Climate 411

A Great Day for Clean Air: Court Upholds EPA Actions to Reduce Climate Pollution

By Fred Krupp / Published: June 26, 2012

Today is a great day for climate progress in America.

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a unanimous, strong and clear opinion affirming the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) historic measures to reduce harmful climate pollution. 

The court’s opinion held that EPA’s climate protections are firmly rooted in science and the law, and grounded in more than 18,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications.  

The court didn’t mince words. The decision says:

EPA’s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct.

Even sharper was this part of the decision, in which the court noted that EPA properly relied on comprehensive scientific assessments by authorities such as the National Academies of Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 

This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.

(Read more on EDF’s website, in our press release and our highlights page, and in our Texas Clean Air Matters blog)

But even in the wake of a compelling court opinion, some continue to focus on the politics of delay, deny and obstruct.  

Responding to the court’s decision, a representative of the National Association of Manufacturers indicated today that it will continue to invest in lawyers and lobbyists to block clean air progress, telling AP:

[w]e will be considering all of our legal options when it comes to halting these devastating regulations.

Fortunately, there are many more who are investing in America’s future. Business leaders, numerous states, and policy makers are working together to reduce harmful carbon pollution. 

America’s automakers defended EPA’s common sense measures to make our cars more efficient, which will save families’ hard-earned money at the gas pump, help break our addiction to imported oil, and reduce climate pollution.

In filings in federal court, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers have characterized these important standards as:

valid, mandated by law, and non-controversial.

Similarly, a dozen states – California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington – have intervened in defense of EPA’s clean car standards. 

And small business voices spoke out today in support of EPA’s clean air measures, saying these measures:

are strongly supported by small business owners because they will boost their bottom lines and help secure our nation’s position in the emerging clean energy economy. 

The court’s decision today reaffirms that a strong, diverse set of voices stand ready to work together, building from the bedrock foundation of this historic decision to reduce climate pollution and build a stronger America.

Our EDF experts are poring through all 82 pages of the decision. Stay tuned for more in-depth analysis about what it means, and where we go next.

But for right now, we should all take a moment to celebrate this great news.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, News, Policy, Science, What Others are Saying / Comments are closed

An Inside Look at EPA’s Carbon Pollution Hearing — the Chicago Report

By Robert Collier / Published: May 29, 2012

If you already read my colleague Mandy Warner’s blog, you know that I had the great honor of representing EDF in Chicago last Thursday at one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) hearings for its first-ever proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants.   

EDF's Rob Collier testifies at EPA's Chicago hearing on carbon pollution

It was a day that will always stand out as a milestone in my life.

And, now that I’ve had the Memorial Day weekend to reflect on everything that happened, I wanted to share some of the stories I heard and the fascinating details I noticed.

Here’s what the Chicago hearing looked and felt like:

It was a day of incredible support for EPA’s efforts to control carbon pollution in America. I watched dozens of people testify, and give EPA a symbolic “standing ovation” for taking such a historic step.

In fact, there was such support around the Midwest that EPA had to open a second concurrent hearing room to accommodate all of the speakers – just like at the D.C. hearing.

(That’s no surprise. States and cities across the Midwest are carrying out homegrown clean energy solutions that strengthen economic prosperity and job creation, improve our energy security, and provide a healthier environment. You can read more in this new paper [PDF]that examines some of the clean energy policies put in place in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin — and the associated private sector economic activity.)   

Back to Chicago, and the day of the hearing:

In the early morning, the room was slow to fill up — primarily because the huge line of people who wanted to get in had to wait through delays as everyone went through a metal detector.

By about 9:00 a.m., a steady stream of people was filtering into the room from towns around Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Those people were concerned citizens with a variety of backgrounds: nurses; doctors; ecologists; physicists; economists; union workers; veterans; parents; grandparents; business leaders and students.

And, almost without exception, all of these people spoke in favor of EPA’s common sense proposal to reduce the huge amount of carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuel power plants.

In fact, during the almost eight hours I spent listening to testimony, I only heard one person speak against EPA’s proposed standards. Clean air advocates carried the day by a wide margin.

Because I work for EDF, I testified about how carbon pollution and climate change are critical issues for the protection of human health and our environment. You can read my full testimony here [PDF]. 

But others’ testimony reminded me how much those issues affect every aspect of our lives.

People spoke about carbon pollution as a national security issue, an economic problem and a spiritual issue, as well as a public health and environmental threat.

I heard scores of personal and moving stories about how air pollution impacts people’s lives.

There were heart-wrenching moments when mothers and fathers talked about watching their children struggle to breathe because of asthma or other lung diseases.

One elderly woman held up a photograph of her grandson and talked about his difficulty breathing and need to carry a nebulizer on his hip at all times. The audience gave her a rousing ovation.

Asthma attacks can be triggered by ozone pollution, and the warmer temperatures caused by climate change mean we’ll have more ozone pollution.

That’s one reason why EPA’s proposed standards for carbon pollution are so important. They’ll cut the amount of climate-destabilizing carbon pollution emitted by new coal-fired power plants in half, compared to traditional plants.

The crowd at the Chicago hearing seemed to know that. What I took away from the hearing were the messages of hope, excitement, and opportunity.

The day was definitely a resounding victory for clean air.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Health, News, Policy / Comments are closed

An Inside Look at EPA’s Carbon Pollution Hearings

By Mandy Warner / Published: May 24, 2012

It was an exciting day for clean energy at the downtown Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

That’s where EPA held one of its two public hearings on the first ever proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants. (The other hearing was in Chicago).

EPA’s registered speaker list was jam-packed. In fact, they had to run the hearings in two concurrent rooms to allow everyone a chance to speak.

Americans representing a wide variety of interests, and from all corners of the political spectrum, streamed into the rooms throughout the day to share their views on the proposed standards. It makes sense, because this is a vitally important issue for our public health and our environment.

Fossil fueled power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in America. They’re responsible for a staggering 40 percent of U.S. heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.

EPA’s proposed standards will effectively halve the lifetime carbon emissions from new coal-fired power plants relative to traditional coal plants, and they’ll provide a pathway for development of clean and low-carbon energy.

I had the privilege of testifying for EDF today. You can read my full statement here. (My colleague Rob Collier testified for EDF in Chicago, and will post about his experience soon).

I spent the morning with an incredible variety of speakers: faith leaders; doctors, nurses and other health experts; moms; veterans; entrepreneurs; conservation, clean air, and environmental advocates; and supporters of energy efficiency from labor and industry.

They all provided testimony to EPA supporting this huge step forward toward reducing the climate destabilizing pollution spewed from our power sector.

Some people spoke about how the higher temperatures caused by carbon pollution will enhance the formation  of ozone pollution — commonly known as smog — which exacerbates respiratory and other health problems. Other people talked about how their health has been affected by smog and its role in triggering asthma attacks.

The diversity of individuals participating was a testament to the far-reaching impacts of a changing climate.

There were a handful of detractors, of course, who tried to challenge the overwhelming science and prudent policymaking underpinning EPA’s action to address carbon pollution. But they were clearly outnumbered.

Today was a decisive victory for our side – for advocates supporting action against carbon pollution. 

Another sign of victory today – Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters told reporters that almost 1.4 million Americans have submitted comments to EPA supporting the new carbon pollution standards.

You can still be part of that victory. EPA is accepting comments on the proposed standards until June 25, and you can submit a comment through EDF’s website and help show the wide-support for efforts to reduce dangerous climate pollution. You can learn a lot more about the proposed standards on our website as well.

Testifying today was an incredible experience. I’m looking forward to Rob’s report from Chicago. I hope their hearing was as big a success as the one here in Washington, D.C.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Health, News, Policy / Read 1 Response

EPA’s Historic Proposal to Limit Carbon Pollution from Power Plants

By Fred Krupp / Published: March 27, 2012

Today we are making history. 

Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first-ever nationwide emission standards to limit dangerous carbon pollution from new coal- and gas-burning power plants. 

Today we take the first critically important step towards addressing the climate-destabilizing pollution emitted by power plants. 

Today we take a vital step towards protecting Americans’ health and strengthening our economy.

With these standards and EPA’s landmark clean car standards, we’re beginning to address the clear and present danger of carbon pollution from the two largest emission sources in our nation.

Power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the carbon pollution emitted in America. U.S. power plants are one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the world. 

Power plants are responsible for 40% of carbon pollution emitted in the U.S.

We have the technology and the know-how to change this.

The carbon pollution emission standards proposed by EPA today would halve the carbon emissions from a new coal-fired power plant over its lifetime. 

These standards will help further the progress we are making towards a cleaner, more secure future for energy in America. We will use our nation’s electricity resources more efficiently to cut energy costs for families and businesses, mobilize Made in the USA technologies and fuels for cleaner energy generation, and ensure that America will lead the global race to a clean energy economy.

States, communities and businesses across our nation are already leading the way:

  • 29 states have adopted policies to expand reliance on cost-effective clean energy resources.
  • States including Washington, Montana, Oregon, Minnesota, New York and California have adopted (or are now putting in place) limits on dangerous carbon pollution from fossil-fueled power plants.
  • A McKinsey & Company report found that we could meet our nation’s growing electricity needs by using existing resources more wisely — and could cut energy costs for American families and businesses at the same time.
  • Innovative businesses like Solar City are creating new solutions and technologies to deliver cleaner, safer energy. Solar City, founded in 2006, is installing solar systems that lower utility bills with no upfront investment by the customer. Solar City has 20,000 projects in 14 states that are either completed or underway– including a one billion dollar project to put solar systems on military housing.
  • Hundreds of U.S. companies are capitalizing on new, multibillion-dollar market opportunities to make our electric grid as smart, flexible, and innovative as the internet — enabling a wholesale shirt to clean, community-based energy resources.

There are also fundamental shifts in the energy market that are driving a change in our electricity supply.

Much has been written about the structural market shift to natural gas, which has been enabled by new drilling technologies. Some have tried to deny this market shift and claim that EPA’s clean air protections are stopping new coal plants, but the truth is that basic economics — low natural gas prices— are driving these decisions.  But don’t take our word for it. Check out these quotes.

  • Jim Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, which provides electricity to the Carolinas, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. He told the National Journal:

The new climate rule is in line with market forces anyway. We’re not going to build any coal plants in any event. You’re going to choose to build gas plants every time, regardless of what the rule is.

  • Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Company, recently told investors on an earnings call on January 25, 2012:

Four years ago…we were about 70% of our energy from coal and about, I don’t know, 16% from nuclear, about 12% from gas and the balance from hydro.  In the fourth quarter — this was really surprising to me, maybe not surprising considering how cheap gas is now – our energy production was 40% coal, 39% gas. … Now moving forward, given where gas prices are, we will continue to see much more gas production.

Inexpensive natural gas is the biggest threat to coal. Nothing else even comes close.

The immense natural gas resources recently made commercially accessible in the United States must be developed responsibly if we are to protect our water and ecosystems, and prevent wasteful leakage that will undermine the carbon pollution advantages of natural gas.  But America can meet this urgent challenge.

We also know how to harness the power of the wind, the sun, and geothermal resources. By making the energy foundation of our economy cleaner and more diverse, we will improve our national security, improve public health, and protect our climate.  Today we took a big step down that road.

The stakes are high.

Climate impacts are already affecting American communities, and scientists tell us that the impacts will intensify as atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions rise.

The United States Global Change Research Program has determined that if carbon pollution emissions are not reduced, it is likely that American communities will experience increasingly severe impacts, including:

  • Rising levels of dangerous smog in cities — which will lead to an increased risk of respiratory infections, more asthma attacks, and more premature deaths
  • Increased risk of illness and death due to extreme heat
  • More intense hurricanes and storm surges
  • Increased frequency and severity of flooding
  • Increases in insect pests and in the prevalence of diseases transmitted by food, water and insects
  • Reduced precipitation and runoff in the arid West
  • Reduced crop yields and livestock productivity
  • More wildfires and increasingly frequent and severe droughts in some regions

I mentioned earlier that American states, communities and businesses are already taking steps to address these threats. Starting today, they don’t have to do it alone. With today’s announcement, our entire country will fight the widespread and varied threats we face from climate change.

I think EPA deserves a standing ovation for that.  

Please join me in supporting EPA’s efforts to protect our families, our communities, and our economy from these threats. 

The resistance to these standards by entrenched fossil fuel-dependent industries will likely be fierce, but together our voices can move these vitally important policies forward. 

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Economics, Energy, Health, News, Policy / Read 1 Response

Day Two of Landmark Clean Air Cases: Courtroom Arguments Wrap Up

By Peter Zalzal / Published: February 29, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. heard its second and final day of oral arguments, today, in a landmark group of cases about EPA’s critical climate protections.

Today’s arguments focused on EPA’s actions to require cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from the largest sources, like power plants — while shielding smaller sources.

I was at the courthouse again today. Here’s a look at some of the highlights:

The judges began by examining EPA’s decision to initially focus climate protections on the largest sources of pollution. The judges closely questioned the Solicitor General of the State of Texas about how this focus on large sources harmed the state.

In a pointed exchange, Chief Judge Sentelle noted that the remedy Texas seeks — invalidation of the large-source thresholds — would seem to cause Texas injury where, under EPA’s current program, none exists. 

The Chief Judge underscored the seeming irrationality of this position, noting that Texas’s argument:

[D]oesn’t even make good non-sense.

The questioning then turned to EPA’s long-standing rules describing the workings of the permitting system for the largest sources of pollution. Those rules are more than 30 years old.

In this series of exchanges, Judge Tatel focused on provisions of the Clean Air Act that capture “any air pollutant” within this program. He questioned the Petitioners about how this language, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, could possibly allow the agency to exclude greenhouse gas pollutants.

Like yesterday, the judges closely examined EPA’s legal authority. Today, they pointedly questioned both Petitioners and EPA. 

It was another fascinating day in the courtroom with important implications for protecting human health and the environment from the clear and present danger climate pollution poses.   

Now, we’ll all have to wait for the court’s decisions –probably sometime in the summer. We’ll bring you updates as soon as anything happens.

In the meantime, you can read more about the EPA’s endangerment findings and the attacks on EPA’s climate change protections on our website, or from my earlier blogs posts – a preview of the case, or a look at yesterday’s proceedings.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Climate Change Legislation, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Day One of Landmark Clean Air Cases: A Report from the Courtroom

By Peter Zalzal / Published: February 28, 2012

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. heard oral arguments in two of EPA’s critical climate protections: EPA’s finding that six greenhouse gases endanger the human health and welfare of current and future generations; and EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks. 

I had the chance to sit in the courtroom and listen to the historic arguments. Here’s a look at some of the highlights.

The courtroom doors opened at 8:00 am. Arguments began a little after 9:00 in front of a packed courtroom. They lasted almost three hours, during which time Chief Judge Sentelle and Circuit Judges Tatel and Rogers focused closely on the legal underpinnings of EPA’s actions.

The questioning often returned to the importance of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that decision, the High Court determined that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under America’s clean air laws, and directed EPA to determine whether they endanger human health and welfare on the basis of science. 

Against this backdrop, today’s Petitioners forwarded non-scientific reasons that they claimed would permit EPA to avoid finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health. That line of reasoning prompted Chief Judge Sentelle to note that:

Sometimes in reading Petitioners’ briefs, I got the feeling that Massachusetts hadn’t been decided.

Among these non-scientific factors: Petitioners urged that EPA must consider humans’ ability to adapt to a changing climate in determining whether greenhouse gases endanger human health.  

In a hypothetical, Judge Tatel probed the flawed implications of that argument – he asked whether Petitioners’ position meant that EPA could determine that a cancer-causing pollutant did not pose a danger to public health on the grounds that society may, at some future point, develop a cure for cancer.     

The court then turned to the second case for the day – the challenge to the clean car standards. Petitioners urged that EPA should have declined to adopt these standards, or delayed adoption indefinitely, on account of the alleged implications such standards would have for large sources of climate pollution.  

The judges’ questions again turned to the plain terms of the Clean Air Act, which directs that EPA “shall” issue emissions standards for new motor vehicles once the agency makes an endangerment determination. The judges questioned Petitioners about why they thought it possible to evade such a clear statutory command. 

U.S. auto makers intervened in this second case in support of EPA’s rules. The car companies noted during today’s arguments that the legal challenges are peculiar for three reasons:

  • No Petitioners are actually regulated by the emission standards
  • The industry that is directly regulated – the automakers – supports the clean car standard
  • No Petitioner has any quarrel with the actual level of the standards.    

All in all, it was a fascinating day for anyone interested in protecting human health and the environment from climate pollution, or for anyone interested in learning more about the rule of law.

We should have more groundbreaking moments tomorrow, when the court hears two more cases involving EPA’s requirements that new, large, industrial emitters deploy the best available cost-effective strategies to reduce harmful climate pollution.

I’m planning to be back in court tomorrow, and I’ll post another wrap-up of the day’s arguments.  

After that, we’ll all have to wait for the court to rule – probably sometime this summer.

In the meantime, learn more about the EPA’s endangerment findings and the attacks on EPA’s climate change protections on our website, or from my earlier blog.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, News / Read 1 Response