By Rebecca Shaw

Credit: Flickr user Rory MacLeod

Here’s the challenge: we need to feed 9 billion people by 2050, yet if we continue with current farming practices agriculture could be responsible for 70 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions by that same year, according to an official at the World Bank.

So what do we do?

We can’t just point the finger at growers and tell them to solve the problem. This is a tall order – and it will require all hands on deck: food companies, suppliers, consumers, and producers. We all need to implement climate-smart agricultural approaches on a global scale to reduce emissions, increase resilience, and protect farmers’ livelihoods.

But climate-smart agriculture absolutely cannot become mainstream without more help from the private sector. We need corporations to invest in research and to make tangible changes to their supply chains.

This month, I will join a meeting of the newly established Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture to discuss this challenge. And for the first time, the private sector –agribusinesses, insurance companies, and food retailers – will be in attendance.

Bringing corporations to the table is a step in the right direction and I’m encouraged by this development – but we need more.

Why should companies care?

A recent analysis by Accenture found that U.S. supply chains are vulnerable and have high levels of climate risk.

This means companies are much more likely to experience rising costs of supplies, if not actual disruptions to supply. So, food companies have a vested interest in making sure their supply chains are resilient and sustainable, and acting now to do so.

Investing in sustainable food

As a World Bank advisor recently suggested, the private sector can provide financing to support research and the development of new programs and products that increase agricultural resilience in the face of climate change.

That’ll help not just the planet – but also shareholders interested in minimizing corporate risk.

Using fertilizer more efficiently

Companies can also optimize fertilizer use in their supply chains, since excess nutrients not absorbed by crops emit nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Here are several efforts already underway that are already reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture:

• Walmart asked its suppliers, major food companies, to develop and implement plans for fertilizer optimization and improved soil health in their corn, wheat, and soybean supply chains. To date, 15 major food companies representing 30 percent of the North American food and beverage market have responded and  EDF is working with Walmart to make sure that real change is happening at the farm level.
• General Mills, Murphy-Brown, and Unilever are also working with EDF to deploy fertilizer efficiency programs in their sourcing areas for their key commodity ingredients.
• United Suppliers Inc. is developing and deploying SUSTAIN, a fertilizer optimization and soil conservation platform that will help farmers optimize fertilizer use without sacrificing yield.

Making climate-smart agriculture the norm

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General believes that agriculture has a potentially large role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resiliency to climate change. I agree– but we can only get there if more food companies and leaders in the private sector step up to meet this challenge.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This post originally posted on EPA Connect: The Official Blog of EPA’s Leadership:

Our children mean the world to us. So as moms, when we say we must meet our moral obligation to leave the next generation a world that is safe and healthy, we mean it. For us moms, it’s personal.  It’s our children and grandchildren who are currently suffering from the effects of pollution. It’s our children and grandchildren who make up the future generations each one of us is obligated to protect. This March marks Women’s History Month; a time to recognize the unwavering strength of the mothers coming together to organize, speak out, and stand up for the health of their children.

EPA plays a critical role in protecting our children from pollution by keeping our air and water clean and safe, and by taking historic steps to fight climate change.  And it turns out, efforts to combat climate change double as public health protection, too. The carbon pollution that fuels climate change comes packaged with other dangerous pollutants that cause smog and soot. With 1-in-10 children in the U.S. today already dealing with asthma—and even higher rates in communities of color—we must do all that we can to reduce harmful exposure.

That’s why EPA’s effort to set first-ever limits on our biggest source of pollution, power plants, is so important. And EPA is proud to work with mothers like us around the country, compelled to action on behalf of our kids’ health—and the health of generations to come.

It’s with pleasure that we highlight the words of us moms who choose to bear the burden of fighting pollution and climate change, so our kids don’t have to bear a greater health burden if we fail to act:

Lisa Hoyos of Climate Parents: “Latino families, and communities of color more broadly, are disproportionately impacted by power plant pollution, and are strong advocates for clean energy. The Clean Power Plan will help to expand ‘kid safe, climate safe’ energy in all fifty states.”

Harriet Shugarman of Climate Mama: “It’s time once again for us to stand up, speak out, and demand action on what is clearly the defining issue and greatest challenge we will ever face, climate change. Addressing climate change must be central to all we say and do.”

Kuae Mattox of Mocha Moms: “As mothers of color, we know that our children and families are disproportionately affected by climate change and stand the most to lose. Many of our communities suffer from the devastating effects of being near coal-fired plants…The right to have clean air is as fundamental as any other right, and many of us won’t rest until we make better headway.”

Dominique Browning of Moms Clean Air Force: “Whether tackling issues of justice, power, civil rights, poverty, or education, women have been driving forces…. That’s why women are once again harnessing our power, our wisdom, our compassion — and yes, our love — to fight the climate pollution that is endangering the very future of human civilization.”

Eleanor Roosevelt once said “a woman is like a tea bag — you can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.” Climate change puts us all in hot water. We all see it. Many of our families feel it. Thanks to smart, strong women and moms coming together, we can be confident that we have what it takes to do something about it.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Moms Clean Air Force Washington, DC field organizer, Julie Hantman:

I may not be your top choice to blog about an environmental film festival. For years I was neither environmentalist, nor film buff.

Once I did write a $35 check to a big environmental group. I heard they were giving away a nifty canvas backpack. Back then I liked books, not movies. I guess that’s why I needed the backpack – to carry the books.

Anyway, decades passed: no more environmentalism, scant movie-going. I happily grew into my career as a public health advocate/activist.

Now life has changed. I am a late-to-life mother, and a late-to-life environmentalist.

I wear jeans at rallies, and suits to DC Council. Along with our incredible 450,000-strong national community of moms and dads, I do whatever I can as a mom who’s deeply concerned about the nexus of environment and health.

Because now I “get it” that success in tackling today’s environmental crises will greatly affect my young daughter’s health and well-being, her ability to help improve society beyond today’s set-point, and her ability to hope.

But that’s heavy stuff and sometimes you just need to sit and hear…see…a good story. There’s nothing like a movie to make you laugh and cry.

And there’s nothing like an environmental film festival to offer the fullest range of experiences: awe at nature’s beauty, anger at the challenges involved in protecting the planet, real learning – and hope.

So, if you live in the Washington, D.C. vicinity — please join me at The Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital on March 17-29. This is one of the top festivals of its kind in the nation. There will be 160 films screening at over 55 venues throughout the Washington metropolitan area. Most are free but require advance registration. Some are filling up fast. Check it out, at www.dceff.org.

The festival offers fresh perspectives on a wide variety of environmental issues facing our planet, with films from 31 countries and 96 Washington, D.C., U.S. and World premieres. This year the theme is Climate Connections.

And this year, Moms Clean Air Force is honored to be a media partner of the festival!

Most screenings include discussion with filmmakers, environmental experts and cultural leaders. Speakers will include environmentalist Jean-Michel Cousteau, climate scientist Joe Romm, actress Kristin Davis and Tommy Wells, the new Director of the District Department of the Environment. (And I’m no Kristin Davis, but guess who’s speaking after Project Wild Thing, on March 21st? Yours truly.)

There’s more: like Academy Award-winner Louie Psihoyos’ latest film, Racing Extinction, an urgent call to action to stop the global mass extinction of animal species… Silent River, about efforts to clean up Mexico’s polluted Santiago River… a retrospective by French director Luc Jacquet (March of the Penguins) and including his Work-in-Progress, Ice & Sky, about French glaciologist Claude Lorius’ 60-year study of climate change in the glaciers of Antarctic… and Filmmaker James Redford will show clips from his forthcoming film, Happening, telling positive stories about renewable energy solutions across the country. These are just a small sampling.

Plus bring the kids to the festival’s kid-friendly films. There’s even two flicks targeting parents: The Land, and Project Wild Thing.

See you at the movies!

JOIN MCAF

By EDF Blogs

By: Panama Bartholomy, Director of ICP Europe

The European Commission is putting its weight behind an initiative designed to increase private investment in energy efficiency, the Investor Confidence Project (ICP). ICP is accelerating the development of a global energy efficiency market by standardizing how energy efficiency projects are developed and energy savings are calculated.

In late February, the European Commission released a landmark report on energy efficiency in Europe that was 18 months in the making, and it had ICP all over it. The report, Energy Efficiency – the first fuel for the EU Economy, was issued by the Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group (EEFIG), a group of financial and energy efficiency leaders and building owners convened by the European Commission and United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative.

Earlier that same month, the European Commission awarded a €1.92 million grant to the European version of the project, ICP Europe. The grant will pay for a consortium of companies to:

• develop ICP’s project protocols for the European market;
• work with financial institutions to embed them into their financing process; and
• organize National Steering Groups in five countries: (Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Portugal and the U.K.) to take the protocols to markets in those countries.

To cap it off, the European Commission’s main energy website unveiled a new Financing Energy Efficiency webpage that listed ICP Europe as a recommended initiative; it was the only initiative listed not related to the European Commission.

We get it! We feel loved and trust us, it’s mutual.

Introduced in November 2014, Environmental Defense Fund’s ICP Europe has been gaining momentum among the European public and private sectors, and financial and engineering communities have recognized the need for the type of standardization offered by our Energy Project Protocols and professional credentialing system.

EEFIG (not an exotic Mediterranean fruit)

Comprised of more than 200 individuals from over 100 organizations, including Deutsche Bank, ING, Allianz, BNP Paribas, the European Property Federation, and EuroACE, EEFIG highlighted ICP six times in their report, calling us a “model initiative” and recommending that Europe develop a “standardization and performance tracking initiative (e.g. building on the Investor Confidence project) that supports the development of standard processes and open-sourced buildings energy usage database.”

EEFIG surveyed members of the group to identify the major drivers of energy efficiency finance supply and demand, and the survey showed standardization as the top driver for both supply and demand of finance, an issue at the heart of ICP’s efforts.

EEFIG also identified other drivers that are directly being addressed by ICP Europe, including “increased investor confidence and change in risk perception, transaction costs/ simplicity, measurement, reporting and verification and quality assurance, lender's approach to risk assessment, risk-return targets, availability of data, price of energy and the challenge of aggregating projects.” The ICP protocols and process provide clear pathways for developers, building owners and investors to address these exact issues.

Europe-specific protocols on the way

The EEFIG report went beyond identifying barriers to investment by offering a series of recommendations to government authorities and market players. The development of a European ICP was recommended as a specific “to-do” a number of times in the following sections: “Strong, Stable and Well-enforced Regulatory Framework,” “Clear Business Case, Leadership and Awareness at Key Decision Maker Level,” “Standardization,” “Development of Easy to-Use Standards for All Steps in EE Investment Process.”

The ICP Europe team will be working with members of EEFIG to implement the report’s recommendations by developing Europe-specific energy efficiency protocols, starting this May and working with EFFIG members to embed those protocols in building energy renovation programs around the European market.

For more information on ICP Europe, including how to take part in developing protocols and other tools, visit www.EEperformance.org/europe.

Image Source: Wikipedia

By EDF Blogs

By: Panama Bartholomy, Director of ICP Europe

The European Commission is putting its weight behind an initiative designed to increase private investment in energy efficiency, the Investor Confidence Project (ICP). ICP is accelerating the development of a global energy efficiency market by standardizing how energy efficiency projects are developed and energy savings are calculated.

In late February, the European Commission released a landmark report on energy efficiency in Europe that was 18 months in the making, and it had ICP all over it. The report, Energy Efficiency – the first fuel for the EU Economy, was issued by the Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group (EEFIG), a group of financial and energy efficiency leaders and building owners convened by the European Commission and United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative.

Earlier that same month, the European Commission awarded a €1.92 million grant to the European version of the project, ICP Europe. The grant will pay for a consortium of companies to:

• develop ICP’s project protocols for the European market;
• work with financial institutions to embed them into their financing process; and
• organize National Steering Groups in five countries: (Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Portugal and the U.K.) to take the protocols to markets in those countries.

To cap it off, the European Commission’s main energy website unveiled a new Financing Energy Efficiency webpage that listed ICP Europe as a recommended initiative; it was the only initiative listed not related to the European Commission.

We get it! We feel loved and trust us, it’s mutual.

Introduced in November 2014, Environmental Defense Fund’s ICP Europe has been gaining momentum among the European public and private sectors, and financial and engineering communities have recognized the need for the type of standardization offered by our Energy Project Protocols and professional credentialing system.

EEFIG (not an exotic Mediterranean fruit)

Comprised of more than 200 individuals from over 100 organizations, including Deutsche Bank, ING, Allianz, BNP Paribas, the European Property Federation, and EuroACE, EEFIG highlighted ICP six times in their report, calling us a “model initiative” and recommending that Europe develop a “standardization and performance tracking initiative (e.g. building on the Investor Confidence project) that supports the development of standard processes and open-sourced buildings energy usage database.”

EEFIG surveyed members of the group to identify the major drivers of energy efficiency finance supply and demand, and the survey showed standardization as the top driver for both supply and demand of finance, an issue at the heart of ICP’s efforts.

EEFIG also identified other drivers that are directly being addressed by ICP Europe, including “increased investor confidence and change in risk perception, transaction costs/ simplicity, measurement, reporting and verification and quality assurance, lender's approach to risk assessment, risk-return targets, availability of data, price of energy and the challenge of aggregating projects.” The ICP protocols and process provide clear pathways for developers, building owners and investors to address these exact issues.

Europe-specific protocols on the way

The EEFIG report went beyond identifying barriers to investment by offering a series of recommendations to government authorities and market players. The development of a European ICP was recommended as a specific “to-do” a number of times in the following sections: “Strong, Stable and Well-enforced Regulatory Framework,” “Clear Business Case, Leadership and Awareness at Key Decision Maker Level,” “Standardization,” “Development of Easy to-Use Standards for All Steps in EE Investment Process.”

The ICP Europe team will be working with members of EEFIG to implement the report’s recommendations by developing Europe-specific energy efficiency protocols, starting this May and working with EFFIG members to embed those protocols in building energy renovation programs around the European market.

For more information on ICP Europe, including how to take part in developing protocols and other tools, visit www.EEperformance.org/europe.

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written by Lori Popkewitz Alper

Most days, after my work day comes to a close, I quickly put on my mom aka chauffeur hat and driving responsibilities take over. Our schedule is busy and we end up spending a good portion of the late afternoon into early evening driving around in our car from activity to activity.

According to National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), the population of industrialized countries such as the United States and countries from the European Union spends approximately more than one hour each day in their cars. Whether it’s your work commute or driving your children to and from activities, that’s a lot of time spent in the car.

With the windows sealed tightly to keep the cold or hot air out, and the small, confined space, the toxic chemical exposure inside a car can be a major source of indoor air pollution.

Untested Chemicals Lurking in Our Cars

Our homes, schools, offices and even our cars are home to a plethora of untested chemicals. More than 80,000 chemicals available in the United States have never been fully tested for their toxic effects on our health and environment.

Car interiors are filled with a toxic soup of chemicals that off-gas from different parts of the car including the seats, steering wheel, dashboard and carpets. These chemicals make up that “new car smell” that we’ve either come to love or hate and can be a major contributor to indoor air pollution.

A few years back the Ecology Center tested more than 200 of the most popular 2011- and 2012-model vehicles for chemicals that off-gas. What they found was mind-boggling. According to Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center

“Research shows that vehicle interiors contain a unique cocktail of hundreds of toxic chemicals that off-gas in small, confined spaces. Since these chemicals are not regulated, consumers have no way of knowing the dangers they face. Our testing is intended to expose those dangers and encourage manufacturers to use safer alternatives.”

Some of these toxic chemicals are known carcinogens and endocrine disrupters. Many if not most of these chemicals have never been tested for safety, so we have no way of knowing their health impacts. Our bodies are bombarded with toxic chemicals every time we step into our cars, and there’s no regulation preventing it.

Some of the health problems linked to toxic chemical exposure include cancer, infertility, neurodevelopmental disorders, low birth weight, learning problems, birth defects, obesity, and asthma. Pregnant women, infants, and children are especially vulnerable to the health impacts of toxic chemical exposure.

And there’s more…

Those chemicals inside your car are more likely to be toxic when they are exposed to extreme temperatures such as heat. According to the Ecology Center study,

“Automobiles function as chemical reactors, creating one of the most hazardous environments we spend time in…”

There is some good news. In recent years automakers have been reducing the amount of toxic chemicals used in their vehicle production. Some manufacturers have altogether eliminated bromine-based toxic flame retardants from their interior cabin (Honda Civic) and PVC, but we still have a long way to go before all vehicles are free from toxic chemicals.

What You Can Do

• Roll down the windows in your car as much as possible.
• Park your car in the shade. Use sun reflectors on your dashboard to keep intense heat out of your vehicle.
• Check if your car has a filtration system (most later model vehicles have them) and replace the filter when needed.
• Wash your hands after driving and have your passengers do the same.
• Join Moms Clean Air Force
  
  


TELL YOUR SENATORS: PROTECT OUR HEALTH FROM TOXIC CHEMICAL EXPOSURES





By Gernot Wagner

Think of the atmosphere as a giant bathtub. There’s a faucet—emissions from human activity—and a drain—the planet’s ability to absorb that pollution. For most of human civilization and hundreds of thousands of years before, the inflow and the outflow were in relative balance. Then humans started burning coal and turned on the faucet far beyond what the drain could handle. The levels of carbon in the atmosphere began to rise to levels last seen in the Pliocene, over three million years ago.

What to do? That’s the question John Sterman, an MIT professor, asked two hundred graduate students. More specifically, he asked what to do to stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere close to present levels. How far do we need to go in turning off the faucet in order to stabilize concentrations? Here’s what not to do: stabilizing the flow of carbon into the atmosphere today won’t stabilize the carbon already there at close to present levels. You’re still adding carbon. Just because the inflow remains steady year after year, doesn’t mean the amount already in the tub doesn’t go up. Inflow and outflow need to be in balance, and that won’t happen at current levels of carbon dioxide in the tub (currently at 400 ppm) unless the inflow goes down by a lot.

That seems like an obvious point. It also seems to get lost on the average MIT graduate student, and these students aren’t exactly 'average'. Still, over 80 percent of them in Sterman’s study seem to confuse the faucet with the tub. They confuse stabilizing the inflow with stabilizing the level.

What this video to avoid making the same mistake:

Excerpted from Climate Shock.

By Gernot Wagner

Think of the atmosphere as a giant bathtub. There’s a faucet—emissions from human activity—and a drain—the planet’s ability to absorb that pollution. For most of human civilization and hundreds of thousands of years before, the inflow and the outflow were in relative balance. Then humans started burning coal and turned on the faucet far beyond what the drain could handle. The levels of carbon in the atmosphere began to rise to levels last seen in the Pliocene, over three million years ago.

What to do? That’s the question John Sterman, an MIT professor, asked two hundred graduate students. More specifically, he asked what to do to stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere close to present levels. How far do we need to go in turning off the faucet in order to stabilize concentrations? Here’s what not to do: stabilizing the flow of carbon into the atmosphere today won’t stabilize the carbon already there at close to present levels. You’re still adding carbon. Just because the inflow remains steady year after year, doesn’t mean the amount already in the tub doesn’t go up. Inflow and outflow need to be in balance, and that won’t happen at current levels of carbon dioxide in the tub (currently at 400 ppm) unless the inflow goes down by a lot.

That seems like an obvious point. It also seems to get lost on the average MIT graduate student, and these students aren’t exactly 'average'. Still, over 80 percent of them in Sterman’s study seem to confuse the faucet with the tub. They confuse stabilizing the inflow with stabilizing the level.

What this video to avoid making the same mistake:

Excerpted from Climate Shock.

By Gernot Wagner

Think of the atmosphere as a giant bathtub. There’s a faucet—emissions from human activity—and a drain—the planet’s ability to absorb that pollution. For most of human civilization and hundreds of thousands of years before, the inflow and the outflow were in relative balance. Then humans started burning coal and turned on the faucet far beyond what the drain could handle. The levels of carbon in the atmosphere began to rise to levels last seen in the Pliocene, over three million years ago.

What to do? That’s the question John Sterman, an MIT professor, asked two hundred graduate students. More specifically, he asked what to do to stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere close to present levels. How far do we need to go in turning off the faucet in order to stabilize concentrations? Here’s what not to do: stabilizing the flow of carbon into the atmosphere today won’t stabilize the carbon already there at close to present levels. You’re still adding carbon. Just because the inflow remains steady year after year, doesn’t mean the amount already in the tub doesn’t go up. Inflow and outflow need to be in balance, and that won’t happen at current levels of carbon dioxide in the tub (currently at 400 ppm) unless the inflow goes down by a lot.

That seems like an obvious point. It also seems to get lost on the average MIT graduate student, and these students aren’t exactly 'average'. Still, over 80 percent of them in Sterman’s study seem to confuse the faucet with the tub. They confuse stabilizing the inflow with stabilizing the level.

What this video to avoid making the same mistake:

Excerpted from Climate Shock.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana:

What is unique about protecting Indiana’s resources?

From Lake Michigan to the Ohio River, the hardwood forests to the sand dunes, Indiana has a wealth of different and wonderful natural resources that enhance our communities, drive our economy, and remind us of our fundamental responsibility to be good stewards of the earth.

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

We have a fundamental responsibility to preserve our environment for the well-being and enjoyment of our children and grandchildren. A healthy environment is vital for safe drinking water and breathable air, productive farms and businesses, and hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities. As a parent and Indiana’s Senator, I believe that climate change is a serious issue, and I am committed to developing smart policies that protect our environment, while also ensuring an economic climate that promotes job creation for the next generation of Hoosiers.

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

My approach to serving the people of Indiana is simple: I am the hired help, and I work for all Hoosiers. In my first two-plus years serving in the Senate on behalf of Hoosiers, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on various legislative efforts, including those to protect our environment. For example, last month I teamed up with a bipartisan group to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which takes revenues generated from oil and gas development to support the conservation of natural areas, water resources, and our cultural heritage. I will continue to work on commonsense efforts to protect our environment while increasing economic opportunity for Hoosiers.

Like many Americans, Hoosiers are focused on getting things done and working together. I am optimistic that Congress can follow this example, working together on legislation to make things better for Indiana and our country.

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

As always, please feel free to contact my office. As I work with my Senate colleagues to address the issues facing our country — including efforts to protect our environment — your input and feedback is invaluable in determining what common sense steps we should take on behalf of Hoosiers. Visit my website www.Donnelly.Senate.Gov to contact me.

Senator Joe Donnelly was elected to the State of Indiana in the U.S. Senate in 2012. Previously, he served the 2nd Congressional District of Indiana in the House of Representatives since 2006. He serves on the Armed Services Committee, Banking Committee, Agriculture Committee, and Aging Committee. Prior to serving in Congress, Joe helped run a small business in Mishawaka. Senator Donnelly and his wife Jill live in north central Indiana and they have two children, Molly and Joe Jr.


TELL YOUR SENATORS: HELP STOP CLIMATE CHANGE





By Peter Zalzal

Legal fellow Jess Portmess also contributed to this post.

Unlike an oil spill, most greenhouse gas emissions are invisible to the naked eye. Though we can’t see them, this pollution represents a daily threat to our environment and communities, and it is important to understand the extent of this pollution and where it comes from.

This is why in 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule requiring facilities in the oil and gas industry to report yearly emissions from their operations.

The Rule is part of a larger greenhouse gas measurement, reporting, and disclosure program called for by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. By coincidence, the rule is known as Subpart W.

The emissions data required by the Rule helps communities near oil and natural gas development better understand pollution sources, and gives companies better ways to identify opportunities to reduce emissions.

As these policies have gotten stronger under the Obama administration, industry has continued to fight them in federal court.

Shedding light on methane

One of the greenhouse gases covered by Subpart W is methane, which a substantial body of research shows is leaking at a significant rate from oil and natural gas infrastructure. Methane is a powerful air pollutant, over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is emitted. And, as the primary component of natural gas, methane emissions represent a waste of a valuable energy resource.

In January, the Obama administration announced that several federal agencies will take actions aimed at reducing harmful methane emissions. As part of those actions, this summer, EPA will propose standards including direct regulation of methane from the oil and gas sector—an action that is urgently needed to begin reducing this pollution.

Strengthening reporting

The reporting requirements have led to a better understanding of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, though there are important opportunities to continue to strengthen the program to provide communities and stakeholders with additional transparency, and deepen understanding of emissions from these sources. In fact, the administration has recognized the importance of improving data and transparency as part of Subpart W, both in its 2014 Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions and in its recently announced goal to reduce methane emissions.

That’s why EPA has recently moved forward with two actions to strengthen greenhouse gas emissions reporting:

First, in December 2014, EPA proposed to strengthen requirements for emissions reporting by requiring reporting from sources previously not covered by the rule.

Deepening understanding of emissions from these sources (which include completions at oil wells, emissions from gathering and boosting systems, and transmission pipeline blowdowns between compressor stations) is especially critical given the increasing growth of emissions in so-called “tight-oil” formations like the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale and the already significant (and growing) national network of gathering and boosting infrastructure.

In fact, a recent study led by Colorado State University and funded in part by EDF found that gathering and boosting facilities have significant methane leaks, which were especially high when compared to other sources that, unlike gathering and boosting, were required to undertake comprehensive leak detection and repair.

EDF, along with colleagues in other organizations, submitted comments last week on the proposed rule urging the adoption of these improvements and recommending additional ways to strengthen reporting from these sources.

Last fall, EPA also finalized a rule that will increase the quality and uniformity of the reported oil and natural gas emissions data.

Under additional changes finalized in November 2014, companies (with limited exceptions) can no longer use non-standardized and unreliable measurement methods (known as best available monitoring methods or BAMM) when recording and reporting emissions from their operations. The change is an important step forward, which will allow for more rigorous, comparable emissions data and improve the transparency of the reporting program.

Industry pushes back on the recently-finalized rule

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has filed a legal challenge to EPA’s rule removing BAMM in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. At the same time API is claiming the recently announced clean air measures are not needed to reduce oil and gas sector methane emissions, it is suing in court to prevent transparent understanding of those emissions.

This isn’t the first time API has taken legal action to block public transparency in the oil and natural gas sector—this is the third in a series of such lawsuits API has filed seeking to impede the meaningful assessment and disclosure of emissions data.

Last week EDF, along with our colleagues in other organizations, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit to defend EPA’s strengthened standards and support the public’s fundamental right-to-know about harmful methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector.

Fostering the adoption of monitoring technologies

To build on the emissions information and transparency created by Subpart W reporting, EPA should also take additional actions to deploy proven technologies that can directly and transparently measure and quantify leaks, as provided for in the administration’s January announcement. Equipment leaks are the largest source of emissions, as identified by ICF International—both system-wide and also due to super emitters which account for substantial, additional emissions. Directly monitoring these leaks is critical to further improve understanding of emissions from these sources, promote accountability, and enhance transparency.

Rigorous, transparent data is the foundation for protecting public health and the environment from harmful emissions. EPA has taken two critically important steps to strengthen emissions reporting from the oil and gas sector, and we urge the agency to build on these two recent improvements, and continue to ensure the public has full, timely, and reliable information about the scope and sources of oil and gas emissions.

Photo credit: Earthworks

This post originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.

By Peter Zalzal

Legal fellow Jess Portmess also contributed to this post.

Unlike an oil spill, most greenhouse gas emissions are invisible to the naked eye. Though we can’t see them, this pollution represents a daily threat to our environment and communities, and it is important to understand the extent of this pollution and where it comes from.

This is why in 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule requiring facilities in the oil and gas industry to report yearly emissions from their operations.

The Rule is part of a larger greenhouse gas measurement, reporting, and disclosure program called for by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. By coincidence, the rule is known as Subpart W.

The emissions data required by the Rule helps communities near oil and natural gas development better understand pollution sources, and gives companies better ways to identify opportunities to reduce emissions.

As these policies have gotten stronger under the Obama administration, industry has continued to fight them in federal court.

Shedding light on methane

One of the greenhouse gases covered by Subpart W is methane, which a substantial body of research shows is leaking at a significant rate from oil and natural gas infrastructure. Methane is a powerful air pollutant, over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is emitted. And, as the primary component of natural gas, methane emissions represent a waste of a valuable energy resource.

In January, the Obama administration announced that several federal agencies will take actions aimed at reducing harmful methane emissions. As part of those actions, this summer, EPA will propose standards including direct regulation of methane from the oil and gas sector—an action that is urgently needed to begin reducing this pollution.

Strengthening reporting

The reporting requirements have led to a better understanding of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, though there are important opportunities to continue to strengthen the program to provide communities and stakeholders with additional transparency, and deepen understanding of emissions from these sources. In fact, the administration has recognized the importance of improving data and transparency as part of Subpart W, both in its 2014 Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions and in its recently announced goal to reduce methane emissions.

That’s why EPA has recently moved forward with two actions to strengthen greenhouse gas emissions reporting:

First, in December 2014, EPA proposed to strengthen requirements for emissions reporting by requiring reporting from sources previously not covered by the rule.

Deepening understanding of emissions from these sources (which include completions at oil wells, emissions from gathering and boosting systems, and transmission pipeline blowdowns between compressor stations) is especially critical given the increasing growth of emissions in so-called “tight-oil” formations like the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale and the already significant (and growing) national network of gathering and boosting infrastructure.

In fact, a recent study led by Colorado State University and funded in part by EDF found that gathering and boosting facilities have significant methane leaks, which were especially high when compared to other sources that, unlike gathering and boosting, were required to undertake comprehensive leak detection and repair.

EDF, along with colleagues in other organizations, submitted comments last week on the proposed rule urging the adoption of these improvements and recommending additional ways to strengthen reporting from these sources.

Last fall, EPA also finalized a rule that will increase the quality and uniformity of the reported oil and natural gas emissions data.

Under additional changes finalized in November 2014, companies (with limited exceptions) can no longer use non-standardized and unreliable measurement methods (known as best available monitoring methods or BAMM) when recording and reporting emissions from their operations. The change is an important step forward, which will allow for more rigorous, comparable emissions data and improve the transparency of the reporting program.

Industry pushes back on the recently-finalized rule

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has filed a legal challenge to EPA’s rule removing BAMM in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. At the same time API is claiming the recently announced clean air measures are not needed to reduce oil and gas sector methane emissions, it is suing in court to prevent transparent understanding of those emissions.

This isn’t the first time API has taken legal action to block public transparency in the oil and natural gas sector—this is the third in a series of such lawsuits API has filed seeking to impede the meaningful assessment and disclosure of emissions data.

Last week EDF, along with our colleagues in other organizations, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit to defend EPA’s strengthened standards and support the public’s fundamental right-to-know about harmful methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector.

Fostering the adoption of monitoring technologies

To build on the emissions information and transparency created by Subpart W reporting, EPA should also take additional actions to deploy proven technologies that can directly and transparently measure and quantify leaks, as provided for in the administration’s January announcement. Equipment leaks are the largest source of emissions, as identified by ICF International—both system-wide and also due to super emitters which account for substantial, additional emissions. Directly monitoring these leaks is critical to further improve understanding of emissions from these sources, promote accountability, and enhance transparency.

Rigorous, transparent data is the foundation for protecting public health and the environment from harmful emissions. EPA has taken two critically important steps to strengthen emissions reporting from the oil and gas sector, and we urge the agency to build on these two recent improvements, and continue to ensure the public has full, timely, and reliable information about the scope and sources of oil and gas emissions.

Photo credit: Earthworks

This post originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.

Meet John Brennan, a farm manager for the Knaggs Ranch in California’s Central Valley who is exploring the latest market incentives to boost farm profits while protecting his land.

“Farmers are environmentalists, too,” Brennan says. “Programs like this will help us fulfill our responsibility to nature and to coming generations.”

It’s all coming together on sprawling, water-soaked rice fields that are part of the 1,700-acre farm he has overseen for the past 10-plus years and co-owned since 2011.

A project on Knaggs Ranch is helping to keep water on the fields during a time and at a volume critical to support salmon nurseries while providing beneficial habitat for water fowl and shore birds.

By adjusting land management to benefit such species, Brennan is generating conservation outcomes that he hopes can be sold as a commodity to private and public investors through the Central Valley Habitat Exchange. Potential investors include state agencies seeking credits to meet mitigation requirements or restoration mandates.

The region southwest of Sacramento was once dominated by marshes that flanked the Sacramento River and its tributaries and created vital seasonal floodplain habitat for waterfowl and fish such as the Chinook salmon. Only 5 percent of these floodplain habitats remain after a century of agricultural expansion and reservoir construction.

Brennan has committed to the Exchange because he believes that compensating landowners for good management practices and helping them diversify their income beyond just farming can be one of the best ways for agriculture to accommodate native species. He also believes that once other land managers learn of the program and its rewards, they’ll get onboard, too.

There may soon be yet another opportunity to levy market forces for the benefit of Knaggs Ranch.

This spring, the California Air Resources Board is expected to approve the first crop-based standards for rice farmers to generate carbon credits in the state’s cap-and-trade market. Brennan hopes the program will help his farm earn new revenue as it reduces greenhouse gas emissions from its rice fields.

With proven success in the field for habitat exchanges as well as carbon markets, such programs are now ready to be scaled up to boost food production while maintaining profitable farms, a safe environment and healthy people.

Agriculture accounts for about 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions released in the United States today, and forward-looking farmers such as Brennan see an opportunity to help cut such pollution without hurting their bottom line.

Incentive-based programs “help us diversify our income beyond just farming,” he says. 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Environmental Defense Fund issued the following press release in response to today's introduction of The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.  We have also prepared an accompanying factsheet and detailed bill analysis.

Bi-Partisan Chemical Safety Bill
Creates Strong New Protections Against Hidden Health Threats

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Would Overhaul Weak Federal Law, Provide New Powers to Require Safety of All Chemicals

(Washington DC, March 10, 2015)—Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA), together with seven Democratic and eight Republican cosponsors introduced legislation today to fix a badly broken system that is currently failing to protect Americans against thousands of untested or hazardous chemicals used in all kinds of everyday products, from cleaning products, to clothing, to couches.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would overhaul the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s primary federal chemical safety law, establishing strong new protections to ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday products. Certain common chemicals are linked to cancer, infertility, diabetes, Parkinson's and other illnesses. Pregnant woman, infants, and children are especially vulnerable. Under the current law, Americans are exposed to thousands of chemicals every day, only a small fraction of which have ever been adequately reviewed for safety. TSCA is so badly broken that EPA is virtually powerless to restrict even known deadly carcinogens such as asbestos.

Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund, said:

“Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether chemicals in their homes pose a threat to their families. With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans. We look forward to working with Senator Udall, the environmental community and other stakeholders to get the strongest bill possible enacted into law. Congress cannot afford to let this historic opportunity slip from its grasp. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to seize the moment and act."

The new legislation would update the current law and give EPA the tools it needs to ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for American families. Notably, the bill:

• Mandates safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce
• Requires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the market
• Replaces TSCA’s burdensome cost-benefit safety standard—which prevented EPA from banning asbestos—with a pure, health-based safety standard
• Explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women
• Gives EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals
• Sets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions
• Makes more information about chemicals available by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs
• Provides for the payment of fees by companies to ensure EPA has the resources to carry out its responsibilities
• Ramps up the number of chemicals undergoing safety assessments from an initial 10 to at least 25 chemicals, after all procedures and fees are in place to support the increased level of work

The new legislation is nearly two years in the making and is built on a bill introduced by the late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter in 2013. Negotiations have yielded hundreds of improvements to the original bill.

The new bill significantly reduces the earlier proposal’s preemption of state laws:  All state actions taken before 2015 remain intact regardless of subsequent EPA actions. Even after enactment, states can act to restrict a chemical until and unless EPA takes up that same chemical and addresses the same uses. State actions that do not restrict a chemical’s production, distribution or use, or are taken to address a different problem are not affected. No preemption attaches to low-priority designations of a chemical by EPA.

“After nearly four decades under a failed law, this legislation would finally provide EPA with the tools it needs to better protect American families,” said Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of American families.  It’s essential Congress act now.”

In addition to Sens. Udall and Vitter, original cosponsors include (seven Democrats and eight  Republicans): Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV); Jim Inhofe (R-OK); Tom Carper (D-DE); Roy Blunt (R-MO); Chris Coons (D-DE); John Boozman (R-AR); Joe Donnelly (D-IN); Mike Crapo (R-ID); Martin Heinrich (D-NM); Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV); Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND); John Hoeven (R-ND); Rob Portman (R-OH), Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Additional resources can be found on EDF’s website, including a factsheet and a detailed bill analysis.

###

 Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on EDF Voices, Twitter and Facebook.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Environmental Defense Fund issued the following press release in response to today's introduction of The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.  We have also prepared an accompanying factsheet and detailed bill analysis.

Bi-Partisan Chemical Safety Bill
Creates Strong New Protections Against Hidden Health Threats

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Would Overhaul Weak Federal Law, Provide New Powers to Require Safety of All Chemicals

(Washington DC, March 10, 2015)—Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA), together with seven Democratic and eight Republican cosponsors introduced legislation today to fix a badly broken system that is currently failing to protect Americans against thousands of untested or hazardous chemicals used in all kinds of everyday products, from cleaning products, to clothing, to couches.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would overhaul the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s primary federal chemical safety law, establishing strong new protections to ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday products. Certain common chemicals are linked to cancer, infertility, diabetes, Parkinson's and other illnesses. Pregnant woman, infants, and children are especially vulnerable. Under the current law, Americans are exposed to thousands of chemicals every day, only a small fraction of which have ever been adequately reviewed for safety. TSCA is so badly broken that EPA is virtually powerless to restrict even known deadly carcinogens such as asbestos.

Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund, said:

“Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether chemicals in their homes pose a threat to their families. With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans. We look forward to working with Senator Udall, the environmental community and other stakeholders to get the strongest bill possible enacted into law. Congress cannot afford to let this historic opportunity slip from its grasp. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to seize the moment and act."

The new legislation would update the current law and give EPA the tools it needs to ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for American families. Notably, the bill:

• Mandates safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce
• Requires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the market
• Replaces TSCA’s burdensome cost-benefit safety standard—which prevented EPA from banning asbestos—with a pure, health-based safety standard
• Explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women
• Gives EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals
• Sets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions
• Makes more information about chemicals available by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs
• Provides for the payment of fees by companies to ensure EPA has the resources to carry out its responsibilities
• Ramps up the number of chemicals undergoing safety assessments from an initial 10 to at least 25 chemicals, after all procedures and fees are in place to support the increased level of work

The new legislation is nearly two years in the making and is built on a bill introduced by the late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter in 2013. Negotiations have yielded hundreds of improvements to the original bill.

The new bill significantly reduces the earlier proposal’s preemption of state laws:  All state actions taken before 2015 remain intact regardless of subsequent EPA actions. Even after enactment, states can act to restrict a chemical until and unless EPA takes up that same chemical and addresses the same uses. State actions that do not restrict a chemical’s production, distribution or use, or are taken to address a different problem are not affected. No preemption attaches to low-priority designations of a chemical by EPA.

“After nearly four decades under a failed law, this legislation would finally provide EPA with the tools it needs to better protect American families,” said Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of American families.  It’s essential Congress act now.”

In addition to Sens. Udall and Vitter, original cosponsors include (seven Democrats and eight  Republicans): Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV); Jim Inhofe (R-OK); Tom Carper (D-DE); Roy Blunt (R-MO); Chris Coons (D-DE); John Boozman (R-AR); Joe Donnelly (D-IN); Mike Crapo (R-ID); Martin Heinrich (D-NM); Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV); Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND); John Hoeven (R-ND); Rob Portman (R-OH), Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Additional resources can be found on EDF’s website, including a factsheet and a detailed bill analysis.

###

 Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on EDF Voices, Twitter and Facebook.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Environmental Defense Fund issued the following press release in response to today's introduction of The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.  We have also prepared an accompanying factsheet and detailed bill analysis.

Bi-Partisan Chemical Safety Bill
Creates Strong New Protections Against Hidden Health Threats

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Would Overhaul Weak Federal Law, Provide New Powers to Require Safety of All Chemicals

(Washington DC, March 10, 2015)—Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA), together with seven Democratic and eight Republican cosponsors introduced legislation today to fix a badly broken system that is currently failing to protect Americans against thousands of untested or hazardous chemicals used in all kinds of everyday products, from cleaning products, to clothing, to couches.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would overhaul the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s primary federal chemical safety law, establishing strong new protections to ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday products. Certain common chemicals are linked to cancer, infertility, diabetes, Parkinson's and other illnesses. Pregnant woman, infants, and children are especially vulnerable. Under the current law, Americans are exposed to thousands of chemicals every day, only a small fraction of which have ever been adequately reviewed for safety. TSCA is so badly broken that EPA is virtually powerless to restrict even known deadly carcinogens such as asbestos.

Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund, said:

“Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether chemicals in their homes pose a threat to their families. With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans. We look forward to working with Senator Udall, the environmental community and other stakeholders to get the strongest bill possible enacted into law. Congress cannot afford to let this historic opportunity slip from its grasp. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to seize the moment and act."

The new legislation would update the current law and give EPA the tools it needs to ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for American families. Notably, the bill:

• Mandates safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce
• Requires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the market
• Replaces TSCA’s burdensome cost-benefit safety standard—which prevented EPA from banning asbestos—with a pure, health-based safety standard
• Explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women
• Gives EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals
• Sets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions
• Makes more information about chemicals available by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs
• Provides for the payment of fees by companies to ensure EPA has the resources to carry out its responsibilities
• Ramps up the number of chemicals undergoing safety assessments from an initial 10 to at least 25 chemicals, after all procedures and fees are in place to support the increased level of work

The new legislation is nearly two years in the making and is built on a bill introduced by the late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter in 2013. Negotiations have yielded hundreds of improvements to the original bill.

The new bill significantly reduces the earlier proposal’s preemption of state laws:  All state actions taken before 2015 remain intact regardless of subsequent EPA actions. Even after enactment, states can act to restrict a chemical until and unless EPA takes up that same chemical and addresses the same uses. State actions that do not restrict a chemical’s production, distribution or use, or are taken to address a different problem are not affected. No preemption attaches to low-priority designations of a chemical by EPA.

“After nearly four decades under a failed law, this legislation would finally provide EPA with the tools it needs to better protect American families,” said Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of American families.  It’s essential Congress act now.”

In addition to Sens. Udall and Vitter, original cosponsors include (seven Democrats and eight  Republicans): Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV); Jim Inhofe (R-OK); Tom Carper (D-DE); Roy Blunt (R-MO); Chris Coons (D-DE); John Boozman (R-AR); Joe Donnelly (D-IN); Mike Crapo (R-ID); Martin Heinrich (D-NM); Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV); Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND); John Hoeven (R-ND); Rob Portman (R-OH), Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Additional resources can be found on EDF’s website, including a factsheet and a detailed bill analysis.

###

 Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on EDF Voices, Twitter and Facebook.

Louisiana congressional delegation fights Obama administration proposal to strip off-shore revenue sharing
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. March 09, 2015
“Graves said Louisiana and other off-shore producing states have paid an environmental price as a result of oil and gas production that serves the entire United States. It is only appropriate, he said, to provide a share of off-shore revenue sharing for coastal restoration efforts, particularly in Louisiana, which he noted has lost more wetlands than any other state.” (Read More)
 
Coastal Rundown: The Listening Coast
By Laine Kaplan-Levenson, WWNO. March 09, 2015
“To launch the Listening Coast, we asked for opinions on diversions as a method of coastal restoration. Do people think this is a good bet for building land and stemming erosion?” (Read More)

Louisiana congressional delegation fights Obama administration proposal to strip off-shore revenue sharing
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. March 09, 2015
“Graves said Louisiana and other off-shore producing states have paid an environmental price as a result of oil and gas production that serves the entire United States. It is only appropriate, he said, to provide a share of off-shore revenue sharing for coastal restoration efforts, particularly in Louisiana, which he noted has lost more wetlands than any other state.” (Read More)
 
Coastal Rundown: The Listening Coast
By Laine Kaplan-Levenson, WWNO. March 09, 2015
“To launch the Listening Coast, we asked for opinions on diversions as a method of coastal restoration. Do people think this is a good bet for building land and stemming erosion?” (Read More)