Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative
What Happened: On November 2, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago held a meeting of more than 50 stakeholders interested in new strategies to fund and finance lead service line (LSL) replacements. I attended, representing the Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative.
Why It Matters:
Our Takeaway: EDF applauds Chicago Fed for its leadership in taking on this complicated but critical issue. The meeting advanced the discussion in a way that only a neutral party like the Chicago Fed can do.
Next Steps: Within days of the convening, I am already hearing from participants interested in making connections or learning more about the issue. Chicago Fed should continue these convenings and engage more stakeholders.
Go Deeper: In February 2022, staff at the Chicago Fed began to offer a series of excellent articles, videos, and case studies to explain the issue of lead pipes to their stakeholders. We recommend this interview with Margaret Bowman, a water expert with 30 years in the nongovernmental and philanthropy sectors, as she explains the financing needs and opportunities.
Sarah Vogel, Ph.D., is Senior Vice President, Healthy Communities
Cutting methane emissions is one of the fastest, most effective ways to stabilize the climate. It can also improve public health.
Today, 130 countries are committed to cutting methane emissions by 30% by 2030 as part of the Global Methane Pledge. As countries work to meet these commitments and more nations join the Global Methane Pledge, there is an opportunity to identify and implement solutions that both reduce methane emissions and improve the public’s health. Finding climate solutions that center health and wellbeing of people is essential if we are to secure a vital Earth for everyone.
At this year’s COP in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, we have a unique opportunity to bring together experts on oil and gas, agriculture, waste and public health on November 15 at the Health Pavilion to discuss the nexus between methane and health as well as opportunities for action.
WHY IT MATTERS
Methane is a short-lived climate pollutant, and cutting these emissions is important because it is the fastest way to advance global climate goals while also achieving significant near-term public health benefits. Methane contributes significantly to the impacts of climate change on our health–from extreme heat to increased risk of infectious disease. It contributes to ground-level ozone and particulate pollution, which damages airways, aggravates lung diseases, causes asthma attacks, increases rates of pre-term birth, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and boosts stroke risk.
Consequences from these health impacts include lost productivity, higher medical costs, and greater pressure on health systems. By suppressing crop growth, ozone can also exacerbate food insecurity.
But there’s also reason for hope. We can prevent vented and fugitive methane emissions with existing technologies, and our ability to identify methane leaks continues to improve. By taking full advantage of such tools and targeting super emitters, policymakers can advance climate action while delivering enormous health benefits regionally as well as to communities living near oil and gas operations.
We can also reduce methane emissions in agriculture and solid waste management. Providing livestock with higher-quality feed would cut methane produced during digestion, improve the animals’ health and deliver more nutritious dairy products for people. Capturing methane from manure and treating digestate to minimize ammonia emissions (precursors of particulate matter) would provide a local source of energy, reduce odors, and mitigate public health risks of those living nearby.
It is crucial to highlight the near-term health benefits of cutting methane. With the help of researchers and community-health practitioners who understand the issue best, we hope to generate the support, collaboration and investment needed to cut methane emissions and improve public health worldwide.
With support from the Wellcome Trust, EDF will convene a series of dialogues in early 2023 about the health-methane nexus and hold a workshop during the UNFCCC Intersessional in Bonn to collaboratively develop recommendations to the UNFCCC for presentation at COP28.
Watch the “Health-Methane Nexus: Opportunities for Action” panel livestream from COP 27 at 10:00 a.m. EET (Egypt)/3:00 a.m. ET or view the post-event recording at GlobalCleanAir.org Convenings.
Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative and Roya Alkafaji, Manager, Healthy Communities
Last year, the White House set a goal of eliminating lead service lines (LSLs) by 2032 and worked with Congress to enact the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)—also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—which included critical resources to help meet this goal.
Through IIJA, communities across the United States have access to federal funds to replace an estimated 9 million LSLs, which are the pipes that connect homes to water mains under the street. EDF fully supports the President’s goal and related efforts to protect public health and advance environmental justice.
EPA is off to a good start. The agency:
However, as states begin to administer SRF funds from the $11.7 billion in general infrastructure funding, EPA’s lack of clarity on what the funds can and cannot be used for reveals problems. Specifically, some states may allow this funding to pay for partial – as opposed to full – LSL replacements when a utility works on aging water mains that have LSLs attached to them.
By Lauren Ellis, MPH, Research Analyst, Safer Chemicals
What’s New: A peer-reviewed study by Danish researchers found that a male fetus who is exposed to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—also known as “forever chemicals”) during early pregnancy is more likely to have lower sperm quality in early adulthood.
It’s the first study to explore the impact of exposure to more than two PFAS compounds (as measured in maternal blood samples during early pregnancy) on adult male reproductive hormones and sperm quality.
Why It Matters: Poor sperm quality is directly related to male infertility. In addition, it has been linked to other health problems such as testicular cancer, heart disease, and all-cause mortality.
This study adds to decades of literature linking environmental chemical exposures to negative impacts on reproductive health.
Key Lessons from the Study:
Our Takeaway: The new study presents a startling finding—developmental exposures to chemicals are associated with long lasting harm, including impacts that can affect future generations. It also adds to the growing evidence of PFAS health risks and demonstrates the urgent need for more health-protective PFAS policies and regulations.
Next Steps: EDF and our partners are pushing EPA to revoke existing PFAS exemptions and require those PFAS (and new PFAS coming to market) to undergo a full safety review under the Toxic Substances Control Act, our nation’s primary chemical safety law.
It is critical that these evaluations also consider the cumulative risk of exposure to PFAS mixtures in the environment.
Note: In June 2021, EDF, with a group of health, environmental, and consumer organizations, sent a formal petition to FDA asking the agency to ban all PFAS that accumulate in the body. That petition is still under review.
Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals
This is the sixth in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and the implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program.
A core tenet of FDA’s Closer to Zero program is the “Cycle of Continuous Improvement” represented by the image below on the program’s webpage. The four-stage, outer ring represents FDA’s process for revising its action levels for food contaminants. The inner, grey ring describes the agency’s on-going monitoring, research, and compliance program.
This approach makes sense, and we fully support it. However, the success of this approach relies on FDA addressing several significant structural weaknesses.
Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals
This is the fifth in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and its implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program.
FDA’s approach to setting draft action levels for lead in juice is based on two ill-conceived presumptions:
To its credit, the agency has shown it is willing to go beyond the 5% impact for three types of juices (grape at 12%, pomegranate at 6%, and prune at 6%),[2] and it has proposed the most protective lead-in-juice standards in the world. However, for a heavy metal like lead where relatively short-term exposures can result in long-term harm to young children’s developing brains, the current approach has serious weaknesses.
We think the agency should evaluate alternatives that impact more than 5% of the market and protect more than 90% of children. And when FDA evaluates impacts, it should assess the socioeconomic benefits of the alternatives. For substances like lead (and arsenic), these societal benefits can be quantified using established methods. In a previous blog, we showed that reducing young children’s overall dietary intake of lead by just 6% would yield $1 billion a year in benefits. The agency should compare these benefits to the investments that industry would need to make to achieve these action levels using best practices.
