Complete list of press releases

(23 October 2003 — Washington, D.C.)  Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to change the rules that help keep highway construction programs consistent with pollution limits in adopted plans to control ground-level ozone or “smog.”  Today’s proposal, which is subject to public comment before becoming final, is designed to address the transition to the revised ozone standard adopted by EPA in 1997. Highways remain one of the largest sources of health-threatening air pollution.
 
“Starting next year, EPA’s action will allow states to disregard established pollution limits from air pollution control plans and instead let highway emissions grow sharply back to the levels in 2002, rather than ensuring continuing further progress in pollution reduction, as the law requires,” said Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense transportation director.  “This illegal action removes accountability for the pollution impacts of new sprawl-inducing new highways, shifting pollution clean up costs to small businesses and consumers and delaying attainment of federal air quality standards.”

“EPA’s proposal would remove critical public health protections in vulnerable areas across the U.S. before the new smog standard are fully implemented,” said Replogle.  “The nation needs a sensible, protective transition to the new health-based smog standard, not a rollback of existing clean air safeguards.”

EPA proposes to weaken a key Clean Air Act program in areas now required to maintain compliance with the one-hour ozone standard.  The program, dubbed “transportation conformity,” is a safeguard against deteriorating air quality due to transportation-related projects.  It ensures, for example, that major new highway projects are consistent with pollution limits set to meet health-based air quality standards.  EPA’s proposal would rescind in April 2005 the pollution limits adopted by dozens of metropolitan areas under the 1-hour ozone standard, well in advance of establishment of new pollution limits designed to protect public health under the 8-hour ozone standard. These areas could then approve new transportation plans so long as transportation emissions are less than 2002 levels. This will trigger approval of many more sprawl- and pollution-inducing highway projects without adequate pollution controls. 

EPA strengthened the ozone standard in 1997 to improve protection of children and other vulnerable populations from air pollution that can lead to respiratory ailments, hospital admissions and possible long-term lung damage.  EPA estimates that 291 counties, with a population of about 120 million people, have monitored violations of the standard, based on the agency’s 1999-2001 data.

(22 October 2003 — Washington) Environmental Defense today applauded Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Pat Leahy (D-VT), and Conrad Burns (R-MT) for introducing a bill to protect funding for federal working farm and ranchland conservation programs.

The bill, S. 1766, would prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from diverting funds from working lands conservation programs ? specifically, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program ? to pay for administrative costs associated with the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).  In fiscal year 2003, USDA diverted $91 million from working lands programs to pay for CRP and WRP technical assistance. 

?Diverting funds from working lands conservation programs to pay for the administration of CRP and WRP will make the long lines farmers and ranchers face when they seek financial assistance to enhance air and water quality and improve wildlife habitat on working farms and ranches even longer,? said Environmental Defense water resource specialist Scott Faber.

?Farmers are willing to do their part,? Faber said. ?But, they face new costs, risks and lost income when they take steps to help the environment ? costs and risks that we must share if we expect to enjoy clean water, clean air and habitat for wildlife.? 

Faber said the Administration should honor the original intent of the 2002 Farm Bill by using mandatory funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay for administrative costs of all the conservation programs, rather than diverting funds from some programs to pay for others, as it did this year.

The 3.7 billion dollar Chad Cameroon oil project, which is managed by a consortium of Exxon, Chevron and Petronas, represents the biggest private investment in Africa today. In June 2000, the World Bank decided to co-finance the project against the wishes of Chadian, Cameroonian and international organizations. A month later, the European Investment Bank (EIB) followed with an additional loan of 144 million Euro.
A mechanism has been put in place that is supposed to ensure the transparent management of oil revenues, but continued corruption and lack of capacity in the Chadian government has cast doubt on its effectiveness.

International organizations have expressed their support for Chadian groups, who have declared, “The ceremony of October 10 has for us no meaning, it is a non-event.” According to Korinna Horta, a scientist with Environmental Defense in Washington, “A regional development plan was promised to mitigate the negative impacts of the project and ensure development benefits for the people most directly affected.  Yet to date no such plan has been made public or the regional structures put in place to administer the promised oil funds.”

“The World Bank’s assessment of the situation in Chad is based on unrealistic assumptions”, says Susanne Breitkopf, Africa Campaigner at Friends of the Earth France, “While World Bank officials organise satellite conferences for the international press, Chadian citizens are literally left in the dark, without means to communicate their grievances.” The Chadian government, notorious for its corruption and human rights abuses, used the first $4.5 million of the signing bonus that it received from the oil companies to purchase arms. “It is cynical for the World Bank to claim that the situation has changed. In its own internal project report to the executive directors of August 2003, the Bank found new financial ‘misreportings’ by the Chadian authorities,” says Breitkopf.

Magda Stoczkiewicz, leading the EIB campaign for Friends of the Earth International and CEE Bankwatch Network adds: “The EIB loan was given despite negative advice from the European Parliament, putting EU money into a highly controversial project. The Chad-Cameroon pipeline example puts into question the usefulness of channelling EU aid to Africa via the EIB.”

According to a network of Chadian NGOs active on issues related to the oil sector, the Commission Permanente Pétrole de N’djaména (CPP), the project has already caused considerable harm in the oil producing area and the measures promised by the World Bank to protect the environment and the population have not been implemented to their satisfaction. In a press conference in N’djaména, CPPN representatives criticized, among other things, the increased food insecurity and social tensions in the oil-producing region, due to the massive migration induced by the project. During the construction of the pipeline, prostitution developed on a large scale, increasing the spread of AIDS.

“In Cameroon, the construction of the pipeline has not brought benefits to the population. Instead, it has caused destruction of the environment and of important resources such as fisheries.” says Samuel Nguiffo, director of the Center for Environment and Development in Cameroon, and adds: “October 10 will be a public celebration of the broken promises of the pipeline construction in Chad and Cameroon, and of human and worker’s rights abuses. The World Bank should not be proud. We are joining our neighbours in Chad in the day of mourning, because we ourselves have no reason to celebrate this day.”

Meanwhile, the oil companies are exploring other oil-rich areas in Chad and Cameroon and any additional oil will use the existing pipeline. New exploration is occurring without informing the Chadian public, thereby ignoring the World Bank and EIB loan agreements.  As a condition of its financial support, the World Bank required that any oil to be transported through the pipeline be developed in compliance with the standards set for the Doba project. 

For more information contact:
Susanne Breitkopf, Friends of the Earth, Paris  tel. +33 1 48513222 mobile +33 6 77775868
Samuel Nguiffo, Center for Environment and Development, Yaoundé: tel. +237 222 38 57
Magda Stoczkiewicz, CEE Bankwatch, Amsterdam : +31 20 622 13 69 mobile +31 652 41 03 23
Korinna Horta, Environmental Defense, Washington - Lisbon: +351963920759

(7 October, 2003 — Washington)  Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a Clean Air Act case that has far-reaching implications for the power of the federal government to lower harmful air pollution from industrial sources.  Alaska v. EPA, Alaska challenges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) power to make large new air pollution sources install the best available pollution control technology when a state fails to do so.  An unfavorable decision in the case would allow states to put in place weak pollution controls for new power plants and industrial sources, even thought proven, cost-effective control technology is available.  Environmental Defense has filed a “friend of the court” brief in the pivotal case. 

“Safe, breathable air and a clean, healthy environment is the right of every American, and this case is pivotal in ensuring that the federal government has adequate power to protect that right,” said Environmental Defense senior attorney Vickie Patton.  “If the Court denies EPA’s power to protect public health and the environment from industrial air pollution, America’s clean air standards could deteriorate into a patchwork of weak, widely varying state laws.”

“The harmful effects of air pollution don’t respect state boundaries.  The U.S. needs a strong national clean air program to protect the public’s health, ” said John Balbus, MD, director of the Environmental Defense health program.  “Current air pollution levels are causing asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, and premature death.  All evidence shows America should be strengthening clean air protections, not undercutting them.”

In the case before the Court, Alaska issued a construction permit for a large diesel generator at Teck-Cominco’s Red Dog Mine, requiring pollution controls only a third as effective as technologies the state determined were feasible and affordable.  EPA brought an enforcement action to prohibit construction until a proper permit was issued.  Red Dog is the largest zinc mine in the world, located five miles from the Noatak National Preserve, a spectacular mountain-ringed river basin containing an intact Arctic ecosystem.  The case arises under provisions of the Clean Air Act governing the pre-construction review permit requirements for large new power plants and industrial sources, a key element of the Act’s “new source review” program.

(7 October 2003— Raleigh)  North Carolina Environmental Defense today released a study examining the projected impacts of uncontrolled global warming on North Carolina.  The study, Understanding Climate Change For North Carolina (www.environmentaldefense.org/go/NCclimate), finds that continued unchecked greenhouse gas pollution would lead to warmer temperatures that will worsen North Carolina’s air quality and threaten public health; rising seas that will significantly impact North Carolina’s coast, North Carolina’s economy and natural environment being significantly altered.

“Recognizing the threats that climate change poses to North Carolina, state leaders should commit to taking responsibility for North Carolina’s greenhouse gas emissions,” said Michael Shore, southeast air quality manager for Environmental Defense.  “In Washington, Senators Dole and Edwards should support the bi-partisan McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, a measured and affordable approach to the global warming problem, due for a vote later this month.”

“The Climate Stewardship Act invites every Senator and citizen to ratchet up the debate on climate change.  This bill - which is modest, doable, and relies upon proven approaches, not utopian wishes - moves America beyond cliches and evasiveness, and challenges every member of the Senate to clearly state what they think this country should do about global warming: ignore the problem or take prudent action,” said Peter Goldmark, director of the Environmental Defense global and regional air program.

“Potential climate impacts in North Carolina include an array of health threats, sea-level rise and increased coastal erosion, more extreme summer heat, water limits for our growing cities, rainfall variability impacting agriculture, and loss of species in forests, wetlands and other ecosystems,” said Shore.  “More than 3,300 people in N.C. have signed on as citizen co-sponsors of the Climate Stewardship Act at www.undoit.org.  For too long our leaders have denied any responsibility to find solutions - - all North Carolinians have a right to know where their Senators stand on this critical issue.”  

(1 October, 2003 — Washington)  Environmental Defense today praised Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today for pledging to soon secure a Senate vote on an extremely affordable version of the McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act containing a first phase of greenhouse gas pollution reductions.  The Act is the first proposal for a bi-partisan and comprehensive national policy to cut the greenhouse gas pollution disrupting the Earth’s climate.  The measure, co-sponsored by Senators McCain and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), was discussed during today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearings on climate change, chaired by Senator McCain.

“The bi-partisan McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act is a measured and affordable approach to the global warming problem.  At a low cost of an estimated $10 per household in 2010, this bill gives Senators an easy choice between doing something or doing nothing about climate change.  Senators ready to take on this problem should vote for this reasonable first step to protect our country and our children from greenhouse gas pollution,” said Environmental Defense president, Fred Krupp.

“The vote on the Climate Stewardship Act will be the litmus test for Senators on global warming,” said Krupp.  “More than 150,000 people have signed on as citizen co-sponsors of the Climate Stewardship Act.  For too long our leaders have denied any responsibility to find solutions - - all Americans have a right to know where their Senators stand on the issue.” 

This fall’s vote on the measure will give Senators the chance to halt the waffling and delay on climate change and participate in a real debate about the only thing that counts on climate policy — getting greenhouse gas pollution to go down, not up. 

“America is the number one source of the pollution contributing to global warming, and for too long our leaders have denied any responsibility to find solutions.  The bi-partisan Climate Stewardship Act is a modest first step in absolutely the right direction,” said Krupp.

Environmental Defense is strongly backing the Act and has launched an advertising campaign and has also been coordinating a petition campaign in support of the bill that has generated more than 150,000 citizen co-sponsors.

(30 September 2003 — Raleigh, NC)  Environmental Defense today applauded this week’s launch of NC GreenPower, a program that will offer the state’s electric consumers the option to buy electricity generated by renewable sources such as wind, solar and landfill methane gas, rather than polluting sources such as coal or nuclear. 

“NC GreenPower is the best opportunity citizens have to protect the environment since recycling became available in the early 1990s,” said Jane Preyer, director of the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “Recycling is a way of life now.  Relying on energy generated by clean, renewable sources will be a way of life in the future.  Choosing green energy should become as commonplace as choosing to recycle a milk jug, and NC GreenPower is a big first step.” 

“NC GreenPower, combined with the benefits of the Clean Smokestacks Act, demonstrates that North Carolina is very serious about addressing the health impacts of air pollution,” said Michael Shore, southeast air quality manager for Environmental Defense and a member of the NC GreenPower Board of Directors.  “By making clean energy resources available, the program will help reduce dependency on coal-fired power plants that pollute our water and make our children wheeze.  Green power is here to stay.”

NC GreenPower will be formally launched at press conferences in Research Triangle Park and Charlotte on October 1.  Preyer will be a speaker at the RTP event.

(29 September 2003— Moscow)  Returning to Moscow from a summit with President George W. Bush at Camp David over the weekend, Russian President Putin opened the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow today.  Putin’s appearance heightened expectations that he would make an announcement about Russia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. 

He disappointed the conferees and failed to resolve the uncertainty concerning the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to control greenhouse gases previously repudiated by the Bush Administration.  “Of course other opportunities will be coming,” stated Environmental Defense’s global and regional air program manager, Joe Goffman.  “The Russian Presidential elections are just around the corner.  Managing greenhouse gas emissions means controlling other dangerous pollutants, and that means Russian lives will be saved.”

President Putin said that the Russian government is conducting a comprehensive analysis of Kyoto ratification.  In addition, Putin stated that due to the economic crisis in Russia, Russian greenhouse gas emissions are substantially below their 1990 levels.  These reductions are so significant that Russia has compensated for 40% of the world’s growth in these emissions since that time. 

“Presently, there is no known negative consequence to Russia from ratification.  In fact, the benefits to Russian business and people will be discussed in detail at the Social Forum of the World Climate Change Conference,” said Dr. Alexander Golub, a Russian climate specialist with Environmental Defense.  “The Kyoto Protocol contains innovative market-based mechanisms that allow Russia to be financially compensated for their reductions, more clear evidence that Russia would substantially benefit from the Protocol’s ratification.”

“The world is waiting for Russia to act.  Without Russian action, greenhouse gas pollution will certainly continue to grow and the threats to the planet that President Putin catalogued today will increase,” said Goffman.

(24 September 2003 — Raleigh, NC)  Environmental Defense today strongly criticized the Environmental Protection Agency for developing behind closed doors a proposal that gives factory livestock farmers amnesty from violating Clean Air Act (CAA) emission standards.  The draft plan, leaked earlier this week, gives polluters a waiver from violations in exchange for small payments into a fund to develop methods to estimate emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs).  Under the draft proposal, any AFO that signs up for the voluntary program would receive a waiver from CAA enforcement, even though emissions from only a small number of AFOs would actually be monitored.

“EPA and the livestock industry closed the door on cleaning up pollution from farms when they drafted this back room deal without input from the scientific and environmental communities,” said Joe Rudek, senior scientist with Environmental Defense and a member of the USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force.  “The draft plan has loopholes you could drive cattle through.  It lets polluters off the hook, sets no firm deadlines and contains no firm requirements for the livestock industry to clean up its pollution.”

“A voluntary monitoring program has some merits.  Industry should pay to monitor its air pollution and collect data that document the full impact of operations on air quality.  However, EPA clearly has the authority to require monitoring on AFOs and relinquishes far too much control over monitoring in this voluntary program,” said Rudek.

“EPA is preparing to grant blanket amnesty from Clean Air Act regulations to the entire livestock industry, when the agency should be strictly enforcing current standards and imposing controls that protect public health and the environment,” said Daniel Whittle, senior attorney with Environmental Defense.  “EPA’s refusal to enforce the Clean Air Act is troubling to those downwind of factory farms and sends the wrong message to other polluting industries.”

(24 September 2003 — Raleigh)  Three environmental groups today called on North Carolina officials to start following long-standing recommendations made by a panel of experts that are designed to guide recovery efforts following hurricanes.  Environmental Defense, N.C. Coastal Federation and the Southern Environmental Law Center urged Gov. Mike Easley and the N.C. General Assembly to enact recommendations made in 1997 by the N.C. Coastal Disaster Recovery Task Force.  Until then, the groups said that all permits for new development projects proposed within the 100-year floodplain should be placed on hold.
 
The groups said lawmakers have ignored three key task force recommendations: a requirement for full disclosure and “hazards notification” to people buying property on barrier islands, restrictions on future state subsidies that support development in designated high-hazard areas, and establishment of a state program to acquire property in those areas.

“Nature has told us again and again that our coastline is a danger zone,” said Todd Miller, executive director of the N.C. Coastal Federation. “Hurricane Isabel was only a Category 2 storm, and it was devastating.  We can’t afford to wait until a Category 4 or 5 storm comes along and kills thousands of people.”

“The moratorium is needed to stop new development and should not prevent anyone from repairing properties damaged by Isabel,” said Trip Van Noppen, director of the Carolinas Office of the Southern Environmental Law Center.  “After hurricanes there is typically a frenzy of new development, with more and more people and property put in harm’s way.”
 
The groups described efforts to rebuild N.C. 12 as temporary, stop-gap measures and said a decision to fill in the new Hatteras inlet, which is already widening and deepening, should not be made without considering alternatives. 

“Scientists agree there’s a high likelihood that the sand and road will simply wash away with another big storm,” said Jane Preyer, director of the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “North Carolina decision makers must think beyond short-term fixes and focus on protecting coastal communities for the long-haul.”

Noting the importance of re-establishing a transportation link to Hatteras Village, the groups said that the N.C. Department of Transportation’s Outer Banks Task Force has already developed an Inlet Response Plan for situations when inlets are created by storms.  “Rather than following the Inlet Response Plan, the federal Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are now calling all the shots about how to deal with the new inlet,” said Van Noppen.  

(24 September 2003 — Washington)  Environmental Defense criticized today’s announcement by a House-Senate conference committee that it is likely to include in the pending energy bill a controversial provision calling for the use of disruptive seismic survey ships and other invasive technologies to look for oil and gas potential even within sensitive coastal areas long protected by a bipartisan congressional moratorium.

The House of Representatives had previously removed a similar measure calling for offshore exploration from its own energy bill during April of 2003, and House managers of the bill at that time had promised not to attempt to restore it during the conference committee negotiations.  The final Senate version of the energy bill did not contain this provision at all, and it is very unusual for legislation not found in either the House or the Senate bill to be adopted by the joint conference committee.

“The energy bill now threatens our fisheries and the economies of our coastal communities with tens-of-thousands of damaging undersea explosions,” said Richard Charter, marine conservation advocate with Environmental Defense.  “This backdoor approach of introducing the most controversial measures during the final conference committee deliberations will only undermine public faith in the integrity of the legislative process.”

If signed into law, today’s conference committee action will endanger the existing offshore drilling moratorium that protects unleased coastal waters off of California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Alaska’s Bristol Bay, and the entire east coast.

(19 September 2003 - Dubai)  As World Bank representatives gather in Dubai for the 2003 World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, and International Rivers Network today released a report in response to the World Bank’s new “high-risk/high-reward” strategy in the water, forestry, and extractive industries sectors. The report, Gambling With People’s Lives, analyzes the World Bank’s ability to manage social and environmental risks in high-risk projects and to learn from its past mistakes. The report is available at www.foe.org and at environmentaldefense.org.

“The World Bank is playing a reckless, high-stakes game of roulette, where the poor and not the Bank stand to lose big,” said Environmental Defense policy analyst Shannon Lawrence. “While the Bank and private investors are shielded from project risk, the communities affected by its projects have no such guarantees.”

One of the Bank’s most important environmental reforms of the 1990s was its more cautious approach to high-risk infrastructure and forestry projects. This policy is now being reversed. The World Bank recently announced that it would re-engage in contentious water projects such as large dams in what it refers to as a “high-risk/high-reward” strategy. In 2002, the Bank dismissed its “risk-averse” approach to the forest sector when it approved a new forest policy. The World Bank is also considering support for new oil, mining, and gas projects in unstable and poorly governed countries, against the recommendations of its own evaluation unit.

“Big is beautiful again, and in spite of their abysmal track record, megaprojects are back in style at the World Bank,” says Peter Bosshard, policy director at International Rivers Network. “The Bank’s new high-risk strategy will prolong the deadlock in important sectors such as water and electricity, and will block the development of sustainable alternatives.”

“Large dam, forestry, and extractive industries projects funded by the World Bank have displaced millions of people and devastated the environment,” said Carol Welch, international program director at Friends of the Earth. “The Bank’s spotty implementation of its inadequate safeguard policies means that communities and the environment will continue to face the greatest risks in World Bank projects.”

The report recommends, among other things, that the World Bank repair the damage caused by its previous high-risk projects, stay away from new high-risk projects, and address the human rights dimensions of its work. The report will be presented on Monday, September 22 at the Dubai Convention Center, Room G-01 from 11:00 am-12:00 pm.

Friends of the Earth International is a federation of 68 environmental organizations from all over the world that campaign on the most urgent environmental and social issues of our day, while simultaneously catalyzing a shift toward sustainable societies. Friends of the Earth US is the U.S. arm of the federation.
www.foei.org www.foe.org

International Rivers Network (IRN) supports local communities working to protect their rivers and watersheds. IRN works to halt destructive water development projects, to promote sustainable alternatives, and to change the policies of financial institutions, governments, and the dam industry.
www.irn.org

New York — September 18, 2003 —Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, was recently named one of 25 laureates for the prestigious 2003 Tech Museum Awards: Technology Benefiting Humanity presented by Applied Materials, Inc.  The Tech Museum of Innovation, located in San Jose, California announced the laureates.  In Silicon Valley where technology is considered a way of life, The Tech Museum Awards were developed to recognize the need to bridge existing technology in emerging countries and emerging technologies in developed countries.

Environmental Defense has been selected as a laureate for the Intel Environment Award.

“Environmental Defense is very honored to be selected as a Tech Museum laureate,” said Environmental Defense program director Gwen Ruta.  “Through innovative private-sector partnerships, Environmental Defense has quickened the pace of delivering healthier air by leveraging the power of business to develop cleaner truck technology.”

Environmental Defense teamed up with industry leaders, FedEx Express and Eaton Corporation, to develop and bring to market a next-generation delivery truck that will cut air pollution significantly while boosting fuel economy.  Using the innovation of hybrid diesel-electric engine technology, the new vehicle will decrease cancer-causing particulate emissions by 93% and reduce smog-causing emissions by 75%.  In addition, the cleaner trucks will increase fuel efficiency by 50% while meeting high standards of functionality and cost-effectiveness. 

This project is the first time that hybrid electric technology has been commercially applied to the medium-duty truck market.  The benefits to the environment and human health will be measured through significant reductions in toxic air pollution, respiratory ailments, pre-mature death, and acidification of lakes.  The public health benefit of this technology will grow even faster as more truck fleets convert to hybrid trucks for their business transportation needs.
 
On October 15, at a black tie Awards Gala, Silicon Valley leaders and delegates from the United Nations will join together to honor all 25 laureates, and one laureate from each category will be awarded a $50,000 cash honorarium.

The awards, presented in partnership with the American Council for the United Nations University and Santa Clara University’s Center for Science, Technology, and Society, are designed to honor individuals, for-profit companies, and public and not-for-profit organizations from around the world who are applying technology to profoundly improve the human condition in the categories of education, equality, environment, economic development, and health.

This year, an esteemed panel of judges considered more than 500 nominations, representing 70 countries.  The 25 2003 Tech Laureates come from Bangladesh, Canada, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nicaragua, Nepal, and the United States.

For more information on the awards and laureates, visit http://techawards.thetech.org.

About Environmental Defense
Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 300,000 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. The work of Environmental Defense in developing this technology was supported by a three-year grant from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund. Additional support was received from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Oak Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the David H. Smith Foundation. For more information, visit www.environmentaldefense.org.

About The Tech Museum Awards
The concept for The Tech Museum Awards and its five categories was inspired in part by The State of the Future at the Millennium report of The Millennium Project of the American Council for the United Nations University, which recommends that award recognition is an effective way to accelerate scientific breakthroughs and technological applications to improve the human condition. The Awards were inaugurated in 2001.

Judging for The Tech Museum Awards is independently conducted by Santa Clara University’s Center for Science, Technology and Society, a global network of academic and industry experts dedicated to understanding and influencing how science and technology impact society. They assemble five panels of judges from around the world, recruited from research institutions, industry and the public sector, who judged the nominations on five set criteria.

The Tech Museum Awards Partners
The Tech Museum Awards represent a collaborative effort among educational institutions and business. Among Silicon Valley’s leaders supporting The Tech Museum Awards are presenting sponsor, Applied Materials, Inc. and Santa Clara University’s Center for Science, Technology and Society. Category sponsors are the NASDAQ Stock Market, Knight Ridder, Intel, and Accenture.

About The Tech Museum of Innovation
Located in the heart of downtown San Jose, Silicon Valley, Calif., The Tech, a non-profit organization, engages people of all ages and backgrounds in exploring and experiencing the technologies affecting their lives and aims to inspire the innovator in everyone.  For more information, visit www.thetech.org or call (408) 294-TECH.

Media contact:

Jessica Mendelowitz, Environmental Defense communications director, 212-505-2100; jmendelowitz@environmentaldefense.org
Gary Summers, The Tech Museum of Innovation, 925-284-7004; gary@prwebsite.com.
Ryan Donovan, Ketchum Public Relations, 415-984-6138; ryan.donovan@ketchum.com.

(17 September 2003 — Boulder)  Today Environmental Defense praised bipartisan legislation introduced by Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) giving states the right to choose whether to adopt the Bush administration’s recently finalized exemptions to the Clean Air Act’s “new source review” program.  The exemptions, which would weaken long-standing clean air safeguards, have come under widespread criticism by states, public health organizations and environmental groups.  In the final rules, the administration has also departed from Clean Air Act law and practice by mandating that state and local governments implement the rollbacks.  The bill introduced today would restore state’s right to choose whether to implement the exemptions.   

“The bipartisan bill introduced today by Congressmen Udall and Shays would allow states to decide whether it’s in their best interests to carry out the sweeping changes the Bush administration has made to the health protections of the Clean Air Act,” said Environmental Defense senior attorney Vickie Patton.  “This bill’s flexibility is good news for the states and good news for public health and environmental protections.” 

The rules in question were adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 27, 2003 and provide that changes at industrial facilities involving millions of dollars in equipment replacement and leading to substantially higher levels of air pollution are no longer required to adopt improved air pollution control technology.  The facilities affected include thousands of power plants, refineries, pulp and paper mills, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities throughout the United States.

The EPA’s controversial rules were issued after an August 2003 General Accounting Office report found that EPA relied on anecdotal information provided by major air polluters to justify its rollbacks to the Clean Air Act’s new source review.  The original “new source review” program adopted in the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments required old, high-polluting sources such as power plants to prevent pollution increases that would worsen unhealthy air quality in urban centers or adversely impact national parks.  The new rules would broadly exclude existing industrial sources from the long-standing requirement to modernize pollution controls by imposing an arbitrary economic test that would exempt major pollution-increasing activity from clean air protections while ignoring public health considerations.