Complete list of press releases

 (RALEIGH, NC — Dec 14, 2020) A new report by RTI International, commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund, shows that climate change impacts will impose significant costs on North Carolina’s residents and its economy in the coming decades without urgent action to curb climate-warming pollution. Using the best available evidence on a range of climate impacts — from extreme heat to coastal and inland flooding — the report showcases the projected costs on eight major sectors of the state’s economy within the next 20 to 30 years.

“This report underscores the many ways that climate change is already costing North Carolinians — with growing damages affecting homes, farms, roads, and businesses across the state as sea levels rise and as hurricanes and other storms become more intense,” said George Van Houtven, author of the report and researcher at RTI International. “If climate change remains unchecked, those costs will put a growing strain on North Carolinians’ health and economy within the next few decades.”

According to the report, residential and commercial properties will be hit hard by flooding: More than 1,300 residential and commercial properties along the state’s coast, valued at almost $340 million, are already at risk of chronic flooding. By 2045, this estimate increases to almost 15,600 properties valued at almost $4 billion, threatening the local tax base needed for community services, like schools and hospitals.

North Carolinians’ health and safety are also at risk from extreme heat: in the Raleigh, Wilmington, and Fayetteville areas, emergency room visits due to heat stroke and other heat-related conditions are projected to increase two- to threefold from 2010 to 2050. In many cases, these costs and impacts will be disproportionately felt by low-income and socially disadvantaged populations who have fewer resources and options for protecting themselves.

In addition to property and human health, the report covers costs to agriculture and forestry; commercial fishing and aquaculture; transportation infrastructure; water infrastructure and services; energy supply and demand; and recreation and tourism.

“These mounting costs should send a warning to our state leaders: North Carolina can’t afford to delay concrete policy action on climate change,” said Dionne Delli-Gatti, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs. “Crucially, the state needs to act decisively to put a firm limit on climate-warming pollution — an action that can help curb the worst impacts of climate change, while growing clean energy jobs and protecting the communities most impacted by pollution and climate impacts.”

The report presents a range of key actions the state can take to prevent the worst climate impacts to come and build resilience across its economy. Policy recommendations for curbing climate-warming pollution include putting a price and an enforceable limit on pollution that together incentivize pollution reductions, cap total pollution, and spur clean energy growth. For example, North Carolina could join 10 states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic that are already successfully reducing pollution from the power sector through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). At the same time, the state also needs to build on its resilience efforts, including incorporating more nature-based shorelines that can protect against storm surge and incentivizing resilient farming practices.

Read the full report here.

(Dec. 12, 2020) Countries, companies, U.S. states and other key global actors marked the five-year anniversary of the Paris climate agreement with a virtual summit filled with announcements around new and recent pledges to address climate change. Hosted by the United Nations, United Kingdom, Chile, Italy and France, government and non-governmental leaders demonstrated their commitment to the Paris Agreement and the multilateral process.

“Today’s event helped crystallize the recent momentum toward enhanced climate ambition. Five years after the Paris Agreement was signed, and with the ‘Paris rulebook’ in place, the accord still provides a valuable framework for action. But one thing is as true now as it was five years ago: Success lies not the text of the agreement, but in the commitments countries make to cut emissions and the actions they take to meet them. Much more ambition is needed to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change.

“The good news is that the last three months have seen a notable upswing in momentum on climate action, driven by the EU’s commitment to reduce emissions 55% below 1990 by 2030, China’s 2060 carbon neutrality pledge, the UK’s target of reducing emissions 68% by 2030, and net-zero-by-2050 goals by Korea and Japan. All eyes will be on the U.S. once President-elect Biden takes office on January 20, 2021.”

•    Nathaniel Keohane, Senior Vice President for Climate, Environmental Defense Fund

###

In the virtual event today, many countries called out pledges they have made in the lead up to today’s summit. The EU stressed the importance of multilateralism, underscoring the importance of the global reach of the Paris Agreement, and put forward its new ambitious commitment, agreed only yesterday by European heads of State. China also expressed support for multilateralism and modestly upped its Paris pledge for 2030, increasing the cut in carbon intensity to 65%, (previously 60-65%) below 2005 levels, the share of non-fossil fuel consumption to 25% (from 20%), and solar and wind capacity to 1,200 gigawatts (from 1000 GW). The UK, on the back of its new 68%-below-1990-by-2030 commitment announced last week,  said it would stop financing oil and gas projects, Countries also focused on the importance of climate finance, with developing countries calling for more support and countries, such as Japan and Germany coming out with new finance pledges.

(WASHINGTON, D.C. – Dec. 11, 2020) Today the District of Columbia Public Service Commission approved Washington Gas Light Company’s Project Pipes 2 plan to continue replacing leak-prone pipe for the next three years, including an advanced leak detection pilot program. Advanced leak detection technology and data analytics (ALD+) allows gas utilities to identify and quantify methane leaks on their system with greater speed and accuracy than traditional survey methods. As the District strives towards ambitious climate goals, reducing methane emissions from the gas distribution system is an essential step.

“Advanced leak detection technology and data analytics will help Washington Gas find and measure methane leaks so that replacement of leak-prone pipe can be prioritized to reduce emissions faster. The commission’s approval of the ALD+ proposal is an important step forward in reducing methane leaks across the District.

“EDF supports Washington Gas Light’s adoption of advanced leak detection and looks forward to continuing to collaborate with Washington Gas and the Public Service Commission to ensure that the utility’s operations align with the District’s climate goals. D.C. has adopted ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and further planning and changes to Project Pipes will be required to meet those goals.” 

• Erin Murphy, Attorney, Energy Markets and Utility Regulation

(Albany, NY – December 10, 2020) Investors, regulators, customers and the public are best served when the risks that energy companies face due to climate change are fully disclosed, according to three leading experts on the issue. Environmental Defense Fund, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School have filed comments strongly in support of an action by the New York Public Service Commission which would do just that.

The Commission is responsible for regulating New York’s electric and gas utilities, among others, and is considering whether to require those companies to disclose the risks that climate change poses to their assets and operations.

The groups submitted joint comments to the Commission in support of the approach, saying:

“New York is well positioned to lead on utility-specific climate-related disclosure requirements … Mandatory disclosure standards are necessary, and the Commission’s Order is a timely and important step toward greater — and much needed — clarity and coherence with respect to the identification and disclosure of climate-related risks by utilities.” (Comments, page 6)

Risk disclosure is a vital component of the U.S. financial system. Publicly-traded companies issue financial reports with detailed plans for addressing a wide variety of risks they may encounter in their future – but those reports rarely include more than vague or perfunctory information about the risks the companies face from climate change. Revealing the risks created by climate change can unlock far-reaching benefits for electric utilities, their customers and the public more broadly, from cost savings to improved electric reliability to enhanced state efforts to address the public safety threat that climate change causes.

Electric and gas utilities are among the companies most at risk from the impacts from climate change. This is true with regard to both physical risks, such as more frequent and severe storms and wildfires, and risks from rapidly changing technologies, policies and preferences that climate change is creating. The Public Service Commission’s plan can ensure that New York’s utilities are addressing those risks, and can provide a blueprint for other states and the federal government to use as well.

You can read the group’s joint comments here.

Today, EDF released a post-election poll offering the first look into how climate change is changing the landscape and politics in Florida.

Dawn Shirreffs’, EDF Florida Director observed, “Climate change is no longer a partisan issue in Florida. Voters are aware of the economic impact and a substantial percentage from both parties, and those with no party affiliation, expect their political leaders to address it head-on.”

Among the key takeaways from the survey:

• Voters would be more likely to support a Republican who supports these types of environmental policies, including more than a four-to-one margin among Republicans and a six-to-one margin among NPA/other voters.
• Two-thirds of voters overall – and about half of registered Republicans – say they are at least somewhat concerned about the impacts of climate change on the state of Florida. Voters say they are concerned by a 68 to 30 percent margin overall (38 percent very concerned).
• Three-fifths of Florida voters say climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed either now or in the future; very few voters say climate change is not happening. Forty-eight percent of voters say climate change is a severe threat that we must start addressing now.
• Governor DeSantis and Senators Rubio and Scott are all viewed favorably. Governor Ron DeSantis (51 to 31 percent). Senator Marco Rubio (53 to 29 percent), and Senator Rick Scott (46 to 35 percent). All draw net positive ratings.

(WASHINGTON, DC — Dec. 9, 2020) “President-elect Joe Biden just nominated a veteran leader for Agriculture Secretary in Tom Vilsack — a huge advantage for rebuilding a more resilient farm economy and driving fast action on climate.

“From floods and fires to trade wars and a global pandemic, the incoming administration will need to provide a swift lifeline to farmers, ranchers and forestland managers, and to Americans who depend on vital food and nutrition programs.

“America’s farms, ranches and forests are ripe for equitably expanding revenue opportunities from natural climate solutions, which harness the power of nature to capture and store carbon and build climate resilience. Our letter to President-elect Biden’s USDA transition team outlines several priorities for how the agency can do this, including reducing inequities in the distribution of USDA benefits and services that have plagued the agency.”

· Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund

 “Commissioner Liane Randolph is an excellent choice to lead CARB. Randolph will help California meet the urgent need to lead on air quality, climate ambition and environmental justice. Her deep expertise and reputation of effective collaboration will be a huge asset in helping bring leaders across government, the private sector and the environmental community together to fight for clean air for all and a fully decarbonized California economy.”

“We are looking forward to working with Commissioner Randolph and the CARB board and staff to support critical efforts to protect and enhance the health and well-being of all Californians, and to achieve significant equity and environmental justice progress. She will be a strong partner to the governor and the Biden-Harris administration in helping revitalize U.S. action and global leadership on climate.”

• Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund

(WASHINGTON, DC) The bipartisan Trillion Trees and Natural Carbon Storage Act, introduced today by Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and Chris Coons (D-DE), would set national targets for carbon sequestration across key ecosystems in the U.S.

"Fighting climate change requires a powerful tool: nature itself. Guided by science, we can harness the power of forests, grasslands, wetlands and coastal ecosystems to capture and store carbon and build climate resilience.

"This scientifically robust bill puts the U.S. on a path to unlock the potential of nature-based climate solutions. It follows recommendations from climate scientists and nonprofit organizations to focus on measuring climate impact instead of number of trees planted.

"The window of opportunity for bipartisan climate action opens wider every day. The time to act is now, and EDF congratulates Sens. Braun and Coons on their efforts to work collaboratively and effectively."

• Elizabeth Gore, senior vice president, Political Affairs

The Trillion Trees and Natural Carbon Storage Act would:

• Expand existing U.S. Forest Service carbon accounting to include grasslands, wetlands and coastal ecosystems, in addition to forests.
• Ensure that forests and other ecosystems will be valued not only for harvested materials, but also for important climate mitigation functions.
• Measure progress using "net carbon stock," a metric that reflects the dynamic nature of ecosystems and how carbon stores can grow or shrink over time.
• Direct the Forest Service to share expertise, including technical capacity to increase carbon stored in urban forests, with states and recipients of U.S. foreign aid.
• Provide funding to alleviate the nation's 1.3-million-acre backlog of reforestation projects.

For additional information about the bill, read this EDF blog post.

(Washington, D.C. – December 9, 2020) The Trump administration today took a step that would make it harder for future administrations to protect Americans from dangerous air pollution, when it finalized a proposal that attacks clean air protections by imposing arbitrary new requirements on assessments of their benefits.

“This rule will distort EPA’s assessment of the benefits of Clean Air Act safeguards, making it harder to establish vital, life-saving protections against unhealthy air pollution,” said EDF senior attorney Ben Levitan. “The rule puts Americans’ health at risk for no good reason. The incoming Biden administration should immediately take steps to reverse this rule.”

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler proposed the rule, with the Orwellian name “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process,” in June. The proposal laid out a plan to “cook the books” in order to overstate the costs and obscure the benefits of our nation’s clean air laws. It also contained inconsistent new procedures for implementing those laws, and incorporated elements of Wheeler’s dangerous Censored Science proposal to limit EPA’s use of important health and scientific studies when setting public health protections.

Today’s final rule sets arbitrary requirements for demonstrating the benefits of clean air protections, but does not set the same requirements for claims about the costs of protections skewing the results of agency analyses. It also imposes new regulatory requirements that overlook the benefits of clean air safeguards and threatens EPA’s ability to do its job – including setting health-protective standards for soot and smog, limiting industrial sources of hazardous air pollution like mercury and benzene, and safeguarding against chemical disasters.

Throughout the development of this rule, Administrator Wheeler ignored extensive evidence that the benefits of Clean Air Act protections are actually systematically undercounted – and still far outweigh the costs:

• EPA’s most recent analysis projects that the benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments will exceed the costs of compliance by a factor of 30 to 1.
• The study identified benefits valued at $2 trillion in 2020 alone, including from the prevention of 230,000 unnecessary deaths.

EPA already has rigorous methods for assessing costs and benefits. Wheeler has not identified any flaws in those methods or provided any reason why his proposed rule would improve them. EPA’s own Science Advisory Board said the proposal’s key terminology was vague and undefined.

EDF and other health and environmental organizations filed detailed comments with EPA in August pointing out the proposal’s technical problems and fatal legal flaws. EDF also filed a community letter expressing the opposition of 15 public health, environmental justice, racial justice, and environmental organizations.

Today, a group of organizations sent a formal petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urging the agency to revise its outdated standards for lead in food to better protect the public, and especially children, from the impacts of lead exposure. Specifically, the petition calls on the agency to stop allowing lead to be added to materials that contact food, to update its guidance to better protect against the risk of lead exposure, and to tighten its limits for lead in bottled water. These are simple steps FDA can immediately take in the effort to reduce widespread exposure to lead, and the irreversible harm the heavy metal poses, in our food supply.  

The petition highlights three specific opportunities to reduce lead in food and beverages:

• Reduce the amount of lead allowed in bottled water from 5 to 1 parts per billion consistent with American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations.
• Ban lead in tin that coats food cans. An Environmental Defense Fund analysis of FDA data found lead detected in 98% of certain canned fruits compared to only 3% in fresh or frozen varieties — pointing to the canning process as the source of the heavy metal. FDA reported finding lead in almost half of canned food it sampled.
• Stop adding lead to brass or bronze used in equipment to dispense water or brew tea and coffee. There is ample evidence that this lead leaches into the beverages.  

This is a problem because there is no safe level of lead in the blood. Lead can harm a child’s brain development, resulting in learning and behavioral problems, and it can cause heart disease in adults. While the levels in any one food may be low, the cumulative effect of lead - and other heavy metals - in the diet can be significant. Additionally, an EPA analysis has found that, for more than 70% of children in the US, the dominant source of lead exposure is from food. 

Several studies in recent years, including from EDF, Consumer Reports, and Healthy Babies Bright Futures, have highlighted the persistent problem of heavy metals in food - and particularly baby food. Though contamination from soil and water is a major source, lead can also enter food through processing and contact with materials containing the heavy metal. 

Recognizing the harm posed by heavy metal exposure, FDA established a working group in May 2017 to evaluate lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury levels in food and prioritize reduction strategies. While the agency has taken several important steps since, it has yet to take the simple actions outlined in this petition - which would yield significant benefits by driving down lead levels in food. 

The petition describes how FDA should prohibit lead as an additive to food contact articles (e.g. food packaging, processing or handling equipment, and cookware), update its guidance on lead limits in food and food ingredients and tighten its limit for lead in bottled water in keeping with the latest scientific evidence.

The petitioners are: Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Childhood Lead Action Project, Clean Label Project, Consumer Reports, Defend Our Health, Environmental Working Group, Health Babies Bright Futures, and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. 

The agency should immediately put the petition out for public comment. Under its rules, FDA must respond to the petition within 180 days.

*************************************************************************************************************
“With all that we know about the dangers of lead exposure – especially for children – FDA needs to move from analysis to action in its effort to reduce exposure to heavy metals,” said Tom Neltner, EDF’s Chemicals Policy Director. “We know that lead gets into food; by stopping its addition to materials that contact food and tightening the bottled water standard, the agency can take meaningful action toward better protecting everyone from lead.”

“We have known since the 1700s that these metals, when used as food additives, are poisons. Now, we know that even tiny amounts of these metals as food contact substances cause harm to developing brains and bodies. It is past time for the FDA to act.” -  Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director, Center for Food Safety.

“All parents want to make the best choices for their children,” said Laura Brion, Executive Director of the Childhood Lead Action Project. “But what can they do if safe options aren’t on the grocery store shelves? The FDA needs to do its job and get toxic lead out of our food and water.”

“The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, the Centers of Disease Control, the Food & Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency ALL say there is no safe level of lead. Reforming our antiquated regulations around lead exposure is necessary to protect Americans and especially vulnerable populations.” — Jaclyn Bowen MPH, MS, Executive Director of Clean Label Project.

“It’s long past time for the FDA to take action to address these completely unnecessary and avoidable sources of lead exposure,” said Patrick MacRoy, Deputy Director of Defend our Health. “The cumulative burden of lead in our food and bottled water is harming the brains of our children while adding to the number of cardiovascular deaths in adults. Our petition requests changes that will reduce this burden that should have been implemented long ago.”

“Even small amounts of lead harms the nervous system, especially for children,” said EWG’s Vice President for Science Investigations Olga Naidenko, PhD. “Exposure to lead causes lasting damage to the brain which is why it is essential to get lead out of food and food packaging. The FDA must take strong measures to make sure children are not exposed to lead from foods and beverages they love.”

“While we’ve known the lead is a poison for centuries, the more recent science has shown that even tiny amounts of lead can cause great harm, especially to the developing brain both before and after birth. The FDA needs to fully acknowledge the new science by modernizing their standards to protect pregnant women, their babies and everyone else.” - Charlotte Brody, RN, National Director, Healthy Babies Bright Futures.

(Washington, D.C. - December 08, 2020) Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed with overwhelming bipartisan support S. 1811, the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA), a key piece of legislation that authorizes vital projects and priorities in the nation’s water infrastructure systems, such as advancing natural infrastructure to reduce flood risk and increase community resilience. 

The reauthorization also includes a range of regional priorities, such as addressing sea level rise on the New York-New Jersey coasts, advancing large-scale ecosystem restoration of Louisiana’s coast and increasing resilience from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and its delta. This bill also commits resources to traditionally underserved communities, helping build equity for those most at risk from flooding and climate change. 

“At the end of one of the most devastating years on record for extreme weather, the U.S. House of Representatives today acted boldly to protect communities and vital infrastructure from future disasters. 

“In reauthorizing WRDA, the U.S. House prioritized solutions, such as natural infrastructure, that will better protect communities from flooding, while also creating jobs and restoring vital ecosystems from our coasts to the heartland.

“This legislation recognizes that traditionally underserved communities are disproportionately impacted by climate change and commits to building equity and resilience in these communities. We are pleased to see the legislation direct resources to boost local capacity and reduce flood risk for traditionally underserved communities, federally recognized tribes and Indigenous groups.  

“Our nation’s waterways are vital to the health, safety and prosperity of all Americans. We applaud the bipartisan and inclusive process of developing this bill and look forward to working with leaders in both chambers and parties in the remaining days of this Congress to advance this vital piece of legislation forward to the president.”

• Elizabeth Gore, EDF Senior Vice President, Political Affairs

(HARRISBURG, Pa. – December 8, 2020) This morning, the state Environmental Quality Board (EQB) opened the first of 10 virtual public hearings to solicit input on a rulemaking that will facilitate Pennsylvania linking to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-invest program. RGGI has allowed participating states to achieve substantial carbon pollution reductions while catalyzing economic development, facilitating investment in infrastructure and clean energy and creating jobs.

The hearings invite public participation for a rule that garnered the support of over 70% of Pennsylvania voters in a September 2020 poll. Hundreds of residents have signed up to testify and represent a diversity of constituencies including frontline, faith and rural communities, business interests and youth climate activists. Farmers, veterans and energy industry workers will also be offering testimony.

Today’s hearings will run from 9 a.m.-noon and 1-4 p.m., with additional hearings on December 9, 10, 11 and 14. Interested parties can follow the hearings online by registering at the EQB’s website.

“The breadth and depth of interest in these public hearings makes clear that Pennsylvanians want action on climate, and they want it now. The citizens of the commonwealth are raising their voices in support of RGGI, which will allow Pennsylvania to fight climate and air pollution while we rebuild better with cleaner, 21^st century jobs. As we turn the page on 2020, getting the RGGI rulemaking to the finish line in 2021 can ensure that Pennsylvania continues to lead on climate action, readies itself for the clean energy future and delivers the clean jobs that come with it.”

• Mandy Warner, Director, Climate & Clean Air Policy at EDF.

(WASHINGTON – Dec 8, 2020) A new report from Environmental Defense Fund using emissions data from Rhodium Group finds that U.S. states with climate commitments are not on track to bring their emissions down consistent with science-based trajectories for 2030. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), reducing global emissions to around 45% below what they were in 2010 by 2030 and continuing to reduce emissions dramatically through 2050 is consistent with a path that can avert devastating impacts of climate change.

By 2030, 25 states and Puerto Rico are collectively projected to reduce emissions by 11% from 2010 levels, rather than the 45% needed to stay on track with the 2030 target. The analysis finds that these states are also off track for reaching the original U.S. commitment under the Paris Agreement, which all of these states have committed to delivering. Here, states are projected to reduce emissions by only about 18% below 2005 levels by 2025, when a reduction of 26-28% is needed. Looking at total U.S. emissions, if this group of states were to close these gaps, they could bring the entire country closer to its climate goals: shrinking the remaining gap in 2030 by nearly half and cutting the 2025 gap by a third.

“While many states have taken important steps on climate, they are not moving fast enough to turn commitments into the policies that will lock in the needed reductions in pollution,” said Pam Kiely, Senior Director for Regulatory Strategy at EDF. “This analysis sends a clear signal to governors and state lawmakers: making a climate commitment is only the starting point – not the finish line. Even under a new president with a meaningful climate agenda, state policies are essential for securing significant and immediate reductions in climate-warming pollution that can reduce long-term climate damages. It’s also time for states that haven’t made a climate commitment to join the effort to reduce pollution and safeguard our health, economy and ecosystems. With a vanishing window to take transformative action, state leaders have to put their foot on the pedal today.”

Since 2017, when President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, states have taken on a bigger role in climate leadership. This includes the 25 governors (including Puerto Rico) who have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of states committed to meeting the targets of the agreement – reducing emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Louisiana is not an official member of the U.S. Climate Alliance, but it established a target by executive order to reduce net emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, 40-50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. Collectively, these states with climate targets represent more than half the U.S. population and the third largest economy in the world behind China and the U.S.To further illustrate the challenges beyond goal setting, the analysis examines the current climate policy state-of-play in four geographically and politically diverse states: Washington, Minnesota, Colorado and North Carolina. While these states are leading with sector-specific policies, with some requiring 100% clean electricity, adopting low- and zero-emission vehicle standards, and more, they still need policy tools to cover emissions across all sectors with enforceable limitations on pollution consistent with what science demands.

“The urgency of the climate crisis – which Americans are experiencing in the form of raging wildfires, stronger hurricanes and blistering heat waves – demands serious limits on emissions now,” said Derek Walker, Vice President for U.S. Climate at EDF. “The longer that state leaders wait to implement policies that place concrete limits on major sources of pollution in their states, the more difficult it will become to avert the most costly climate impacts. As both state and federal leaders develop plans to rebuild and revitalize the economy in the wake of COVID-19, there is tremendous opportunity to invest in a clean economy, while putting in place policy frameworks that can drive deep declines in emissions and protect the communities most burdened by pollution.”

In developing climate policy approaches to achieve their commitments, EDF recommends that states:

• Establish declining, enforceable limits on GHG emissions: These limits should serve as a backstop for reaching emissions targets, covering emissions from all of the state’s major sources of pollution, and can be source based, sector based or applied across multiple sectors. For example, 10 states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic have been successfully reducing carbon emissions from the power sector through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
• Ensure environmental and economic benefits are directed to disproportionately-impacted communities: Alongside and as part of an emissions cap framework, states should ensure that benefits from investments in a clean energy future, including improvements in local air quality, are directed to communities most overburdened by pollution, as well as to workers and communities impacted by the transition away from fossil fuels.
• Evaluate progress based on emissions metrics consistent with science: States should establish an emission reduction trajectory over the next decade that accounts for the cumulative impact of long-lived climate pollutants and aligns with the IPCC’s estimated carbon dioxide budgets.
• Consider an approach that puts a price on pollution: If well designed, using a carbon price to help meet pollution limits can enable much greater ambition by securing the most cost-effective reductions, jumpstarting innovation and accelerating early action—which critically will help facilitate greater cumulative emission reductions.
• Catalyze the development and deployment of clean technologies: Supporting the ongoing adoption of performance-oriented policies can accelerate the development and deployment of clean technologies in conjunction with an emissions limit —cleaning up our cars and buildings—and making the limits on pollution easier to achieve over time.

Read the full report and blog explaining key findings. The report appendix includes emissions data and gap analysis graphs for every single state with gubernatorial climate commitments.

(Washington, D.C. – December 7, 2020) Today, during its final weeks in office, the Trump administration finalized a decision to leave an inadequate standard for particle pollution in place – a step that will deliberately leave Americans vulnerable to the dangers of unhealthy air pollution.

“Particle pollution is linked to asthma attacks, bronchitis, heart disease and premature death. The Trump administration has a clear legal obligation to protect Americans from this dangerous pollution, but instead – and against all the best scientific data – has rushed through this effort to freeze the particle pollution standards at a level fails to protect public health,” said EDF senior attorney Rachel Fullmer. “EPA’s record also shows that communities in close proximity to industrial sources are disproportionately bearing the burden of this pollution, including Black, Latino, Indigenous and other communities of color. This action comes at the same time these communities are also disproportionately suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic. The incoming Biden-Harris administration should immediately reverse this harmful decision.”

BACKGROUND

Particle pollution, commonly called soot, is a health hazard that is closely linked to a variety of heart and lung diseases, including the kinds of underlying conditions that make people more vulnerable to COVID-19. In fact, a study published this fall found that higher historical PM2.5 exposures were associated with higher county-level COVID-19 mortality rates.

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter every five years. The administration was due to update our national standards – but instead chose to freeze them at their current level. That decision came after they rushed the review process, shortening public comment periods and canceling scheduled meetings with experts and stakeholders.

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has a clear legal obligation to set a level for particulate pollution that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety. This margin of safety is intent to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to air pollution. EPA experts considered the latest health science studies, and recognized that our current annual threshold for soot – 12 micrograms per cubic meter, set in 2012 – needs strengthening to protect public health and prevent thousands of premature deaths.

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded the 26-member particulate matter expert panel. A smaller, divided advisory panel made up mostly of Wheeler’s appointees then rejected the expert advice and recommended leaving the soot standards at their current levels.

By finalizing this decision, EPA fails to uphold is obligation to protect all Americans, including the most vulnerable, and consider environmental justice implications:

• EPA has recognized that even if air quality around the country just met the current standard, about 50,000 Americans would still suffer early deaths due to particulate pollution.
• New studies of tens of millions of people, including a large 2017 study of the Medicare population, shows people are at risk from soot at exposure levels that are below our current standard.There are ample, common sense tools available to reduce particulate pollution and meet more protective health standards.· A 2018 study by EPA scientists published in AJPH found that “Non-White populations overall experienced 1.28 times the burden of the general population, and Black populations, specifically, experienced the greatest degree of disparity in the siting of PM emitting facilities at national, state, and county levels, burdened with 1.54 times the PM emissions faced by the general population.”
• EPA review documents note that there is “strong evidence for racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5 exposures and in PM2.5-related health risk. Such analyses indicate that minority populations such as Hispanic and non-Hispanic black populations have higher PM2.5 exposures than non-Hispanic white populations, thus contributing to adverse health risk in non-white populations (U.S. EPA, 2019, section 12.5.4).”
• However, in the proposed rulemaking, EPA writes that “this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples…” (FR announcement)

(HAMBURG – 7 December 2020) Prevalent methane emissions are not isolated to distant oil and gas producing countries, they are traceable right to our doorstep: In Hamburg alone, 50 to 80% of methane emissions stem from leaky gas pipelines, according to a new study led by Utrecht University under the auspices of the U.N. Environment Programme with scientific support from the Environmental Defense Fund, a leading global nonprofit and expert on methane emissions.

Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas responsible for at least 25% of global warming. It is also the main ingredient in natural gas. Numerous studies analyzing methane leaks from gas distribution systems in cities across the United States, Canada — and now Europe — show gas pipelines can be a significant source of emissions. Gathering measured data is essential for getting a clearer picture of emissions as official inventories often underestimate the problem.

“We discovered increased methane concentrations at 145 points in the Hamburg city area, 50 of which are due to gas utility leaks,” said EDF scientist and co-author Dr. Stefan Schwietzke. “In total, the Hamburg gas network released about 286 tonnes of methane emissions into the atmosphere causing the same short-term climate damage of 1,000 cars on the road each year.”

This is a status quo, however, that can be changed as Schwietzke explains: “The specially designed vehicle-mounted mobile monitors detected methane leaks much more effectively than conventional sniffers. Gas utilities that modernize their leak maintenance practices with these vehicles can both protect the climate and improve the safety of the gas network.” Gasnetz Hamburg, the local utility, has already recognized this opportunity and is cooperating with EDF and partners on a follow-up study to test ways to implement this new monitoring technology.

Supplementing the Hamburg study results with further measurements in other cities can help draw a more complete picture of Europe’s methane emissions that come from the vast network of gas pipelines under city streets. Corresponding studies are already underway in a dozen European cities — from London to Paris to Bucharest, which will provide valuable data to fill in gaps identified by the EU Methane Strategy and increase reduction opportunities in the Union.