Aggregator

Written by Molly Rauch

Think the products you find on store shelves are safe? Think again. There’s lead in plastic tablecloths. Bromine in Christmas lights. PVC in yellow duckies. Phthalates in bathtub appliqués. And that’s just a small subset of the products recently tested from discount retailers across the country. Red flags came up for dolls, kid backpacks, pencil cases, toy cars, kids jewelry, rug pads, and dozens of other household items.

A Broken System

When it comes to protecting our families from toxic chemicals, we are dealing with a broken system. There are thousands of untested synthetic chemicals on the market, all shepherded into production by an outdated law – unchanged since its passage in 1976 – that prioritizes the profits of the chemical industry over the health of our children.

We’re working to change that law, along with hundreds of other organizations. But the wheels of policy change grind slow – whereas retail demand can grease the tracks.

That’s why Moms Clean Air Force has joined the Campaign for Healthier Solutions to demand dollar stores refuse to stock toxic products on their shelves.

Why dollar stores?

If you think there’s a Walmart on every corner, just consider the dollar store. The top three dollar store chains – Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Family Dollar – together operate almost 24,000 stores in the US, compared to about 4,000 Walmarts. Their combined annual sales total $36 billion. They are expanding faster than other retailers, and adding food and alcohol to their offerings.

In many communities, from rural towns to urban neighborhoods, dollar stores are the only convenient retail option – and often they stand in for a regular grocery store, too. They serve primarily low-income communities, many of which already bear a greater burden of environmental pollution and health problems such as asthma compared to higher income communities.

What Is In Dollar Store Products?

The Campaign for Healthier Solutions tested more than one hundred dollar store products for the presence of toxic chemicals. Researchers tested toys, jewelry and other household products sold at dollar stores in six states (California, Kentucky, Maine, New Mexico, Texas, and West Virginia).

The tests, conducted by Healthy Stuff and released earlier this month, found:

• 81% of the products tested contained one or more hazardous chemicals above levels of concern. Chemicals detected included phthalates; polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl); and toxic metals such as lead and chromium, bromine, and antimony.
• 32% of vinyl products tested (12 of 38) contained levels of phthalates above the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) limit for children’s products.
• 38% of the products tested (63 of 164) contained the toxic plastic PVC (vinyl).

Why Does It Matter?

These products may harm children. They contain chemicals associated with some of the most intractable chronic diseases of our nation, and some of the most troubling health problems of low-income communities.

• Phthalates are linked to early puberty in girls, birth defects in the male reproductive system, obesity, and diabetes.
• Lead harms brain development, leading to learning disabilities, lower IQ, and behavioral problems. There is no safe level of lead exposure for children.
• PVC dust has been linked to asthma.

No one should have to be exposed to these harmful chemicals; least of all children in low-income families. But because our laws are weak, chemicals in our products are unlabeled and untested. It’s time retailers take responsibility for the products they are selling.

How Can Retailers Make a Difference?

Many companies have decided to take responsibility for the health and safety of the products they sell. Target and Walmart have both announced plans to phase out toxic chemicals from their stores. Other companies are eliminating harmful flame retardant chemicals from their furniture. It can be done. Especially when moms demand it.

Join us to demand that dollar stores take toxic chemicals off their shelves.

Photo: Tupungato / Shutterstock.com


TELL DOLLAR STORES: STOP SELLING TOXIC PRODUCTS





Written by Ronnie Citron-Fink

At Moms Clean Air Force, we’ve discovered adding emotion and creativity to messaging about an intensely complicated issue, such as climate change, helps parents who may be propelled by fear of a bleak future, take notice. The popularity of our hopeful Keep Your Spirits Up ebook is testament that hope springs eternal. To shore us up to go beyond doom and gloom, we crave a constant stream of hope.

With this in mind, I listened intently to a story on NPR about scientist, Robert Davies. Davies was teaching quantum optics, not climate change, but he became intrigued by the Environmental Change Institute and decided to teach climate change and “what it could mean for the sustainability of life on this planet.”

“What concerned me most was the broad gap between what science understands about climate change, and what the public understands.”

The response to his lectures did not yield what he expected. He felt the audience didn’t seem to personally connect with the information.

“The audiences would understand it on an intellectual level … The science is pretty self-explanatory and very compelling … They understood it, but they weren’t feeling it — and weren’t taking any action.”

Davies decided he needed to figure out a way to change people’s behavior about climate change.

Taking a job at Utah State University Climate Center, he decided to try to reach people by combining performance art and performance science.

In collaboration with the Fry Street Quartet, the Crossroads Project was created. Working with a composer, a nature photographer and paintings inspired by nature, the Crossroads Project displayed projections of art behind the musicians during performances. The interpretive message of the music makes people think about air, water, warming temperatures.

While Davies admits he didn’t create the project to convert skeptics, his goal was to get those concerned to do something about climate change.

“It’s about convincing people who already believe we have these problems to start behaving like it.”

Violinist, Rebecca McFaul said this about the group’s effort,

“I was just thrilled at the thought of being able to use my art form — the medium of the string quartet — in some way that was relevant to this topic that I was so concerned about.”

She was so thrilled with Davies plan to bring attention to climate change that she married him!

Gosh, I love a happy ending.

If you’re inspired to action by art, music and optimism, please answer this, Do you think people will be affected by the Crossroads Project? How?

Watch, listen and let us know your thoughts in the comment section below. Thank you!

Photo credit: Andrew McAllister | 2015


TELL YOUR SENATORS: HELP STOP CLIMATE CHANGE





February 17, 2015

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was Moms Clean Air Force member, Sarah Fraser’s testimony at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Ground-Level Ozone Hearings:

My name is Sarah Fraser, I am mother to 2 young children, and I am a resident of Washington, DC. I am speaking to you today as a member of Moms Clean Air Force, in unequivocal support of the EPA’s proposed strengthening of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone.

Fifty years ago, President Kennedy talked of the human right to breathe air as nature provided it. Today’s proposal supports this basic human right, expanding the ozone-monitoring season in many jurisdictions, and updating the Air Quality Index.

The Air Quality alerts are an important national system that helps mothers like me make decisions about whether to let my two children – ages 3 and 7 – play outside. The Air Quality alerts are tethered to EPA’s standard. If the smog standard is too lax, as it currently stands, the air quality alert system can tell me that it’s safe to send my children outside to play, even when it’s not. The smog standard needs to tell everyone if the air we breathe is safe.

I unequivocally support the new, lower standards – an 8-hour limit of 60 parts per billion – based on the extensive, irrefutable scientific evidence about ozone’s effects on children and on the public welfare.

Breathing ground-level ozone can trigger a variety of pulmonary problems, worsen existing pulmonary diseases, reduce lung function and permanently scar lung tissue. In my neighborhood, these fumes prevent my children from playing outside. These fumes prevent us from doing work in our yard to maintain and improve our property. These fumes prevent us from asking our friends and our children’s friends, over to enjoy our yard. These fumes prevent my parents and my husband’s parents from seeing their grandchildren often, as both elderly couples have compromised lung and immune system function.

In order to adequately protect children, scientists think that the national standard for smog should be set at 60 ppb. The American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, among others, also support this standard. The EPA states that reducing levels of smog to 60 ppb would prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed school days, and 6,400 premature deaths each year.

I support the new, lower standards as a mother in a global family, as a mother living in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, and as a mother living here in Washington, D.C.

D.C. is considered a non-industrial jurisdiction, and in 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty requested that the District be designated a non-attainment area1. We have, however, an industrial zone: Ward 5. My husband, two young children and I live in the residential part of it.

Ward 5 has some of the worst air quality in the District. Our industries are: an asphalt-processing facility, light and heavy trucking, two city bus lots, and an auto-body paint industry, which uses high-VOC solvents, accessed January 27, 2015 and paints. All of these industries and processes contribute to ground- level ozone formation.

The District Department of the Environment (DDOE) maintains a stationary Air Quality Monitor at McMillian Reservoir (11-001-0043), nearly 4 miles from my Ward. This monitor has been recording violations of both the primary and secondary 8-hour EPA ground-level ozone standards since 20062.

Since 2008, D.C has had only 2 summers in 16 years without code red days for unhealthy air quality. Since 2008 we have had 4 years of summers where we exceeded the 75 ppb ozone standard for upwards of 4 weeks3. In a family with no history of asthma, my children were diagnosed last year as pre-asthmatic by their pediatrician.

Ward 5 contributes ozone to the environments of Maryland and Virginia, which in turn contributes ozone to the environment of the Mid-Atlantic. The East Coast contributes all this ozone to the global environment, affecting our parents in Texas and New Zealand and our cousins in Australia.

The strengthening of the NAAQS by the EPA is an essential first step in rule creation that will ultimately enable our District, and our country, to provide clean air for people everywhere. Please move forward with this new rule.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





February 17, 2015

By Jamie Fine

This week I submitted testimony in support of a petition by the Citizens Utility Board and, my shop, EDF, to urge the Illinois Commerce Commission to require Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and Ameren, two of Illinois’ biggest utilities, to provide families and individuals with new ways to reduce their energy bills: electricity pricing based on the hour of the day. This “Time-of-Use” (TOU) option provides times of the day when electricity will be much cheaper than the all-day, “flat” electricity pricing currently used today. Such electricity rates would reward energy-efficient customers and those who shift electricity use away from “peak” hours—when demand is high, prices skyrocket, and power plants produce the most pollution.

Our petition to the Illinois Commerce Commission, which is in charge of regulating electric utilities in the state, asks for ComEd and Ameren to offer optional rate plans beginning 2016. With voluntary TOU electricity pricing, families with digital meters can enjoy lower electric bills by running certain appliances, like the dishwasher, when electricity is cheapest, such as early in the morning or late in the evenings. However, the benefits go far beyond households that participate. Cutting energy use at high-demand times, like the afternoon, lowers electricity prices for everyone, reduces stress on the power grid, and offsets the need for expensive, polluting power plants.  

People-Powered Pricing: @cubillinois & @EDFEnergyEx are pushing for Time-of-Use plans to save...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Even though market prices plunge to just a few pennies per kilowatt-hour or lower at certain hours of the day—most Illinois residents cannot take advantage of these low prices because they are locked into rigid, “flat” rates that only change with the season (e.g., summer, non-summer).

EDF has been looking carefully at different electricity pricing plans because they are the currency for rewarding people (and their third party service providers) for clean energy investments, such as energy efficiency and self-generation, like solar rooftop panels.

A well-designed and effectively implemented TOU electricity pricing plan would provide at least five concrete benefits to Illinoisans:

1. Give families and individuals the opportunity to reduce electricity bills by running certain appliances when energy is least costly, simply by providing more information that ties the cost of electricity production to the timing of energy use.
2. Charge families and individuals for the electricity they use, not their neighbors. In the current flat-rate pricing structure, the cost of electricity is the same for everyone, and energy-hungry neighbors may drive up the cost of electricity for everyone. With TOU electricity pricing, savvy families will be rewarded for their conservation efforts and help lower the overall price of electricity for everyone.
3. Reduce energy use at “peak” hours, offsetting power companies’ need to purchase the highest-priced electricity, as well as avoid the need to build more power plants. In turn, greater efficiency at existing power plants means improved cost-effectiveness for power companies.
4. Improve air quality by helping reduce the need for fossil-fueled power plants, especially inefficient, high-polluting “peaking” power plants that only run a few hours every year. Instead, Illinoisans can choose to use electricity when renewable energy is available and opt for other money-saving, clean energy solutions like energy efficiency.
5. Increase the power grid’s ability to integrate more renewable energy by signaling to families when they should use and avoid using energy, effectively reducing the need for expensive “peaker” power plants.

While TOU electricity pricing may be new to Ameren and ComEd customers, there is an enormous history of successful TOU programs in the US and abroad. Consequently, we know what to expect in terms of participant response, as well as what program features to include to spur enrollment and to maximize the number of families who see their bills decline from people-powered pricing options. In addition to those who adopt the TOU electricity pricing plan, all Illinoisans stand to gain from a billing structure that better reflects the cost of producing electricity.

Some of those features include:

• Use best practices for outreach and marketing people-powered pricing programs as learned from other electric utilities.
• Try-it-Before-You-Buy-It: Use “shadow” billing, where individuals and families can see what they would have paid under a flat rate as compared to TOU electricity pricing plan. Providing shadow bills for several months will help Illinoisans plan for and adopt new technologies (such as programmable thermostats) and habits (such as running the dishwasher when you go to bed instead of immediately following dinner).
• Provide a period of bill protection after the switch to TOU electricity pricing, particularly if shadow billing suggests a customer may experience a bill increase.
• Ensure low-income customers are provided with every opportunity to benefit from TOU electricity pricing, including access to newer, energy efficient appliances and building weatherization technologies.
• Provide Illinoisans who voluntarily enroll in TOU electricity pricing programs with set-it-and-forget technologies. Several pilot programs, including in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s service territory, indicate that the provision of advanced thermostats – user-friendly thermostats that can precool homes in advance of high-demand, expensive times – help people plan around times of peak energy prices. The ICC has already directed ComEd and Ameren to make the piloting of in-home devices a part of the utilities’ energy efficiency programs. Such programs could be coupled with efforts aimed at enrolling families and individuals in a TOU electricity pricing plan.

With so many options to save Illinoisans money and help the environment, EDF, in partnership with CUB, Ameren, and ComEd, urges the Illinois Utilities Commerce Commission to investigate Time-of-Use electricity pricing options today and continue to advance the Land of Lincoln’s clean energy economy.

By Jamie Fine

This week I submitted testimony in support of a petition by the Citizens Utility Board and, my shop, EDF, to urge the Illinois Commerce Commission to require Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and Ameren, two of Illinois’ biggest utilities, to provide families and individuals with new ways to reduce their energy bills: electricity pricing based on the hour of the day. This “Time-of-Use” (TOU) option provides times of the day when electricity will be much cheaper than the all-day, “flat” electricity pricing currently used today. Such electricity rates would reward energy-efficient customers and those who shift electricity use away from “peak” hours—when demand is high, prices skyrocket, and power plants produce the most pollution.

Our petition to the Illinois Commerce Commission, which is in charge of regulating electric utilities in the state, asks for ComEd and Ameren to offer optional rate plans beginning 2016. With voluntary TOU electricity pricing, families with digital meters can enjoy lower electric bills by running certain appliances, like the dishwasher, when electricity is cheapest, such as early in the morning or late in the evenings. However, the benefits go far beyond households that participate. Cutting energy use at high-demand times, like the afternoon, lowers electricity prices for everyone, reduces stress on the power grid, and offsets the need for expensive, polluting power plants.  

People-Powered Pricing: @cubillinois & @EDFEnergyEx are pushing for Time-of-Use plans to save...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Even though market prices plunge to just a few pennies per kilowatt-hour or lower at certain hours of the day—most Illinois residents cannot take advantage of these low prices because they are locked into rigid, “flat” rates that only change with the season (e.g., summer, non-summer).

EDF has been looking carefully at different electricity pricing plans because they are the currency for rewarding people (and their third party service providers) for clean energy investments, such as energy efficiency and self-generation, like solar rooftop panels.

A well-designed and effectively implemented TOU electricity pricing plan would provide at least five concrete benefits to Illinoisans:

1. Give families and individuals the opportunity to reduce electricity bills by running certain appliances when energy is least costly, simply by providing more information that ties the cost of electricity production to the timing of energy use.
2. Charge families and individuals for the electricity they use, not their neighbors. In the current flat-rate pricing structure, the cost of electricity is the same for everyone, and energy-hungry neighbors may drive up the cost of electricity for everyone. With TOU electricity pricing, savvy families will be rewarded for their conservation efforts and help lower the overall price of electricity for everyone.
3. Reduce energy use at “peak” hours, offsetting power companies’ need to purchase the highest-priced electricity, as well as avoid the need to build more power plants. In turn, greater efficiency at existing power plants means improved cost-effectiveness for power companies.
4. Improve air quality by helping reduce the need for fossil-fueled power plants, especially inefficient, high-polluting “peaking” power plants that only run a few hours every year. Instead, Illinoisans can choose to use electricity when renewable energy is available and opt for other money-saving, clean energy solutions like energy efficiency.
5. Increase the power grid’s ability to integrate more renewable energy by signaling to families when they should use and avoid using energy, effectively reducing the need for expensive “peaker” power plants.

While TOU electricity pricing may be new to Ameren and ComEd customers, there is an enormous history of successful TOU programs in the US and abroad. Consequently, we know what to expect in terms of participant response, as well as what program features to include to spur enrollment and to maximize the number of families who see their bills decline from people-powered pricing options. In addition to those who adopt the TOU electricity pricing plan, all Illinoisans stand to gain from a billing structure that better reflects the cost of producing electricity.

Some of those features include:

• Use best practices for outreach and marketing people-powered pricing programs as learned from other electric utilities.
• Try-it-Before-You-Buy-It: Use “shadow” billing, where individuals and families can see what they would have paid under a flat rate as compared to TOU electricity pricing plan. Providing shadow bills for several months will help Illinoisans plan for and adopt new technologies (such as programmable thermostats) and habits (such as running the dishwasher when you go to bed instead of immediately following dinner).
• Provide a period of bill protection after the switch to TOU electricity pricing, particularly if shadow billing suggests a customer may experience a bill increase.
• Ensure low-income customers are provided with every opportunity to benefit from TOU electricity pricing, including access to newer, energy efficient appliances and building weatherization technologies.
• Provide Illinoisans who voluntarily enroll in TOU electricity pricing programs with set-it-and-forget technologies. Several pilot programs, including in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s service territory, indicate that the provision of advanced thermostats – user-friendly thermostats that can precool homes in advance of high-demand, expensive times – help people plan around times of peak energy prices. The ICC has already directed ComEd and Ameren to make the piloting of in-home devices a part of the utilities’ energy efficiency programs. Such programs could be coupled with efforts aimed at enrolling families and individuals in a TOU electricity pricing plan.

With so many options to save Illinoisans money and help the environment, EDF, in partnership with CUB, Ameren, and ComEd, urges the Illinois Utilities Commerce Commission to investigate Time-of-Use electricity pricing options today and continue to advance the Land of Lincoln’s clean energy economy.

By Jamie Fine

This week I submitted testimony in support of a petition by the Citizens Utility Board and, my shop, EDF, to urge the Illinois Commerce Commission to require Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and Ameren, two of Illinois’ biggest utilities, to provide families and individuals with new ways to reduce their energy bills: electricity pricing based on the hour of the day. This “Time-of-Use” (TOU) option provides times of the day when electricity will be much cheaper than the all-day, “flat” electricity pricing currently used today. Such electricity rates would reward energy-efficient customers and those who shift electricity use away from “peak” hours—when demand is high, prices skyrocket, and power plants produce the most pollution.

Our petition to the Illinois Commerce Commission, which is in charge of regulating electric utilities in the state, asks for ComEd and Ameren to offer optional rate plans beginning 2016. With voluntary TOU electricity pricing, families with digital meters can enjoy lower electric bills by running certain appliances, like the dishwasher, when electricity is cheapest, such as early in the morning or late in the evenings. However, the benefits go far beyond households that participate. Cutting energy use at high-demand times, like the afternoon, lowers electricity prices for everyone, reduces stress on the power grid, and offsets the need for expensive, polluting power plants.  

People-Powered Pricing: @cubillinois & @EDFEnergyEx are pushing for Time-of-Use plans to save...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Even though market prices plunge to just a few pennies per kilowatt-hour or lower at certain hours of the day—most Illinois residents cannot take advantage of these low prices because they are locked into rigid, “flat” rates that only change with the season (e.g., summer, non-summer).

EDF has been looking carefully at different electricity pricing plans because they are the currency for rewarding people (and their third party service providers) for clean energy investments, such as energy efficiency and self-generation, like solar rooftop panels.

A well-designed and effectively implemented TOU electricity pricing plan would provide at least five concrete benefits to Illinoisans:

1. Give families and individuals the opportunity to reduce electricity bills by running certain appliances when energy is least costly, simply by providing more information that ties the cost of electricity production to the timing of energy use.
2. Charge families and individuals for the electricity they use, not their neighbors. In the current flat-rate pricing structure, the cost of electricity is the same for everyone, and energy-hungry neighbors may drive up the cost of electricity for everyone. With TOU electricity pricing, savvy families will be rewarded for their conservation efforts and help lower the overall price of electricity for everyone.
3. Reduce energy use at “peak” hours, offsetting power companies’ need to purchase the highest-priced electricity, as well as avoid the need to build more power plants. In turn, greater efficiency at existing power plants means improved cost-effectiveness for power companies.
4. Improve air quality by helping reduce the need for fossil-fueled power plants, especially inefficient, high-polluting “peaking” power plants that only run a few hours every year. Instead, Illinoisans can choose to use electricity when renewable energy is available and opt for other money-saving, clean energy solutions like energy efficiency.
5. Increase the power grid’s ability to integrate more renewable energy by signaling to families when they should use and avoid using energy, effectively reducing the need for expensive “peaker” power plants.

While TOU electricity pricing may be new to Ameren and ComEd customers, there is an enormous history of successful TOU programs in the US and abroad. Consequently, we know what to expect in terms of participant response, as well as what program features to include to spur enrollment and to maximize the number of families who see their bills decline from people-powered pricing options. In addition to those who adopt the TOU electricity pricing plan, all Illinoisans stand to gain from a billing structure that better reflects the cost of producing electricity.

Some of those features include:

• Use best practices for outreach and marketing people-powered pricing programs as learned from other electric utilities.
• Try-it-Before-You-Buy-It: Use “shadow” billing, where individuals and families can see what they would have paid under a flat rate as compared to TOU electricity pricing plan. Providing shadow bills for several months will help Illinoisans plan for and adopt new technologies (such as programmable thermostats) and habits (such as running the dishwasher when you go to bed instead of immediately following dinner).
• Provide a period of bill protection after the switch to TOU electricity pricing, particularly if shadow billing suggests a customer may experience a bill increase.
• Ensure low-income customers are provided with every opportunity to benefit from TOU electricity pricing, including access to newer, energy efficient appliances and building weatherization technologies.
• Provide Illinoisans who voluntarily enroll in TOU electricity pricing programs with set-it-and-forget technologies. Several pilot programs, including in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s service territory, indicate that the provision of advanced thermostats – user-friendly thermostats that can precool homes in advance of high-demand, expensive times – help people plan around times of peak energy prices. The ICC has already directed ComEd and Ameren to make the piloting of in-home devices a part of the utilities’ energy efficiency programs. Such programs could be coupled with efforts aimed at enrolling families and individuals in a TOU electricity pricing plan.

With so many options to save Illinoisans money and help the environment, EDF, in partnership with CUB, Ameren, and ComEd, urges the Illinois Utilities Commerce Commission to investigate Time-of-Use electricity pricing options today and continue to advance the Land of Lincoln’s clean energy economy.

Louisiana coastal authority recommends spending $32 million of oil spill fine money on Houma lock, Calcasieu River salinity control projects | NOLA.com<!–

Louisiana coastal authority recommends spending $32 million of oil spill fine money on Houma lock, Calcasieu River salinity control projects
NOLA.com
Mark Schleifstein, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
The Louisiana&nbsp;Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority board voted unanimously Wednesday (Feb. 11) to spend $32 million in oil spill fine money to pay for a portion of the design and engineering costs of the&nbsp;Houma Navigation Canal Lock project and&nbsp;Calcasieu River Salinity Control measures. Another $2.4 million would be reserved for "adaptive management," including monitoring and potential adjustments needed for…
http://media.nola.com/environment/photo/16991554-thumb_square_large.jpg
0
02/11/2015
02/11/2015

–>// // // // // // // //

By Mark Schleifstein, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on February 11, 2015 at 5:26 PM, updated February 11, 2015 at 6:45 PM

The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority board voted unanimously Wednesday (Feb. 11) to spend $32 million in oil spill fine money to pay for a portion of the design and engineering costs of the Houma Navigation Canal Lock project and Calcasieu River Salinity Control measures.

Another $2.4 million would be reserved for "adaptive management," including monitoring and potential adjustments needed for those and future projects to be paid for with a share of fines funneled to the state from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill through the federal Restore Act. The state also will reserve $3.9 million to use as matching funds for projects that 20 coastal parishes will finance with their own share of Restore Act money.  Read the full article here.

By Eric Holst

Central Oregon rancher restores sage-grouse habitat with NRCS assistance. Source: nrcs.usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) just announced new funding to support sage-grouse habitat conservation on working lands.

This is very promising, considering the last round of sage-grouse funding engaged more than 1,000 ranchers to conserve 4.4 million acres of bird habitat – an area twice the size of Yellowstone National Park.

That last round of funding – made available in 2010 through the Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) Sage Grouse Initiative – invested $296.5 million to restore and conserve sage-grouse habitat. Today, NRCS pledged to extend these efforts by $200 million over another for years.

Doubling down on a good investment

Folks at USDA and NRCS know farmers and ranchers, and they know that farmers and ranchers are critical to protecting the sage-grouse. After all, private lands are home to 40 percent of greater sage-grouse habitat, and many of these same ranchers have grazing leases on public lands

But they also know that the conservation activities that benefit sage-grouse can also be good for cattle ranching. Or, as USDA’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Robert Bonnie put it, “What’s good for the bird is good for the herd.”

So this new funding isn’t just an investment in sage-grouse. It’s also an investment in America’s working landscapes.

Ranchers at the ready

Farmers and ranchers across the bird’s 11-state range recognize the central role they can play in recovering the sage-grouse. Their business, customs and culture are built on stewardship, so they are ready for the challenge.

For example, ranchers in the Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming have already been exploring the potential for a market-based solution – the Upper Green River Conservation Exchange – that can sustain both the ranch and the important riparian and wildlife habitat located on these rural working lands.

With a listing decision on the horizon, local ranchers are now working with the Sublette Country Resource Conservation District, University of Wyoming, The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to develop the tools and framework to get the exchange up and running as soon as possible.

Following USDA’s lead

“We’re working with ranchers who are taking proactive steps to improve habitat for sage-grouse while improving the sustainability of their agricultural operations.” – USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Robert Bonnie

We can’t expect to help the greater sage-grouse without helping ranchers. That’s why we at EDF are also working to make farmers and ranchers a part of the sage-grouse solution.

Through collaborative design, we are building habitat exchanges that work alongside efforts like the Sage Grouse Initiative to enlist farmers and ranchers in conservation at an unprecedented scale and pace. The hope: to secure a positive future for the greater sage-grouse and maintain a vibrant western economy.

By Eric Holst

Central Oregon rancher restores sage-grouse habitat with NRCS assistance. Source: nrcs.usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) just announced new funding to support sage-grouse habitat conservation on working lands.

This is very promising, considering the last round of sage-grouse funding engaged more than 1,000 ranchers to conserve 4.4 million acres of bird habitat – an area twice the size of Yellowstone National Park.

That last round of funding – made available in 2010 through the Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) Sage Grouse Initiative – invested $296.5 million to restore and conserve sage-grouse habitat. Today, NRCS pledged to extend these efforts by $200 million over another for years.

Doubling down on a good investment

Folks at USDA and NRCS know farmers and ranchers, and they know that farmers and ranchers are critical to protecting the sage-grouse. After all, private lands are home to 40 percent of greater sage-grouse habitat, and many of these same ranchers have grazing leases on public lands

But they also know that the conservation activities that benefit sage-grouse can also be good for cattle ranching. Or, as USDA’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Robert Bonnie put it, “What’s good for the bird is good for the herd.”

So this new funding isn’t just an investment in sage-grouse. It’s also an investment in America’s working landscapes.

Ranchers at the ready

Farmers and ranchers across the bird’s 11-state range recognize the central role they can play in recovering the sage-grouse. Their business, customs and culture are built on stewardship, so they are ready for the challenge.

For example, ranchers in the Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming have already been exploring the potential for a market-based solution – the Upper Green River Conservation Exchange – that can sustain both the ranch and the important riparian and wildlife habitat located on these rural working lands.

With a listing decision on the horizon, local ranchers are now working with the Sublette Country Resource Conservation District, University of Wyoming, The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to develop the tools and framework to get the exchange up and running as soon as possible.

Following USDA’s lead

“We’re working with ranchers who are taking proactive steps to improve habitat for sage-grouse while improving the sustainability of their agricultural operations.” – USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Robert Bonnie

We can’t expect to help the greater sage-grouse without helping ranchers. That’s why we at EDF are also working to make farmers and ranchers a part of the sage-grouse solution.

Through collaborative design, we are building habitat exchanges that work alongside efforts like the Sage Grouse Initiative to enlist farmers and ranchers in conservation at an unprecedented scale and pace. The hope: to secure a positive future for the greater sage-grouse and maintain a vibrant western economy.

By Tomas Carbonell

Source: iStock

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will finalize rules establishing the nation’s first limits on carbon pollution from the power sector – the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States – by mid-summer of this year.

This timetable will allow EPA to carefully consider and respond to the approximately four million public comments it has received on almost every aspect of these vital and common-sense standards, which were proposed in draft form last summer as the Clean Power Plan.

Unfortunately, several states and a major coal producer have attempted to short-circuit this process by filing highly unusual legal challenges to these proposed standards. The challenges were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in two related cases, Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA (Nos. 14-1112 & 14-1151) and West Virginia v. EPA (No. 14-1146).

EDF — along with other environmental groups, a coalition of states, and a major power company — participated in these suits in support of EPA, and briefs were filed in both cases this week. (Read our brief in Murray Energy here and our brief in West Virginia here).

These lawsuits are untimely, legally unfounded, and seek to undermine a critically important democratic process.

One of the bedrock principles of administrative law is that standards developed by federal agencies go through a procedure whereby draft standards are published, the public has an opportunity to comment, and agencies review and respond to those comments in the final standards — all before legal challenges to those rules can be filed.

This process ensures that the public has a meaningful chance to weigh in on agency actions. It also helps agencies themselves ensure their decisions are well-informed and firmly grounded in law and science. In fact, proposed rules often undergo substantial changes as a result of the comment process. The rule against judicial review of proposed rules respects the importance of this process, and keeps courts and agencies from wasting valuable time and judicial resources on litigation over rules that may change as a result of public comments.

Disregarding this basic principle, the petitioners in these two cases argue that the proposed Clean Power Plan is unlawful – and demand that the court set the proposed rule aside before EPA has even finished its review of comments, much less issued a final rule.

But this fundamental jurisdictional obstacle is only the start of the problems with the petitioners’ case, which rests on an implausible reading of the Clean Air Act that would undermine the very health protections Congress sought to establish there.

EPA’s Clean Power Plan is authorized by section 111(d) of the Act, which requires EPA to administer a process by which states submit plans to regulate certain pollutants from existing sources of harmful air pollution. When enacted in 1970, section 111(d) clearly required that states establish such standards for any pollutant except those regulated under section 108 of the Clean Air Act (which addresses national air quality standards) and section 112 (which applies to acutely toxic “hazardous air pollutants” or HAPs).

For more than forty years, section 111(d) has been understood to serve a vital “gap-filling” role in the Clean Air Act – ensuring the protection of human health and welfare from harmful air pollution from existing sources, where that pollution is not adequately regulated under other provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Ignoring that sensible and long-standing framework, the petitioners in these cases have advanced an unusual theory — that EPA is barred from regulating carbon pollution at all under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because the Agency is already regulating different pollutants from the power sector (mercury and other air toxics) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

As EPA explained in its brief in West Virginia, this theory amounts to a “pick your poison” approach to the Clean Air Act – arbitrarily limiting EPA to regulating either HAPs like mercury (under section 112) or non-HAPs like carbon pollution (under section 111(d)) for any given source, but not both.

The petitioners’ interpretation not only defies logic and the basic structure of our nation’s clean air laws, it also stands in sharp contrast to arguments that industry itself made to the Supreme Court in the case of American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011).

There, the Court specifically found that section 111(d) “speaks directly” to the problem of carbon pollution from the power sector, and held that EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d) displaces federal common law.

In oral argument in American Electric Power, attorneys for some of the country’s largest power companies told the Court in no uncertain terms that EPA does have authority to regulate carbon dioxide under section 111(d):

“We believe that the EPA can consider, as it's undertaking to do, regulating existing nonmodified sources under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, and that's the process that's engaged in now… Obviously, at the close of that process there could be APA challenges on a variety of grounds, but we do believe that they have the authority to consider standards under section 111.”

Four years later, petitioners now claim that EPA is required to adopt their interpretation as a result of changes made to the text of section 111(d) as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

In 1990, in an effort to update a cross-reference to the hazardous air pollution program under section 112, the Senate and House each passed technical amendments making minor changes to the same language in section 111(d). Congress then enacted, and the President signed into law, both amendments to the statute.

Even petitioners do not contest that the language of the Senate Amendment clearly preserves EPA’s long-standing authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d) (as well as other pollutants not regulated under sections 108 or 112). However, petitioners have seized on the House amendment, which amended section 111(d) to require that EPA regulate “any pollutant” which is not “emitted from a source category which is regulated under [section 112].” This language, they claim, prevents EPA from regulating carbon dioxide from existing power plants —because power plants are subject to emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and other HAPs under section 112.

This argument finds no support in the Act’s text, structure, or legislative history.

First, the petitioners’ theory would radically change the structure of the Clean Air Act in a way that Congress could never have intended. Under the Petitioners’ theory, section 111(d) would not apply to any pollutant, no matter how harmful, that is emitted by the dozens of industrial source types regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Significant categories of harmful pollution, not limited to carbon dioxide, would be placed beyond the scope of regulation under the Clean Air Act. In all of the extensive debate, committee reports, and other legislative history that led up to the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, there is not a shred of evidence that Congress intended to create loopholes in section 111(d) as the petitioners claim.

Second, the 1990 amendments include a provision stating that standards under section 112 must not be “interpreted, construed or applied to diminish or replace” more stringent requirements under section 111 – a strong indication that Congress intended for section 112 to work seamlessly with, not displace, section 111(d).

Third, the petitioners’ theory is completely at odds with the purpose of the 1990 Amendments, which strengthened the Act in numerous ways in order to ensure that harmful air pollution was being effectively addressed.

Petitioners also urge the court to disregard what Congress actually did by ignoring the Senate amendment, which even petitioners agree clearly preserves EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d). But the Senate amendment was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. As the law of the land, the Senate Amendment cannot be cast aside.

Instead, the petitioners emphasize a strained interpretation of the House Amendment that is not only unreasonable on its face and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in AEP, as described above, but is contrary to all of the actions taken by every administration in the twenty-five years since the 1990 amendments were enacted.

As documented in a compelling brief filed by NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity, EPA has adopted the view that section 111(d) applies to any pollutant not regulated under section 112 or section 108 in multiple rulemakings since 1990 — not just in the Obama Administration, but also the George W. Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, and the Administration of George H.W. Bush, who actually signed the 1990 amendments. This long record shows that the House amendment is most reasonably interpreted to preserve the historic “gap-filling” role of section 111(d).

It is regrettable that petitioners have resorted to premature litigation rather than allow the administrative process to run its course.

EPA undoubtedly possesses the authority to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. That's good news for families and communities that are afflicted by mercury and carbon pollution from fossil fuel power plants — the nation's single largest source of both health-harming contaminants. Congress did not intend for our children to have to "pick their poisons," but instead created a seamless framework – which Republican and Democratic administrations alike have long carried out — to safeguard our children's health from all harmful air pollution.

Cecilia Segal, a legal intern at EDF, helped to prepare this post.

By Tomas Carbonell

Source: iStock

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will finalize rules establishing the nation’s first limits on carbon pollution from the power sector – the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States – by mid-summer of this year.

This timetable will allow EPA to carefully consider and respond to the approximately four million public comments it has received on almost every aspect of these vital and common-sense standards, which were proposed in draft form last summer as the Clean Power Plan.

Unfortunately, several states and a major coal producer have attempted to short-circuit this process by filing highly unusual legal challenges to these proposed standards. The challenges were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in two related cases, Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA (Nos. 14-1112 & 14-1151) and West Virginia v. EPA (No. 14-1146).

EDF — along with other environmental groups, a coalition of states, and a major power company — participated in these suits in support of EPA, and briefs were filed in both cases this week. (Read our brief in Murray Energy here and our brief in West Virginia here).

These lawsuits are untimely, legally unfounded, and seek to undermine a critically important democratic process.

One of the bedrock principles of administrative law is that standards developed by federal agencies go through a procedure whereby draft standards are published, the public has an opportunity to comment, and agencies review and respond to those comments in the final standards — all before legal challenges to those rules can be filed.

This process ensures that the public has a meaningful chance to weigh in on agency actions. It also helps agencies themselves ensure their decisions are well-informed and firmly grounded in law and science. In fact, proposed rules often undergo substantial changes as a result of the comment process. The rule against judicial review of proposed rules respects the importance of this process, and keeps courts and agencies from wasting valuable time and judicial resources on litigation over rules that may change as a result of public comments.

Disregarding this basic principle, the petitioners in these two cases argue that the proposed Clean Power Plan is unlawful – and demand that the court set the proposed rule aside before EPA has even finished its review of comments, much less issued a final rule.

But this fundamental jurisdictional obstacle is only the start of the problems with the petitioners’ case, which rests on an implausible reading of the Clean Air Act that would undermine the very health protections Congress sought to establish there.

EPA’s Clean Power Plan is authorized by section 111(d) of the Act, which requires EPA to administer a process by which states submit plans to regulate certain pollutants from existing sources of harmful air pollution. When enacted in 1970, section 111(d) clearly required that states establish such standards for any pollutant except those regulated under section 108 of the Clean Air Act (which addresses national air quality standards) and section 112 (which applies to acutely toxic “hazardous air pollutants” or HAPs).

For more than forty years, section 111(d) has been understood to serve a vital “gap-filling” role in the Clean Air Act – ensuring the protection of human health and welfare from harmful air pollution from existing sources, where that pollution is not adequately regulated under other provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Ignoring that sensible and long-standing framework, the petitioners in these cases have advanced an unusual theory — that EPA is barred from regulating carbon pollution at all under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because the Agency is already regulating different pollutants from the power sector (mercury and other air toxics) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

As EPA explained in its brief in West Virginia, this theory amounts to a “pick your poison” approach to the Clean Air Act – arbitrarily limiting EPA to regulating either HAPs like mercury (under section 112) or non-HAPs like carbon pollution (under section 111(d)) for any given source, but not both.

The petitioners’ interpretation not only defies logic and the basic structure of our nation’s clean air laws, it also stands in sharp contrast to arguments that industry itself made to the Supreme Court in the case of American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011).

There, the Court specifically found that section 111(d) “speaks directly” to the problem of carbon pollution from the power sector, and held that EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d) displaces federal common law.

In oral argument in American Electric Power, attorneys for some of the country’s largest power companies told the Court in no uncertain terms that EPA does have authority to regulate carbon dioxide under section 111(d):

“We believe that the EPA can consider, as it's undertaking to do, regulating existing nonmodified sources under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, and that's the process that's engaged in now… Obviously, at the close of that process there could be APA challenges on a variety of grounds, but we do believe that they have the authority to consider standards under section 111.”

Four years later, petitioners now claim that EPA is required to adopt their interpretation as a result of changes made to the text of section 111(d) as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

In 1990, in an effort to update a cross-reference to the hazardous air pollution program under section 112, the Senate and House each passed technical amendments making minor changes to the same language in section 111(d). Congress then enacted, and the President signed into law, both amendments to the statute.

Even petitioners do not contest that the language of the Senate Amendment clearly preserves EPA’s long-standing authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d) (as well as other pollutants not regulated under sections 108 or 112). However, petitioners have seized on the House amendment, which amended section 111(d) to require that EPA regulate “any pollutant” which is not “emitted from a source category which is regulated under [section 112].” This language, they claim, prevents EPA from regulating carbon dioxide from existing power plants —because power plants are subject to emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and other HAPs under section 112.

This argument finds no support in the Act’s text, structure, or legislative history.

First, the petitioners’ theory would radically change the structure of the Clean Air Act in a way that Congress could never have intended. Under the Petitioners’ theory, section 111(d) would not apply to any pollutant, no matter how harmful, that is emitted by the dozens of industrial source types regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Significant categories of harmful pollution, not limited to carbon dioxide, would be placed beyond the scope of regulation under the Clean Air Act. In all of the extensive debate, committee reports, and other legislative history that led up to the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, there is not a shred of evidence that Congress intended to create loopholes in section 111(d) as the petitioners claim.

Second, the 1990 amendments include a provision stating that standards under section 112 must not be “interpreted, construed or applied to diminish or replace” more stringent requirements under section 111 – a strong indication that Congress intended for section 112 to work seamlessly with, not displace, section 111(d).

Third, the petitioners’ theory is completely at odds with the purpose of the 1990 Amendments, which strengthened the Act in numerous ways in order to ensure that harmful air pollution was being effectively addressed.

Petitioners also urge the court to disregard what Congress actually did by ignoring the Senate amendment, which even petitioners agree clearly preserves EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d). But the Senate amendment was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. As the law of the land, the Senate Amendment cannot be cast aside.

Instead, the petitioners emphasize a strained interpretation of the House Amendment that is not only unreasonable on its face and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in AEP, as described above, but is contrary to all of the actions taken by every administration in the twenty-five years since the 1990 amendments were enacted.

As documented in a compelling brief filed by NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity, EPA has adopted the view that section 111(d) applies to any pollutant not regulated under section 112 or section 108 in multiple rulemakings since 1990 — not just in the Obama Administration, but also the George W. Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, and the Administration of George H.W. Bush, who actually signed the 1990 amendments. This long record shows that the House amendment is most reasonably interpreted to preserve the historic “gap-filling” role of section 111(d).

It is regrettable that petitioners have resorted to premature litigation rather than allow the administrative process to run its course.

EPA undoubtedly possesses the authority to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. That's good news for families and communities that are afflicted by mercury and carbon pollution from fossil fuel power plants — the nation's single largest source of both health-harming contaminants. Congress did not intend for our children to have to "pick their poisons," but instead created a seamless framework – which Republican and Democratic administrations alike have long carried out — to safeguard our children's health from all harmful air pollution.

Cecilia Segal, a legal intern at EDF, helped to prepare this post.

By Rebecca Shaw

If you are among the old school Valentines who appreciate a good box of chocolates and a fine cabernet, you’ll be heartbroken to learn that these romantic treats may be much harder to come by in the future because of climate change.

Droughts and rising temperatures pose great risks to agricultural productivity across the globe, from California’s Napa Valley to West Africa’s cocoa fields.

Withering vines

Regions that have historically supplied the world’s best wine will no longer have hospitable climates to grow grapes.

By 2050, production in California’s famous wine country is projected to decrease by 70 percent due to climate change. Rising temperatures could force California vintners to grow their grapes in higher altitudes where they would encroach on habitat important to moose, grizzly bears and grey wolves. Whether production will be sustained remains to be seen.

As a Californian, a wine connoisseur and a lover of wildlife, this breaks my heart.

Melting chocolate

Cocoa – one of West Africa's most important cash crops and one of the world's guiltiest pleasures – will also be greatly affected by warmer temperatures.

Farmers will begin to see declines in cocoa production by 2030 due to drastic changes in cocoa-growing topography, according to a study by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture.

Dry fruit and toasty nuts

Climate change is expected to alter the global industry in fruits and nuts dramatically as tree crops such as pistachios and cherries struggle in the rising temperatures.

In California, the extreme multi-year drought doesn’t bode well for local fruit and nut producers, who provide roughly 50 percent of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, and nearly 100 percent of the nation’s apricots, almonds, pistachios and walnuts.

For the love of food, it’s time we rewrite this story to have a happier ending.

There is still time and opportunity for farmers to adapt to changing weather and to pursue practices that increase the resiliency of the natural environment.

That’s why EDF is working with farmers, food companies and ag service providers on solutions that create healthier ecosystems and a more robust global food system. Now that’s what I call a perfect match.

Jindal administration shouldn’t raid coastal trust fund to patch budget: Editorial
By The Editorial Board, Times-Picayune. Feb. 13, 2015
“It is significant because it breaks the state's practice of truly protecting the Coastal Fund from diversions that boost the state general operating budget. The fund sweep would demonstrate that Louisiana is now willing to cross the line to misspend precious, dedicated coastal resources when the budget-going gets tough.” (Read More)

Louisiana’s threatened coast is growing patches of new land
By John Metcalfe, City Lab. Feb. 12, 2015
“Louisiana's coastline is shrinking into nothingness. The erection of levees and industrial ruination—not to mention subsidence and the fastest rate of rising sea levels in the world—have submerged vast chunks of land, with about 16 square miles now going underwater every year. But in certain places dry land is increasing. And that fact has people wondering if they can at least partially reverse the deterioration of the coast in time for the extreme challenges of climate change.” (Read More)

Jindal administration shouldn’t raid coastal trust fund to patch budget: Editorial
By The Editorial Board, Times-Picayune. Feb. 13, 2015
“It is significant because it breaks the state's practice of truly protecting the Coastal Fund from diversions that boost the state general operating budget. The fund sweep would demonstrate that Louisiana is now willing to cross the line to misspend precious, dedicated coastal resources when the budget-going gets tough.” (Read More)

Louisiana’s threatened coast is growing patches of new land
By John Metcalfe, City Lab. Feb. 12, 2015
“Louisiana's coastline is shrinking into nothingness. The erection of levees and industrial ruination—not to mention subsidence and the fastest rate of rising sea levels in the world—have submerged vast chunks of land, with about 16 square miles now going underwater every year. But in certain places dry land is increasing. And that fact has people wondering if they can at least partially reverse the deterioration of the coast in time for the extreme challenges of climate change.” (Read More)

February 13, 2015

February 12, 2015

Written by Dominique Browning

My Kentucky grandmother has inspired me my entire life; though I lost her when I was only nine, she has never left me. I find myself thinking about her more often as I get older. I recently realized she was the age I am now when I was a small child snuggled in her lap. Wow.

At Moms Clean Air Force, we honor love of all ages. And we recognize that just as it is our job to protect our young, it is also our job to be sensitive to what especially harms the elderly.

Smog pollution hits the youngest and oldest lungs hardest. It is easy, and inexpensive, to stop it.

Let’s make sure our government sets strong rules on smog. We’ve gathered almost 14,000 comments in support of strong smog standards. If you’ve added your voice already, thank you. If you haven’t, won’t you help us reach our goal of 40,000 parents who support protecting our children and elders from air pollution

Here are my grandmother’s life lessons:

Love is the most important thing.

Every time I saw her, “I love you” was the first thing my grandmother said, and every time she said goodbye to me, “I love you” was the last thing she said. I never for one moment doubted that my grandmother adored me. How many people can you say that about? And so I ask myself: Am I doing the same for those I care most about, as often as possible? It matters.

Kindness is powerful.

My grandmother was meticulously sweet and courteous to everyone. Not just family, but everyone she encountered. That kindness expressed respect and compassion — and a desire to live in a world where the air we breathed was one of goodness rather than meanness. Honoring others can become the foundation for an entire way of living.

A quiet voice is the most persuasive voice.

I don’t remember ever hearing my grandmother raise her voice, and neither does my father. In his entire life. When she was annoyed her expression was gentle, but quite persuasive.

Why would anyone in their right mind waste anything?

Most of our Depression-era beloveds feel this way — and we should all live with the knowledge that all resources are precious. Why would you throw away perfectly delicious food? Why would you toss out a sweater that has a hole in it? Why would you run air conditioning — with the doors open? Why would you light up a room –and then leave it? Why would you throw money away? Focus on waste, and suddenly it makes sense to…conserve.

Use your hands to share your heart.

My grandmother created beautiful dresses on her sewing machine for me and my sisters. She baked wonderful pies and cakes. She knew how to darn socks, and she knew how preserve tomatoes to last through the winter. She knew how to kill a chicken by wringing its neck. But she knew how to raise that chicken, too.

She knew how to do things for herself — and for others. Every single day, those she loved could wrap themselves in her love.

Find time for prayer every day.

My grandmother was a deeply religious person. She found time every day to talk to God. Those conversations grounded her. She taught me the value of daily quiet time. We use “Time Out” to isolate children who are misbehaving — and that’s surely better than lots of other punishments. Even if we aren’t religious, we can give ourselves — and our children — “Quiet Time.” A daily few moments of introspection, peace, feeling our breath, or simply absorbing the beauty of the world around us.

I can never live up to the standards my grandmother set for me — and that worries me. But you know what she would say if I told her that? “I love you, sugar.”

We’d be delighted to hear from you — What have you learned from a beloved elder? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below. Thank you!


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





Louisiana coast authority recommends spending $32 million of oil spill fine money on Houma lock, Calcasieu River salinity control projects
By Mark Schleifstein, Times-Picayune. Feb. 11, 2015
“The project is aimed at restoring historic salinity levels in the basin and will be designed to save more than 3,400 acres of marsh from degradation over 50 years.” (Read More)
 
Jefferson Parish Council calls for study of Plaquemines coal terminal
By Adriane Quinlan, Times-Picayune. Feb. 11, 2015
“Environment advocates say it would harm a continuing coastal restoration project, the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, as well as residents who live near rail lines in West Jefferson.” (Read More)
 
Ed Schultz Exposes BP’s Toxic Impact on Gulf Coast Residents
By Farron Cousins, Ring of Fire. Feb. 11, 2015
“Residents along the Gulf Coast are approaching an unpleasant anniversary – The 5-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oilrig disaster and spill. Soon after that April anniversary, we’ll hit another 5-year reminder of the day that almost all of mainstream media hosts stopped paying attention to the destruction that BP caused to the Gulf Coast.” (Read More)