share programs to be launched through the council process or by a majority petition by the fishermen in the fishery.  For New England and Gulf fisheries, the final referendum will apply only to individual fishing quota programs and still require a super majority vote.
 
With the approval of the Senate bill by the Commerce Committee, the bill will head to the Senate floor next year.  The House has yet to offer a bill.
 
“Catch shares are one of the only management tools that benefit both fish and fishermen.  They expand the economic benefits of the fisheries, preserve maritime heritage and protect the environment,” said Environmental Defense Ocean Policy Specialist Amanda Leland.  “When the Senate votes on this early next year, it is an opportunity for Congress to do the right thing by making sure these key management tools can be put to work.”             
 
www.oceansalive.org

Legislative leaders have announced appointments to the NC Commission on Global Climate Change.  The following statement can be attributed to Michael Shore, senior air policy analyst at Environmental Defense, who will serve on the commission.  Michael can be reached for additional comment or background at 828-582-3141.

“North Carolina’s future is inextricably linked to global warming, but there are economic opportunities ahead if we roll up our sleeves and get to work now.  Reducing global warming pollution can generate billions of dollars of economic activity for North Carolina.

“Legislators should be commended for designing a bipartisan and diverse commission that can lead North Carolina toward a prominent role in curbing global warming.”

Background:
Legislative leaders have appointed members to the Commission on Global Climate Change.  Established by the NC Global Warming Act passed by the General Assembly last summer, the 34-member commission is charged with debating and proposing a pollution reduction goal and making other recommendations regarding impacts and economic opportunities related to global warming.  The Commission will issue its findings in November 2006.  By law, there are 16 seats named in the legislation, and the leadership of both chambers each appoint an additional nine members.

Contact: Jake Kritzer, Environmental Defense, 917-575-4286

www.oceansalive.org

(WASHINGTON, Oct. 19) – Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group (EWG), whose free, online farm subsidy database tracks over $130 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to farm entities in the past nine years alone, issues the statement below about today’s budget reconciliation meeting in the Senate’s Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee:

“Chairman Chambliss’s budget proposal maintains a system where our country’s largest agribusiness operations receive huge subsidies, while small family farm operations get almost nothing – especially those who are taking extra steps to protect the environment while farming.

“Chairman Chambliss’s budget is not an adequate response to the recent World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against the legality of our cotton subsidies. As the U.S. enters into international trade negotiations, Chambliss has shown no resolve to reduce farm subsidies and address the problems the U.S. will face in world markets and in the WTO.”

EWG’s searchable farm subsidy database is available at http://www.ewg.org/farm/.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, D.C., that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.

(11 October 2005)  North Carolina joined the growing number of states taking action to reduce mercury pollution when it passed a bill that will reimburse vehicle dismantlers for removing mercury switches from vehicles before they are recycled.  Environmental Defense and the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club praised the legislation but expressed disappointment that funding will come from the state’s Department of Transportation through small increases in fees for vehicle titles, title transfers and removing liens, rather than from the auto industry.  The fee increases went into effect October 1. 

“This law will help improve public health, but automakers are making North Carolinians foot the bill for a problem caused by the car industry,” said Kevin Mills, Clean Car Campaign director at Environmental Defense.  “Automakers made a bad design decision and don’t deserve a free ride.  They choose to use vehicle parts that contained mercury despite the availability of cheap, equally effective and environmentally benign alternatives and should take responsibility for the outcome.”

“We salute the North Carolina General Assembly and business leaders for their efforts to finalize this critical and cost effective bill, but more could have been done to ensure that automakers pay the tab, not the motoring public,” said Molly Diggins, director of the NC Sierra Club. 

Mercury switches are the nation’s largest manufacturing source of toxic mercury.  Since automakers began installing mercury switches in autos over 30 years ago, the mercury from these devices has been released into the environment as vehicles are scrapped at the end of their useful life.  The auto industry used an estimated 197 tons of mercury in vehicle switches in the U.S., and continued to use mercury switches - - saving only pennies per switch - - for many years after promising to switch to mercury free alternatives. 

More than 20 states have expressed interest in programs that will prevent the release of mercury pollution from scrapped vehicles.  Maine was the first state to pass and implement a complete program.  Recently New Jersey and Arkansas passed legislation to build on Maine’s success with similar programs.  Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and other states are also working to pass similar legislation.  This unprecedented action by such a diverse group of states demonstrates that a national commitment by U. S. automakers is needed to address this source of mercury pollution.

Environmental Defense works on this issue nationally through the Partnership for Mercury-Free Vehicles, which includes the Steel Manufacturers Association, Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, Steel Recycling Institute, Automotive Recyclers Association, and the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center.

Late Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-issued flawed rules declared unlawful more than a decade ago on nitrogen air pollution allowed in national parks and other vital natural areas.  The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA’s rules to be strong enough to protect parks, wilderness areas, lakes, and estuaries from harmful air pollution.  EPA is flouting this requirement by failing to strengthen old rules that have proven woefully inadequate.  EPA’s “business as usual” approach will allow increased pollution from many new and expanded factories without the strong pollution controls required by the CAA.

“EPA has turned its back on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and leading scientists across the federal government who have called for meaningful policy action to protect our national parks and forests, lakes and coastal waters from air pollution,” said Dr. Jana Milford, Environmental Defense senior scientist.  

EPA re-issued the same rules that were overturned by a federal court of appeals in 1990 in a successful legal challenge brought by Environmental Defense.  The 1990 court of appeals decision instructed EPA to re-work its rules to protect national parks from nitrogen air pollution.  After waiting more than a dozen years for EPA action, Environmental Defense and Earthjustice took legal action to compel EPA’s response, issued yesterday.  Unfortunately, EPA re-instated the same rules declared unlawful in 1990. 

In June, EPA issued controversial rules required to protect national parks from haze air pollution. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=4492  Yesterday’s rules were required to limit the levels of nitrogen pollution in national parks and other vital natural areas where the health of forests, lakes, and coastal waters are threatened. 

National Academy of Sciences Recommends Protection of Natural Systems.  In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences issued a landmark report on the state of the nation’s air quality in which it pointedly found EPA had not adequately protected ecosystems in its administration of clean air laws.  Yesterday’s action ignores these recommendations and adopts a policy already declared unlawful. 

Nitrogen’s Suite of Adverse Impacts.   Nitrogen air pollution is a key ingredient in the ground-level ozone that threatens human health, crops and plants.  Nitrogen transforms into particulate pollution that harms human health and cloaks scenic vistas in haze.  Nitrogen-related deposition harms the chemistry of lakes, streams, forests and soils, threatening vegetation and fish.  Excessive nitrogen deposited in coastal waters can cause algal blooms and oxygen depletion.  

New Federal Report Documents Natural Systems at Risk.   A new, quietly released interagency report documents the continued air pollution threats to ecosystems in the Northeast (including the Catskills and Adirondacks), the southern Appalachians and the Rockies.  http://www.al.noaa.gov/AQRS/reports/napapreport05.pdf.  The White House-coordinated report shows the benefits of pollution reductions for natural systems and demonstrates the need for cuts beyond those currently in place.  The Department of Energy, EPA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, NASA and NOAA collaborated on the report. 

Worsening Nitrogen Pollution in National Parks.  Nitrogen pollution levels need to be lower, but in some national parks nitrogen pollution levels are worsening.  For example, National Park Service monitors positioned across a broad region of the Rocky Mountain West show worsening ozone and nitrate levels over the past decade in parks ranging from Yellowstone in the north to Grand Canyon National Park and Bandelier National Monument in the south.  http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/who/gpra/gpra2004review02042005.pdf

(September 29, 2005 – Washington )  Following the passage of Rep. Richard Pombo’s (R-CA) endangered species bill in the House, Environmental Defense urged the Senate to carefully analyze the bill’s significant flaws before acting on this issue.

All text can be attributed to Michael Bean, wildlife chair at Environmental Defense (202-572-3312). 

The House of Representatives today approved the first major changes to the Endangered Species Act since 1988. Given the long time that has elapsed since the last major amendments, one might have expected the House to consider its actions carefully. In fact, it acted with a haste generally reserved for dire emergencies. The bill it passed was unveiled on September 19, followed two days later by a single committee hearing, and only a week after that by a floor vote. There was not ample time to adequately scrutinize the bill’s many flaws.

A Cautious Approach Needed in Senate
The Senate would be well advised to proceed more cautiously, for the House-passed bill contains a number of damaging measures. Foremost among them is a provision that puts future development projects beyond the reach of the law if the chronically under-funded Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) cannot meet its deadlines for reviewing project impacts. If the FWS acts in time and determines that a project will be harmful to endangered species, then the project proponent can demand to be compensated — at taxpayer expense — for not pursuing the project. That is a no-lose proposition for developers: they get either immunity from regulation or payments for not harming endangered species.

How likely is it that FWS will meet the House’s new project review deadlines? Here’s one clue:  31 of the 33 species added to the endangered species list by FWS since the Bush administration took office were added after the statutory deadline for a decision had passed. Two-thirds of them were more than a year late.

The choice of immunity or payoff is also a sure-fire way to bring an end to the sort of long-range, comprehensive planning that places like San Diego County, California; Pima County, Arizona; Clark County, Nevada; Austin, Texas and others have undertaken in response to the “habitat conservation planning” provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The previous Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, showed how the intelligent use of this feature of the Act could spark some creative compromises that allowed both development and conservation to happen. But Babbitt is gone now, and so apparently is any interest in either creative use of the law or compromise. Today’s vote in the House displays a winner-take-all mentality. Unfortunately, the losers are the nation’s bald eagles, grizzly bears, ivory-billed woodpeckers and other endangered species.

An Opportunity for the Senate
The Senate has an opportunity to act more responsibly, and there is precedent to guide it. In 1978, roiled by a Supreme Court decision that halted construction of a pork barrel dam project in Tennessee because of its impacts on an endangered fish, the House passed a bevy of crippling amendments by a vote of 384 to 12.The Senate, insisting on a much more focused effort to fix the few problems that really existed, rejected virtually everything the House had done. The Endangered Species Act that emerged largely unscathed from that contest has helped whooping crane numbers increase ten-fold, has made possible the reestablishment of California condors in the Grand Canyon, wolves in Yellowstone, and black-footed ferrets in the Great Plains, and has helped restore bald eagle numbers from a few hundred pairs to over 8,000 pairs today in the continental United States.  If successes such as these are to continue, the Senate must again reject the overreaching of the House.

Environmental Defense today praised the decision by Secretary Johanns of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to selectively reenroll and extend expiring contracts in the Conservation Reserve Program.  Tim Searchinger, who directs Environmental Defense’s work on agricultural conservation programs, offered the following comments:

“The Department deserves great credit for developing an approach to dealing with  expiring CRP contracts that should lead to getting even more environmental benefits from the program.  CRP places grasses and trees on 10% of the country’s cropland and has produced great wildlife, water quality and soil erosion control benefits.  But experts agree that the program can produce even more benefits in the future through better targeting and incentives for managing that land.  Most of the lands in the program are due to expire in 2007 and 2008.  USDA has come up with a balanced approach to reenrolling and extending those contracts in a way that should preserve the most valuable enrollments while making it possible to improve others. 

To realize the benefits of this approach, the Department will need to follow-up with refinements to its selection and management criteria.  Today’s announcement provides an excellent start.”

(September 28, 2005 — Washington) A bipartisan amendment to Congressman Richard Pombo’s Threatened and Endangered Act of 2005 offers responsible solutions to the challenge of reconciling conservation and development. The Substitute is expected to be offered this week by: John Dingell (D-MI), George Miller (D-CA), Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Norman Dicks (D-WA), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Congressman Dingell is the author of the original Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Rather than dismantle a program that has helped hundreds of species of American wildlife gain a more secure foothold on survival, the Substitute presents creative, workable solutions that promise better results in both recovering imperiled species and reducing burdens for regulated interests.

The substitute bill…

…better achieves recovery and puts the primary obligation for doing so on federal agencies. Under the Substitute, federal agencies will play an enhanced role in furthering the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Federal agencies since 1973 have been required by Section 7 of the ESA to ensure that their actions not “jeopardize the continued existence” of listed species, but this fundamental standard has never had a statutory definition. In practice, federal agencies have regularly and routinely undertaken actions that have reduced prospects for species recovery, thus effectively increasing the burden on private landowners. The substitute would change that with a clear and strong definition that makes it clear that any federal action that reduces the likelihood of recovery, or that significantly delays or increases the cost of recovery, will contravene the requirements of Section 7.

…ensures the continued integrity of the inter-agency consultation process. The consultation process mandated by Section 7, in which federal agencies proposing to authorize, fund, or carry out activities that may affect endangered or threatened species consult with conservation agencies (the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries), has worked remarkably well for more than three decades. The consultation process almost always identifies ways to remove or reduce the detrimental impacts of federal agency actions. Unlike the Pombo bill, the Substitute does not attempt to fix what is not broken. The Pombo bill authorizes unspecified alternative procedures to evaluate the impact of federal agency actions on listed species. What those procedures may be and to what activities they may apply are left completely unanswered by the Pombo bill.

The Substitute keeps the existing, effective consultation procedures in place. …improves recovery planning and better integrates recovery plans into the rest of the ESA. The Substitute requires that all newly listed species have recovery plans completed within three years and directs the existing backlog of overdue plans be eliminated within ten years. Recovery plans can play a more useful role in guiding the implementation of the ESA by being better integrated with the other provisions of the ESA. The Substitute assures this by requiring that plans identify all areas necessary for the conservation of listed species, which will help inform the implementation of the federal agency duty described in the preceding paragraph. The Pombo bill disavows any link between recovery plans and the other requirements of the ESA.

…offers Improved Guidance Prior to the Development of Recovery Plans. After a species is added to the threatened or endangered list, and before a recovery plan for it is written, states, landowners, and others often seek guidance to aid conservation efforts and avoid conflicts. The Substitute helps promote conservation and avoid conflicts by encouraging the development of guidance that identifies particular types of activities or particular areas where those or other activities could impact conservation prospects.

…defines “best available scientific data” in a straightforward and scientifically credible way, thereby allowing sound decisions to be made without unnecessary delay. In contrast, the Pombo bill requires the promulgation of new regulations and compliance with a complex set of new procedures that would make compliance with existing statutory deadlines for decision-making more difficult.

…provides financial incentives for voluntary actions by landowners to further the conservation of imperiled species. The Substitute establishes an uncomplicated program of incentives, in the form of cost-share assistance and technical assistance, to encourage landowners to undertake voluntary habitat improvements and other conservation actions helpful to threatened and endangered species. Unlike the Pombo bill, it does not force the taxpayer to pay businesses and others to comply with the law, nor does it sacrifice the well-being of endangered wildlife if the government misses a deadline.

…keeps pesticide protections in place. The Pombo bill creates a five-year exemption for pesticides from the existing requirements of the ESA. Inadequately regulated pesticides have been a significant threat to many imperiled species, including the nation’s symbol, the bald eagle, as well as the peregrine falcon, brown pelican, rare amphibians, and other species. The Substitute does not carve out any special exemption from the normal requirements of the ESA for pesticides, but keeps those requirements in place so that continued progress in conserving species like these can be made.

Contact: Colin Rowan Environmental Defense 512-691-3416 Michael Bean Environmental Defense 202-572-3312

(September 28, 2005 — Raleigh, NC) North Carolina can take advantage of major economic opportunities if it starts planning now to address global warming, according to a year-long study released today by the NC Climate Stewardship Task Force.  The group’s recommendations are timely because the General Assembly recently passed the NC Global Warming Act, which Governor Mike Easley signed into law yesterday.  The act establishes a 34-member legislative commission that will evaluate potential impacts on the state from rising temperatures, consider recommending a goal to reduce global warming pollution, and study ways to prepare the state’s economy to capitalize on emerging economic markets.  The Global Warming Commission will include a representative from Environmental Defense.

“The state can take advantage of huge economic opportunities if it starts to address global warming now,” said Simon Rich, former CEO of Louis Dreyfus Holding Company and a task force member from Edenton.  “Key sectors of North Carolina’s economy stand to earn billions of dollars and create tens of thousands of jobs.  The impacts of global warming are real, but so are the opportunities that will come from addressing this serious, statewide challenge.”

Convened by Environmental Defense, the NC Climate Stewardship Task Force is a bipartisan group with representation from the state’s science, business, health care and faith communities.  The nine-member group came to a seemingly startling conclusion: Addressing global warming presents a huge economic opportunity for North Carolina.  The task force concluded that North Carolina can reap economic benefits by addressing global warming if the state prepares its economy by:
- developing a plan that helps the state benefit from a lower carbon economy.
- establishing a carbon reduction goal.
- increasing its energy independence by developing alternative energy sources, such as biofuels and wind and solar power.
- pursuing incentives to promote energy efficiency and conservation.

“Legislators steered North Carolina in the right direction when they passed the Global Warming Act and established a commission to study the state’s response,” said Bob Perkowitz, president of Paradigm Management and a member of the task force.  “I’m confident the Global Warming Commission will use these task force recommendations as a trusted roadmap for developing a state action plan.  North Carolina can claim a strong advantage in the emerging carbon economy, if it prepares now to actively participate.”

“Economic Opportunity in Addressing Global Warming: The Silver Lining for North Carolina in a Lower Carbon Economy” is available at www.environmentaldefense.org/go/ncclimatestewardship.