By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Mandy Warner, Climate and Air Policy Specialist for the Environmental Defense Fund:

Hundreds of thousands of babies are born in the U.S each year with enough mercury in their blood to impair healthy brain development. As they grow, these children’s capacity to see, hear, move, feel, learn and respond can be severely compromised.

Given all of the risks of mercury it is not surprising that I felt nervous as I stood waiting, this past summer, for my hair test results at the booth run by the National Institute for Minamata Disease at the International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant in Edinburgh, Scotland.

I feared that my then-seven-month-old daughter had somehow been exposed to potentially unsafe levels of the toxin and was still being exposed through nursing.

Then the researchers in the booth handed me a paper with my results and I had one of the lowest levels measured at the conference, they cheerfully announced.

After getting my results I was simultaneously relieved and frustrated. Frustrated because I  remembered the many times when I was pregnant that I was standing at the fish counter or looking at a restaurant menu and having to research on my smartphone which fish was safest for me and my baby and most sustainable for the environment. The benefits of eating fish while pregnant for the mother and child are significant, and it is important that pregnant women have lots of safe fish food options and not be scared away from eating fish altogether. But we have a lot of work to do to make sure mothers (and all consumers) do not have to be full-time researchers in order to make healthy and safe food choices. We must continue and expand our work to reduce emissions of toxic mercury pollution from all sources.

The scope and complexity of that challenge could be seen at this international conference, where hundreds of science, industry, academic, and policy experts from around the globe gathered to discuss, among other things, implementing an international treaty on mercury pollution.  The treaty is an important first step in reigning in global mercury pollution and will, for the first time, ensure countries that join take measures to reduce mercury air emissions from a variety of sources, like power plants. It will also reduce industrial and product use of mercury, address the supply and trade of mercury, and includes provisions regarding small scale mining. The treaty has been signed by about 140 nation-states. The U.S. signed the treaty in November.

At the conference I presented on the U.S. experience in regulating mercury from power plants and my colleague, Kritee, presented her research on how isotopic fingerprints can be used to find the influence of sunlight and microbes on the mercury content in water.

At the conference, Kritee and I also learned more about the international scope of the mercury problem. There were presentations on the exposure of small-scale gold miners (including women and children, who are more vulnerable to impacts from mercury) to the toxin. In the Arctic, mercury concentration in fish and wildlife are among the highest in the world even when there are no nearby major industrial sources due to mercury emissions that originate in distant places. Even consumption of rice grown in areas with high mercury content in soils and air is now understood to pose a significant threat as a pathway for mercury exposure. Finally, climate change itself is exacerbating emissions of mercury, as Kritee explains.

In the end, the conference was energizing and inspiring, though it’s clear that a tremendous amount of work remains if we are to tame the threat mercury poses. It’s also clear that the global nature of mercury emissions necessitates an international, cooperative solution to protect Americans and people around the world.

I was fortunate enough to be able to spend some time after the conference touring Scotland with my daughter and husband. Maybe someday, when she’s older, I’ll be able to tell my daughter about her trip to Scotland and a big scientific conference. Perhaps by then I will be able to talk about the mercury problem as a success story in which the nations of the world joined to successfully overcome a global environmental and health challenge.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Molly Rauch

A summary of recent research shows climate change will increase our exposure to mercury, a toxic heavy metal that threatens fetal growth and development and targets the brains of children.

Pregnant women hear a lot about mercury from their obstetricians, who emphasize the need to limit tuna consumption during pregnancy. New moms hear a lot about mercury from their pediatricians, who warn against feeding too much tuna to their toddlers. So moms know that tuna can threaten the health of fetuses, babies, and children.

What many moms don’t know is that most mercury in fish comes from coal fired power plants. Because coal contains trace levels of naturally occurring mercury, when it’s burned that mercury goes up the smokestack and into the atmosphere. Power plants can install scrubber technology to prevent this, but many still spew massive amounts of the pollutant into the air.

The mercury “cycle” – how mercury moves through our ecosystem – is a complex atmospheric, geologic, and biochemical process. And it’s precisely because of that complexity, that dependence on a myriad of other natural processes, that climate change will alter these pathways. What scientists are learning with their models of these cycles is that these pathways will change in ways that will worsen mercury pollution.

We are exposed to mercury largely through eating fish that have mercury in their bodies. So when scientists think about human exposure to mercury, they think about the amount of mercury getting into water bodies. Once mercury gets into the water, microorganisms can convert it into methylmercury, which fish absorb. When we eat those fish, we absorb it too.

How can climate change worsen mercury pollution?

• More mercury can get into the water from increased precipitation. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water, so rainfall may increase in some regions. Rain is what carries mercury out of the sky and makes it fall into the water. If rainfall increases, more mercury can be carried out of the atmosphere and into lakes and oceans.
• Increased rain can also increase the mercury falling on land, as well as the amount of runoff flowing into water bodies. This runoff will move more mercury from land sources into rivers, lakes, and oceans.
• Climate-related extreme weather events such as hurricanes and floods will increase soil erosion. More soil will be washed into water bodies. Because soil contains trace levels of mercury pollution, both naturally occurring and from human activity, there will be more mercury moving into water bodies from land sources.
• The thawing of the permafrost may release mercury locked in frozen northern soils into the ocean. Also, non-mercury components of the soil and organic matter that are released into the ocean as the permafrost melts will likely enhance the production rate of methylmercury in the oceans.
• Increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can alter the ocean ecosystem in ways that favor methylmercury production. Higher carbon dioxide levels can increase oxygen deficient zones in the ocean; this process can increase methylmercury production. This means that once the mercury is in the water system, it will be more likely to get converted into highly toxic methylmercury.
• Higher temperatures may increase the size of some fish. Because bigger fish accumulate more methylmercury in their bodies than smaller fish, there will be more of the toxic substance in these bigger fish.

If a changing climate increases our children’s exposure to toxic mercury pollution, it’s one more way in which climate change disproportionately harms children.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz (PA-13):

MCAF: What is unique about protecting Pennsylvania?

Rep. Schwartz: Pennsylvania is a large state that is blessed with a rich and diverse abundance of natural treasures. Our spectacular natural forests, rivers and mountain areas, including the Poconos and Allegheny National Forest, and our 120 state parks and 18 national parks showcase America’s cultural heritage and natural beauty. These natural wonders attract visitors from around the world and serve as important economic engines for Pennsylvania’s communities. The Commonwealth’s National Parks welcomed more than 8.7 million people last year and generated $325 million in economic benefits from tourism in 2011. We must protect our environment for future generations by preserving Pennsylvania’s pristine lands and other natural resources.

As a parent are you worried about the effects of climate change on your children and the children of Pennsylvania?

There is no question that climate change is real and that it is happening now. As a mother, a grandmother, and a member of Congress, I am deeply concerned by the harmful consequences climate change will have on our natural environment and the health, safety and economic well-being of the next generation. That is why I was proud to support comprehensive legislation to address climate change and supported investments in clean energy, both of which are vital to ensure Pennsylvania’s future economic growth and the health of our children.

Why is a bi-partisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

I have always worked across the aisle to find common ground on the most important issues facing our country. Everyone, regardless of their political views, depends on clean air and water, and access to safe, healthy food. The health and safety of our citizens is paramount. As stewards of Pennsylvania’s resources, we have an obligation to work across partisan lines to put in place policies that protect our citizens, defend our environment and encourage conservation, while creating jobs and expanding economic opportunity.

Is there anything you would like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know?

I would like to thank Moms Clean Air Force for all the great work you do to protect our environment and ensure our children are guaranteed their rights to clean air. I am proud of my work in Congress to protect our nation’s clean air and water laws, and make our communities more livable. I have consistently opposed measures that would restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to protect our nation’s air and have supported efforts to improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I helped write comprehensive energy legislation that would have repealed billions in subsidies for the oil industry and redirected those revenues into the development of renewable energy and energy conservation technologies. I will continue standing with Moms Clean Air Force in these critical efforts on behalf of our children and all citizens.

Thank you, Rep. Schwartz!

About Rep. Schwartz: U.S. Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz is currently serving her fifth term representing Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District. The 13th District includes both the close-knit neighborhoods of Northeast Philadelphia and the first ring suburbs of Montgomery County. Schwartz currently serves on two committees in Congress: the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal tax policy, Medicare and Social Security. She is the only woman in Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation. Residing in suburban Montgomery County, Congresswoman Schwartz and her husband Dr. David Schwartz have been married for over 40 years. They are the parents of two grown sons and they recently became grandparents.

 TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This brief history of recent U.S. climate and clean air initiatives is written by Harriet Shugarman, Climate Mama:

Historically, and throughout most of my lifetime, fighting for clean air has been a non-partisan issue. In the early 1970’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established under the leadership of President Richard Nixon, a Republican, as too were the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The first international agreement to protect the atmosphere from man-made greenhouse gas pollutants, the Montreal Protocol, was conceived, fought for and came into force in 1989 under the leadership of President Ronald Regan, a Republican.

Polluted Politics

Bi-partisanship support has been successful in cleaning up our air and our water. Yet, over much of the lifetime of my two teenage children, fighting for clean air has taken on a decidedly partisan hue. To me, this makes no sense whatsoever, as pollution knows no physical boundaries. Whether you live in a “blue or a red” state, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, which are largely invisible to the eye, cannot be stopped by some “invisible state border.”

According to Moms Clean Air Force partner, the American Lung Association, my state, New Jersey, has some of the most polluted air in the country. My teenage son was recently diagnosed with asthma. Over the past 3 years, my Republican Governor, Chris Christie, takes the opposite direction of fighting to clean up our air and our clean water. He is actively fighting against enforcing legislation that would stop neighboring state power plants from emitting certain greenhouse gas pollutants. And he has vetoed bi-partisan state legislation that would stop neighboring states from being allowed to bring toxic fracking waste into my state.

Since the late 1980’s, the relationship between man-made greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and climate change has become incredibly clear. This is based overwhelmingly on scientific, fact base evidence, as well as evidence Mother Nature is presenting to us. At the same time, as this relationship has become more transparent, politics have began to play a key role in keeping solutions from being established and acted upon.

Let’s take a quick look at some of the landmark national and regional legislation created in recent years to curb greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants, and how these programs and policies are now taking on a partisan bent all around our country:

• Initially conceived in 2003 by a Republican Governor as a means of fighting “global climate change,” the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) formally began operations in 2008 with 10 northeastern states as part of the compact. This market-based initiative to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants has provided  $100’s of millions of dollars to member states to fund energy efficiency and green energy initiatives since it began operations. In 2011, without legislative approval, the Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, pulled his state (my state) out of the program.
• In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that man made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide endanger public health and were likely responsible for the global warming experienced over the previous half century. This ruling gave the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The case, which established this ruling, known as Massachusetts vs. the EPA, was initiated under the leadership of then Mass. Governor Romney, a Republican, on behalf of 12 states and several cities to force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. In late 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge on this ruling in early 2014.
• In 2012, the State of California launched a cap and trade program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In 2013, the program became enforceable with mandatory obligations. California, which has a Democratic Governor, is working with four Canadian provinces as part of the Western Climate Initiative  (WCI) to develop a harmonized cap and trade program that will deliver cost-effective emission reductions. Over its history the WCI has had the participation of 6 other states but California is currently the only remaining state to be part of this initiative.
• In 2013, the Governors of California, Oregon and Washington (all Democrats), joined by the Premier of British Columbia, established the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy. They’ve agreed to: account for the cost of carbon, implement low carbon fuel standards, and embrace clean energy. This agreement however is not binding.
• In December 2013, Eight Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require upwind states to reduce air pollution generated within their borders, which have been proven to cause asthma attacks, respiratory disease, and other public health problems downwind. These states are all part of the Ozone Transportation Commission (OTC) which is a multi-state organization created under the Clean Air Act. The OTC brings together 12 states from Virginia to Maine to coordinate reductions in air pollution that benefit the whole region, in addition to the District of Columbia. The four states that did not join the recent petition to the EPA are all headed by Republican Governors – New Jersey, Maine, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

While we wait for our political representatives to be “good neighbors,” let’s continue to remind them: clean air is NOT, nor should it be a partisan issue. Parents need ALL political persuasions to join us in fighting for clean air and a clean energy future for ALL of our children!

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Allegheny County Controller, Chelsa Wagner:

MCAF: What is unique about protecting Allegheny County’s resources?

Controller Wagner: During the 20th Century, the natural resources of Allegheny County together with its hard-working residents caused the area to be known as the “Workshop of the World.” Now, in the 21st Century, Allegheny County is poised to benefit from natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale formation. Our pressing challenge is how to leverage our natural gas resources in a way that benefits all residents of Allegheny County, not just the gas drillers. Our challenge is to maximize the value of our resources while protecting our environment, particularly our many rivers, streams and creeks. It is imperative for leaders in Allegheny County to seek to maintain the quality of life of our region, and not be distracted by ephemeral prospects of short-term jobs and one-time payments. As I look around the country and the world, there are numerous examples of places that have adopted a holistic, long-range view of their natural resources, using those resources as a spring-board to sustained growth and the viability of their communities and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, there exists an equal, if not larger, number of places where mineral extractors and drillers have come in, benefited from weak regulatory schemes and a political class all too eager to accept their money, and then left the area in a worse condition than when they found it. Allegheny County needs responsible regulations and smart growth. Here in Pennsylvania, our state government under the Corbett Administration has abdicated many of its responsibilities of environmental stewardship. Because of this vacuum, Allegheny County must take the lead to vigilantly protect the interests of its citizens and future generations.

As a parent are you worried about the effects of climate change on your children and the children of Allegheny County?

Yes. What is even more worrisome beyond the effects of climate change is that many politicians in Pennsylvania (and America) continue to deny that climate change is caused by human action or that it has even occurred. Given the scientific evidence, the fact that we still need to debate and defend climate change is a startling and scary proposition. As a mother of two young children, this leaves me very concerned for their future and the future of people everywhere. It is all the more troubling because right now, as I write this, there are simple projects and policies that if implemented, would yield large, long-term dividends in terms of staving off the worse effects of climate change. Dealing with climate change immediately is not just an ethical imperative, but it makes good economic sense. Not just from the standpoint of preventing the increased storms and disasters associated with climate change, but also through growing “green” jobs and industries that can employ our children while at the same time securing our future. It is sad and tragic to think of the histories that will be written in the year 2113, when our generation will be viewed as the generation that could have done something but instead stuck its collective head in the sand. We still have time to re-write this history, but the clock is ticking.

Why is bi-partisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

As a former State representative, I know first-hand how important bi-partisan efforts can be to the success of any legislative action. What it takes are leaders on both sides of the aisle. It also takes an active, involved citizenry to communicate to all elected officials that the health of our planet is not a partisan issue. I submit that regardless of your political affiliation or ideology nobody wants to live in a place with water they cannot drink, air they cannot breathe and natural spaces they cannot enjoy. Certainly the elected leaders who consistently vote against environmental protections do not live in garbage dumps, and neither do their constituents. There are times within our recent memory where environmental legislation has received bi-partisan support. After all, it was Richard Nixon who created the EPA by executive order.

Taking action for the environment is not just about more regulation or saying “no” to development, it is also about saying “yes” to creating new industries, growing jobs, building communities, saving money on our healthcare, and still maintaining our existing industries. And to this point, we need to show and convince folks in our region that we can protect their jobs and livelihoods while also protecting the environment. Solutions need not and cannot be mutually exclusive. The technology exists. But what we really need is the commitment and will of our elected leaders, and the continued advocacy of groups like Moms Clean Air Force to ensure that environmentalism makes sense to everyone without respect to ideology or party affiliation.

Is there anything you would like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know?

Beyond what I have said above, I would like other moms to remember that it is important to examine our actions on a daily basis, since those actions will influence the belief systems of our children for years to come. We need to ask ourselves, are our daily actions consistent with our beliefs of sound environmental stewardship? Simple actions that we take through recycling, our purchases at the grocery store, turning-off electrical devices and using rain barrels, to name but a few, raise the awareness of our children and offer them a great starting point to become mindful, responsible global citizens.

Thank you, Controller Wagner!

About Controller Chelsa Wagner: As the County’s top fiscal officer, Controller Chelsa Wagner leads the fight against inefficient and inequitable spending, working to root out fraud, waste and abuse in County government. Between 2006-2011 Chelsa represented southern and western neighborhoods of the City of Pittsburgh and South Hills suburban communities in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Chelsa was raised in the South Pittsburgh neighborhood of Beechview and now resides in the city’s North Point Breeze neighborhood with her husband and their two sons.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This post was written by William McMullin for OpEd News:

We need to get to work on promoting clean energy. Clean energy is more sustainable and reliable than fossil fuels, requires the same daily planning for grid operators, and keeps energy prices stable.

Michigan predominantly gets its energy from coal and natural gas. Coal causes environmental harm from its mining to its burning. Pollution resulting from coal includes fly ash, bottom ash, mercury, and other harmful materials. The use of coal causes many negative health effects such as respiratory problems, asthma attacks, cancer, etc.  Coal is believed to shorten the lives of about 24,000 Americans a year ["Thousands of Early Deaths Tied to Emissions," June 9, 2004, nbcnews.com].

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” wastes exorbitant amounts of water from the Great Lakes and blasts chemicals into the environment and our drinking water. Michigan does not even require companies to disclose which chemicals they use. Fracking not only contaminates our groundwater, it also pollutes our air and causes surface contamination from spills.

Michigan is already on track to achieve 10% of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. A recent report by Michigan’s Public Service Commission concluded the state’s utility companies could get 30% of energy from renewable sources economically and reliably by 2035 ["Michigan Can Triple Its Wind, Solar Energy Production by 2035, Report Finds," Detroit Free Press, September 20, 2013].  A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows it is possible for renewable energy technology that we already have today to make up 80% of our electricity generation by 2050 [nrel.gov].

While it’s true the wind isn’t always blowing and the sun isn’t always shining, all forms of energy — including fossil fuels and renewables — poses challenges to the energy grid. The grid operators have to be able to switch to other or additional power plants at a moment’s notice if there is a surge of power use, power outages, planned maintenance, etc. Renewable energy causes no more planning and spontaneous changes to the grid than coal or natural gas. In fact, renewable energy has its benefits. Coal-burning power plants are so large that they make the grid less flexible and more prone to cause blackouts when they do go offline.

To further improve reliability of renewable energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a federal agency that regulates the transmission and wholesale sale of energy, is working on new ways to manage the grid. For instance, using different sources of renewable energy over a larger geographic area creates better balance on the grid. If the sun isn’t shining is one geographic area, it is in another. This can be achieved by upgrading our transmission lines to handle transmission over a greater geographic area. New lines would also increase energy transportation efficiency, allow the implementation of large scale use of renewables, and lower costs.

Renewable energy is also financially beneficial to consumers. Renewable energy prices are steadily dropping while prices of dirty fuels are rising and are very volatile. Rate stability would be very much welcomed by consumers in this economy.

Luckily, we as citizens can take action to promote renewable energy. We can contact our members of Congress to support the bipartisan Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, which would give renewable energy companies the same low-cost financing and tax benefits that fossil fuel producers receive. If this passes, it would open the floodgate for private investment. We also need to ask Congress to extend the clean energy tax credits expiring at the end of the year.

We need to submit public comments to the EPA stating that we support the EPA’s new proposed strong standards to reduce power plant carbon emissions. When writing to the EPA, mention docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, and remind them about the importance of increasing renewable energy as a way to cut carbon pollution.

If we work together, we can make a clean, energy-secure future possible.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Katy Farber

As I reflect on 2013, with my kids shrieking joyfully in the background, I am reminded that massive change starts out slow. Back when I had my daughters in 2005 and 2007, we were just beginning to learn about BPA, flame retardants, phthalates, and other toxins. We knew about lead, but not all the places it lurked. Resources were few. Worried moms asked each other questions, looking for solid intelligent information that didn’t make them feel irrational or hyper-concerned.

A movement was born. Led by parents, nonprofit organizations, scientists, and children’s health advocates. It took years and years to build up awareness and momentum — with several victories along the way — coinciding with the rise of social media — and the amplification from the voices of regular people.

This year, toxics took center stage. Issues were brought forward by the media, and industry responded. Congress wrangled with attempts at meaningful toxics reform legislation.

Here are my picks for the top 8 environmental and toxic health stories of 2013:

1. Walmart announces it will phase out the sale of known harmful chemicals in cosmetics, children’s products and household cleaners. This is a major victory for the millions of shoppers who buy products at this mega shopping chain. We are eager to see which 10 chemicals are on this list (these haven’t been made public yet). This list is certain to make more waves, and will hopefully, propel other retailers to act.

Importantly, Walmart’s own brand cleaners will no longer contain toxic chemicals outlined by the EPA’s Design for the Environment program. This is a serious commitment to making their cleaning products more healthy for consumers.

The media covered this story and indicated that consumer and environmental health groups pressured Walmart to take this first step to protect consumers from toxic chemicals. This effort was led by our friends at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. The Mind the Store Campaign led the challenge. News resources such as USA Today, The Huffington Post are reporting that Walmart is making these changes because of pressure from consumer and environmental health advocates (read: all of us!).

2. Procter and Gamble to remove toxic chemicals (triclosan and phthalates) from all products. This is a huge win for public health! Procter and Gamble brands include Cover Girl, Tide, Crest and Ivory. The chemicals will be removed from all cosmetics, household cleaners and fragranced products. This was led by our partners, Women’s Voices for the Earth. And the chemicals will be removed as of right now!

Phthalates are commonly found in personal care products, perfumes, children’s lunch boxes and backpacks, as well as building materials and they have been linked to birth defects, asthma, neurodevelopmental problems in newborns, fertility issues and obesity. Triclosan is a chemical commonly added to products like toothpaste, antibacterial soaps, cleaning supplies, cosmetics, cutting boards and school supplies. It is known to cause hormone disruption.

3. On the heels of the Walmart decision, Target announced its own new sustainability standards which will include a rating system for all products; analyzing sustainability, ingredient disclosure, and known harmful chemicals. According to Greenbiz.com,

“Target’s Sustainable Product Standard establishes a product scoring system for household cleaning, personal care, beauty and baby care products (with cosmetics to be added in 2014). These product categories will be scored on five attributes: ingredients (50 points), transparency (20 points), animal testing (5 points), packaging (20 points) and water quality (5 points). The scoring system does not set requirements for suppliers. Instead, Target, in its words, will “learn with our vendors how to improve our entire selection of products.”

4. Congress considers toxic chemical reform of the ancient TSCA law. Our current law grandfathers over 80,000 chemicals in commerce that have never been tested for safety. Even asbestos has not been banned! Congress held a series of hearings on this subject, and parents, scientists, and health advocates spoke passionately about the harmful effects toxic chemicals are having on families. This is an issue that is NOT going away — even as the bill is stuck in Congress. This is the farthest we’ve come — and we will continue the pressure until chemicals and products are proven safe before they are sold, and vulnerable populations are protected.

5. President Obama announced a new plan to combat climate change. President Obama was the first American president to frame climate change in terms of public health — especially children’s health. He said:

”Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants. But here’s the thing: Right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air. None. Zero. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free. That’s not right, that’s not safe, and it needs to stop.”

In fact, public health is a primary goal of President Obama’s climate change plan. Climate change causes increased rates of asthma, higher rates of flooding — damaging water quality, and excessive heat waves –driving up food prices. Cutting carbon pollution will help keep our air and water clean and protect our kids.

6. EPA takes a leadership role on health and listens to families. The EPA has been moving forward with several rules to protect health despite pressure from many industries, including the polluting coal industry. Moms Clean Air Force has a Twitter chat with EPA administrator Gina McCarthy tomorrow, January 8th, from 2-3pm. EPA is showing us that it is listening to moms and is taking action to protect health in the face of coal industry lobbyists.

7. New Nutrition Standards for school snacks. As part of a movement started in 2012, led by first lady Michelle Obama, school lunches and food are getting healthier. With 1 in 3 people in the United States considered obese, these standards couldn’t come soon enough. Soda, candy, and chips are no longer an every day item in schools. Schools have new rules for lunches, too — to offer more fresh fruits and vegetables and whole foods. While not perfect, these rules are a step in the right direction to help children make healthier choices.

8. Safe Cosmetics And Personal Care Products Act introduced in Congress. This bill is designed to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients and that all ingredients are fully disclosed. Currently, the FDA has no power to recall products with harmful chemicals or demand safety assessments. This act will phase out the use of chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm, require full ingredient disclosure, create a healthy standard for vulnerable populations (pregnant women and children), and protections for cosmetics workers. To learn more and take action in supporting this bill, visit our friends, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

2014 is our year! It is time for full reform of our toxic chemical laws. We also need quick decisions based on independent studies about known harmful chemicals in products. If last year is any indication, change is coming. Industry is responding. Now it is up to our government.

What issues are most important to you in 2014?

URGE YOUR SENATOR TO STRENGTHEN THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

By Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Pittsburgh City Councilwoman, Natalia Rudiak:

MCAF: What is unique about protecting Pittsburgh’s resources?

Councilwoman Rudiak: As Pittsburgh’s economy has changed, we’ve wisely moved toward balancing our economic well-being with our environmental well-being. While we have made enormous strides in addressing both its air and water issues, we still have quite a long way to go.

Fortunately, I and other local leaders have learned from our checkered past and are now focusing on the intersection of sustainability and economic success. We’re emerging as a leader in green building, sustainable infrastructure, LED technology, and more. Beyond this, Pittsburgh has the good fortune of being located at the confluence of two beautiful rivers. Properly caring for these waterways is Pittsburgh’s ticket to a healthy 21st century economy.

Are you worried about the effects of climate change on the children of Pittsburgh?

Much of my job consists of attempting to roll back the negative impacts of decisions made by past generations of legislators and planners. For example, highways cutting off neighborhoods from one another were an unintended consequence of mid-20th century suburban sprawl. The impacts of global warming on following generations may be far more dramatic and difficult to roll back.

I worry that we may be saddling future generations of Pittsburghers, and children all over the world, with insurmountable environmental and financial problems. The repercussions for our inaction will not be “unintended” or “unforeseen” — we already have the information on climate change’s frightening impacts.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important, and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

Fortunately, bipartisanship is often a given on the local level, because our day to day issues less obviously fit into neat ideological boxes. Unfortunately, the partisan culture and resulting political inaction of Washington has a truly negative impact on the resources available at the City and County levels. This is where we are often are tasked with the infrastructure issues, health problems, and extreme weather events that climate change manifests. Of course, these problems will only become less predictable and more expensive as time passes. Therefore, significant bipartisan action is imperative to truly address climate issues seriously on a grand scale.

Thank you, Councilwoman Rudiak!

About Councilwoman Rudiak: Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak represents Pittsburgh’s fourth district on City Council, covering the neighborhoods of Carrick, Overbrook, Bon Air, Brookline, and Beechview.

 TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Marcia G. Yerman

Every new year promises a fresh start, and that includes the landscape for the environmental agenda.

Yet, before looking forward, it must be noted that the first session of the 113th Congress was dismal. Rep. Henry Waxman addressed the situation in his report analyzing the anti-environmental voting record of House Republicans.

His summary outlined that House Republicans had led initiatives to vote for anti-environmental positions 109 times. This overlapped with the 51 votes cast to benefit the gas and oil industries — to the detriment of public health. Examples from the report included:

• House Republicans voting to weaken the Clean Air Act (CAA), while blocking efforts to improve America’s air quality a total of 20 times.
• House Republicans voting to obstruct federal efforts to curb carbon pollution and prevent the dire effects of climate change. This included a resolution to prevent the EPA from considering the damage caused by carbon pollution and climate change in agency rulemaking.
• House Republicans voting 27 times to cut the funding for clean energy and energy efficiency, while simultaneously dragging their feet on carrying out policies to cut energy use and switch to cleaner energy.

So with this record in the rear view mirror, will the EPA make any traction on their upcoming regulatory agenda?

The EPA regulatory agenda puts forth an “overview” of their goals, while referencing their forty-year mission of “working to protect people’s health and the environment.” They underscore that “science, law, and transparency” will be the foundation for their actions.

For 2014, the general summary points to the necessity of dealing squarely with climate change; the urgency of improving air quality; being proactive on chemical safety and toxins; employing a plan to fully engage communities that have been underserved due to a lack of environmental justice.

The following are key points in the EPA plan to work toward a “sustainable” future:

• Under the umbrella of the Clean Air Act, pushing forward to put into play “greenhouse gas standards.” This covers both stationary and mobile sources.
• Getting regulations for power plant “greenhouse gas emissions” into place. Finalizing previously proposed standards for “new electric power plants.” Outlining standards for greenhouse emissions from “existing and modified power plant sources.”
• Bringing compliance to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—in all areas of the country.
• Achieve a final ruling on Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards, which will reduce air toxins, including particulate matter and NOx.
• Taking on a review of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) program. The EPA should be putting forth new rules that will re-examine the current MACT standards overseeing Petroleum Refineries, to ensure that the standards being followed implement the most up to date technology.
• The EPA has been studying the impact of fracking on drinking water by analyzing the five individual phases of the process. The study is scheduled to be released in 2014. In December of 2012, a progress report was made public, introducing the areas that have been studied. Appendix A addressed the chemicals that have been “identified in fracking fluids and fracking waste water.”
• Covering a wide spectrum of concerns regarding toxins and chemical safety (from cosmetics and home products to formaldehyde in composite wood products), the EPA will continue to identify, examine and assess regulations to protect Americans.
• The EPA will make a concerted effort through an Environmental Justice strategy to focus on communities that have been overlooked, via their Environment Justice program. They will also move forward on the Native American Affairs Council, which was created by President Obama via an Executive Order in 2013.

Based on the track record of House of Representatives, it’s going to take a lot of determination to ensure that the efforts of the EPA aren’t stymied. This is why it is so important Moms Clean Air Force members make their voices heard and tell officials know where they stand! Start this week by signing up a Virtual Town Hall event with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, on January 8th (Wednesday). READ about it HERE. SIGN UP to ASK QUESTIONS and win prizes HERE. Thank you!

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Liza Donnelly

Please READ our free CARTOON EBOOKS!

CLIMATE CHANGE CARTOONS

ASTHMA GOES TO COLLEGE

CLEAN AIR CARTOONS

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Dominique Browning

The Heat Is On!

All year, our beloved Moms Clean Air Force cartoonists Danny Shanahan and Liza Donnelly give us something to smile about – even when the subject is as serious as climate change.

Maybe especially when things are that serious – we welcome a gentle touch.

And yes: I believe that humor moves hearts as effectively as fear. A light-hearted chuckle goes a long way.

Please share our free Holiday Cartoon Climate Change ebook with anyone you think needs a laugh.

Here’s to a year ahead of Informed Optimism: Moms’ slogan for 2014! Cheers! Have a happy, safe and loving holiday season.

HOLIDAY CARTOON CLIMATE CHANGE EBOOK!

PLEASE TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Danny Shanahan

Do you know what your state’s renewable energy grade is? According to Brandon Baker for MCAF partner, EcoWatch:

Solar and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) recently published report cards grading each state on policies related to net metering and interconnection—two measures that are critical in utilities allowing people to generate their own power.

California, Massachusetts, Oregon and Utah each received “A” grades in both categories of the seventh annual Freeing the Grid report. Only six states got an “A” in interconnection, including those four.

These policies have long been the foundation of strong state solar markets, and that’s more true today than ever before,” Vote Solar’s Rosalind Jackson wrote in a statement. “Solar is increasingly affordable and incentive programs are winding down in many states … It’s critical that we keep the way clear for more Americans to generate their own solar power. Strong net metering and interconnection procedures at the state level do just that.”

About two-thirds of states got an A or B on net metering, which is defined by Vote Solar and IREC as a policy that ensures renewable energy customers receive full credit on their utility bills for clean power they put back on the grid. Washington DC and Minnesota both improved their net metering grades compared to last year, while no states declined since 2012.

“These policies allow individuals, businesses, schools and others to connect renewable energy systems to the grid under transparent terms and receive a fair credit for excess energy they produce while following practices of safety and reliability,” IREC CEO Jane Weissman said.

Interconnection are rules that an energy customer must follow to be able to plug their renewable energy system into the grid, Jackson said.

“This process should be straightforward, transparent and fair,” she said. “Our Freeing the Grid interconnection grading methodology was updated for 2013 to reflect current best practices.”

The report singled out three states for worst practices—Arizona, Colorado and Idaho. Utilities in each of those states made proposals in 2013 to weaken net metering and/or assess new charges on customers who want to go solar. There were three “F” grades between the two categories—Oklahoma and Georgia in net metering and South Carolina in interconnection.

“We are in the midst of a transition to the era of mainstream renewables that gives Americans control over their power supply and energy bills like never before,” Jackson said. “[The report] is designed to help policymakers and other stakeholders make better sense of best practices and what needs to be done in their own state to clear the way for a 21st-century approach to energy.”

Wouldn’t you agree now is time to get renewable energy on every state’s wish list?

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Molly Rauch

When extended family gets together over the holidays, dinner conversations can sometimes be awkward – such as when your uncle from South Carolina talks politics with your niece from the Bay Area. When thorny questions about climate change arise over your Christmas ham, we’ve got you covered!

1. Is carbon dioxide actually bad for you? No. Carbon dioxide is what we humans (and all animals) breathe out. It is essential for plant life. But carbon dioxide has been in a specific concentration in our atmosphere – within the range of 170 to 300 parts per million – for 800,000 years. Suddenly, in the brief couple hundred years since the industrial revolution, that concentration has shot up. This is largely due to our burning fossil fuels for energy. Our atmosphere now contains 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Although carbon dioxide itself is not bad for us, too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to global warming – and that, my friends, is most certainly bad for all of us.

2. How can carbon dioxide be called “pollution” if we breathe it out every day? Pollution is a process that makes any aspect of our environment – our land, air, water, or homes – dirty, unsafe, or unsuitable. Scientists are united in their understanding that our unprecedented and ever-rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are already causing life-threatening changes to our climate. Carbon dioxide emissions are making our planet unsafe for us and, most importantly, our children.

3. What is President Obama’s Climate Plan and will it actually help? In June, 2013, President Obama released a “Climate Action Plan” to reduce our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. The plan lays out how the US can reduce its carbon emissions by 17% compared to 2005 levels. The plan relies solely on Obama’s executive powers – thereby sidestepping Congressional involvement. (Congress proved not up to the task of facing our changing climate during the epic fail of the 2010 climate bill.) The most important action in the plan is – drum roll please – limiting carbon emissions from power plants. Because power plants account for 40% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US, implementing a system that meaningfully and swiftly reduces these emissions is the single most important thing that our government can do to limit climate change. That’s not to say it’s easy. Or that it won’t be blisteringly controversial. But it will, most certainly, help.

4. Isn’t limiting carbon emissions going to wreck our economy? Tackling global warming can improve our economy, and this isn’t just a pie in the sky prediction. It’s already happening in the states that are participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multistate program in the Northeastern US and Eastern Canada that aims to limit greenhouse gas emissions through a carbon emissions market. RGGI has been auctioning emissions permits since 2009, and plowing the earnings into efficiency and renewables – two crucial strategies for addressing climate change. And how do the economies of these states fare under the program? Swimmingly. According to a report from Environment America, “Between 2000 and 2010, the economies of the RGGI states grew twice as fast per capita as non-RGGI states while cutting carbon dioxide pollution 25 percent faster per capita.” Nationwide, in the past five years, we’ve seen a decline in carbon dioxide emissions even while our national economy is growing, albeit slowly. And what will climate change cost our country if we don’t act to limit carbon dioxide emissions? We can expect a wrenching toll on our nation’s economy, ranging from infrastructure damage to reduced crop yields to staggering insurance costs. It’s a win-win to act now.

5. Why should we do something about this if other countries are going to continue to emit greenhouse gases? Many other countries have already taken important steps toward limiting carbon dioxide emissions, such as taxing carbon and pouring significant resources into renewables, that the US has yet to take. Meanwhile, the US emits more carbon dioxide than all countries but China, despite vastly different population sizes. Per capita, US emissions of carbon dioxide are among the highest in the world, almost four times those of China. As a nation, we therefore have an outsize share of the global carbon dioxide burden while having done significantly less than other countries to address it. It’s not fair. Plus, we need strong US leadership in order to solve this problem globally. And for the US to have the credibility it needs to lead effectively, we need to make progress on reducing our own emissions.

6. Where is our energy going to come from? First, we can make huge improvements in energy efficiency, across all phases of energy production, transport, and use. A 2009 government summary of the research concluded that we could reduce our economy-wide electricity consumption by 20% through efficiency measures alone. That means getting all the same stuff we already rely on – warm homes, light bulbs, charged smartphones, air conditioning, hot showers, convenient transportation – with less energy. And as we improve our energy efficiency, we spend less money buying electricity and gas, leaving more money in our pocketbooks and our economy. Second, we can scale up renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which have already been rapidly expanding – but there’s lots of room for them to grow. Some scientists have developed a plan to power the world on solar, wind, and water energy alone, proposing concrete steps to leave behind all carbon emitting energy sources within decades. It can be done, as long as we recognize the problem of carbon pollution.

7. Are renewables really ready for prime time?  Yes. Wind, solar and other sources like geothermal energy are expanding rapidly. Costs are falling. Renewables are gaining market share. Thirty-one states (and my city, the District of Columbia) have enacted energy standards for the power sector, increasing demand for renewables. Importantly, we don’t have to pick what low-carbon energy sources should prevail. So long as we stop letting power producers freely dump carbon pollution into our atmosphere, the innovators and the market can figure out what are the least expensive low-carbon sources of electricity.

8. How will this affect my children? Children are bearing the burden of climate change already, suffering disproportionately from the health effects that are already here: extreme weather injuries and displacements, malnutrition and hunger from crop disruption, respiratory problems from air pollution, and increased illnesses as disease vectors expand their range. And children will bear the burden of our changing climate in the future: this is the world they will inherit. It’s up to us to fight to clean it up.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Gretchen Alfonso

This is my favorite time of the year. Each night, after the last child has closed its eyes, I sit down next to our beautiful Christmas tree and think about the joys and challenges of the past year, and set goals for the year ahead. This past year has been challenging in so many ways, so I’m ready for 2014. I was energized when the director of Moms Clean Air Force, Dominique Browning, announced that her theme for 2014 is Growth & Optimism.

We are at a turning point in our history. At no other time has the human race seen such a tremendous shifting in the natural world. Extreme weather threatens our homes, drought in America’s heartland is raising the price of our groceries, and our children who are suffering from chronic illnesses such as asthma are finding that longer allergy seasons and poor air quality are affecting their everyday activities.

There is hope: Renewable energy and energy efficiency are proven and reliable sources of cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that are threatening our way of life. We have the opportunity in Pennsylvania, right now, to make a choice: Stay rooted in the past, a past that has relied on the burning of dirty fossil fuels for over a century, or, embrace growth, innovation, and the promise of a healthier and stronger Commonwealth.

I have hope that the President’s Climate Action Plan, outlined in June, will make great strides toward reducing carbon emissions in the U.S. I have hope that the upcoming gubernatorial elections in Pennsylvania will become a platform for a serious discussion of the state’s energy policy, the health of our communities, and the unsustainability of fossil fuel extraction. I have hope that the recent changes in municipal elections across the Commonwealth will yield new and exciting ideas for addressing climate change in our hometowns.

Gretchen and her kids by Tammy Bradshaw Photography

With recent news about dirty backroom deals and corporate lobbying dollars flooding the political landscape, it is easy to feel disenfranchised with the political system. It is easy to think that the dirtiest corporate polluters will win when they stand up in court and use my family’s hard-earned money to fight the very life-saving mercury standards that aim to protect my babies. It is easy to think that the promise of a large campaign donation will sway the “swing” votes as another election cycle looms over the horizon.

It is easy to think that the polluters will win until you realize that Moms have the greatest power of all – Love.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with South Euclid, Ohio City Councilwoman, Jane Goodman:

MCAF: What is unique about protecting South Euclid’s resources? 

Councilwoman Jane Goodman: We are a small, older, landlocked inner-ring suburb of a rust-belt city, so we have to balance what growth we can manage with retaining or improving what natural resources we can. We consider natural resources to be essential parts of our infrastructure, since they support the health and well being of our residents as well as our economy. If we have to lose some green in one place in order to raise revenue to pay the bills, we make sure that we’re replacing it with even more green in another, potentially better, place.

Are you worried about the effects of climate change on the children of South Euclid? 

Though I don’t have sons or daughters of my own, I am responsible for the well being of all the children in my constituency. I do worry that their generation will be left to deal with issues of bad air, water and food insecurity, and extreme weather events and their aftermath. And there are challenges we haven’t even talked about in the public arena, such as those that come as pests and diseases that might previously have been kept at bay by long winter freezes move north into areas that have no defense against them.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

It is important that both sides of the political divide agree to work together on this. When our children, and their children, are dealing with a lower standard of living and crises wrought by climate change, they won’t ask if their parents were Democrats or Republicans. They’ll ask why we didn’t do enough to protect them. Everyone needs clean air and water, shelter from storms, reliable healthy food production and delivery, clean affordable renewable energy, and protection from disease, no matter what our political positions may be on other matters.

If, in every decision, we ask the question “Is this going to help or hurt our children’s and future generations’ ability to live healthy lives?” Then we take the decision out of the political realm and make it nonpartisan altogether. My watershed organization does a lot of tree planting. Our volunteers come in all ages and all colors, and from all parts of the political spectrum, because planting a tree is giving something to the future. Some do it because it’s important to them that trees clean the air, or protect a stream from pollution, or can mitigate the effects of climate change. But most do it because it’s one thing they can do that they know will make a difference. When you can get a Republican and a Democrat together with two shovels to plant one tree, you’ve created a coalition.

Is there anything you’d like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know? 

Keep doing what you’re doing in developing advocacy efforts. Lead with your hearts and remind us to do the same. You have to tell us what the right thing is, and show us that if we do the right thing you will work with us and support us, and, if we don’t, you’ll elect someone who will. And then mean it. Sending all the letters in the world matters little if it’s not backed up at the polling place. Show them you have the votes, and vote the bad guys out of office.

About Jane Goodman:

Jane Goodman is entering her third term as a City Councilwoman in South Euclid, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland. She is also Executive Director of a nonprofit working to restore and protect the Cuyahoga River and northeast Ohio watersheds. She was previously Public Information Officer for the League of Women Voters of Cleveland Education Fund, working to get citizens engaged in government, and at Environmental Health Watch to get lead out of children’s homes. As a Councilwoman, she has brought her backgrounds in civics and the environment together, making her city the first in the region to establish an anti-idling ordinance to reduce the growing rate of childhood asthma. She sponsored legislation encouraging green infrastructure practices to manage stormwater, and has worked to replace vacant lots with community gardens. When faced with the prospect of a new big box retail center in her ward, she made sure it was built as a demonstration site for green practices, from native-plant bioswales to permeable paving to electric car charging stations, and a 21-acre park as well. She is currently working to update her community’s codes regarding alternative energy and urban agriculture.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This excerpt was written by Dan Leiber for EcoWatch:

There are many reasons to reject fossil fuels now, after 200 years of their reign as society’s primary energy source.

History will articulate both the benefits provided to human society derived from fossil fuel energy technologies from 1750 to the present—and the extensive costs.

In addition to transportation, electricity, industrial power, military and medical applications; fossil fuel technologies are also a core element behind war, political unrest, human rights abuses, extreme and permanent environmental degradation and human disease.

Perhaps the most important historical legacy of fossil fuels, however, will be their collective role as the chief protagonist behind what may be the most urgent long-term global crisis in human history: greenhouse gas–induced climate change.

It is my hope that this list, focusing on immediate public health risks (apart from climate change), serves as an adjunct to the myriad other reasons to end the use of fossil fuels—all of them—completely.

The ten “ingredients” listed in this article are not intended as an exclusive list. The major fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) each use hundreds, if not thousands, of chemicals—often not disclosed—many of which are highly dangerous to human health. Attempting a comprehensive list of all the harmful chemicals used willingly by the oil, coal and gas industries would be far beyond the scope of this blog series.

This article, rather, represents some of the more commonly cited toxic ingredients in the public literature; a starting point in reviewing the overall public health dangers inherent across the spectrum in all three major fossil fuel extraction industries: oil, coal and natural gas.

1. Benzene
2. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
3. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
4. Petroleum Coke (Pet Coke)
5. Formaldehyde
6. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
7. Mercury
8. Silica (Silicon Dust/Fracking Sand)
9. Radon
10. Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) / Hydrogen Fluoride

READ FULL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 10 Most Toxic Ingredients Used In Coal, Oil and Gas Production.

LEARN more about NATURAL GAS and COAL.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This is an exclusive Moms Clean Air Force interview with Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter:

MCAF: What is unique about protecting Philadelphia?

Mayor Nutter: Every city has its own unique set of challenges. For Philadelphia, we are particularly concerned about an increased number of high heat days and flooding. Being sited between two rivers – the Delaware and the Schuylkill – means that we also need to be thinking about the impact of storm surges along the rivers.

As a parent are you worried about the effect of climate change on your children and the kids in Philadelphia?

Absolutely. It’s no secret that those of us in elected office think (and talk!) all the time about making things better for the next generation. That is something that I am deeply motivated by: what can I do in my position to set Philadelphia on a positive trajectory? When I think about climate trends that very well may put public health and the health of our local environment at risk, that is deeply disconcerting to me. Already too many young people struggle with asthma. What would higher temperatures and more ozone action days mean for asthmatic kids in the future? There are many scenarios like that that worry me. Climate change presents a number of serious quality of life considerations that we all need to be focused on. But in the doom and gloom there is a great opportunity to do something. We can reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and create more green space and plant more trees to manage stormwater…the things that we can do now will not only make us more resilient, but will also help to create the kind of city we want to hand over to our children.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important in addressing our changing climate? How can these efforts be achieved in a politically polarizing culture?

Climate change will affect every community, regardless of how it votes or which party represents it, so we need to work in a bi-partisan effort. As more communities realize firsthand the effects of extreme weather – from the Jersey Shore last year to the tornado stricken towns of Illinois this year – we will continue to see public opinion shift and the political tides will no doubt follow. We don’t have time to waste disputing facts anymore, it’s time to come together to take action on what I believe is one of the most critical issues of our time.

Is there anything else you’d like to share with Moms Clean Air Force’s members?

Just because we hear a lot about the gridlock in Washington on this issue doesn’t mean that nothing is happening. Cities all across the country are taking the lead and are moving forward to implement both climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives.

Thank you Moms Clean Air Force. You’re doing great work, but please don’t let up on your outreach. We need advocates like you to keep the pressure on so that public support continues to fuel government action.

Thank you, Mayor Nutter!

About Mayor Michael A. Nutter: Recently re-elected to his second term as Mayor of his hometown, Michael A. Nutter has set an aggressive agenda for America’s fifth largest city – devising the City’s innovative school reform strategy, vowing to strengthen community policing through Philly Rising, a unique partnership between vulnerable neighborhoods and the City, and continuing to implement the nationally recognized GreenWorks Philadelphia initiative that is helping to make the City of Philadelphia become the greenest city in America.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Molly Rauch

Asthma is a childhood disease that affects one in ten American children – and even higher proportions of black and Hispanic children. Rates of the disease are on the rise: the number of people diagnosed with asthma grew by 4.3 million from 2001 to 2009.

Doctors don’t know why asthma is affecting more and more children. But they do know some of the things that trigger asthma attacks. These include smog and soot, diesel exhaust, and other components of outdoor air pollution. They also include chemicals in indoor air.

Chemicals that trigger asthma attacks are called “asthmagens.” Pediatricians often advise parents to remove these asthma triggers such as pet dander and dust mites from the home to improve children’s health – but asthmagens are also common ingredients of many interior finishes, like floors, carpets, and paints.

Because we spend 90% of our time indoors, the asthmagens in indoor air can have an outsize affect on our health.

A new report from the Healthy Building Network identified twenty asthmagens in building materials that have high likelihood of occupant exposure. By cross-referencing several authoritative lists of asthmagens with a database of chemicals in building materials, the group was able to identify chemicals in foam insulation, paints, adhesives, floors, and carpets that are high priority asthmagens.

It breaks my heart to learn that the very materials we use to construct our indoor environments contain chemicals that trigger asthma attacks. But it also paves the way for better asthma prevention strategies. For many of these chemicals, healthier alternatives exist. As builders (and their clients) learn what to look for, ask about, and avoid, we can help children breathe fewer of these harmful chemicals.

I asked the Healthy Building Network whether LEED standards, developed by the US Green Building Council to rate green buildings, address asthmagens. The answer is, not really.

According to Bill Walsh, Executive Director of the Healthy Building Network, “LEED doesn’t (nor does it claim to) have any asthma-focused credits — whether for asthma inducing or asthma exacerbating chemicals.” LEED does have a standard for harmful Volatile Organic Compounds, known as VOCs. But it may not be rigorous enough, or broad enough, to truly address asthma triggers.

LEED and other Indoor Air Quality certifications are designed to reduce occupant exposure to VOCs at concentration levels below those linked to cardiovascular, nervous system, or reproductive conditions. Since many VOCs may also exacerbate asthma, these certification systems have been used to address asthma. However, exposure levels for VOCs that protect against other diseases may not protect against asthma.

Additionally, many asthmagens are not VOCs. This means that some asthmagens can be in products that have earned low VOC-emissions certifications.

Says Bill Walsh, “We are confident the science supports paying greater attention to asthmagens as a class in the building industry, and also supports precautionary action with regard to avoiding asthmagens in building materials.”

URGE YOUR SENATOR TO STRENGTHEN THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

By Moms Clean Air Force

This excerpt was written by Tim McDonnell for the Climate Desk:

Most experts agree that slowing climate change is going to have to involve some kind of price on carbon dioxide pollution. Although the last attempt to pass a federal carbon price in the US failed in 2009, some of the world’s most-polluting companies haven’t let down their guard. A report last week from the nonprofit Carbon Disclosure Project found that 29 companies that operate or are headquartered in the US are planning for the future by using their own internal carbon price.

So how much do these companies think carbon pollution is worth? Not every company released a specific number, but we plotted those that did on the chart above. As you can see, there’s quite a broad range, with the price officially recommended by the Obama White House ($37 per metric ton of carbon) falling north of the middle. For comparison, we also included the current prices in British Columbia (which levies a flat tax) and the European Union (which operates a carbon credit-trading market). An oversupply of credits on the EU market has recently driven the price to record lows, below where most economists believe it can be effective in curbing emissions. But a decision yesterday by the European Parliament to slash the number of available credits is expected to drive the price up 35 percent over the next year.

For most companies, the purpose of adding a hypothetical carbon tax to their balance sheets is to prepare for what could become a significant expense in the future. This is especially true for energy companies that produce large amounts of carbon pollution and would therefore be hit hardest by a carbon price; ExxonMobil, with the highest reported internal price, is the world’s second-biggest corporate carbon polluter, while non-energy companies like Walt Disney and Microsoft reported lower internal prices. Zoe Tcholak-Antitch, a spokesperson for CDP North America and its former director, said working on the assumption of a high carbon price is “a very prudent approach” for big energy producers, because it builds a degree of flexibility into their budgets.

“ExxonMobil invests billions of dollars in energy projects which take decades to plan and execute,” company spokesperson Alan Jeffers said in a statement. “For the purposes of our business planning we assume that governments will continue to gradually adopt a wide variety of more stringent policies to help stem greenhouse gas emissions.”

In other words, the company isn’t actually shelling out $60 for each ton of carbon it emits, but the bottom line ExxonMobil brass see in revenue projections for the future accounts for the price as if it was. That way, if and when a price is set, the company’s balance sheet will be prepared to absorb even a relatively high new cost…

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES

By Laura Michelle Burns

As 2013 draws to a close, it’s been a wonderful experience to look back and see how the power of activism has made such a difference. As I read the emails Dominique sends to our members, I am proud to be a part of Moms Clean Air Force. I am also proud because families have rallied for the health of children, marching forward in states and on Capital Hill, to convince our leaders that clean air, safe chemicals and cleaner energy must be a priority.

Onward to 2014…

In my letter to Santa, I will ask him to keep offering the Midwest more renewable energy outlets. There are 12 states in the Midwest that were surveyed by the American Council on Renewable Energy (ALCORE) to investigate their renewable energy setups.

Looking around the Midwest, you’ll find that although we have more solar potential than the entire country of Germany, that country has got us far outpaced with solar energy. Renewable energy is becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels. This gives me hope that in the years to come, we will see Minnesota taking the lead in renewables. They currently have a law that requires that no later than 2025 — 25-31.5% of their electricity will come from renewable sources. This would not only put Minnesota in the lead, but also set a fine example for the rest of the country.

Santa (and Congress) needs to know that Ohio must continue it’s renewable energy efforts — more wind turbines and solar panels on homes. In the last two years, Ohioans have already added 30 megawatts of new solar generation!

Lesley Hunter, the lead author in ALCORE’s report, states:

“The past couple of years have seen an impressive increase in renewable energy sector activity throughout the American Midwest.”

Hoping Santa will share my holiday message to the coal companies. Even though we still rely on coal to power the Midwest, Hunter says,

“…the 12 states that comprise the American Midwest are home to nationally recognized bioenergy and wind energy resources…Furthermore, smaller-scale renewable energy sources are also experiencing growth in the region. Midwestern solar power capacity, for example, experienced a 150 percent jump in 2012.”

Change is in the wind…

Santa, as I write my Christmas thank you notes, I hope to be able to send a thank you to certain members of Congress for the gift of renewable energy and a reduction in carbon pollution. The holidays are the perfect time to say goodbye to dirty energy and naughty coal-loving politicians and hello to healthier children!

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION