37 States with Smog Problems through June
(Washington, DC. July 3, 2008) – As many Americans hit the road for the 4th of July, the non-profit Clean Air Watch today warned that no fewer than 37 states plus the District of Columbia have already experienced unhealthful levels of smog so far this year.
The survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers is the first comprehensive snapshot of air quality in the United States under new ozone standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.
The survey of public web sites found monitored readings of dirty air in states from coast to coast – from Washington and California to Vermont, Maine and Florida.
“Even though we’ve made progress over the years in reducing smog, this survey is compelling evidence that we still have a widespread and major smog problem,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. He noted that unhealthful levels of air quality are being recorded even under standards that EPA’s independent science advisers unanimously judged to be inadequate to protect public health.
“So, if anything, this survey understates the true extent of the smog problem,” O’Donnell noted. “These findings show we must continue to reduce emissions that cause smog – including coal-burning electric power plants and existing diesel engines,” O’Donnell noted.
He warned that electric power companies led by Duke Energy have sued to derail a federal plan to reduce emissions from coal-burning electric power plants.
“It could be a disaster for air quality if Duke wins,” O’Donnell said.
He also called on the Bush administration to move forward with proposed standards to clean up lawn mowers and other dirty small engines, and to make sure those standards are strictly enforced to prevent dirty imported engines from China.
Ozone, commonly described as smog, can trigger asthma attacks, send people to hospital emergency rooms and shorten lives. The survey found that 24 states plus the District of Columbia also had air quality worse than the “old” EPA smog standard. The biggest problems generally were recorded in California, where car and factory emissions have been compounded by fires.
The list of states and more on the survey is available at http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2008/07/smog-watch-08-status-report-through.html
###
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
EPA Smog Plan Compromises Public Health to Save Industry Money
EPA Chief Suggests Radical Change to Weaken Clean Air Act
(Washington, DC. March 12, 2008) – The non-profit Clean Air Watch today assailed a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to ignore the agency’s science advisers in setting a new national health standard for smog.
“Once again, the Bush administration has chosen to disregard the advice of the EPA’s own independent science advisers,” who had unanimously recommended a tougher standard than that selected by the agency, said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. O’Donnell noted that the administration also rejected the advisers’ advice in 2006 regarding national standards for particle soot.
The EPA is supposed to set these standards based solely on science.
“Unfortunately, real science appears to have been tainted by political science,” O’Donnell added.
“The Bush Administration is compromising public health to save industry money,” he said.” EPA documents show that public health benefits would be far greater under tougher standards recommended by the science advisers.
At the same time, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson articulated what he called “principles” that would seek changes in the Clean Air Act to permit costs when setting national clean air standards – something the Supreme Court has ruled is illegal under the current law.
“This would be a radical attack on the Clean Air Act,” O’Donnell said. “It is taking a page directly from the playbook of polluters and their most ardent supporters in Congress, including Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) of Texas, who previously introduced legislation seeking such a change.
O’Donnell predicted this idea would be “dead on arrival” in Congress, though he added that “Johnson “quite obviously was considering costs in this smog decision. He interpreted the law the way he wishes it were.”
Smog, technically known as ozone, is the nation’s most widespread air pollutant. It can cause lung damage, trigger asthma attacks – even shorten someone’s life.
The national health standards were last revised in 1997. Since then, numerous studies have shown that the current standards need to be made tougher.
EPA’s science advisers had unanimously recommended that the current standard, 0.08 parts per million, be lowered to a level between 60 and 70 parts per billion. The agency’s Children’s Health Advisory Committee recommended a standard of 60.
But EPA announced today that the health-based standard would be made somewhat tougher, but only down to 75 parts per billion – a level that will require relatively few areas of the country to take additional smog cleanup steps beyond those already planned.
(Washington, DC. March 12, 2008) – The non-profit Clean Air Watch today assailed a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to ignore the agency’s science advisers in setting a new national health standard for smog.
“Once again, the Bush administration has chosen to disregard the advice of the EPA’s own independent science advisers,” who had unanimously recommended a tougher standard than that selected by the agency, said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. O’Donnell noted that the administration also rejected the advisers’ advice in 2006 regarding national standards for particle soot.
The EPA is supposed to set these standards based solely on science.
“Unfortunately, real science appears to have been tainted by political science,” O’Donnell added.
“The Bush Administration is compromising public health to save industry money,” he said.” EPA documents show that public health benefits would be far greater under tougher standards recommended by the science advisers.
At the same time, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson articulated what he called “principles” that would seek changes in the Clean Air Act to permit costs when setting national clean air standards – something the Supreme Court has ruled is illegal under the current law.
“This would be a radical attack on the Clean Air Act,” O’Donnell said. “It is taking a page directly from the playbook of polluters and their most ardent supporters in Congress, including Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) of Texas, who previously introduced legislation seeking such a change.
O’Donnell predicted this idea would be “dead on arrival” in Congress, though he added that “Johnson “quite obviously was considering costs in this smog decision. He interpreted the law the way he wishes it were.”
Smog, technically known as ozone, is the nation’s most widespread air pollutant. It can cause lung damage, trigger asthma attacks – even shorten someone’s life.
The national health standards were last revised in 1997. Since then, numerous studies have shown that the current standards need to be made tougher.
EPA’s science advisers had unanimously recommended that the current standard, 0.08 parts per million, be lowered to a level between 60 and 70 parts per billion. The agency’s Children’s Health Advisory Committee recommended a standard of 60.
But EPA announced today that the health-based standard would be made somewhat tougher, but only down to 75 parts per billion – a level that will require relatively few areas of the country to take additional smog cleanup steps beyond those already planned.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Big oil visits White House in apparent bid to kneecap tougher smog standards
Well, friends, the clock is ticking. (No, we’re not talking about the Florida primaries, or “Super Tuesday” for that matter.)
It’s only about six weeks until the US EPA announces whether it plans to set tougher national health standards for ozone, or smog. That means it’s time for the White House to focus on the issue, which pits scientists (and kids with asthma) against the biggest and nastiest polluters.
The health evidence is overwhelming that tougher smog standards are needed to protect kids with asthma and many millions of other Americans. That is the unanimous conclusion of EPA’s independent scientific advisers.
And so – as it so often happens – representatives of big polluters have started going to the White House in an apparent big to kneecap any effort to make existing standards better.
The White House Office of Management and Budget records that several oil industry consultants came to pay a visit January 25. (See below.)
Anne Smith of CRA International is recorded to have represented the American Petroleum Institute, which has gone on record against tougher smog standards.
Teresa Gorman of LPI Consulting (once a White House environmental adviser in the first Bush administration) is listed as representing “Bingham McCuthen.” That is probably a typo.
Gorman also happens to be a registered lobbyist for Bingham McCutchen – and represents ExxonMobil on “clean air regulatory issues,” according to lobbying disclosure reports! Gorman has also visited the White House on other occasions representing ExxonMobil. You do have to wonder if there was some effort here at deception, since ExxonMobil is never mentioned. Perhaps just a clerical error.
I predict this will be the first of many White House visits as big polluters try to smogify the issue.
Note, by the way, the link below to a separate White House meeting that included corn and tobacco growers. The topic is not disclosed, though it seems pretty intriguing.
**
Link to oil industry meeting at White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2000/meetings/692.html
Meeting Record Regarding: Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Date: 1/25/2008
-->
Name
Affiliation
Client (if applicable) -->
Art Fraas
OMB/OIRA
Heidi King
OMB/OIRA
Margo Schwab
OMB/OIRA
Teresa Gorman
LPI
Bingham McCuthen
Anne Smith
CRA International
API
Lydia Wegman
EPA
Harvey Richmond
EPA
**
Link to meeting with corn and tobacco growers.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2000/meetings/691.html
It’s only about six weeks until the US EPA announces whether it plans to set tougher national health standards for ozone, or smog. That means it’s time for the White House to focus on the issue, which pits scientists (and kids with asthma) against the biggest and nastiest polluters.
The health evidence is overwhelming that tougher smog standards are needed to protect kids with asthma and many millions of other Americans. That is the unanimous conclusion of EPA’s independent scientific advisers.
And so – as it so often happens – representatives of big polluters have started going to the White House in an apparent big to kneecap any effort to make existing standards better.
The White House Office of Management and Budget records that several oil industry consultants came to pay a visit January 25. (See below.)
Anne Smith of CRA International is recorded to have represented the American Petroleum Institute, which has gone on record against tougher smog standards.
Teresa Gorman of LPI Consulting (once a White House environmental adviser in the first Bush administration) is listed as representing “Bingham McCuthen.” That is probably a typo.
Gorman also happens to be a registered lobbyist for Bingham McCutchen – and represents ExxonMobil on “clean air regulatory issues,” according to lobbying disclosure reports! Gorman has also visited the White House on other occasions representing ExxonMobil. You do have to wonder if there was some effort here at deception, since ExxonMobil is never mentioned. Perhaps just a clerical error.
I predict this will be the first of many White House visits as big polluters try to smogify the issue.
Note, by the way, the link below to a separate White House meeting that included corn and tobacco growers. The topic is not disclosed, though it seems pretty intriguing.
**
Link to oil industry meeting at White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2000/meetings/692.html
Meeting Record Regarding: Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Date: 1/25/2008
-->
Name
Affiliation
Client (if applicable) -->
Art Fraas
OMB/OIRA
Heidi King
OMB/OIRA
Margo Schwab
OMB/OIRA
Teresa Gorman
LPI
Bingham McCuthen
Anne Smith
CRA International
API
Lydia Wegman
EPA
Harvey Richmond
EPA
**
Link to meeting with corn and tobacco growers.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2000/meetings/691.html
Time to pull the plug on Florida's "Dirty Dozen" sources of global warming pollution
(Washington, DC. January 28, 2008) – It’s time to pull the plug on Florida’s “Dirty Dozen” electric power industry sources of global warming pollution, according to a new report by the non-profit Clean Air Watch.
In order to meet the laudable greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, these “Dirty Dozen” electric power plant units will probably need to be retired or repowered, Clean Air Watch noted.
The power they produce “could and should be reduced by aggressively improving energy efficiency and stepping up use of renewable energy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Clean Air Watch.
The “Dirty Dozen” power plant units on average are 47 years old – older than the 35-year-old national average of coal-fired power plants.
O’Donnell noted that Florida is a critical battleground in the fight against global warming because it ranks third in the nation in terms of power plant carbon dioxide emissions.
“States like Florida are leading the way against global warming because the federal government’s response has been so slow and indecisive,” O’Donnell said. “The Sunshine State could influence the shape of federal legislation.”
O’Donnell noted that Governor Crist issued a series of executive orders last year aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. These would require adoption of standards to reduce power plant emissions in the state to 2000 levels by 2017 and to 1990 levels by 2025.
Because of continuing growth in the state Florida will need to reduce power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent to meet the 2017 goal. To do that – while still meeting the state’s growing energy needs – Florida will need to retire or repower the biggest polluters while promoting energy efficiency and conservation.
In its report, Clean Air Watch compiled an inventory of the most polluting electric generating units in Florida over the age of 35 (based on their CO2 emission rates) and calculated the approximate CO2 savings that would result from replacing these units with clean renewable energy projects.
“We found that retiring the 12 highest polluting units in the state would achieve almost half of Florida’s phase one emissions reduction goal,” said O’Donnell.
“Meeting the rest of the goal may require shutting down additional high-polluting plants as well as more use of renewable energy and better energy efficiency.”
#
Florida’s Dirty Dozen: The Highest Emitting Generating Units in Florida Over the Age
of 35 (Ranked according to their CO2 emission rates).
Plant Name Owner Fuel Type Age
Scholz 2 Gulf Power coal 55
Scholz 1 Gulf Power coal 55
Suwannee 2 Progress Energy oil 54
Big Bend ST1 Tampa Electric coal 38
Crist 4 Gulf Power coal 49
Suwannee 1 Progress Energy oil 55
Lansing Smith 2 Gulf Power coal 41
Bartow ST2 Progress Energy oil 47
Crist 6 Gulf Power coal 38
Lansing Smith 1 Gulf Power coal 43
Crist 5 Gulf Power coal 47
Crystal River Progress Energy coal 42
In order to meet the laudable greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, these “Dirty Dozen” electric power plant units will probably need to be retired or repowered, Clean Air Watch noted.
The power they produce “could and should be reduced by aggressively improving energy efficiency and stepping up use of renewable energy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Clean Air Watch.
The “Dirty Dozen” power plant units on average are 47 years old – older than the 35-year-old national average of coal-fired power plants.
O’Donnell noted that Florida is a critical battleground in the fight against global warming because it ranks third in the nation in terms of power plant carbon dioxide emissions.
“States like Florida are leading the way against global warming because the federal government’s response has been so slow and indecisive,” O’Donnell said. “The Sunshine State could influence the shape of federal legislation.”
O’Donnell noted that Governor Crist issued a series of executive orders last year aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. These would require adoption of standards to reduce power plant emissions in the state to 2000 levels by 2017 and to 1990 levels by 2025.
Because of continuing growth in the state Florida will need to reduce power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent to meet the 2017 goal. To do that – while still meeting the state’s growing energy needs – Florida will need to retire or repower the biggest polluters while promoting energy efficiency and conservation.
In its report, Clean Air Watch compiled an inventory of the most polluting electric generating units in Florida over the age of 35 (based on their CO2 emission rates) and calculated the approximate CO2 savings that would result from replacing these units with clean renewable energy projects.
“We found that retiring the 12 highest polluting units in the state would achieve almost half of Florida’s phase one emissions reduction goal,” said O’Donnell.
“Meeting the rest of the goal may require shutting down additional high-polluting plants as well as more use of renewable energy and better energy efficiency.”
#
Florida’s Dirty Dozen: The Highest Emitting Generating Units in Florida Over the Age
of 35 (Ranked according to their CO2 emission rates).
Plant Name Owner Fuel Type Age
Scholz 2 Gulf Power coal 55
Scholz 1 Gulf Power coal 55
Suwannee 2 Progress Energy oil 54
Big Bend ST1 Tampa Electric coal 38
Crist 4 Gulf Power coal 49
Suwannee 1 Progress Energy oil 55
Lansing Smith 2 Gulf Power coal 41
Bartow ST2 Progress Energy oil 47
Crist 6 Gulf Power coal 38
Lansing Smith 1 Gulf Power coal 43
Crist 5 Gulf Power coal 47
Crystal River Progress Energy coal 42
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Clean Air Watch Warns Big Polluters Try to Shape Global Warming Legislation with Campaign Cash
(Washington, DC. October 4, 2007) -- The non-profit Clean Air Watch today warned that the nation’s biggest electric power polluters appear to be trying to shape global warming legislation through campaign cash.
Clean Air Watch detailed industry contributions in a new report, Hot Checks, based on official information filed this year with the Federal Election Commission.
“The nation’s biggest power polluters appear to be systematically using campaign contributions to target key lawmakers,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
During the first eight months of this year, O’Donnell noted, the ten biggest electric power producers of carbon emissions and their lobbying group doled out more than $400,000 to a majority of the law makers on the key U.S. House and Senate committees that deal with global warming legislation.
According to official documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, political action committees affiliated with these companies contributed to 45 of the 57 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Big 10 power PAC checks went to 16 of the 23 members of the Senate Energy Committee, and to 12 of the 19 members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
O’Donnell noted that the biggest carbon polluter – Ohio-based American Electric Power – alone has contributed to no fewer than 46 members of the key House and Senate panels. AEP was also the biggest spender – distributing $65,500 in PAC contributions to members of the key panels.
“These aren’t like contributions to the March of Dimes,” said O’Donnell. “These companies want a seat at the table when the deals get cut.”
The report comes on heels of a white paper on possible legislation by two of the leading cash recipients, Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA), and as two key Senate law makers, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) ready legislation they hope to move through the Senate this year.
O’Donnell noted that the biggest carbon polluters have a key goal: to shape any legislation to the advantage of big coal-burning companies through cost limits on cleanup obligations and through a system allocating emission allowances that would, in essence, subsidize coal.
Clean Air Watch recently noted in a separate report that the draft Lieberman-Warner plan could mean windfall profits for the biggest polluters.
###
Clean Air Watch detailed industry contributions in a new report, Hot Checks, based on official information filed this year with the Federal Election Commission.
“The nation’s biggest power polluters appear to be systematically using campaign contributions to target key lawmakers,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
During the first eight months of this year, O’Donnell noted, the ten biggest electric power producers of carbon emissions and their lobbying group doled out more than $400,000 to a majority of the law makers on the key U.S. House and Senate committees that deal with global warming legislation.
According to official documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, political action committees affiliated with these companies contributed to 45 of the 57 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Big 10 power PAC checks went to 16 of the 23 members of the Senate Energy Committee, and to 12 of the 19 members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
O’Donnell noted that the biggest carbon polluter – Ohio-based American Electric Power – alone has contributed to no fewer than 46 members of the key House and Senate panels. AEP was also the biggest spender – distributing $65,500 in PAC contributions to members of the key panels.
“These aren’t like contributions to the March of Dimes,” said O’Donnell. “These companies want a seat at the table when the deals get cut.”
The report comes on heels of a white paper on possible legislation by two of the leading cash recipients, Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA), and as two key Senate law makers, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) ready legislation they hope to move through the Senate this year.
O’Donnell noted that the biggest carbon polluters have a key goal: to shape any legislation to the advantage of big coal-burning companies through cost limits on cleanup obligations and through a system allocating emission allowances that would, in essence, subsidize coal.
Clean Air Watch recently noted in a separate report that the draft Lieberman-Warner plan could mean windfall profits for the biggest polluters.
###
Monday, June 25, 2007
Clean Air Watch Warns of Windfall Profits to Global Warmers
(Washington, D.C., June 25, 2007) -- Should big polluters own the sky?
That’s one of the key questions as we consider how to limit and reduce global warming pollution. A U.S. Senate committee is set to examine this and related issues on June 28.
Many of the biggest coal-burning power companies claim they own the sky – and should be paid billions of dollars to reduce their emissions.
A new Clean Air Watch white paper concludes that the 10 most polluting electric power companies collectively could pocket $9 billion annually under the wrong kind of cap-and-trade program.
One company alone – Ohio-based American Electric Power – could rake in more than a billion and a half dollars every year. AEP has been among the polluters that have argued in favor of handing out global warming emission credits free to companies based on past pollution levels.
“The very companies that have polluted the upper atmosphere now want to be rewarded,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“It would be unconscionable to reward their destructive behavior by simply giving them free credits – and windfall profits,” O’Donnell said. “The polluters should have to pay to clean up the mess they’ve made for us, and for future generations.”
The white paper argues that rather than subsidizing big polluters by handing out free emission credits or “allowances” based on past pollution levels – as Congress did with the 1990 acid rain program – the government should embrace the “polluter pays” principle used in other federal environmental laws including Superfund.
Specifically, it recommends that the federal government auction off allowances. Polluting companies would have to bid against each other for a portion of the atmosphere they intend to use — within overall limits that reduce carbon dioxide levels. Auction proceeds could be used for socially beneficial programs, which could include help for low-income residents, worker transition assistance or protecting wildlife.
In a foreword to the white paper, Larry J. Schweiger, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said “it’s time these companies started getting the bill.”
Schweiger added that “a cap-and-trade program that does not require companies to pay for carbon permits, and instead gives them away for free in perpetuity, would be fundamentally unjust. No-cost licenses to pollute would deprive the public of the resources and revenues with which to aid the economic transition to a low-pollution world, and with which to address the impacts of global warming.”
The white paper echoes a call made last week on public radio’s Marketplace by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:
“I mean, it's our atmosphere, right?” Reich said.
“Think of a national park or a national forest. No company is simply allowed to take what they want from it, free of charge. Why should the atmosphere be any different?” he added. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/20/AM200706202.html
The white paper is online at Clean Air Watch’s web site, www.cleanairwatch.org
That’s one of the key questions as we consider how to limit and reduce global warming pollution. A U.S. Senate committee is set to examine this and related issues on June 28.
Many of the biggest coal-burning power companies claim they own the sky – and should be paid billions of dollars to reduce their emissions.
A new Clean Air Watch white paper concludes that the 10 most polluting electric power companies collectively could pocket $9 billion annually under the wrong kind of cap-and-trade program.
One company alone – Ohio-based American Electric Power – could rake in more than a billion and a half dollars every year. AEP has been among the polluters that have argued in favor of handing out global warming emission credits free to companies based on past pollution levels.
“The very companies that have polluted the upper atmosphere now want to be rewarded,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“It would be unconscionable to reward their destructive behavior by simply giving them free credits – and windfall profits,” O’Donnell said. “The polluters should have to pay to clean up the mess they’ve made for us, and for future generations.”
The white paper argues that rather than subsidizing big polluters by handing out free emission credits or “allowances” based on past pollution levels – as Congress did with the 1990 acid rain program – the government should embrace the “polluter pays” principle used in other federal environmental laws including Superfund.
Specifically, it recommends that the federal government auction off allowances. Polluting companies would have to bid against each other for a portion of the atmosphere they intend to use — within overall limits that reduce carbon dioxide levels. Auction proceeds could be used for socially beneficial programs, which could include help for low-income residents, worker transition assistance or protecting wildlife.
In a foreword to the white paper, Larry J. Schweiger, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said “it’s time these companies started getting the bill.”
Schweiger added that “a cap-and-trade program that does not require companies to pay for carbon permits, and instead gives them away for free in perpetuity, would be fundamentally unjust. No-cost licenses to pollute would deprive the public of the resources and revenues with which to aid the economic transition to a low-pollution world, and with which to address the impacts of global warming.”
The white paper echoes a call made last week on public radio’s Marketplace by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:
“I mean, it's our atmosphere, right?” Reich said.
“Think of a national park or a national forest. No company is simply allowed to take what they want from it, free of charge. Why should the atmosphere be any different?” he added. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/20/AM200706202.html
The white paper is online at Clean Air Watch’s web site, www.cleanairwatch.org
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Reactions to EPA's smog plan from Clean Air Watch, Northeastern clean-air agencies
Clean Air Watch: Why Does EPA Dither Over Smog?
(Washington, D.C., June 21, 2007) -- The following is a statement by Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed new standards for ozone, or smog:
EPA’s smog proposal sends a mixed message:
The good news is that EPA agrees that current smog standards are too weak to protect people’s health. Its proposal would be a step in the right direction, though weaker than the standards recommended by EPA’s science advisers.
But EPA is also inviting comments on keeping the existing standards.
That’s an outrageous idea, driven by politics instead of science.
Why is EPA dithering? Evidence points to the secret hand of the White House.
We know that industry has aggressively lobbied the White House to force EPA to consider keeping the current standards. And we also know that in a separate, related rule, the White House forced EPA to pretend that smog doesn’t kill.
The science is crystal-clear that we need better standards to protect kids with asthma and millions of other breathers. Every credible scientist says so.
But EPA seems to be hedging its bets. It has suggested a range of possibilities. Most disturbingly, it has left open the door to keeping the current standards, which are outdated and don’t reflect recent science.
This suggests that recent polluter visits to the White House helped shape this decision. It raises huge concerns about what EPA will do with its final decision. Why leave the door open to doing something you know is wrong -- unless that came from political pressure?
It’s time for the White House to stop promoting the interests of its polluter friends, and permit EPA to do its job – to protect people’s health.
*** [and from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 21, 2007 Contact: Arthur Marin 617-259-2017
Paul Miller 617-259-2016
NESCAUM 617-259-2000
EPA’S PROPOSED AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
June 21, 2007 (Boston, MA) – The Northeast states expressed concern with today’s proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise the national ambient air quality standard for ozone air pollution.
EPA is under a court-order to review and revise as necessary the national ozone air pollution standard.
The current ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours. EPA staff previously recommended that the EPA Administrator consider revising the standard to a level within a range from somewhat below 0.080 down to 0.060 ppm. A panel of outside scientific experts advising EPA unanimously recommended that the new standard be lowered to within a range between 0.070 and 0.060 ppm, which NESCAUM supports. Today, the Administrator proposed that the ozone standard be set somewhere within a range from 0.070 to 0.075 ppm. In addition, the Administrator chose to solicit comments on not changing the current ozone standard; an unsupportable option at odds with the large body of existing health evidence.
“The science clearly shows that the current standard does not adequately protect public health from the harm caused by ozone,” stated Arthur Marin, NESCAUM’s Executive Director. “EPA recognized this shortcoming, but unfortunately, it didn’t go far enough with its proposed change. Because the new standards will be in place for many years to come, there could be long-term adverse public health consequences associated with this decision. Even more disturbing, EPA left the door open to no change at all.”
Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant, and can reduce lung function and cause asthma attacks. It may inflame and damage -- maybe permanently -- cells that line the lungs, and aggravate chronic lung and cardiac diseases. Some of the symptoms may include: coughing; shortness of breath; increased susceptibility to respiratory infection; nose and throat irritation; chest pain; and other respiratory ailments.
While ozone pollution is a potent threat to those with respiratory disease, it can also affect healthy children, joggers, and others who spend time outdoors on warm, sunny, but smoggy summer days.
A number of recent studies from several separate research groups analyzing the available health research in the U.S. and Europe independently and consistently found a strong linkage between increases in ground-level ozone and risk of premature death. Recent studies also indicate that ozone may contribute to cardiac morbidity. These health consequences have not been accounted for previously, thus the costs of
not reducing ozone pollution are far higher than once believed.
“Ozone pollution can affect healthy individuals as well as those with respiratory problems, and the science shows it can increase the risk of premature death,” said David Shaw Director of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Air Bureau and current Chair of the NESCAUM Board of Directors. “Areas of New York State and other parts of the Northeast have among the highest childhood asthma rates in the country. Given the abundant scientific evidence available upon which to base this decision, we had hoped EPA would focus on a more protective standard.”
“EPA has been under pressure to consider costs in support of a less protective health standard, but, as the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court have plainly stated, EPA must set health standards based on science, not costs,” stated Mr. Marin. “Costs come into play later when deciding how to meet the health standards established through the science.”
NESCAUM is the regional association of air pollution control agencies representing Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
# # #
(Washington, D.C., June 21, 2007) -- The following is a statement by Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed new standards for ozone, or smog:
EPA’s smog proposal sends a mixed message:
The good news is that EPA agrees that current smog standards are too weak to protect people’s health. Its proposal would be a step in the right direction, though weaker than the standards recommended by EPA’s science advisers.
But EPA is also inviting comments on keeping the existing standards.
That’s an outrageous idea, driven by politics instead of science.
Why is EPA dithering? Evidence points to the secret hand of the White House.
We know that industry has aggressively lobbied the White House to force EPA to consider keeping the current standards. And we also know that in a separate, related rule, the White House forced EPA to pretend that smog doesn’t kill.
The science is crystal-clear that we need better standards to protect kids with asthma and millions of other breathers. Every credible scientist says so.
But EPA seems to be hedging its bets. It has suggested a range of possibilities. Most disturbingly, it has left open the door to keeping the current standards, which are outdated and don’t reflect recent science.
This suggests that recent polluter visits to the White House helped shape this decision. It raises huge concerns about what EPA will do with its final decision. Why leave the door open to doing something you know is wrong -- unless that came from political pressure?
It’s time for the White House to stop promoting the interests of its polluter friends, and permit EPA to do its job – to protect people’s health.
*** [and from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 21, 2007 Contact: Arthur Marin 617-259-2017
Paul Miller 617-259-2016
NESCAUM 617-259-2000
EPA’S PROPOSED AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
June 21, 2007 (Boston, MA) – The Northeast states expressed concern with today’s proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise the national ambient air quality standard for ozone air pollution.
EPA is under a court-order to review and revise as necessary the national ozone air pollution standard.
The current ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours. EPA staff previously recommended that the EPA Administrator consider revising the standard to a level within a range from somewhat below 0.080 down to 0.060 ppm. A panel of outside scientific experts advising EPA unanimously recommended that the new standard be lowered to within a range between 0.070 and 0.060 ppm, which NESCAUM supports. Today, the Administrator proposed that the ozone standard be set somewhere within a range from 0.070 to 0.075 ppm. In addition, the Administrator chose to solicit comments on not changing the current ozone standard; an unsupportable option at odds with the large body of existing health evidence.
“The science clearly shows that the current standard does not adequately protect public health from the harm caused by ozone,” stated Arthur Marin, NESCAUM’s Executive Director. “EPA recognized this shortcoming, but unfortunately, it didn’t go far enough with its proposed change. Because the new standards will be in place for many years to come, there could be long-term adverse public health consequences associated with this decision. Even more disturbing, EPA left the door open to no change at all.”
Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant, and can reduce lung function and cause asthma attacks. It may inflame and damage -- maybe permanently -- cells that line the lungs, and aggravate chronic lung and cardiac diseases. Some of the symptoms may include: coughing; shortness of breath; increased susceptibility to respiratory infection; nose and throat irritation; chest pain; and other respiratory ailments.
While ozone pollution is a potent threat to those with respiratory disease, it can also affect healthy children, joggers, and others who spend time outdoors on warm, sunny, but smoggy summer days.
A number of recent studies from several separate research groups analyzing the available health research in the U.S. and Europe independently and consistently found a strong linkage between increases in ground-level ozone and risk of premature death. Recent studies also indicate that ozone may contribute to cardiac morbidity. These health consequences have not been accounted for previously, thus the costs of
not reducing ozone pollution are far higher than once believed.
“Ozone pollution can affect healthy individuals as well as those with respiratory problems, and the science shows it can increase the risk of premature death,” said David Shaw Director of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Air Bureau and current Chair of the NESCAUM Board of Directors. “Areas of New York State and other parts of the Northeast have among the highest childhood asthma rates in the country. Given the abundant scientific evidence available upon which to base this decision, we had hoped EPA would focus on a more protective standard.”
“EPA has been under pressure to consider costs in support of a less protective health standard, but, as the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court have plainly stated, EPA must set health standards based on science, not costs,” stated Mr. Marin. “Costs come into play later when deciding how to meet the health standards established through the science.”
NESCAUM is the regional association of air pollution control agencies representing Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
# # #
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Smog Watch 2007: smog's up in May!
(Washington, DC. June 6, 2007) – The non-profit Clean Air Watch today warned that smog problems around the nation generally have been worse so far this year than last year at this time.
At least 29 states plus the District of Columbia have experienced serious smog problems already this year – an increase from a year ago at this time, when 22 states plus D.C. had monitored dirty air levels.
In May alone, unhealthful smog levels were monitored more than 35 percent more often than in May 2006, based on an unofficial survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers. Last year’s levels may have been lower because rains put a damper on potential problems in the Northeast and much of the Midwest.
“We’ve made great progress over the years in combating smog, but this evidence is a painful reminder that we still need to do more before we can breathe easy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“We need to tackle such big sources of pollution as existing diesel engines, trains and diesel boats, among other things,” O’Donnell noted.
He also noted that EPA’s independent science advisers and EPA’s own scientists have determined that the current smog standards are not strong enough to protect kids with asthma and others. EPA is under a court order to propose a decision on new smog standards by June 20.
“The scientific evidence is overwhelming that we need tougher smog standards,” O’Donnell said. “We hope the EPA won’t let polluter-generated political pressure smog up its judgment.”
The survey of public web sites found monitored readings of dirty air in states from California to Vermont and Maine. In May alone, air pollution monitors recorded unhealthful levels of smog an estimated 330 times, compared to about 240 the previous May.
More on the survey is available at http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2007/06/smog-watch-2007-trouble-continues.html
At least 29 states plus the District of Columbia have experienced serious smog problems already this year – an increase from a year ago at this time, when 22 states plus D.C. had monitored dirty air levels.
In May alone, unhealthful smog levels were monitored more than 35 percent more often than in May 2006, based on an unofficial survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers. Last year’s levels may have been lower because rains put a damper on potential problems in the Northeast and much of the Midwest.
“We’ve made great progress over the years in combating smog, but this evidence is a painful reminder that we still need to do more before we can breathe easy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“We need to tackle such big sources of pollution as existing diesel engines, trains and diesel boats, among other things,” O’Donnell noted.
He also noted that EPA’s independent science advisers and EPA’s own scientists have determined that the current smog standards are not strong enough to protect kids with asthma and others. EPA is under a court order to propose a decision on new smog standards by June 20.
“The scientific evidence is overwhelming that we need tougher smog standards,” O’Donnell said. “We hope the EPA won’t let polluter-generated political pressure smog up its judgment.”
The survey of public web sites found monitored readings of dirty air in states from California to Vermont and Maine. In May alone, air pollution monitors recorded unhealthful levels of smog an estimated 330 times, compared to about 240 the previous May.
More on the survey is available at http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2007/06/smog-watch-2007-trouble-continues.html
Friday, March 02, 2007
Clean Air Watch welcomes EPA proposal to clean up dirty diesel trains and boats
Clean Air Watch Welcomes EPA Proposal
To Clean Up Dirty Diesel Trains and Boats
Washington, DC, March 2, 2007 – Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch, issued the following reaction today to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to set new air pollution standards for diesel trains and boats:
This ought to be a headline-grabber. It’s the rare instance in which the Bush administration is actually proposing something really good for the environment.
We welcome this EPA proposal. Diesel locomotives and marine engines are a significant and deadly source of pollution – particularly in cities and towns with ports and major train lines.
There are many details of this proposal yet to be worked out – and we hope EPA can accelerate the pace of cleanup -- but this proposal is a giant step in the right direction.
Cleaning these engines up will prevent death and disease.
As our friends with the Clean Air Task Force noted earlier this week, people riding in diesel-powered trains are getting a heavy dose of diesel fumes.
These standards are long overdue. It is crucial that EPA move without further delay to issue these standards in final form by the end of this year.
One reason for the delay so far has been the stubborn opposition of the General Electric Corporation, the nation’s biggest train engine maker. We hope GE’s intransigence will not cause EPA to water down its final rules.
We call on GE’s Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt to spend less money on flashy Ecomagination commercials, and more money actually cleaning up GE’s dirty diesel engines.
To Clean Up Dirty Diesel Trains and Boats
Washington, DC, March 2, 2007 – Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch, issued the following reaction today to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to set new air pollution standards for diesel trains and boats:
This ought to be a headline-grabber. It’s the rare instance in which the Bush administration is actually proposing something really good for the environment.
We welcome this EPA proposal. Diesel locomotives and marine engines are a significant and deadly source of pollution – particularly in cities and towns with ports and major train lines.
There are many details of this proposal yet to be worked out – and we hope EPA can accelerate the pace of cleanup -- but this proposal is a giant step in the right direction.
Cleaning these engines up will prevent death and disease.
As our friends with the Clean Air Task Force noted earlier this week, people riding in diesel-powered trains are getting a heavy dose of diesel fumes.
These standards are long overdue. It is crucial that EPA move without further delay to issue these standards in final form by the end of this year.
One reason for the delay so far has been the stubborn opposition of the General Electric Corporation, the nation’s biggest train engine maker. We hope GE’s intransigence will not cause EPA to water down its final rules.
We call on GE’s Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt to spend less money on flashy Ecomagination commercials, and more money actually cleaning up GE’s dirty diesel engines.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
EPA Adopts Oil Industry Dirty-Air Plan to Cripple Clean Air Standards
Washington, DC, December 7, 2006 – The non-profit Clean Air Watch released the following statement today from its president, Frank O’Donnell, regarding the US EPA’s changes in setting national clean air standards:
“It’s deplorable that Bush administration has caved into the oil industry yet again.
“The Bush administration has taken a page right from the oil industry’s playbook. The industry had urged EPA to downgrade the role of EPA’s career experts and increase the role of politics. And the Bush administration has done exactly that. The industry seeks to cripple clean air standards.
“The official EPA memo can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/memo_process_for_reviewing_naaqs.pdf
“This memo is gobbledygook, which can be translated:
“EPA is downgrading the role of its own career experts and making sure that political appointees are running the show from the beginning. EPA is discarding the important `staff paper’ (which has been written by agency career staffers) and replacing it with the `policy assessment.’ As Bush political appointee William Wehrum said during today’s teleconference, this policy assessment will ‘reflect management’s views.’
“This move will also downgrade the status of EPA’s independent science advisers. Instead of having the unique role of critiquing the `staff paper,’ as they have in the past, the scientists will be allowed to comment on the ‘policy assessment’ on an equal footing with industry lobbies. It is little wonder that the oil industry pushed for exactly this sort of “reform” to the process.
“The whole purpose of this exercise is to make sure that EPA’s career experts don’t embarrass the politically appointed head of EPA again, as they did in the case of the fine-particle soot standards.”
###
“It’s deplorable that Bush administration has caved into the oil industry yet again.
“The Bush administration has taken a page right from the oil industry’s playbook. The industry had urged EPA to downgrade the role of EPA’s career experts and increase the role of politics. And the Bush administration has done exactly that. The industry seeks to cripple clean air standards.
“The official EPA memo can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/memo_process_for_reviewing_naaqs.pdf
“This memo is gobbledygook, which can be translated:
“EPA is downgrading the role of its own career experts and making sure that political appointees are running the show from the beginning. EPA is discarding the important `staff paper’ (which has been written by agency career staffers) and replacing it with the `policy assessment.’ As Bush political appointee William Wehrum said during today’s teleconference, this policy assessment will ‘reflect management’s views.’
“This move will also downgrade the status of EPA’s independent science advisers. Instead of having the unique role of critiquing the `staff paper,’ as they have in the past, the scientists will be allowed to comment on the ‘policy assessment’ on an equal footing with industry lobbies. It is little wonder that the oil industry pushed for exactly this sort of “reform” to the process.
“The whole purpose of this exercise is to make sure that EPA’s career experts don’t embarrass the politically appointed head of EPA again, as they did in the case of the fine-particle soot standards.”
###
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
EPA science advisers demand tougher smog standard
EPA Science Advisers Demand Tougher Smog Standard
Will EPA Chief Play Politics and Snub them Yet Again?
Washington, DC. October 25, 2006 – The nonprofit Clean Air Watch today hailed a call by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s independent science advisers, who unanimously urged the agency to set a tougher new standard to protect the public from smog.
In a letter dated October 24, the EPA science advisory panel said “there is no scientific justification” for keeping the current smog standard, set in 1997. They added that the current standard “needs to be substantially reduced to protect human health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations.”
The full letter is available at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-07-001.pdf
“This is clear and compelling evidence that today’s smog standards need to be updated,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“Smog harms breathers, and the existing standards just don’t cut it when it comes to protecting public health.”
O’Donnell noted the recommendation comes on the heels of a controversial decision by EPA Administrator Steve Johnson to ignore the science advisers in setting industry-friendly standards for particle soot.
“Johnson played politics and snubbed the scientists in order to protect polluters,” said O’Donnell. “Would he dare do it again on an issue so obvious and easy to understand?”
Smog (technically known as ozone) has been linked to a wide range of health problems, including asthma attacks, increased emergency room visits, and premature death.
Ozone is caused by chemicals produced by traffic, oil refining, coal burning and other smokestack industries.
EPA is under a court order to make a preliminary decision by next May and to issue a final decision by February 2008.
Will EPA Chief Play Politics and Snub them Yet Again?
Washington, DC. October 25, 2006 – The nonprofit Clean Air Watch today hailed a call by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s independent science advisers, who unanimously urged the agency to set a tougher new standard to protect the public from smog.
In a letter dated October 24, the EPA science advisory panel said “there is no scientific justification” for keeping the current smog standard, set in 1997. They added that the current standard “needs to be substantially reduced to protect human health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations.”
The full letter is available at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-07-001.pdf
“This is clear and compelling evidence that today’s smog standards need to be updated,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“Smog harms breathers, and the existing standards just don’t cut it when it comes to protecting public health.”
O’Donnell noted the recommendation comes on the heels of a controversial decision by EPA Administrator Steve Johnson to ignore the science advisers in setting industry-friendly standards for particle soot.
“Johnson played politics and snubbed the scientists in order to protect polluters,” said O’Donnell. “Would he dare do it again on an issue so obvious and easy to understand?”
Smog (technically known as ozone) has been linked to a wide range of health problems, including asthma attacks, increased emergency room visits, and premature death.
Ozone is caused by chemicals produced by traffic, oil refining, coal burning and other smokestack industries.
EPA is under a court order to make a preliminary decision by next May and to issue a final decision by February 2008.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Advocates urge EPA to ok California global warming standards for vehicles
American Lung Association of New York State • Clean Air Watch • Conservation Law Foundation Environmental Defense • National Environmental Trust • Natural Resources Defense Council • Public Citizen • Sierra Club • Union of Concerned Scientists • U.S. Public Interest Research Group
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
CONTACT:
John Anthony, 202.277.2103
Frank O’Donnell, 202.558.3527
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS, ADVOCATES URGE EPA TO BACK STATES’ EFFORTS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING VEHICLE EMISSIONS
Washington, D.C. – Declaring it a “fundamental state’s right,” environmental, science, conservation, health and consumer leaders today joined key members of Congress in calling on the Bush administration to allow California to implement its new clean-car standards to limit global warming emissions.
In urging the Environmental Protection Agency to grant California a waiver under the Clean Air Act that will permit the state to require cleaner motor vehicles, the community leaders echoed a bipartisan call by more than 100 members of Congress led by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY).
“California is trying to exercise a fundamental state’s right – the right to protect its citizens from dirty air,” noted Phil Clapp, president, National Environmental Trust. “The Bush administration has a choice: will it support states' rights or continue to serve as a roadblock to global warming action?”
The Clean Air Act provides that EPA shall grant any request from California to adopt vehicle emissions standards that are at least as protective as federal minimum standards. The Act also provides that other states may adopt the California standards if they have ever had poor ambient air quality. California requested EPA approval of new global warming emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks in December 2005. The agency has yet to respond.
“Congress wrote these Clean Air Act provisions in order to give states the freedom to adopt cleaner car standards to further protect the public from polluted air,” said David Doniger, climate policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council.
In late 2004, California adopted new standards requiring cars and light-duty trucks to limit emissions that contribute to global warming. Ten other states – Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington – have followed suit while others are considering adopting those standards. Motor vehicle sales in these 11 states amount to one-third of all new vehicles sold nationwide each year.
Altogether, transportation accounts for more than one-quarter of global warming emissions in the U.S. each year. But, car companies have gone to court to try to derail the California standards, and the Bush administration has opposed federal limits on global warming pollution.
“While the Bush administration sits on its hands, the states are at the forefront of action to curb global warming,” said Emily Figdor, clean air & energy advocate, U.S. PIRG. “The federal government and automakers should not try to block this kind of progress.”
“States across the nation, including our home states here in the northeast, are seeking to protect the climate and save drivers money by following California’s path toward cleaner cars,” said Seth Kaplan, clean energy and climate change director, New England-based Conservation Law Foundation. “It is bad enough that we have to defend these rules against attack from carmakers in court in Vermont and Rhode Island, but it is truly outrageous when the federal government refuses to allow for this kind of state leadership.”
The California standards begin with the 2009 model year and phase-in gradually over eight years. By the 2016 model year, they would cut global warming pollution from new vehicles by almost 30 percent.
"Automakers have the technology in hand to meet California's rules," added Jason Mark, director of the clean vehicles program, Union of Concerned Scientists. "The state is on firm technical footing when it argues that reducing global warming pollution from cars can save drivers money."
California’s right to move ahead with the new standards is subject only to the requirement that it must receive a waiver from EPA under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, which California has requested. The waiver requirement aims to ensure that state standards are at least as protective as the federal standards.
“With more than eight million passenger vehicles in the state and nearly 90 percent of New Yorkers living in an area where air quality is deemed unhealthful, we are mystified as to why EPA Administrator Johnson has not acted on California’s clean car waiver request,” said Peter Iwanowicz, vice president, American Lung Association of New York State. “To ensure that the health of New Yorkers is protected, we call on Administrator Johnson to issue the waiver.”
EPA has never denied California’s requests, granting more than 40 waivers in the last three decades.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
CONTACT:
John Anthony, 202.277.2103
Frank O’Donnell, 202.558.3527
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS, ADVOCATES URGE EPA TO BACK STATES’ EFFORTS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING VEHICLE EMISSIONS
Washington, D.C. – Declaring it a “fundamental state’s right,” environmental, science, conservation, health and consumer leaders today joined key members of Congress in calling on the Bush administration to allow California to implement its new clean-car standards to limit global warming emissions.
In urging the Environmental Protection Agency to grant California a waiver under the Clean Air Act that will permit the state to require cleaner motor vehicles, the community leaders echoed a bipartisan call by more than 100 members of Congress led by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY).
“California is trying to exercise a fundamental state’s right – the right to protect its citizens from dirty air,” noted Phil Clapp, president, National Environmental Trust. “The Bush administration has a choice: will it support states' rights or continue to serve as a roadblock to global warming action?”
The Clean Air Act provides that EPA shall grant any request from California to adopt vehicle emissions standards that are at least as protective as federal minimum standards. The Act also provides that other states may adopt the California standards if they have ever had poor ambient air quality. California requested EPA approval of new global warming emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks in December 2005. The agency has yet to respond.
“Congress wrote these Clean Air Act provisions in order to give states the freedom to adopt cleaner car standards to further protect the public from polluted air,” said David Doniger, climate policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council.
In late 2004, California adopted new standards requiring cars and light-duty trucks to limit emissions that contribute to global warming. Ten other states – Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington – have followed suit while others are considering adopting those standards. Motor vehicle sales in these 11 states amount to one-third of all new vehicles sold nationwide each year.
Altogether, transportation accounts for more than one-quarter of global warming emissions in the U.S. each year. But, car companies have gone to court to try to derail the California standards, and the Bush administration has opposed federal limits on global warming pollution.
“While the Bush administration sits on its hands, the states are at the forefront of action to curb global warming,” said Emily Figdor, clean air & energy advocate, U.S. PIRG. “The federal government and automakers should not try to block this kind of progress.”
“States across the nation, including our home states here in the northeast, are seeking to protect the climate and save drivers money by following California’s path toward cleaner cars,” said Seth Kaplan, clean energy and climate change director, New England-based Conservation Law Foundation. “It is bad enough that we have to defend these rules against attack from carmakers in court in Vermont and Rhode Island, but it is truly outrageous when the federal government refuses to allow for this kind of state leadership.”
The California standards begin with the 2009 model year and phase-in gradually over eight years. By the 2016 model year, they would cut global warming pollution from new vehicles by almost 30 percent.
"Automakers have the technology in hand to meet California's rules," added Jason Mark, director of the clean vehicles program, Union of Concerned Scientists. "The state is on firm technical footing when it argues that reducing global warming pollution from cars can save drivers money."
California’s right to move ahead with the new standards is subject only to the requirement that it must receive a waiver from EPA under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, which California has requested. The waiver requirement aims to ensure that state standards are at least as protective as the federal standards.
“With more than eight million passenger vehicles in the state and nearly 90 percent of New Yorkers living in an area where air quality is deemed unhealthful, we are mystified as to why EPA Administrator Johnson has not acted on California’s clean car waiver request,” said Peter Iwanowicz, vice president, American Lung Association of New York State. “To ensure that the health of New Yorkers is protected, we call on Administrator Johnson to issue the waiver.”
EPA has never denied California’s requests, granting more than 40 waivers in the last three decades.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Clean Air Watch Assails EPA Soot Decision - Agency Ignores Its Own Science Advisers
Washington, DC. September 21, 2006 – The nonprofit Clean Air Watch today assailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to set weak and “non-scientific” air pollution standards for particle soot.
“With this decision, the Bush Administration has abdicated its responsibility to protect breathers from dangers in the air,” charged Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“This is a huge victory for big polluters, and a deadly setback for the breathing public. It is the single worst action the Bush administration has taken on air pollution.”
O’Donnell noted that literally dozens of medical and health groups – including the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics – had all urged the EPA to set much tougher standards to reduce both short-term and long-term exposure to particle soot.
EPA’s independent science advisers had echoed that call.
But EPA Administrator Steve Johnson disregarded that scientific advice in the face of pressure from big polluters, including the oil, electric power, coal, chemical, steel, automotive and diesel engine industries – big financial contributors to the Bush White House. O’Donnell noted an electric power industry lobbyist met with the White House on this issue as recently as Monday, September 18.
“EPA’s decision was based on political science, not real science,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “Why else would EPA disregard its own science advisers?”
O’Donnell noted that particle soot is the “most lethal” of all widespread air pollutants. Sources include coal-burning electric power plants, diesel engines and other smokestack industries.
Particle soot can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks and premature death. EPA’s own studies show that tens of thousands of Americans are dying prematurely from exposure to this deadly menace.
“With this decision, the Bush Administration has abdicated its responsibility to protect breathers from dangers in the air,” charged Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“This is a huge victory for big polluters, and a deadly setback for the breathing public. It is the single worst action the Bush administration has taken on air pollution.”
O’Donnell noted that literally dozens of medical and health groups – including the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics – had all urged the EPA to set much tougher standards to reduce both short-term and long-term exposure to particle soot.
EPA’s independent science advisers had echoed that call.
But EPA Administrator Steve Johnson disregarded that scientific advice in the face of pressure from big polluters, including the oil, electric power, coal, chemical, steel, automotive and diesel engine industries – big financial contributors to the Bush White House. O’Donnell noted an electric power industry lobbyist met with the White House on this issue as recently as Monday, September 18.
“EPA’s decision was based on political science, not real science,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “Why else would EPA disregard its own science advisers?”
O’Donnell noted that particle soot is the “most lethal” of all widespread air pollutants. Sources include coal-burning electric power plants, diesel engines and other smokestack industries.
Particle soot can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks and premature death. EPA’s own studies show that tens of thousands of Americans are dying prematurely from exposure to this deadly menace.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Smog Savages 38 States in July
Smog Savages 38 States in July,
Notes Clean Air Watch Report
Infant Deaths Cited by California Researchers
Washington, DC. August 2, 2006 – With the Washington, D.C. area gasping under a “code red” alert, the non-profit Clean Air Watch today reported that breathers in 38 states plus the District of Columbia gasped through serious smog problems in July.
The Clean Air Watch Smog Survey was released as researchers in California reported that outdoor air pollution is causing increased deaths among infants.
Clean Air Watch noted the heat wave that has rocked the nation also brought a “blanket of smog” from California to Maine.
Public health standards for ozone, or smog, were breached more than 1,000 times at state-run air pollution monitors in July, according to the survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers. The total was a slight increase over July 2005, continuing a 2006 trend.
“Over the years, we have made progress against smog,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “But this survey shows that we have a long way to go before we can take an easy breath.”
He called on the U.S. EPA to make good on an “overdue” promise to clean up high-polluting diesel freight trains and boats. Noting that existing diesel engines remain a huge source of pollution, O’Donnell observed that “Congressional cheapskates have cut President Bush’s budget request to clean up existing dirty diesel engines.”
O’Donnell added that “unless we start getting serious about global warming,” predicted increases in global temperatures could mean continued smog problems in the future. “And that will mean more asthma attacks, disease, and death.”
Infant death from pollution was the focus of the new study by researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles. In a study to be published in the journal Pediatrics http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/2/493?ct=ct
The scientists found increased sudden infant death syndrome and other increased deaths among infants in Southern California exposed to outdoor air pollution.
Details of the Clean Air Watch survey are available through Clean Air Watch and at http://www.blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/
###
Notes Clean Air Watch Report
Infant Deaths Cited by California Researchers
Washington, DC. August 2, 2006 – With the Washington, D.C. area gasping under a “code red” alert, the non-profit Clean Air Watch today reported that breathers in 38 states plus the District of Columbia gasped through serious smog problems in July.
The Clean Air Watch Smog Survey was released as researchers in California reported that outdoor air pollution is causing increased deaths among infants.
Clean Air Watch noted the heat wave that has rocked the nation also brought a “blanket of smog” from California to Maine.
Public health standards for ozone, or smog, were breached more than 1,000 times at state-run air pollution monitors in July, according to the survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers. The total was a slight increase over July 2005, continuing a 2006 trend.
“Over the years, we have made progress against smog,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “But this survey shows that we have a long way to go before we can take an easy breath.”
He called on the U.S. EPA to make good on an “overdue” promise to clean up high-polluting diesel freight trains and boats. Noting that existing diesel engines remain a huge source of pollution, O’Donnell observed that “Congressional cheapskates have cut President Bush’s budget request to clean up existing dirty diesel engines.”
O’Donnell added that “unless we start getting serious about global warming,” predicted increases in global temperatures could mean continued smog problems in the future. “And that will mean more asthma attacks, disease, and death.”
Infant death from pollution was the focus of the new study by researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles. In a study to be published in the journal Pediatrics http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/2/493?ct=ct
The scientists found increased sudden infant death syndrome and other increased deaths among infants in Southern California exposed to outdoor air pollution.
Details of the Clean Air Watch survey are available through Clean Air Watch and at http://www.blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/
###
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
EPA, Senate Should Ignore 'Bad Science' on Deadly Pollution
WASHINGTON - July 19 - With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon to make a critical decision about deadly particle soot pollution, medical experts and air pollution research specialists today called on EPA and a Senate committee to ignore what they called "bad science."
Their call came as the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing ostensibly designed to assess the science behind the EPA's pending proposal to make a slight adjustment in current standards. EPA's career scientists and its outside science advisers both called for tougher standards than EPA has proposed.
"There is overwhelming scientific evidence that EPA should strengthen both its annual and short-term standards for particle pollution," noted George Thurston, Sc.D., associate professor of environmental medicine, New York University School of Medicine, who testified today before the Committee.
"This is the position endorsed by such medical and health groups as the American Medical Association, the American Nursing Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and many other health groups," noted Janice Nolen of the American Lung Association, adding that "EPA's own evidence shows that thousands of Americans are dying prematurely."
Despite what Nolen called "a consensus in the medical community that EPA should set better standards," the Senate panel, chaired by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) today is showcasing testimony by several witnesses with polluter connections called to cast doubt on the need for tougher standards.
"This hearing is designed to apply political pressure to the EPA," noted Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. EPA is under a court order to issue a final decision by Sept. 27, and key decisions are likely to be made very soon. "It will highlight industry-paid science that seeks to raise doubts about the need to clean up this deadly pollution," O'Donnell added.
One witness, Anne Smith of CRA International, "is a hired gun for the dirty electric power industry," noted O'Donnell. Smith is a consultant for the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition of electric power companies opposed to new pollution standards. "Smith has cooked up an industry-friendly theory that we don't need better standards. But her theory has been discredited by other scientists and really is just providing cover for her power industry clients, who want to spend as little as possible on pollution cleanup."
Another witness opposed to tougher standards, Roger McClellan, was a member of the EPA science advisory panel, but he was one of only two panelists -- out of 22 scientists -- who dissented from the call by the science advisers for tougher standards.
"In other words, McClellan is what scientists would call an outlier," noted O'Donnell. "His views are outside the scientific mainstream."
McClellan was president of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology and now describes himself as "an advisor to public and private organizations on issues related to air quality."
###
Their call came as the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing ostensibly designed to assess the science behind the EPA's pending proposal to make a slight adjustment in current standards. EPA's career scientists and its outside science advisers both called for tougher standards than EPA has proposed.
"There is overwhelming scientific evidence that EPA should strengthen both its annual and short-term standards for particle pollution," noted George Thurston, Sc.D., associate professor of environmental medicine, New York University School of Medicine, who testified today before the Committee.
"This is the position endorsed by such medical and health groups as the American Medical Association, the American Nursing Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and many other health groups," noted Janice Nolen of the American Lung Association, adding that "EPA's own evidence shows that thousands of Americans are dying prematurely."
Despite what Nolen called "a consensus in the medical community that EPA should set better standards," the Senate panel, chaired by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) today is showcasing testimony by several witnesses with polluter connections called to cast doubt on the need for tougher standards.
"This hearing is designed to apply political pressure to the EPA," noted Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. EPA is under a court order to issue a final decision by Sept. 27, and key decisions are likely to be made very soon. "It will highlight industry-paid science that seeks to raise doubts about the need to clean up this deadly pollution," O'Donnell added.
One witness, Anne Smith of CRA International, "is a hired gun for the dirty electric power industry," noted O'Donnell. Smith is a consultant for the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition of electric power companies opposed to new pollution standards. "Smith has cooked up an industry-friendly theory that we don't need better standards. But her theory has been discredited by other scientists and really is just providing cover for her power industry clients, who want to spend as little as possible on pollution cleanup."
Another witness opposed to tougher standards, Roger McClellan, was a member of the EPA science advisory panel, but he was one of only two panelists -- out of 22 scientists -- who dissented from the call by the science advisers for tougher standards.
"In other words, McClellan is what scientists would call an outlier," noted O'Donnell. "His views are outside the scientific mainstream."
McClellan was president of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology and now describes himself as "an advisor to public and private organizations on issues related to air quality."
###
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Smog's Up in June!
(Washington, DC. July 5, 2006 – The non-profit Clean Air Watch today warned that at least 34 states plus the District of Columbia have experienced serious smog problems already this year despite a lot of rain in typically smog-plagued areas.
In June alone, unhealthful smog levels were monitored about 10 percent more often than in June 2005, based on an unofficial survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers.
Many of the worst problems were in California, Texas and the Southeast. Rain put a damper on potential problems in the Northeast and much of the Midwest.
“Even though we’ve made great progress over the years in combating smog, this survey is evidence that we have a long way to go before we can breathe easy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“We need to move aggressively to clean up such big sources of smog as train and boat engines and make a better effort to clean up existing diesel engines,” O’Donnell noted.
“Our survey also underscores the need for the U.S. EPA to permit California to clean up high-polluting lawn mowers and other small engines, and for the EPA to move ahead with similar national emission standards,” O’Donnell said.
O’Donnell added that the Bush administration pollution plan for coal-burning electric power plants was “too little and too late.”
The survey of public web sites found monitored readings of dirty air in states from California to New Hampshire. In June alone, air pollution monitors recorded unhealthful levels of smog an estimated 1037 times, compared to about 950 in June 2005.
Dirty air haunted such popular “nature” areas as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Woodland Dunes Nature Center in Wisconsin, the Petrified Forest and the Botanical Gardens in the Bronx.
Details of the survey are available http://www.blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/
In June alone, unhealthful smog levels were monitored about 10 percent more often than in June 2005, based on an unofficial survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers.
Many of the worst problems were in California, Texas and the Southeast. Rain put a damper on potential problems in the Northeast and much of the Midwest.
“Even though we’ve made great progress over the years in combating smog, this survey is evidence that we have a long way to go before we can breathe easy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“We need to move aggressively to clean up such big sources of smog as train and boat engines and make a better effort to clean up existing diesel engines,” O’Donnell noted.
“Our survey also underscores the need for the U.S. EPA to permit California to clean up high-polluting lawn mowers and other small engines, and for the EPA to move ahead with similar national emission standards,” O’Donnell said.
O’Donnell added that the Bush administration pollution plan for coal-burning electric power plants was “too little and too late.”
The survey of public web sites found monitored readings of dirty air in states from California to New Hampshire. In June alone, air pollution monitors recorded unhealthful levels of smog an estimated 1037 times, compared to about 950 in June 2005.
Dirty air haunted such popular “nature” areas as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Woodland Dunes Nature Center in Wisconsin, the Petrified Forest and the Botanical Gardens in the Bronx.
Details of the survey are available http://www.blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/
Friday, June 16, 2006
Clean Air Watch reports on Ecotalk: good news on diesel, bad news on American Electric Power
http://www.ecotalkblog.com/
June 16, 2006
Clean Diesel Fuel
Frank O' Donnell, President of Clean Air Watch tells us about good and bad news related to air pollution and global warming. Good is the oil companies are going to start producing clean diesel fuel. Bad is the American Electric Power (AEP) company continuing to block any significant policy to deal with global warming. LISTEN (11 min)
June 16, 2006
Clean Diesel Fuel
Frank O' Donnell, President of Clean Air Watch tells us about good and bad news related to air pollution and global warming. Good is the oil companies are going to start producing clean diesel fuel. Bad is the American Electric Power (AEP) company continuing to block any significant policy to deal with global warming. LISTEN (11 min)
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Bush EPA Ignores Science -- and Recent Developments –In Reaffirming Pro-Industry Mercury Rule
(Washington, DC, May 31, 2006) – The non-profit Clean Air Watch today decried the Bush administration’s decision to reaffirm the bad, industry-friendly mercury air pollution rule initially set in March 2005.
“The Bush administration is ignoring science – and the obvious potential for better pollution cleanup,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“This is a classic case of the Bush administration harming the environment by currying favor with a powerful special interest – the coal-burning electric power industry. This decision means power companies can continue to pump this poison into the air for many extra years, unless states take swifter cleanup action,” O’Donnell noted.
The facts – and developments in the past year – demonstrate this rule is a gift to the industry, O’Donnell added.
When EPA first issued the rule, it claimed that no commercially available pollution controls were available to clean up poisonous mercury. Since that time, various commercial contracts have been announced – giving the lie to the EPA plan. (See some examples at http://www.adaes.com/)
When EPA first issued the rule, it also claimed that its “cap-and-trade” plan would be just dandy – and that local pollution controls weren’t needed – because most of the mercury was allegedly coming from somewhere else. Since that time, EPA has found (in a study of Steubenville, Ohio), that localized reductions in mercury emissions would lead to less mercury in the local environment – thus giving the lie to the cap-and-trade plan.
“The irony here is that the pro-industry Bush plan has triggered a rebellion by states,” O’Donnell said. He pointed to a story in CQ Weekly which noted that 21 states -- some with Republican governors, including New York, Maryland, Minnesota and Connecticut - have served notice to the administration that they will produce their own mercury cleanup plans.
“The Bush administration is ignoring science – and the obvious potential for better pollution cleanup,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
“This is a classic case of the Bush administration harming the environment by currying favor with a powerful special interest – the coal-burning electric power industry. This decision means power companies can continue to pump this poison into the air for many extra years, unless states take swifter cleanup action,” O’Donnell noted.
The facts – and developments in the past year – demonstrate this rule is a gift to the industry, O’Donnell added.
When EPA first issued the rule, it claimed that no commercially available pollution controls were available to clean up poisonous mercury. Since that time, various commercial contracts have been announced – giving the lie to the EPA plan. (See some examples at http://www.adaes.com/)
When EPA first issued the rule, it also claimed that its “cap-and-trade” plan would be just dandy – and that local pollution controls weren’t needed – because most of the mercury was allegedly coming from somewhere else. Since that time, EPA has found (in a study of Steubenville, Ohio), that localized reductions in mercury emissions would lead to less mercury in the local environment – thus giving the lie to the cap-and-trade plan.
“The irony here is that the pro-industry Bush plan has triggered a rebellion by states,” O’Donnell said. He pointed to a story in CQ Weekly which noted that 21 states -- some with Republican governors, including New York, Maryland, Minnesota and Connecticut - have served notice to the administration that they will produce their own mercury cleanup plans.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
With Congress set to vote, new government report on children calls for more, not less, reporting of toxic chemical releases
New Government Report on Children Underscores Folly of
Weakening Public Right-to-Know Standards for Toxics
(Washington, DC, May 17, 2006) – A new report on children and health, partly funded by the U.S. government, underscores the folly of weakening public right-to-know standards for toxic pollutants, the non-profit Clean Air Watch warned this morning.
The report, released this morning by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a North American environmental watchdog agency, examines the link between children’s health and toxic industrial pollution.
The report (available at www.cec.org) comes as Congress is about to debate efforts by the Bush administration to limit the public’s right to know about toxic releases by industry.
In contrast, the new study calls for efforts to better determine the sources, levels of exposure, and risks that industrial chemicals pose to children's health.
The report focuses on the releases of carcinogens, developmental and reproductive toxicants, and suspected neurotoxins, as reported by the U.S. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and a counterpart Canadian program. It finds that lead, mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans, phthalates and manganese are substances of either significant or emerging concern as they affect children and disease.
One report recommendation - to enhance mandatory pollution reporting requirements – “stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's plan to weaken the public’s right to know about toxic releases,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch.
The EPA has proposed to reduce the frequency of TRI reporting by industry to every other year as well as to allow companies to release ten times the amount of toxics before detailed reporting is required.
The Bush plan has prompted Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) to announce they will challenge the EPA rule when the spending legislation for the EPA reaches the House floor, probably later this week. They plan to offer an amendment to prevent the EPA from moving forward with these weakening changes.
In addition to ranking clusters of toxic chemicals according to volume of total reported releases, the new report also examines chemicals based on the relative levels of their toxicity.
Doing this makes some air pollutants such as mercury appear far more significant, O’Donnell noted. For example, in looking at chemicals that are recognized developmental and reproductive toxicants, mercury and its compounds jump from 14th in terms of total on-site air releases to number one in terms of toxicity; lead and its compounds shift from 7th to the second most toxic on-site air release.
O’Donnell noted it was ironic that the report was released on what the EPA has called “National Air Quality Awareness Week” – a label that has been lampooned by some critics because of administration efforts to weaken clean-air requirements.
Weakening Public Right-to-Know Standards for Toxics
(Washington, DC, May 17, 2006) – A new report on children and health, partly funded by the U.S. government, underscores the folly of weakening public right-to-know standards for toxic pollutants, the non-profit Clean Air Watch warned this morning.
The report, released this morning by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a North American environmental watchdog agency, examines the link between children’s health and toxic industrial pollution.
The report (available at www.cec.org) comes as Congress is about to debate efforts by the Bush administration to limit the public’s right to know about toxic releases by industry.
In contrast, the new study calls for efforts to better determine the sources, levels of exposure, and risks that industrial chemicals pose to children's health.
The report focuses on the releases of carcinogens, developmental and reproductive toxicants, and suspected neurotoxins, as reported by the U.S. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and a counterpart Canadian program. It finds that lead, mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans, phthalates and manganese are substances of either significant or emerging concern as they affect children and disease.
One report recommendation - to enhance mandatory pollution reporting requirements – “stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's plan to weaken the public’s right to know about toxic releases,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch.
The EPA has proposed to reduce the frequency of TRI reporting by industry to every other year as well as to allow companies to release ten times the amount of toxics before detailed reporting is required.
The Bush plan has prompted Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) to announce they will challenge the EPA rule when the spending legislation for the EPA reaches the House floor, probably later this week. They plan to offer an amendment to prevent the EPA from moving forward with these weakening changes.
In addition to ranking clusters of toxic chemicals according to volume of total reported releases, the new report also examines chemicals based on the relative levels of their toxicity.
Doing this makes some air pollutants such as mercury appear far more significant, O’Donnell noted. For example, in looking at chemicals that are recognized developmental and reproductive toxicants, mercury and its compounds jump from 14th in terms of total on-site air releases to number one in terms of toxicity; lead and its compounds shift from 7th to the second most toxic on-site air release.
O’Donnell noted it was ironic that the report was released on what the EPA has called “National Air Quality Awareness Week” – a label that has been lampooned by some critics because of administration efforts to weaken clean-air requirements.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
New Report Underscores AEP Role in Global Warming Problem
NEW REPORT UNDERSCORES AEP ROLE
IN GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM
(Washington, DC, April 5, 2006) – A new report today by two non-profit groups underscores the major role played by Ohio-based American Electric Power in the global warming problem.
The report notes that AEP produces more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than any other power company in the nation.
The study was released one day after the company’s chairman, president and CEO Michael G. Morris appeared before a U.S. Senate panel and reiterated the company’s long-standing opposition to mandatory new limits on global warming pollution.
In stark contrast to AEP, some other big power companies have begun calling for mandatory greenhouse gas limits.
The report, “Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States 2004,” was released by the Ceres investor coalition, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Public Service Enterprise Group Inc (PSEG), one of the electric power generation companies included in the report.
The study notes that electric power companies are not only the biggest source of carbon dioxide in the nation, but are projected to be the fastest-growing. It also includes a detailed comparative analysis of the 100 companies.
“AEP carries the dubious distinction of being number one when it comes to creating global warming pollution,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch.
“Morris talks a good game about the problem, but when push comes to shove, he and his company stonewall any effort in Congress to require mandatory global warming pollution limits,” O’Donnell said. He noted that Morris argued in favor of so-called voluntary limits just yesterday in a global warming conference held by the Senate Energy Committee.
Ceres President Mindy S. Lubber noted today that “voluntary approaches for curbing greenhouse gas emissions are not working.”
The report notes that the top three power producers in the U.S. – AEP, Southern Company and the Tennessee Valley Authority – collectively produce nearly one-fifth of the carbon dioxide emissions from the top 100 companies.
It also points out the huge disparity in emission rates among the companies. For example, although AEP produced seven times more electricity than PG&E, the company was responsible for 109 times the CO2 emissions.
The full report is available online at http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/
IN GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM
(Washington, DC, April 5, 2006) – A new report today by two non-profit groups underscores the major role played by Ohio-based American Electric Power in the global warming problem.
The report notes that AEP produces more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than any other power company in the nation.
The study was released one day after the company’s chairman, president and CEO Michael G. Morris appeared before a U.S. Senate panel and reiterated the company’s long-standing opposition to mandatory new limits on global warming pollution.
In stark contrast to AEP, some other big power companies have begun calling for mandatory greenhouse gas limits.
The report, “Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States 2004,” was released by the Ceres investor coalition, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Public Service Enterprise Group Inc (PSEG), one of the electric power generation companies included in the report.
The study notes that electric power companies are not only the biggest source of carbon dioxide in the nation, but are projected to be the fastest-growing. It also includes a detailed comparative analysis of the 100 companies.
“AEP carries the dubious distinction of being number one when it comes to creating global warming pollution,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch.
“Morris talks a good game about the problem, but when push comes to shove, he and his company stonewall any effort in Congress to require mandatory global warming pollution limits,” O’Donnell said. He noted that Morris argued in favor of so-called voluntary limits just yesterday in a global warming conference held by the Senate Energy Committee.
Ceres President Mindy S. Lubber noted today that “voluntary approaches for curbing greenhouse gas emissions are not working.”
The report notes that the top three power producers in the U.S. – AEP, Southern Company and the Tennessee Valley Authority – collectively produce nearly one-fifth of the carbon dioxide emissions from the top 100 companies.
It also points out the huge disparity in emission rates among the companies. For example, although AEP produced seven times more electricity than PG&E, the company was responsible for 109 times the CO2 emissions.
The full report is available online at http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)