Source: KVUE

At 4:00 p.m. today, the State Fire Marshal's Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives plan to announce the results of their investigation of the West, Texas fertilizer explosion that killed 14 people and injured over 200.

Information leaked to The Dallas Morning News indicated that investigators have three possible explanations for the explosion fueled by ammonium nitrate: ignition from a faulty golf cart, ignition from the fertilizer and seed building’s electrical system or an intentional act.

No matter what the conclusion, we’ve learned some very important lessons from this tragedy:

• There is not enough coordination among state agencies covering the oversight of facilities like West;
• Current penalties and fines don’t seem to be a deterrent to the those who violate safety and environmental laws;
• There is a need for more thoughtful consideration as to appropriate locations of schools, hospitals and nursing facilities; and
• There is a critical need for local emergency responders to have the best possible information regarding hazardous materials and potential health and safety risks in their communities.

As we begin to wrap up the legislative session in Texas, we are hopeful that our elected officials will do the right thing and strengthen environmental and safety protections instead of weaken them.  Over 400 people a year lose their lives in Texas from occupational injuries.  We can and should do better.

On a personal note, I’d like to give a shout out to my favorite Texan, Willie Nelson, 80 years young, who hosted a birthday concert benefitting the community of West and raised over $120,000. Thank you Willie!

Voluntary truck replacement programs at ports are a common means of improving local air quality without imposing strict restrictions.  However, new research shows that these voluntary programs, while a critical component of a comprehensive clean air plan for ports, are limited in their overall effectiveness, especially when considered in the context of mandatory programs.  A new peer-reviewed study by Environmental Defense Fund, “Emissions reduction analysis of voluntary clean truck programs at U.S. ports”, will be published in the July issue of Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.  The study, authored by Elena Craft, PhD and me, demonstrates that voluntary programs only reduce emissions by one to four percent compared to a baseline of truck emissions before program implementation.  Furthermore, the potential emission reductions are limited to 15 percent for particulate matter (PM) and 35 percent for nitrous oxides (NOx), two pollutants linked to serious health risks.  This means that, under current program guidelines, only a fraction of total truck emissions could be reduced through voluntary replacements.  These findings are striking given the accomplishments noted at ports that have implemented more rigorous programs, such as the Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program, which set a progressive ban on older, more polluting trucks, ultimately requiring the use of clean trucks that meet the 2007 emissions standards.

This is a critical environmental and public health issue.  Short-haul drayage trucks have been found to contribute substantially to port area air pollution, and there is broad consensus from communities, cargo owners, transportation providers, and ports that older trucks need to be retrofitted or retired in order to reduce the public health risk from emissions associated with freight transportation.

In 2009, EDF announced a partnership with the Houston-Galveston Area Council and the Port of Houston to replace older, polluting trucks with new, cleaner models.  The outcome of this partnership resulted in the best incentive program in the country for owner-operator truck drivers.  The Drayage Loan Program combined federal and state grants to provide drivers with low-interest loans and high value grants to trade in their truck.  While voluntary programs, such as the one at the Port of Houston, have helped build stakeholder support and drive progress toward cleaner air, the limited capability of voluntary programs, as demonstrated by this study, highlights the need for stronger actions on behalf of all partners.  This is especially true for Houston, as emissions from trucks operating at the port are estimated to amount to approximately half of all emissions within the port’s 2015 projected emissions inventory. 

The ports that have enacted voluntary truck programs should be applauded; they trail blazed the path toward clean air with an important step and truckers started upgrading to newer, cleaner truck models.  But now is the time to do more and these early successes should be the force for driving greater environmental improvement.  We have the knowledge base, the partnerships and the resources to implement more rigorous truck programs and emission reduction initiatives.

Estimated Distribution of Benzene Annual Concentration, Based on Retrieved Primary Source Location and Wind Direction Frequency

Last week, EDF, along with Air Alliance Houston (AAH), submitted comments to the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reflecting why we believe the proposed removal of Texas City for the pollutants benzene and hydrogen sulfide from the state’s Air Pollution Watch List (APWL) is premature.

The APWL is a list of areas in Texas where concentrations of harmful pollutants exceed the state’s own health-based screening level guidelines. While inclusion on the list indicates that additional scrutiny is given to permits issued to facilities in the area, some of the APWL areas have been listed for over a decade. This is significant because exposure to these toxics may impact human health and may lead to serious health outcomes, such as birth defects or cancer.

EDF has been actively engaged with TCEQ to improve management of the APWL program and to renew efforts to improve air quality in hotspot areas. TCEQ first added Texas City to the Air Pollutant Watch List in 2001 because of elevated concentrations of propionaldehyde. The organization added benzene in 2003 because the annual average concentration at the Ball Park Monitor exceeded the long-term health-based Air Monitoring Comparison Value (AMCV) of 1.0 ppb.[1]  Hydrogen sulfide was then added in 2004 based on mobile and stationary monitoring data showing exceedances of the 0.08 parts per million (ppm) threshold.

TCEQ’s proposal claims that recent air monitoring information justifies the removal of Texas City from the APWL. However, new analyses completed by EDF and AAH, indicate that data from the current monitoring network are not adequate in justifying the removal of Texas City from the APWL. Here are a few reasons why:

• Air monitoring information has not been correlated with wind direction, meaning that the existing monitoring network does not capture the predominant downwind concentrations of pollutants in neighborhoods closest to the largest sources. As illustrated in the insert, the largest concentration of benzene is expected in between the existing monitors.
• BP Texas City: The largest emitter in the area is also the worst environmental performer. BP Texas City is ranked as the largest benzene emitter in the region, not just the state. On March 23, 2005, an explosion killed 15 employees and injured 170 as a result of workers re-starting a unit at the BP refinery that had been closed for repairs. The problem started when workers filled a tank with 138 feet of flammable liquid, when it should have been filled with only 6.5 feet of liquid. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that BP had cut costs, resulting in risky working conditions, which were likely the cause of the catastrophic event. An investigation by the Chemical Safety Board found numerous problems, including out-of-date equipment, corroded pipes, and faulty safety alarms. This explosion has been characterized as one of the worst workplace incident in the U.S. between 1989 and 2005.
• BP Texas City II: More recently in November 2011, there were reports of gas leaks at the BP Texas City refinery. A concerned citizen initially reported a sulfur dioxide leak to the National Response Center. BP confirmed an ongoing leak of methyl mercaptan; the odor was so toxic that 30 workers from a neighboring plant downwind were taken to the hospital.

Bottom line: It is too early to remove Texas City from the APWL for benzene or hydrogen sulfide. While we appreciate the efforts that the state has made in working to improve air quality in the Texas City region, there is strong evidence that residents in Texas City continue to be at higher risk for health impacts from pollutants such as benzene.

We therefore recommend that the agency place additional monitoring equipment in the areas expected to have the highest concentration of pollutants. Only properly sited monitors with validated data can justify a delisting. Without proper data collection and analysis, the TCEQ cannot ensure that it is maintaining the Air Pollutant Watch List in a manner that protects public health.

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

This past month, we experienced refreshing, cool and somewhat wet weather in Texas.  However, those working on energy issues know all too well that this weather change doesn't mean we have escaped the worst of the “energy crunch.”  As the farmers say: “If you don’t like the weather in Texas, wait ten minutes and it will change.”  Despite cooler temperatures, an unplanned power plant outage during a warm day late last month forced the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to issue an advisory, demonstrating just how quickly things can change.

At the same time, recent ERCOT reports indicate that reserves will be tight this summer due to an anticipated record level of high energy demand and stunted growth in new electricity resources – thus making conservation notices likely and rolling outages probable.  All of this points to the important role conservation programs, like demand response, can play for ERCOT.  Some ERCOT staff and stakeholders have recognized the importance of demand response, which allow customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use in response to a signal from utilities.  Others have called explicitly for programs that pay customers for reducing energy the same way generators are paid for producing energy, an approach EDF has advocated for several years.

ERCOT and a few retail electric providers already have conservation programs, albeit limited, in pilot phases that compensate customers for their participation.  But in comparison to other regions, Texas lags far behind other states – despite having the highest potential for conservation and clean energy resources in the U.S.  That’s why the three remaining weeks of the legislative session are so important: two critical pieces of legislation that would open up demand response in Texas to meet our electricity reliability goals and drive further market competition are under review.

Senate Bill (SB) 1351 from Senate Business & Commerce Chairman John Carona would require ERCOT to allow customers to participate in all competitive energy markets; the bill passed the Senate earlier this week and is now on its way to the House of Representatives.  SB 1351 is an excellent piece of legislation to propel demand response in Texas, but alone it is not enough to ensure Texas can keep the lights on during the hottest summer days.  A separate bill from Senator Kirk Watson, Senate Bill (SB) 1280, would accomplish just that by requiring ERCOT to secure enough demand response to meet its reliability needs if existing resources fall short; the bill passed unanimously out of the Senate Business & Commerce committee.

These bills will make all the difference this summer and for many summers to come.  The Texas Legislature has the opportunity to ensure that ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) have all the necessary tools to avoid rolling blackouts over the next several years as we wait for new energy resources to come online.

The PUC has asked ERCOT to move forward on several issues.  However, many of these suggestions, such as raising electricity price caps or establishing an administrative price curve, won’t do much to improve the energy reliability outlook.  There has been a great deal of talk about demand response at ERCOT and the PUC, but not a lot of progress with the exception of a few small pilots.

For example, earlier this week ERCOT stakeholders (mostly power producers) chose to table a simple proposal that would improve the Emergency Response Service (ERS) – one of ERCOT’s limited demand response programs.  This proposal would have created a more efficient bidding system, one closer in line with emergency demand response programs in other regions.  In fact, such a system has been supported by many market participants since the ERS’ inception in 2006.  However, the subcommittee that oversees these issues, populated mostly by power generation and sales companies, decided more discussion and analysis were needed. This is in large part due to current officials controlling the stakeholder process and deterring competition from new resources, such as demand response.

Currently, only large, centralized energy suppliers can truly participate in the Texas energy market; an approach that is neither balanced nor efficient.  We need action from the legislature and the PUC now more than ever to open up the market to demand response.  Because it opens up the market to customers by giving them the choice to save money by responding to price signals from ERCOT, demand response allows Texans to play an active role in creating a reliable electric grid.  If we want to see a balanced and competitive market in Texas, the legislature and the PUC need to take the lead and make demand response a priority.  Meanwhile, ERCOT stakeholders should learn a lesson from The King: “a little less conversation, a little more action, please.”

I recently spoke at "A Conversation About the Environment," hosted by the Texas Tribune, with fellow speakers Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Texas’ environmental protection agency; Laura Huffman, State Director of the Nature Conservancy of Texas; and Kate Galbraith, Texas Tribune’s leading energy reporter.  At the event, Kate kicked off the discussion with a quote from my colleague Elena Craft’s blog post regarding the West, Texas fertilizer explosion.  I made note of an important fact from Elena’s post that Texas leads the nation in total fatal industrial accidents, with over 400 deaths in 2011.  For comparison, California came in second (and has a population larger than Texas), with 260 total deaths.

Soon after, PolitiFact Texas reached out to me to inspect my claim.  While my statement that Texas leads the nation in industrial accidents is accurate, they questioned why I did not qualify the statistics of deaths caused by industrial accidents on a per-worker basis. One reason that I chose not to use a per-worker comparison is that even though the rates compare per 100,000 people, there can be a significant difference in variability in the rates between high population states like Texas and low population states like New Hampshire or West Virginia. That is because there is an order of magnitude difference in the workforce population between Texas and these smaller population states. One would need to characterize that variability over multiple years to determine whether variability had a significant impact on the rate. The point of my comment during the Texas Tribune event was to highlight the fact that far too many workers die unnecessarily in Texas every year in workplace accidents that can and should be prevented.

Furthermore, people are not statistics. Fifteen people lost their lives in the West tragedy, many of them first responders who entered the facility without having knowledge of the true risks or that they would lose their lives that day. Joseph Stalin infamously remarked that, “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” The individuals that lost their lives in the West explosion deserve better than to be called a statistic.  People don't die or hold funerals on a per-worker basis.

The tragedy in West, Texas could and should have been prevented. Texas public officials have cut funding to key agencies responsible for ensuring strong public health and safety protections. And right now, several bills are working their way through the legislature to further weaken public health protections, even as tragedies like the explosion in West continue to occur. This is the reason that our team at Environmental Defense Fund is committed to advocating for strict oversight of environmental compliance in Texas.

Texas can and should be a safer place to work. One preventable death is one too many.

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Climate 411 blog.

Another high-profile clean air case played out yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A three-judge panel heard oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and some industry petitioners.

The lawsuit challenges EPA’s efforts to ensure smooth, uninterrupted permitting for large new industrial sources of climate pollution in Texas.

EDF was part of a coalition of clean air advocates that filed two briefs in the case. We filed in support of EPA, along with Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club.

At issue in the case are State Implementation Plans, or SIPs as they’re commonly known.

Here’s some background on the case

U.S. clean air laws require that large new industrial sources obtain construction permits providing for cost-effective modern solutions to mitigate climate pollution. The states are empowered to provide those permits – through their SIPs.

In 2010, EPA found that 13 states, including Texas, lacked the ability to carry out that requirement.

All those states except Texas worked with EPA to ensure permitting authority was in place. That allowed large new industrial sources in those states to obtain the needed construction permits.

In an August 2, 2010 letter to EPA, Texas wrote that it:

ha[d] neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.

That brings us to the lawsuits.

Here’s a look at what happened in court yesterday

Judges Judith Rogers, David Tatel, and Brett Kavanaugh heard oral arguments.

The judges closely questioned Texas and industry petitioners about the impact of the court’s recent decision in another case that we’ve written about.

In that challenge to the Endangerment Finding, before the same court, judges upheld EPA’s first-generation climate protections.  The decision in that case said that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was:

unambiguously correct

In light of that earlier ruling, EPA argued that its actions were necessary to ensure that sources in Texas could get permits.

That became one of the main points of discussion during oral arguments yesterday – as the judges pressed Texas and the industry petitioners to describe how EPA’s actions caused them any injury.

What’s at stake in the case

This case is part of an extensive suite of litigation Texas has mounted to oppose some of America’s most important climate protections.

Those protections include:

• EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment
• EPA’s Clean Cars standards, which will save consumers money, reduce pollution, and help protect our nation’s energy security
• EPA’s requirement that large sources of greenhouse gas emissions deploy modern pollution controls

If successful in this case, the upshot of Texas’s actions would be to eliminate any authority from which new industrial sources in the state of Texas could obtain permits addressing their greenhouse gas emissions – permits which these sources need for lawful construction.

Texas is suing even though EPA has taken great pains to create a reasonable and fair process:

• EPA has acted in the most limited, surgical fashion to ensure businesses in Texas can obtain permits consistent with the nation’s clean air laws.
• EPA has provided federal authority only for climate pollution, and Texas is administering the balance of the requirements.
• Even with respect to greenhouse gases, EPA has urged Texas to take delegated authority over permitting.

Unfortunately, as Texas continues to devote scarce public resources to suing over the common-sense climate protections of U.S. clean air laws, communities in Texas are already suffering from the weird weather linked to climate change – like last year’s debilitating drought.

And in an ironic twist, at the same time that Texas is using public resources to fight common-sense climate pollution standards, Texas leads the nation in wind power — a zero-emitting resource.

In 2012, wind power led the entire nation in the overall deployment of new electricity generating resources, with 13,124 megawatts.  Much of that came from the Heartland — Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado.

That means Texas is looking at a … well … Texas-sized economic opportunity – as well as an opportunity for climate progress.

What a shame they’re choosing to waste their time and money in court instead.

Over the last week, media outlets around the country have highlighted lack of regulation and enforcement as contributing to the tragedy in West, where 15 people lost their lives, many of them first responders.

State officials have commented many times that there is adequate state oversight under the existing laws. And yesterday, eight state agencies testified about the tragedy at a special hearing held by the Texas House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety. As you might imagine, the overall tone of the speakers was defensive, and ultimately, none of the state agencies testified that they would have done anything differently because they were all doing their jobs.

What about the laws of common sense?

The attitudes presented yesterday are frustrating and disappointing for communities.  Texas is a great state and we can do better. We can start by taking a critical look at some of the bills working their way through the legislature right now designed to weaken public health protections. Consider the following bills that are in various stages of the legislative process:

• House Bill (HB) 824 (Calligari) – Spill Reporting
  HB 824 aims to create a volume-based exemption for reporting accidental spills and discharges from wastewater facilities. Unfortunately, this one cleared the House Natural Resource Committee and is on its way to House Calendars.
• Senate Bill (SB) 957 (Fraser) and HB 2082 (Ritter) – Contested Case Hearings
  These two bills would dramatically alter the way the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) handles certain permits and the judicial and administrative review process. The bills would shift the burden of proof on permits to the public, limit public input, and restrict evidentiary hearings.
• HB 1496 (Van Taylor) – Hydraulic Fracturing
  HB 1496 would restrict a municipality’s ability to impose restrictions on hydraulic fracturing to protect public safety by adding any interest in an oil or natural gas well to the definition of private real property.

More information on current bills under consideration can be found here.

At the hearing, Progress Texas PAC Director Glenn Smith made comments that should make us all take notice:

Even this preliminary inquiry shows how dangerously wrong Rick Perry was when he said we had adequate regulations. State Chemists says security requirements are fence and door locks. The insurance commissioner says there is no requirement that the plant be insured, and that West Fertilizer's insurance was woefully inadequate to the risk. The TCEQ testified that the plant operated without a permit from 2004 to 2006, and that was only caught because someone filed an odor complaint in 2006.”

One thing that my grandmother used to tell me all the time:  “The easy day was yesterday.” The hard days are ahead, improving state oversight in the interest of public protection and ensuring that we are engaged in thoughtful and collaborative work, especially as we work to protect public health.

We all make mistakes and no one person is responsible for the tragedy in West. My hope is that we all try to do just a little bit better.

Source: American Lung Association

Texas climbed higher among the national “worst ozone” rankings list, but most of the nation continued on a long-term trend toward much healthier air, according to the Annual State of the Air Report released this week from the American Lung Association (ALA).

The report reviewed air pollution data compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for two of the most hazardous types of pollution: ozone and particle pollution.

Key National Findings:

• More than 131 million people (42 percent of the U.S. population) live in counties that have unhealthy levels of either ozone or particle pollution.
• Los Angeles has cut one-third of its unhealthy ozone days since first the State of the Air report came out in 2000.
• Eighteen cities had lower year-round levels of particle pollution, including 16 cities with their lowest levels recorded.

Key Texas Findings:

• Unfortunately Houston-Baytown-Huntsville ranked 7^th place among the most ozone-polluted cities in the country, and Dallas-Fort Worth made a huge leap to 8^th place nationally from 13^th place just two years ago. Harris County also failed with regard to annual particle pollution.
• Fifteen Texas Counties received a grade of “F” for ozone pollution:
  • Harris County (67 orange level ozone days, 10 red)
  • Dallas County (34 orange level ozone days, 4 red)
  • Bexar County
  • Brazoria County
  • Collin County
  • Denton County
  • Galveston County
  • Gregg County
  • Hood County
  • Jefferson County
  • Johnson County
  • Montgomery County
  • Orange County
  • Rockwall County
  • Tarrant County
  • On a more positive note, Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville made two of the “cleanest U.S. cities” list for ozone and short-term particle pollution.
  • To find out if your Texas town is on the most polluted list, visit the ALA site.

As mentioned in a previous Texas Clean Air Matters post, we believe that Texas has the capability to reduce air pollution levels throughout the state. However, there is – as always – much work to be done. Our health depends on it.

What needs to be done (Source: ALA):

• Clean up harmful emissions from tailpipes.
• Clean up harmful emissions from smokestacks.
• Reduce emissions of wood smoke.
• Improve the air pollution monitoring network.
• Adopt an ozone standard that follows the law and protects health.
• Protect the Clean Air Act.

What individuals can do:

• Send a message to EPA. Tell the agency you support stronger standards for ozone and particle pollution to limit how much of those pollutants can be in the air.
• Drive less. Combine trips, walk, bike, carpool or vanpool, and use buses, subways or other alternatives to driving.
• Don’t burn wood or trash. Burning firewood and trash are among the largest sources of particles in many parts of the country.
• Make sure your local school system requires clean school buses, which includes replacing or retrofitting old buses.
• Get involved. Participate in your community’s review of its air pollution plans and support state and local efforts to clean up air pollution. To find your local air pollution control agency, go to www.4cleanair.org.
• Use less electricity. Turn out the lights and use energy-efficient appliances.

Source: www.thenation.com

There’s been a lot of debate following the West tragedy as to whether a lack of safety protections, lack of coordination and oversight among enforcement agencies, or some combination of both contributed to a system wide failure and 14 deaths with hundreds injured. As we have mentioned before, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with more than 400 deaths in 2011. And while not every accident can be prevented, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share.

In recent reports, some state officials have indicated that the state’s level of oversight for facilities like the one in West is adequate. It is difficult to understand how one could make such bold statements when the cause of the explosion has yet to be determined. Furthermore, some legislators have recommended this legislative session that state environmental laws be weakened. This is in addition to recent budget cuts at the state environmental agency; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) budget was recently cut by $305 million, which reduced the agency by 235 full-time employees. Perhaps what some of our officials really mean is that it is not a lack of oversight, but rather a lack of due diligence in enforcing the laws already on the books, laws designed to protect citizens from events like this one.

The Governor of Texas was quoted recently claiming that the state upholds the standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But frankly that is not quite true. Acting alone, Texas recently refused to abide by laws on permitting regulations for greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, the state sent an aggressive letter to EPA stating that “On behalf of the state of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.”  EPA actually had to devise a federal implementation plan for greenhouse gas emissions, so that any new facilities built in the state of Texas could in fact work with a legal permit. Currently, facilities that need a greenhouse gas permit must apply to EPA rather than to TCEQ, even though it is Texas’ responsibility.

In assessing the causes of the West tragedy and whether they could have been prevented, it is worth asking these questions:

• Would this have happened had state agencies been more diligent in making routine investigations?
• Would this have happened had the state been more diligent in reporting the facility’s compliance history?
• Would fewer people have died or fewer homes been destroyed if Texas had siting requirements limiting the distance between the community and the plant?

As the investigation into this tragedy continues, we’ll learn more about what might have helped to prevent it. My hope is that we’ll use what we learn to ensure that this tragedy never happens again. In the meantime, we owe a great deal of gratitude to the folks who deal with the fallout from catastrophes like West on a daily basis. Many of the 14 victims in the West, Texas fertilizer explosion were first responders, and many of them were volunteers.  Thank you to all of our doctors, nurses, EMTs, police officers and service men and women who work day in and day out to help save lives, especially in the face of uncertainties and dangers that may exist.

Source: www.earthdaykids.com

By now many of us know that Earth Day is this coming Monday.  Countries around the world have been celebrating Earth Day every April 22 since 1970, when the Clean Air Act was enacted.  It’s a day when citizens of the world stop for just a moment to appreciate the planet on which we live, reflect on how to protect our precious resources, and most importantly, improve the sustainability and quality of life for all.

According to Wikipedia, the April 22 date was designated as International Mother Earth Day after the United Nations adopted a resolution in 2009.  Earth Day is now coordinated globally by the Earth Day Network, and is celebrated in more than 192 countries each year.

Because April 22 falls on a Monday this year, many Earth Day events throughout the state of Texas will be held on Saturday and Sunday.  I have the happy privilege of joining some of my fellow EDFers on Saturday and Sunday at the Earth Day Dallas festival, where we invite all of our Texas Clean Air Matters readers to visit and say hello.  We will have coloring activities for those young, budding environmentalists and information on all of EDF’s initiatives.

This year, we will have EDF representatives talking about the environment related to oceans, ecosystems, our Climate Corps and Texas’ energy resources.  Naturally, I’ll be on the lookout for all things related to air quality and promise to remind visitors of the significance of the Clean Air Act.

If you live elsewhere in the state, be sure to search online for events taking place in your neighborhood.  Here is some information on a few happenings this weekend:

• Earth Day Austin: This one-day event will feature guest speakers, workshops and of course, live music supporting Earth Day 2013.  Also, be sure to visit Interfaith Environmental Network of Austin and Climate Buddies and pick up a copy of “Becoming Carbon Positive: A Manual for Places of Worship”.  This manual, beta tested with five local congregations, led to an amazing 1 million pound carbon dioxide emission reduction in 2012.  That’s something to celebrate!

• El Paso’s Earth Day Celebration: Their yearly event, held by the City of El Paso Environmental Services Department and participating partners, includes the Museums and Cultural Affairs Department, the El Paso Downtown Management District, and many more.  This outdoor celebration will be held in conjunction with the Downtown Artist Market.

• Earth Day Texoma: A one-day free event with entertainment, plant sales and recycling workshops.

*Houston celebrated Earth Day this past weekend: Read the highlights.

I hope to see you in Dallas, but if you will be celebrating Earth Day elsewhere, then I leave you with this quote from Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, it's not.”

Have a great Earth Day!