Climate 411

40 Years: Celebrating the Clean Air Act and the EPA

An anniversary worth celebrating

When Californians went to the polls earlier this month, they upheld the nation’s strongest global warming law and, in doing so, delivered a rebuke to Washington, where the Senate has conspicuously failed to pass national limits on carbon.

There have been times when America could look to its national leaders, acting in bipartisan fashion, to create strong environmental protections. Take the Clean Air Act and EPA, both of which mark 40th anniversaries this year.

I thought about the Clean Air Act a lot this summer, while vacationing near Mt. Mansfield, in Vermont. I hiked there as a boy, an experience that helped awaken my passion for protecting the environment. Returning so many years later, I was struck by one unmistakable fact: I could see farther than before. The air is much cleaner today.

Science confirms this. In rural Vermont, fine sulfur particles are the primary cause of haze. Sulfur pollution there is down 50% since 1990. Visibility has improved dramatically.

That’s just one of the things for which we can thank the Clean Air Act. By removing tens of millions of tons of pollution from the air, this legislation has also prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths.

Back then, the Act’s opponents predicted it would bring economic doomsday. But the law is one of the best investments Americans have ever made. For every $1 spent complying with it, we have gained $30 in health care savings and increased productivity.

Still, we have a long way to go: Half of Americans continue to breathe unhealthy air, and global warming pollution is on the rise.

Is EPA up to today’s challenges? Under the current administration, the agency is tightening air pollution regulations, a change long overdue.  But our opponents are at it again. The Business Roundtable, an association of corporate CEOs, is trying to delay EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, saying Congress should pass a climate law instead. But when Congress considered a climate bill, the Business Roundtable opposed it.  I find its position disingenuous.

As opponents intensify their legislative and legal challenges to EPA, we will stand with the agency and defend its right to protect the health of all Americans.

We also will celebrate the Clean Air Act — a law that proved economic growth and environmental protection can go together. Having voted to let their new climate law take effect, Californians are about to demonstrate this again.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Policy / Read 1 Response

EPA Provides Welcome Guidance

Hats off to EPA for clarifying the role of bioenergy sources in our low-carbon energy future.  In guidance released yesterday, the EPA clearly identified the important role for bioenergy markets to create new jobs, restore rural communities and help achieve GHG reduction goals.

Equally important, the EPA affirms that not all biomass can be considered “carbon neutral” and that some forms of biomass will actually increase GHG emissions when compared with fossil fuels.  A recent Q&A in the New York Times expands on the complexities of bioenergy carbon accounting, including the role of time, geography, feedstock type, and utilization technology.

In releasing the guidance, EPA announced an open and flexible process to work with state and federal stakeholders to identifying which types of biomass can best reduce GHG emissions in the near term when compared with fossil fuels (such as wood waste and agricultural residues) and at the same time create efficient solutions to account for possible bioenergy induced shifts in landscape carbon storage and sequestration. We applaud EPA for taking the time now to ensure bioenergy markets create a sustained economic opportunity for the next generation of farmers, ranchers and forest owners.

EPA’s guidance provides a very measured and appropriate response that is based on science, will help us reduce GHG pollution and clarifies that bioenergy can be part of the solution.  The policy will send a clear signal for bioenergy markets to reward low-carbon forms of bioenergy while discouraging the use of biomass that increase GHG emissions in the near term.

We agree with Secretary Vilsack that with this guidance, EPA took another positive step toward getting the carbon accounting right for bioenergy markets.

Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Read 1 Response

New EPA Guidance Will Help Companies, States Find Cost Savings under Greenhouse Gas Permits

Yesterday E.P.A. issued guidance documents for the greenhouse gas permitting which will begin for the largest new or modified emissions sources in January. The feedback so far from the environmental community has been overwhelmingly positive.

On the New York Times Green blog, there is a great article about the guidance and initial reactions from state and local governments, environmental and industry groups. Mark MacLeod, director of special projects at Environmental Defense Fund, had this to say about the EPA guidance documents:

“Energy efficiency is one of the best ways to reduce pollution and save money, particularly in the manufacturing sector…Today’s guidance will prepare companies for the permitting process and help them find ways to cut pollution while saving money for themselves and their customers.”

Coming next on Climate411…what the guidance means for bioenergy.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Comments are closed

New Poll Shows Americans are More Likely to Vote for Candidates Who Support Clean Energy Legislation

Yesterday NRDC Action Fund released a new poll showing, once again, that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of clean energy legislation. The NRDC Action Fund polled voters in 23 close Congressional races and found they were far more likely to vote for candidates who support clean energy legislation.

Heather Taylor-Miesle of NRDC explains:

“In fact, a majority of voters (almost 53% on average) in tight races around the country said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports a climate bill.”

For a compelling and detailed analysis of the polling data, please read Heather’s blog.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Read 1 Response

Why EDAF is running a TV ad criticizing Senator Kit Bond

Several weeks ago, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri moved to block new air pollution rules.  While Senator Bond’s effort did not succeed, it is clear that this is the beginning of a sustained assault on the air pollution rules that protect the health of all Americans.  We intend to hold accountable any politician who seeks to undermine those air pollution limits — whether they are targeting carbon, mercury, or any other dangerous compound — and therefore are releasing a new TV ad criticizing Senator Bond’s action.  All Members of Congress should be on notice that we will fight back against those who would threaten the health of children, the elderly, and all Americans by weakening our air pollution laws.

Senator Bond’s action would have allowed major corporations and utilities to continue releasing unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air.  This threatens the stability of our climate, and rising temperatures have been linked to increases in asthma attacks and associated hospitalizations, as well as to other respiratory conditions.

We expect the assault on our nation’s air pollution laws to continue in the months ahead.  Senator Bond recently signed a letter criticizing limits for toxic pollution like mercury, cyanide, and dioxin from industrial sources (mercury puts newborns at risk for brain damage and learning disabilities). Some corporate polluters and their allies in Congress value short term profits ahead of public health and are pushing for additional restrictions on clean air rules.  While their side may have access to nearly limitless resources, we believe the American people will strongly oppose their efforts to dirty our air and threaten the health of our citizens.

While Senator Bond will soon be gone from Congress, this ad is also a message to any member of Congress — Democrat or Republican — thinking of weakening our clean air laws in the weeks and months ahead.

Senator Bond TV Ad

Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, News / Read 1 Response

Countdown to Better Consumer Labeling for New Cars

(Just posted on our sister blog Way2Go by Kathryn Phillips)

Car Lot

Photo by Alex92287

The 60-day countdown for submitting your vote online about the best car label design has officially begun. Today the federal register published the official notice inviting comment on the government’s proposed changes to the information labels posted on new cars. The agency has also scheduled two public hearings to collect opinions about the labels—in Chicago on October 14 and in Los Angeles on October 21.

As we reported about three weeks ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has offered up two new designs to replace the old fuel economy label. The new designs reflect the most significant change in the 30 years since automakers began attaching the information labels to new cars.

Both of the proposed designs still have fuel economy information. But they both also have something new: details about how much greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution will be generated by the auto or light truck on which the sticker is affixed. For the first time ever, consumers living all over the country will be able to easily, while on the car lot shopping, compare the environmental impact of vehicles. It makes shopping greener simpler.

The two label options are not entirely equal, though. One option provides a bit more information about fuel costs and savings, and it includes a letter grade.

The grade has been drawing a lot of attention and there have been some confusing explanations in the press about how it works. So here are two important things to know about the letter grade:

  1. The grade reflects a vehicle’s standing on a scale set according to a combination of fuel economy and how much greenhouse gas emissions a vehicle spews. So basically, a car or light truck that gets a B grade produces fewer GHGs and gets better fuel economy than a car or light truck that gets a D grade.
  2. Every car and light truck has a fair shot at a good grade. When EPA compared its grading scale against the 2010 fleet (see page 36 of the proposed rule document), a lot of SUVs received B grades, and a lot received C grades. A lot of small cars received B grades and a lot received C grades. The difference was that the B vehicles, not matter the vehicle size, were engineered to get better fuel economy and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the C vehicles. The grade system helps highlight that the engineering exists to make vehicles less polluting—it’s just up to the automakers to do it.

EPA conducted a lot of market research, including focus groups with consumers. The consumers emphasized that they wanted a label that was simple and quick to understand. Hence, the letter grade on one of the proposed options. 

The auto industry and some pundits don’t like the letter grade. They say it’s intrusive and unnecessary. I say that providing product information in a format that everyone can understand at a glance—and without needing bifocals—is a public service.

So go online now and  let EPA know which version you think makes most sense. And while you’re at it, let us know what you think about the labels, too.

Posted in Cars and Pollution, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Comments are closed