Climate 411

Support for EPA from Doctors and Scientists

By Sharyn Stein / Published: August 10, 2011

You’ve probably seen a lot of nasty attacks against EPA in media report lately. You are not alone.

As EDF’s Susanne Brooks writes in our Market Forces blog:

Given that EPA is in the midst of finalizing some of the most critical regulation protecting American human health from poisonous air pollution, one might think that a simple ‘thank you’ might be in order. Instead, EPA is facing unfounded attacks from several angles.

Susanne’s blog post cites some “egregious” examples of people who refuse to believe that air pollution is bad for your health — including one newspaper columnist who recently demanded that EPA “show him the bodies” of air pollution victims.

Susanne then compiles a list of responses from leaders in the scientific community. Those responses provide powerful evidence to support EPA’s efforts to protect our air.

The most compelling statement may be from Lynn Goldman, Dean and Professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services and a member of EDF’s Board of Trustees. Susanne writes:

She refers to the family members who can actually point to the bodies of loved ones who ‘dropped dead from a heart attack after breathing too much air on a Code Red day.’

Read more in Susanne’s full post, Thank You EPA.

Also posted in Health / Comments are closed

Focus on Congress, Not EPA Delays

By Sharyn Stein / Published: June 6, 2011

Should EPA delay its air pollution rules?

That’s the question posted for National Journal’s Expert Bloggers today. Among the industry and environmental thought leaders who posted comments was EDF’s own Fred Krupp. He pointed out that EPA delays are not the real problem:

EPA should move swiftly to put science-based human health protections in place for mercury, arsenic, acid gases and deadly particulates. But the bigger threat is that Congress might try to delay vital Clean Air Act protections for its own – decidedly non-scientific – reasons.

Fred cites a long list of health, environmental and economic benefits of the Clean Air Act, and then says:

Yet Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) has announced that he will introduce legislation to delay EPA’s proposed Air Toxics Rule — even before EPA finishes the public notice and comment effort that’s currently underway, and in spite of the fact that the power plant Air Toxics Rule has been 21 years in the making … Congress should intervene if EPA is going too slowly and lives are being put at risk. But Congress should never delay vital health protections – not when we have time-tested bipartisan solutions that will save lives and strengthen our economy.

You can read Fred’s full response, and the other expert opinions, on National Journal‘s Energy & Environment blog.

Also posted in Policy / Comments are closed

For Business, It’s Not Necessary to Delay the Clean Air Act

By Jackie Roberts / Published: March 8, 2011

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to enforce the Clean Air Act are vital for our health, our children’s health, and the avoidance of the most dangerous and expensive consequences of climate change.

In spite of that urgency, some businesses are arguing for delay. They claim that new regulations will hurt jobs and the economic recovery. Extensive data refutes these claims, but perhaps the most credible counter-arguments are those made by businesses that disagree.

In a March 1 article in Politico Pro, reporter Darren Samuelsohn interviewed business leaders who “didn’t sound so thrilled” about legislation to pre-empt EPA authority:

“The leaders — from American Electric Power, NextEra Energy, Southern Co. and Dominion Resources — said to varying degrees that they support allowing the EPA to proceed on a ‘reasonable’ time frame on greenhouse gas rules for power plants, petroleum refiners and other major stationary sources.” 

The business community is not monolithic, of course. And it’s no surprise that companies that are innovative are often rewarded with long-term growth.

Recently, the ArcelorMittal steel mill in East Chicago, Indiana, built on-site energy plants to capture heat and gases. The mill reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by about 916,000 metric tons. That’s about the same amount as 166,000 cars and all of the grid-connected solar panels in the world. At the same time, the mill cut as much as $100 million a year in energy costs — and that allowed ArcelorMittal to allocate more money to jobs and investment. 

West Virginia Alloys, a silicon manufacturer, used a similar project to capture waste heat and generate enough electricity on-site to power one-third of its furnaces. The project reduced carbon dioxide emissions by almost 300,000 tons – and at the same time, enabled the plant to increase its workforce by 20 percent.

Companies that fear change typically spend their time and energy fighting change – not on finding the most strategic responses to changing business conditions.

McKinsey and Company and the Department of Energy (DOE) are among those who have collected data showing the plethora of untapped efficiency opportunities being ignored by American industry today. (See some of that data, and helpful case studies, at LessCarbonMoreInnovation.org)

Here are some highlights:

  • McKinsey found that the U.S. industrial sector can reduce annual energy consumption 18 percent by 2020 and save more than $442 billion in energy costs billion in major sectors such as refineries, chemicals, cement, iron and steel, pulp and paper, for an upfront investment of barely more than a quarter of that amount.
  • If the pulp and paper sector, alone, seized the economically attractive opportunities identified by McKinsey and Company, they could reduce energy use by 26 percent and save an estimated $2.6 billion per year.
  • Until recently, U.S. industrial plants didn’t know how energy efficient they were (or weren’t) compared to their competitors So the Energy Star for Industry program created a benchmarking tool to allow companies get that information. The results show that many plants have significant room for improvement. For example, the gap between the average plant’s performance and the best in class plant’s performance is 198 kilowatts per hour more electricity used per assembled vehicle. (That figure takes into account the differences in product, as well as plant capacity, utilization, and location). That’s about as much as what the average U.S. household  uses in electricity each week.
  • The University of Massachusetts’ Political Economy Research Institute looked at the impact on new EPA pollution control rules on the utility sector. They found that the new rules will drive an estimated 1.46 million jobs, or about 290,000 on average in each of the next five years. Other University of Massachusetts studies found that clean energy and energy efficiency are more labor intensive than spending on conventional fossil fuels.

Given over-capacity and capital on the sidelines, now is actually the perfect time to invest in making the current infrastructure cleaner, more efficient, more globally competitive, and ready for the recovery. Investing will be good for the workforce and for customers, and while shareholders may see a little less profit this year, they will see more in the long-run.

Businesses that insist they have to pollute do not represent all businesses. Lots of American businesses are already taking advantage of the opportunities in clean energy and energy efficiency.  If we support them, instead of the businesses that can only handle the status quo, we can create an economic recovery for the long-haul.

Also posted in Economics / Comments are closed

The Clean Air Act: Good for Our Health AND Our Economy

By Susanne Brooks / Published: March 2, 2011

The Clean Air Act and its amendments prevent millions of premature deaths, significantly reduce illnesses, and save trillions of dollars for American families. But  those in Congress who are working to stall EPA actions still claim that Clean Air Act regulations are too costly. Fortunately there’s some new and conclusive evidence to show that they’re wrong.

The EPA’s just-released cost-benefit analysis of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments leaves no room for argument:  we simply cannot afford a world without regulations on the harmful pollution that the Clean Air Act is designed to fight. 

This comes as no surprise. The Clean Air Act has been saving lives, improving the health of American children, and saving us trillions of dollars for years now.  But this report is a new and definitive confirmation of just how critical this law is to the health of the American people — and to our economy.  

EPA sets a gold standard in economic modeling with this report . It provides an excellent, no-nonsense analysis of both the costs of complying with the Clean Air Act Amendments and the benefits. Benefits are the clear winner. From 1990 to 2020, they manifest in the form of avoided premature deaths, reduction in illnesses and associated health care costs, and improved ecological and welfare impacts (like increased agricultural yields and better visibility conditions). 

The report finds that, at the central estimate, and after taking costs into account, the net benefits of the Clean Air Act Amendments are $12 trillion in present value. Yes, that’s TRILLION.  

The report also finds that the benefits of the Clean Air Act outweigh the costs by a factor of more than 30 to one.  Let me say that again:  30 to one.  And that’s a more modest estimate; the reports high benefits estimate exceeds costs by 90 times.  

These estimates don’t even account for some benefits that are more difficult to monetize, such as health effects from air toxics, and chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis.  They also don’t mention the pain and suffering associated with illnesses, so the benefits estimate should be seen as conservative.  

Let’s look at one of the most important results:  health impacts.  Last year alone, the Clean Air Act Amendments saved more than 160,000 lives, prevented more than 85,000 emergency room visits, prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems (including bronchitis and asthma), enhanced productivity by preventing 13 million lost workdays, and prevented 3.2 million lost school days (just to name a few of the benefits).

In the year 2020, the Clean Air Act Amendments are projected to prevent more than 230,000 early deaths and provide benefits reaching approximately $2 trillion.  All of which makes it mind-boggling that opponents in Congress continue to push back against this successful law.

The enormous benefits of the Clean Air Act are nothing new.  EPA’s earlier cost-benefit analysis of the law, from the years 1970 to 1990, showed that the net benefits in present value over the period were nearly $22 trillion, and that the benefits outweighed the costs by 40 to one.

Here’s more good news:  protecting children from neurotoxins now will give us workers with higher IQs later — and that’s something that also turns out to come with real economic benefits. The latest study by Harvard’s Dale Jorgenson and his co-authors shows that the Clean Air Act has boosted productivity and growth: Gross Domestic Product in 2010 is up to 1.5% higher than it would have been without the Clean Air Act. 

The bottom line is that the Clean Air Act and its amendments have left Americans enormously better off – in terms of health, productivity, and economic growth.  Why stop now?

Also posted in Economics, Health, Policy / Read 1 Response

U.S. House Makes Underhanded Attempt to Gut Clean Air Protections

By Steve Cochran / Published: February 18, 2011

The U.S. House of Representatives is continuing its assault on public health by denying funding for the enforcement of longstanding protections against toxic air pollution. The funding bill and several amendments set to pass the House later today would effectively take the public health cops off the beat.

Under this bill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state air pollution agencies would no longer be able to enforce critical programs that protect the public.

Some of the more egregious examples include:

  • No funding for enforcement of limits on mercury pollution from cement kilns. Mercury pollution causes brain damage in young children.
  • An outright ban on any EPA regulation of methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, carbon dioxide or perfluorocarbons from stationary sources for whatever reason, including their impact on public health and ozone.
  • A sweeping prohibition on all work by the EPA to address carbon pollution, including a critical public right to know program that was set to give communities their first practical tools for identifying the biggest polluters.

This wholesale stripping away of EPA’s power to implement and enforce the Clean Air Act with respect to the most significant environmental challenge is unprecedented and underhanded. Recognizing that the public would reject an open repeal of core Clean Air Act provisions, and would not allow Congress to adopt a statute that told EPA “stop doing anything about climate change,” Congress is trying to do the same thing via language buried in a spending bill.

In language sweeping in scope and effect, Section 1746 of the appropriations bill would tie EPA’s hands and legally bar it from spending any money to do anything “due to concerns about possible climate change.” Think of it. What if Congress passed a law barring the Securities and Exchange Commission from regulating securities? Or required the Food and Drug Administration to approve unsafe drugs. Or kept USDA from inspecting meat?

These would be outrageous laws, but no more outrageous than this attempt, in an appropriations bill, to obstruct EPA from carrying out its statutory obligation to protect human health and the environment.

A closer look at Section 1746 reveals that it would:

  • Punch a gaping loophole into vital clean air protections that took effect in January, putting a hiatus on the requirement for new large emitters to incorporate cost-effective greenhouse pollution reduction measures into their construction blueprints.
  • Undermine the public’s right to know by precluding EPA from requiring the nation’s largest emitters to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas pollution, including establishing a prohibition on EPA enforcement of long-standing program adopted as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requiring the public disclosure of greenhouse gas pollution from the nation’s fossil fuel fired power plants.
  • Put in place a stop work order on EPA’s consumer-based ENERGY STAR line of together with an array of effective voluntary partnerships to cut dangerous pollution such as the Natural Gas STAR program, the Methane to Markets program, and the coal-bed methane outreach program.
  • Place a gag order on all EPA activities “relating to” greenhouse gas pollution including scientific research, press releases, public statements, web site, work to advance new technologies, collaborative stakeholder processes to find common sense solutions, etc.
  • Put the brakes on EPA’s national emission standards being developed now for proposal in July that would be designed to deploy cost-effective, proven technologies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from the nation’s largest polluters — fossil fuel power plants and refineries.

In addition, Sections 1742 and 1743 appear to be a major assault on state and tribal grant funding to carry out these vital clean air protections.

This bill is an all-out assault on the Clean Air Act and the longstanding public health protections it has provided for 40 years.

Posted in Clean Air Act / Read 5 Responses

There They Go Again: Oil Industry Opposition to Protecting Children from Toxic Lead Pollution

By Steve Cochran / Published: February 11, 2011

The Clean Air Act is under siege. Powerful voices claim that we cannot afford both clean air and a strong economy.   

There they go again.   

These are the same arguments that EPA opponents have been making since 1970. Even the most successful EPA clean air programs have been subject to these same attacks when they were first proposed — in court challenges and in repeated attempts to roll back public health protections over the years.  

“Sky is falling” claims from leaded gas proponents could have derailed protections for children’s health   

Few regulatory programs in history match the success of EPA’s removal of lead from gasoline. Yet even this effort faced the same type of pessimism and obstructionism that EPA faces today. From the beginning of the fight to take lead out of gasoline, the oil industry and the lead additive producers said it could not be done, and even that there was no need for it to be done. 

As the first of the energy shocks of the 1970s stretched gas lines around city blocks, oil industry representatives testified to EPA that the lead phase-down would cause them to lose profits, prevent them from funding future oil exploration, and make gasoline unaffordable. One lead additive manufacturer ran an ad in major newspapers claiming the lead phase-down would waste one million barrels of oil a day (the Washington Post ran an article about it on December 3, 1973.) Phillips Petroleum estimated that producing unleaded gasoline would consume between 300,000 and 600,000 barrels of additional crude oil a day and require from $8 to $15 billion in refinery capital investment (that’s from a Los Angeles Times story about a possible “Gas Octane War,” printed on December 30, 1974.)   

The oil and additive industries vigorously attacked both the sufficiency and validity of scientific studies that linked lead additives to harmful public health impacts. And they kept up these attacks until leaded gasoline was finally and definitively banned by regulations issued in the 1980s.   

In 1978, in 1982 and again in 1985 the industries that profited by selling tetraethyl lead tried to reverse the progress of the lead phase-down. Public health won out, but only after 15 years of defending against attacks by the companies who profited from lead pollution.   

What really fell? The amount of toxic lead in children’s blood   

We have all reaped striking benefits from EPA’s removal of lead from gasoline, as the level of toxic lead in the blood of American children dropped along with lead emissions to the air. EPA reports that between 1980 and 2009, lead levels in America’s air fell by 93 percent, largely as a result of EPA’s requirement to remove lead additives from gasoline.   

As the levels of lead measured in America’s air plummeted, so too did the level of lead measured in the blood of American children. In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control reported that blood lead levels had fallen 98 percent since it originally collected data from American children in 1976 through 1980. In that earlier period, more than eighty eight percent of children sampled had harmful blood lead levels. Public health experts attribute most of this stunning decline to the successful removal of lead from gasoline.   

Percentage of children 1–5 years old in the U.S. population with elevated blood lead levels   

   

EDF’s The Clean Air Act at 35 [pdf], page 6, data from CDC   

Lead is a neurotoxin that particularly harms children’s cognitive development and behavioral skills and also contributes to hypertension in adults and premature death. Avoiding these negative health effects has yielded tremendous economic benefits.   

In its exhaustive peer-reviewed study of the costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act between the years 1970 and 1990, EPA estimated that the single year 1990 mean monetized benefit resulting from the reduction of lead air pollution was more than $150 billion.   

Yet the lead additive industry valued its profits more than these health benefits. It took courage for EPA to face down the predictions of doom about taking lead out of gasoline. Our children are breathing healthier air today because EPA did its job and protected public health.  

Today, we need your help to prevent a new wave of attacks on vital clean air protections for our, and our children’s, health. Read more about how the same “sky is falling” claims are now being made about other types of toxic air pollution — like mercury. 

You might also want to read:  

Debunking Clean Air Scare Tactics: Part One, Acid Rain  

There They Go Again, Part Two: Mercury Controls on Power Plants  

 

Also posted in Health, Setting the Facts Straight / Read 1 Response