Aggregator

Written by Moms Clean Air Force


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





Moms Clean Air Force DC field organizer, Julie Hantman participated in EPA’s public hearing on the smog standard on January 29, 2015 in Washington, DC. Here is the testimony she delivered:

Good morning, my name is Julie Hantman, and I am with Moms Clean Air Force, a community of parents fighting for clean air. I am grateful to speak to you today, to urge EPA to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards for ozone.

I am wearing many hats today. Many reasons drive me to testify.

I have mild asthma that’s worse in the summer.

I am a resident of Washington, DC and I am mother to a toddler who loves the outdoors — yet we live 100 steps away from heavily trafficked Massachusetts Avenue – in a region that gets an ‘F’ from lung experts for respiratory health. I must try to help clean up the air that my daughter breathes.

And I am DC Field Organizer with Moms Clean Air Force (MCAF). In that role I have gotten to know moms here, and around the country, whose families suffer from dirty air. Many say they have multiple respiratory threats in their region. This makes each and every clean air battleground extremely important – and smog is one of the biggest problems.

I therefore respectfully urge you to set the smog standard at 60 parts per billion (ppb). The scientific record demonstrates that this level would provide the strongest public health protections for Americans and most importantly for our children. It is based on the recommendation of the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Panel, which rests on a thorough and expert review of the science.

You will hear vigorous push-back — particularly from polluting industries — that this cannot, or should not, be done.

But on behalf of over 1,200 moms and dads in my DC chapter – and over 400,000 members of Moms Clean Air Force nationally – I urge you to hold the line — and indeed lower the line down to that 60 parts per billion level.

Push-back against sound public health initiatives of course is the norm.

I wear another hat today – that of a public health professional who — in the last twenty years – has scratched my head many times at the prevailing tendency to ignore or minimize public health crises. AIDS, antibiotic resistance, and more.

And here’s what I’ve learned: the more a public health problem affects certain groups of people most and not everyone; or the problem has lasted long enough or hit broadly enough that it seems, in a sense, normal; or requires preventive solutions that are complex or entail changes to established practices or retrofit, — then the more some people cry foul at the upfront price tag. Yet if ignored or insufficiently addressed, the problem builds and builds.

This is a terrific opportunity for public health. The science is clear. EPA has the opportunity to protect millions of Americans from dirty air and unnecessary illness. According to EPA’s analysis, strengthening the smog standard to the more stringent 60 ppb would confer profound health benefits to Americans. At this level of protection, EPA estimates 7,900 fewer deaths, 1.8 million fewer asthma attacks in children, and 9.2 million fewer restricted activity days or lost school days, each year. The monetized benefits of this level of protection in 2025 would be upwards of $37 billion – profound savings as well. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

EPA should follow the science. Setting the allowable level of smog at 60 ppb would provide the strongest public health protections for American families. New, stronger standards for smog pollution will help millions of Americans with asthma and other respiratory ailments, breathe easier.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





By Maggie Monast

At first, the idea that fertilizer companies should help farmers become more efficient with fertilizer use is counterintuitive. After all, fertilizer retailers are in business to make money, so it makes sense that they would want to maximize sales of their core product.

Fortunately, using fertilizer more efficiently – even if this means less in some cases — can create more profit for retailers and growers. Fertilizer retailers have good reasons to incorporate fertilizer efficiency in their business strategies.

• Customer retention: If customers save money, they usually return again and again. Fertilizer efficiency saves farmers money by helping them apply a more accurate amount of nutrients needed by their crops. Retailers will gain loyal customers.
• Value-added products and services: Some products that help farmers increase fertilizer efficiency also provide new business opportunities for retailers. By widening their sales offerings, retailers can continue to make a profit while reducing fertilizer lost to the environment.
• Meeting supply chain demand: Fertilizer retailers must recognize that their customers increasingly will request products and services to improve fertilizer efficiency. That's because growers are being asked by major food retailers and companies for sustainably-grown grain.

Sustainability is no longer a niche issue. It is becoming an integral part of any successful business.

Despite those benefits, a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Quality documents that farmers who get their information from fertilizer retailers are less likely to use nitrogen efficiency tests and products, such as nitrogen soil testing, plant tissue testing, and nitrogen transformation inhibitors – each of which can help decrease nutrient losses from crops and improve water quality and climate stability.

Another survey found that 82 percent of farmers in Iowa would turn to a fertilizer dealer first for information on fertilizer application rates. Clearly, retailers have influence.

Retailers changing course

Some fertilizer retailers are ready to change course when it comes to promoting nitrogen efficiency practices and products.

Industry predictions for 2015 include two encouraging trends:

• The use of precision agriculture will soar.
• There will be wider adoption of the 4R principles of nutrient stewardship (the Right fertilizer source, at the Right rate, at the Right time, and in the Right place).

Sustainability is no longer a niche issue. It is becoming an integral part of any successful business.

Leading the way

An outstanding example of innovation is United Suppliers’ SUSTAIN program. United Suppliers is a cooperative of locally-controlled ag retailers. Its SUSTAIN program is training the company’s owner-retailers on best practices and precision agriculture technologies that improve nutrient use efficiency and soil health, all while keeping growers productive.

In turn, farmers are using the SUSTAIN toolkit to guide their fertilizer decisions.

As other fertilizer retailers follow the example of United Suppliers and SUSTAIN, they will reap the business benefits of sustainability – and so will their farmer clients and the environment.

By Maggie Monast

At first, the idea that fertilizer companies should help farmers become more efficient with fertilizer use is counterintuitive. After all, fertilizer retailers are in business to make money, so it makes sense that they would want to maximize sales of their core product.

Fortunately, using fertilizer more efficiently – even if this means less in some cases — can create more profit for retailers and growers. Fertilizer retailers have good reasons to incorporate fertilizer efficiency in their business strategies.

• Customer retention: If customers save money, they usually return again and again. Fertilizer efficiency saves farmers money by helping them apply a more accurate amount of nutrients needed by their crops. Retailers will gain loyal customers.
• Value-added products and services: Some products that help farmers increase fertilizer efficiency also provide new business opportunities for retailers. By widening their sales offerings, retailers can continue to make a profit while reducing fertilizer lost to the environment.
• Meeting supply chain demand: Fertilizer retailers must recognize that their customers increasingly will request products and services to improve fertilizer efficiency. That's because growers are being asked by major food retailers and companies for sustainably-grown grain.

Sustainability is no longer a niche issue. It is becoming an integral part of any successful business.

Despite those benefits, a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Quality documents that farmers who get their information from fertilizer retailers are less likely to use nitrogen efficiency tests and products, such as nitrogen soil testing, plant tissue testing, and nitrogen transformation inhibitors – each of which can help decrease nutrient losses from crops and improve water quality and climate stability.

Another survey found that 82 percent of farmers in Iowa would turn to a fertilizer dealer first for information on fertilizer application rates. Clearly, retailers have influence.

Retailers changing course

Some fertilizer retailers are ready to change course when it comes to promoting nitrogen efficiency practices and products.

Industry predictions for 2015 include two encouraging trends:

• The use of precision agriculture will soar.
• There will be wider adoption of the 4R principles of nutrient stewardship (the Right fertilizer source, at the Right rate, at the Right time, and in the Right place).

Sustainability is no longer a niche issue. It is becoming an integral part of any successful business.

Leading the way

An outstanding example of innovation is United Suppliers’ SUSTAIN program. United Suppliers is a cooperative of locally-controlled ag retailers. Its SUSTAIN program is training the company’s owner-retailers on best practices and precision agriculture technologies that improve nutrient use efficiency and soil health, all while keeping growers productive.

In turn, farmers are using the SUSTAIN toolkit to guide their fertilizer decisions.

As other fertilizer retailers follow the example of United Suppliers and SUSTAIN, they will reap the business benefits of sustainability – and so will their farmer clients and the environment.

Delta Blues Part 3: Better Together
By Eve Troeh & Jesse Hardman, WWNO. Feb. 05, 2015
“Louisiana faces the highest relative rates of sea level rise in the world. As policy and funding debates rage over how to best restore and protect our coastal communities, local leaders also look for allies elsewhere.” (Read More)

Cedric Richmond urges President Obama to scrap plan to cancel offshore revenue sharing
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 05, 2015
“Canals cut through Louisiana wetlands for oil and gas exploration are one of the causes of erosion that destroyed 1,900 square miles of land since 1932. The erosion has continued and the damage was exacerbated by the massive BP oil spill in 2010.” (Read More)
 
Scientists may have finally solved the mystery of the missing BP oil
By Terrence McCoy, The Washington Post. Feb. 05, 2015
“According to papers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Science & Technology, while everyone was frenetically searching the waters for oil, millions of gallons of it quietly sank to the ocean floor.” (Read More)

Vitter announces $62.4 million for Louisiana projects
myarklamiss.com. Feb. 03, 2015
“Louisiana’s ports and waterways are at the center of transporting goods and services to the rest of the county. Maintaining and updating our ship channels, levees, and canals is critical for two reasons. First, it helps restore out coastline and protects Louisianians from storms and flooding, and secondly, it allows commerce to flow freely,” said Vitter. “These projects will create jobs, boost the local economy, and help to prevent future natural and ecological disaster to south Louisiana.” (Read More)

Delta Blues Part 3: Better Together
By Eve Troeh & Jesse Hardman, WWNO. Feb. 05, 2015
“Louisiana faces the highest relative rates of sea level rise in the world. As policy and funding debates rage over how to best restore and protect our coastal communities, local leaders also look for allies elsewhere.” (Read More)

Cedric Richmond urges President Obama to scrap plan to cancel offshore revenue sharing
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 05, 2015
“Canals cut through Louisiana wetlands for oil and gas exploration are one of the causes of erosion that destroyed 1,900 square miles of land since 1932. The erosion has continued and the damage was exacerbated by the massive BP oil spill in 2010.” (Read More)
 
Scientists may have finally solved the mystery of the missing BP oil
By Terrence McCoy, The Washington Post. Feb. 05, 2015
“According to papers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Science & Technology, while everyone was frenetically searching the waters for oil, millions of gallons of it quietly sank to the ocean floor.” (Read More)

Vitter announces $62.4 million for Louisiana projects
myarklamiss.com. Feb. 03, 2015
“Louisiana’s ports and waterways are at the center of transporting goods and services to the rest of the county. Maintaining and updating our ship channels, levees, and canals is critical for two reasons. First, it helps restore out coastline and protects Louisianians from storms and flooding, and secondly, it allows commerce to flow freely,” said Vitter. “These projects will create jobs, boost the local economy, and help to prevent future natural and ecological disaster to south Louisiana.” (Read More)

February 6, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Emily Guidry Schatzel, National Wildlife Federation, 225.253.9781, schatzele@nwf.org
Elizabeth Van Cleve, Environmental Defense Fund, 202.553.2543, evancleve@edf.org
Jacques Hebert, National Audubon Society, 504.264.6849, jhebert@audubon.org

Survey Says Majority of Americans Believe BP Should Pay Maximum Gulf Oil Spill Fines
70 percent say oil company should be fined the maximum allowed under the Clean Water Act

(New Orleans – February 6, 2015) A new national survey reports that 70 percent of Americans polled nationwide believe “BP should be fined the maximum amount allowed under the Clean Water Act” for its role in the 2010 Gulf oil spill.

The third and final phase of the BP oil spill civil trial, which will determine how much the oil company will be required to pay in fines, concluded this week in New Orleans. BP could be ordered to pay up to $13.7 billion in Clean Water Act fines for its role in one of the largest oil disasters in U.S. history.

“The majority of Americans understand that BP has not yet paid any civil penalties for its reckless discharge of oil into the Gulf, nor can it claim credit for clean-up costs as if mopping up your mess is the same as fixing the damage it caused. As new scientific studies are published, we learn more and more about the lasting impacts to many species, habitats and industries,” said David Muth, director of National Wildlife Federation’s Gulf restoration program. “Five years later, Gulf restoration has not truly begun. If BP really wants Americans to believe it is sincere, it should pay the fines it owes, and fund the restoration the Gulf so badly needs.”

An overwhelming majority of Americans polled in all parts of the country said they believed BP should pay the maximum fines, even after hearing BP’s claims of what the company has already spent on “spill-related costs” thus far. This is according to the results of the independent survey conducted by the polling company, inc./WomanTrend.

“Americans aren’t fooled by BP’s misleading advertising campaigns and five years of legal shenanigans to drag out this court case,” said Douglas Meffert, executive director and vice president of Audubon Louisiana. “BP claims it wants to ‘make it right.’ If that is true, the first step is to start accepting responsibility for the damage it caused the wetlands, people and wildlife of the Gulf Coast and pay the maximum fines.”

“If BP wants anyone other than themselves to agree that they ‘made it right,’ they can step out of the shadow of lawyers, quit spinning and arguing, and just accept full responsibility,” said Steve Cochran, director of Environmental Defense Fund’s Mississippi River Delta Restoration program. “The sooner that happens, the sooner real resources can be put to work restoring the Gulf. And in this anniversary year of one of the worst oil spills in American history, that would be a great thing for the Gulf and for BP.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Emily Guidry Schatzel, National Wildlife Federation, 225.253.9781, schatzele@nwf.org
Elizabeth Van Cleve, Environmental Defense Fund, 202.553.2543, evancleve@edf.org
Jacques Hebert, National Audubon Society, 504.264.6849, jhebert@audubon.org

Survey Says Majority of Americans Believe BP Should Pay Maximum Gulf Oil Spill Fines
70 percent say oil company should be fined the maximum allowed under the Clean Water Act

(New Orleans – February 6, 2015) A new national survey reports that 70 percent of Americans polled nationwide believe “BP should be fined the maximum amount allowed under the Clean Water Act” for its role in the 2010 Gulf oil spill.

The third and final phase of the BP oil spill civil trial, which will determine how much the oil company will be required to pay in fines, concluded this week in New Orleans. BP could be ordered to pay up to $13.7 billion in Clean Water Act fines for its role in one of the largest oil disasters in U.S. history.

“The majority of Americans understand that BP has not yet paid any civil penalties for its reckless discharge of oil into the Gulf, nor can it claim credit for clean-up costs as if mopping up your mess is the same as fixing the damage it caused. As new scientific studies are published, we learn more and more about the lasting impacts to many species, habitats and industries,” said David Muth, director of National Wildlife Federation’s Gulf restoration program. “Five years later, Gulf restoration has not truly begun. If BP really wants Americans to believe it is sincere, it should pay the fines it owes, and fund the restoration the Gulf so badly needs.”

An overwhelming majority of Americans polled in all parts of the country said they believed BP should pay the maximum fines, even after hearing BP’s claims of what the company has already spent on “spill-related costs” thus far. This is according to the results of the independent survey conducted by the polling company, inc./WomanTrend.

“Americans aren’t fooled by BP’s misleading advertising campaigns and five years of legal shenanigans to drag out this court case,” said Douglas Meffert, executive director and vice president of Audubon Louisiana. “BP claims it wants to ‘make it right.’ If that is true, the first step is to start accepting responsibility for the damage it caused the wetlands, people and wildlife of the Gulf Coast and pay the maximum fines.”

“If BP wants anyone other than themselves to agree that they ‘made it right,’ they can step out of the shadow of lawyers, quit spinning and arguing, and just accept full responsibility,” said Steve Cochran, director of Environmental Defense Fund’s Mississippi River Delta Restoration program. “The sooner that happens, the sooner real resources can be put to work restoring the Gulf. And in this anniversary year of one of the worst oil spills in American history, that would be a great thing for the Gulf and for BP.”

###

Greens fume over Obama’s bid to divert restoration funding
 By Phil Taylor, Greenwire. Feb. 04, 2015
“This proposed budget undercuts the administration's previous commitments to restore critical economic infrastructure and ecosystems in the Mississippi River Delta, where we are losing 16 square miles of critical wetlands every year — a preventable coastal erosion crisis," the environmental groups said. "Those wetlands, and the culture and economic infrastructure they protect from hurricanes, will be lost without complete and ongoing intervention.” (Read More)

Budget plan threatens to gut Louisiana’s coastal restoration effort
 By John Snell, WVUE-New Orleans. Feb. 03, 2015
“The budget, unveiled this week, would scrap plans for Gulf Coast states from Florida to Texas to share $500 million in offshore oil royalties annually. The total includes an estimated $170 million for Louisiana.” (Read More)

Don’t cut off offshore revenue-sharing, President Obama: Editorial
By Editorial Board, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 04, 2015
“Louisiana and other Gulf states have borne the environmental and infrastructure costs of energy production for decades. We are only now about to get a meaningful share of the lease revenues that oil and gas companies pay to the federal government.” (Read More)

State’s coastal restoration efforts imperiled by Obama’s budget proposal
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. Feb. 03, 2015
“President Obama’s unexpected budget proposal to stop sending a portion of federal offshore mineral royalties to Gulf states could cripple Louisiana’s coastal-restoration efforts by eliminating what is expected to be $140 million to nearly $180 million in annual revenue.” (Read More)

This overlooked item in Obama’s budget will cost Gulf Coast states millions
By Jeff Guo, Washington Post. Feb. 04, 2015
“Louisiana, perhaps, has the keenest interest in all of this. In 2012, the state issued an ambitious 50-year, $50 billion plan to shore up its sinking coastline. The GOMESA money will be crucial to this effort, which will involve $500–$1.5 billion in annual spending.” (Read More)

Louisiana members confident of blocking President Obama’s proposal to scrap offshore revenue sharing
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 03, 2015
“Louisiana congressional members are optimistic they can block President Barack Obama's proposal to reallocate revenue sharing funding for Louisiana and other oil producing Gulf States for national environmental needs.” (Read More)

President Obama sticks it to Louisiana; who has the standing to fight for us?
By Jarvis DeBerry, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 04, 2015
“We deserve the royalty money because our state has paid the ultimate cost for that oil and gas exploration: the loss of our land.” (Read More)

Greens fume over Obama’s bid to divert restoration funding
 By Phil Taylor, Greenwire. Feb. 04, 2015
“This proposed budget undercuts the administration's previous commitments to restore critical economic infrastructure and ecosystems in the Mississippi River Delta, where we are losing 16 square miles of critical wetlands every year — a preventable coastal erosion crisis," the environmental groups said. "Those wetlands, and the culture and economic infrastructure they protect from hurricanes, will be lost without complete and ongoing intervention.” (Read More)

Budget plan threatens to gut Louisiana’s coastal restoration effort
 By John Snell, WVUE-New Orleans. Feb. 03, 2015
“The budget, unveiled this week, would scrap plans for Gulf Coast states from Florida to Texas to share $500 million in offshore oil royalties annually. The total includes an estimated $170 million for Louisiana.” (Read More)

Don’t cut off offshore revenue-sharing, President Obama: Editorial
By Editorial Board, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 04, 2015
“Louisiana and other Gulf states have borne the environmental and infrastructure costs of energy production for decades. We are only now about to get a meaningful share of the lease revenues that oil and gas companies pay to the federal government.” (Read More)

State’s coastal restoration efforts imperiled by Obama’s budget proposal
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. Feb. 03, 2015
“President Obama’s unexpected budget proposal to stop sending a portion of federal offshore mineral royalties to Gulf states could cripple Louisiana’s coastal-restoration efforts by eliminating what is expected to be $140 million to nearly $180 million in annual revenue.” (Read More)

This overlooked item in Obama’s budget will cost Gulf Coast states millions
By Jeff Guo, Washington Post. Feb. 04, 2015
“Louisiana, perhaps, has the keenest interest in all of this. In 2012, the state issued an ambitious 50-year, $50 billion plan to shore up its sinking coastline. The GOMESA money will be crucial to this effort, which will involve $500–$1.5 billion in annual spending.” (Read More)

Louisiana members confident of blocking President Obama’s proposal to scrap offshore revenue sharing
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 03, 2015
“Louisiana congressional members are optimistic they can block President Barack Obama's proposal to reallocate revenue sharing funding for Louisiana and other oil producing Gulf States for national environmental needs.” (Read More)

President Obama sticks it to Louisiana; who has the standing to fight for us?
By Jarvis DeBerry, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 04, 2015
“We deserve the royalty money because our state has paid the ultimate cost for that oil and gas exploration: the loss of our land.” (Read More)

By: Kendra Karr & Rod Fujita There is a general consensus that transitioning to ecosystem-based fisheries management will result in better outcomes for both marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them.  But what exactly does that mean, and how exactly can fisheries management get there? Ecosystem-based fisheries management has been thoroughly debated and […]

By Kendra Karr

Gardens of the Queen, Cuba. Photo: Noel Lopez Fernandez

By: Kendra Karr & Rod Fujita

There is a general consensus that transitioning to ecosystem-based fisheries management will result in better outcomes for both marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them.  But what exactly does that mean, and how exactly can fisheries management get there?

Ecosystem-based fisheries management has been thoroughly debated and there are many aspects to it.  But one thing seems clear. When developing conservation and management goals, the entire ecosystem should be considered rather than just an individual fish population.

To actually achieve such goals, scientists and managers would need to quantify fishing targets and limits and then take actions intended to maintain fisheries and the ecosystem within a “safe operating space” associated with the maintenance of a variety of ecosystem goods and services. In our new publication, we have moved one step closer to identifying these fishing targets and limits for management in multi-species fisheries in coral reefs.

Typically, fisheries management in the U.S. is focused on managing fishing pressure on individual fish stocks, with the goal of keeping them healthy enough to produce good yields.  But many nearshore fisheries — for example, finfish fisheries prosecuted in U.S. nearshore coral reefs — are multi-species fisheries.

Decades of research show clearly that:

• Reduction of a broad suite of fish populations to non-functional levels affects the basic processes that keep coral reef ecosystems and targeted stocks healthy.
• Coral reefs are capable of existing in different states — some of which are generally desirable because they are associated with high levels of coral cover, intact food webs including large predators, and high biodiversity; supporting multiple ecosystem services such as fisheries and tourism.
• Coral reefs can also exist in other states that are not as desirable because they have lower levels of coral cover, degraded food webs, fewer large fish, and lower biodiversity – and may produce fewer ecosystem services at lower levels.

Our latest publication corroborates the findings of many other studies showing that transitions

Gardens of the Queen, Cuba. Photo: Noel Lopez Fernandez

between these states are not gradual or linear, but rather sudden.  We also show that these transitions are associated with certain thresholds — abrupt non-linear changes in the state of a coral reef — in fish biomass.

These insights — that coral reefs exist in different states, that fish are important for maintaining desirable states, and that coral reefs can change state relatively quickly when fish are removed from the system —  provides a basis for developing targets and limits for ecosystem based fisheries management in coral reefs.

 

How much can we remove from the ocean and maintain a healthy ecosystem?

The sustainability of coral reef fisheries in the U.S is poorly understood – no one really knows how much fish biomass can be removed from coral reefs without reducing sustainable fishery yield or altering the state of the system. Our research, examines the amount of fish biomass that can be removed from coral reefs, without shifting the health of the ecosystem to a state that cannot support continued fishing activities or other ecosystem services.

By examining thousands of data points across 26 Caribbean countries over 18 years, we found:

• Empirical relationships between metrics of coral reef state and loss of fish biomass.
• Several metrics (e.g., macroalgal cover, change in fish assemblage) show thresholds at high fish biomass levels, supporting the concept that coral-dominated states are associated with high fish biomass.
• Other metrics (e.g. herbivorous fishes and coral cover) show thresholds at lower fish biomass levels, suggesting that such levels may be associated with transitional states and finally macroalgae-dominated states.
• If levels of drivers that cause transitions between states are identified, management measures could be aimed at maintaining drivers below these levels to avoid ecosystem shifts and preserve a diverse portfolio of ecosystem services.

 Using thresholds for ecosystem-based management

One of the obstacles to implementing ecosystem-based management in nearshore tropical reef fisheries is the lack of reference points — targets and limits —that trigger management actions. These numerical levels are important management targets because altering driver levels generally has accompanying social and economic trade-offs that managers will be expected to minimize (e.g. loss of fisheries revenue).

We suggest that in data-limited coral reef fisheries, such as in the U.S. Caribbean:

• Gardens of the Queen, Cuba. Photo: Noel Lopez Fernandez

  The ratio of fish biomass to unfished fish biomass (i.e., measured in no-take reserves with similar habitat) can be used to assess the risk of ecosystem state change and this relationship can be used to develop reference points that guide precautionary ecosystem-based management.

• High levels of fish biomass (i.e., above 60% or 0.6 of unfished biomass) may be appropriate for the provisioning of multiple ecosystem services, but may be associated with sub-maximum fishery yield.
• If maximizing fishery yield is a central concern, maintaining fished to unfished biomass ratios near 0.5 is associated with coral-dominated states and may also result in pretty good yield ( 80% of maximum sustainable yield) for a multi-species fishery with relatively low risk of ecosystem change.
• Biomass ratios < 0.3 are associated with overfishing and transitions to macroalgal-dominated states, and might serve as an indicator of risk of both.

Quantitative thresholds in fish biomass can be used to develop reference points that guide management aimed to (i) maintain desirable coral reef conditions, (ii) establish a system-specific multi-species target for generating pretty good yield and (iii) maintain sustainable multi-species fishery resulting in what could be considered ecosystem-based fisheries management in coral reefs.

EDF will continue to refine and test this approach, while advocating their use in assessing coral reef status and developing precautionary aggregate catch or effort policies for data-limited multispecies fisheries prosecuted in coral reefs.

By Kendra Karr

Gardens of the Queen, Cuba. Photo: Noel Lopez Fernandez

By: Kendra Karr & Rod Fujita

There is a general consensus that transitioning to ecosystem-based fisheries management will result in better outcomes for both marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them.  But what exactly does that mean, and how exactly can fisheries management get there?

Ecosystem-based fisheries management has been thoroughly debated and there are many aspects to it.  But one thing seems clear. When developing conservation and management goals, the entire ecosystem should be considered rather than just an individual fish population.

To actually achieve such goals, scientists and managers would need to quantify fishing targets and limits and then take actions intended to maintain fisheries and the ecosystem within a “safe operating space” associated with the maintenance of a variety of ecosystem goods and services. In our new publication, we have moved one step closer to identifying these fishing targets and limits for management in multi-species fisheries in coral reefs.

Typically, fisheries management in the U.S. is focused on managing fishing pressure on individual fish stocks, with the goal of keeping them healthy enough to produce good yields.  But many nearshore fisheries — for example, finfish fisheries prosecuted in U.S. nearshore coral reefs — are multi-species fisheries.

Decades of research show clearly that:

• Reduction of a broad suite of fish populations to non-functional levels affects the basic processes that keep coral reef ecosystems and targeted stocks healthy.
• Coral reefs are capable of existing in different states — some of which are generally desirable because they are associated with high levels of coral cover, intact food webs including large predators, and high biodiversity; supporting multiple ecosystem services such as fisheries and tourism.
• Coral reefs can also exist in other states that are not as desirable because they have lower levels of coral cover, degraded food webs, fewer large fish, and lower biodiversity – and may produce fewer ecosystem services at lower levels.

Our latest publication corroborates the findings of many other studies showing that transitions

Gardens of the Queen, Cuba. Photo: Noel Lopez Fernandez

between these states are not gradual or linear, but rather sudden.  We also show that these transitions are associated with certain thresholds — abrupt non-linear changes in the state of a coral reef — in fish biomass.

These insights — that coral reefs exist in different states, that fish are important for maintaining desirable states, and that coral reefs can change state relatively quickly when fish are removed from the system —  provides a basis for developing targets and limits for ecosystem based fisheries management in coral reefs.

 

How much can we remove from the ocean and maintain a healthy ecosystem?

The sustainability of coral reef fisheries in the U.S is poorly understood – no one really knows how much fish biomass can be removed from coral reefs without reducing sustainable fishery yield or altering the state of the system. Our research, examines the amount of fish biomass that can be removed from coral reefs, without shifting the health of the ecosystem to a state that cannot support continued fishing activities or other ecosystem services.

By examining thousands of data points across 26 Caribbean countries over 18 years, we found:

• Empirical relationships between metrics of coral reef state and loss of fish biomass.
• Several metrics (e.g., macroalgal cover, change in fish assemblage) show thresholds at high fish biomass levels, supporting the concept that coral-dominated states are associated with high fish biomass.
• Other metrics (e.g. herbivorous fishes and coral cover) show thresholds at lower fish biomass levels, suggesting that such levels may be associated with transitional states and finally macroalgae-dominated states.
• If levels of drivers that cause transitions between states are identified, management measures could be aimed at maintaining drivers below these levels to avoid ecosystem shifts and preserve a diverse portfolio of ecosystem services.

 Using thresholds for ecosystem-based management

One of the obstacles to implementing ecosystem-based management in nearshore tropical reef fisheries is the lack of reference points — targets and limits —that trigger management actions. These numerical levels are important management targets because altering driver levels generally has accompanying social and economic trade-offs that managers will be expected to minimize (e.g. loss of fisheries revenue).

We suggest that in data-limited coral reef fisheries, such as in the U.S. Caribbean:

• Gardens of the Queen, Cuba. Photo: Noel Lopez Fernandez

  The ratio of fish biomass to unfished fish biomass (i.e., measured in no-take reserves with similar habitat) can be used to assess the risk of ecosystem state change and this relationship can be used to develop reference points that guide precautionary ecosystem-based management.

• High levels of fish biomass (i.e., above 60% or 0.6 of unfished biomass) may be appropriate for the provisioning of multiple ecosystem services, but may be associated with sub-maximum fishery yield.
• If maximizing fishery yield is a central concern, maintaining fished to unfished biomass ratios near 0.5 is associated with coral-dominated states and may also result in pretty good yield ( 80% of maximum sustainable yield) for a multi-species fishery with relatively low risk of ecosystem change.
• Biomass ratios < 0.3 are associated with overfishing and transitions to macroalgal-dominated states, and might serve as an indicator of risk of both.

Quantitative thresholds in fish biomass can be used to develop reference points that guide management aimed to (i) maintain desirable coral reef conditions, (ii) establish a system-specific multi-species target for generating pretty good yield and (iii) maintain sustainable multi-species fishery resulting in what could be considered ecosystem-based fisheries management in coral reefs.

EDF will continue to refine and test this approach, while advocating their use in assessing coral reef status and developing precautionary aggregate catch or effort policies for data-limited multispecies fisheries prosecuted in coral reefs.

Written by Lori Popkewitz Alper

Change is happening. As buyers continue to demand flame retardant-free furniture, manufacturers have no other option but to listen.

It’s no secret flame retardants have been linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption and other serious health problems, yet much of the furniture in the market place continues to be filled with these toxic chemicals.

There’s some good news to report.

Office Furniture and Toxic Flame Retardants

A group of companies that cumulatively spend over $520 million annually on office furniture have pledged to purchase furniture that contains no chemical flame retardants. By taking this pledge they are joining forces to demand their office furniture suppliers offer safer products without flame retardant chemicals.

This is a big shift in the right direction. With these companies taking the lead, they’re sending a strong message to all furniture companies that it’s time to end the use of toxic flame retardant chemicals.

According to the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) a small group of office furniture companies have already committed to selling flame retardant-free furniture.

CEH also released the names of the corporations and government entities that have signed the CEH Purchaser’s Pledge. The companies on this list have taken a pledge to purchase furniture made without toxic chemicals. Their commitment to purchase chemical-free furniture kicks off a national trend towards safer products made without flame retardants.

Some of the companies committing to purchase furniture made without toxic chemicals include: HDR Architecture (North America’s 2nd largest design firm, with 8,500 employees working in 200 locations worldwide), Facebook, Staples, Autodesk, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and San Francisco Department of the Environment.

Residential Furniture and Toxic Flame Retardants

Back in 2013, a study of 102 couch samples (including one from Moms Clean Air Force’s Public Health Policy and Outreach Manager, Molly Rauch), were gathered from around the country and tested for the presence of flame retardant chemicals. An alarming 41% of the samples were found to contain chlorinated Tris, a carcinogenic flame retardant which was banned for use in baby pajamas in the 1970s.

Thankfully, there’s good news coming out of California. Beginning on January 1, 2015, companies that sell furniture in the state of California (manufacturers are applying this to products sold nationwide) are required to include a label that discloses if upholstered furniture products contain flame retardants. Check for the label underneath or on the back side of furniture.

These new safety regulations also allow upholstered furniture to be made without flame retardants. It’s important to note that these regulations don’t ban added flame retardants from furniture. Unfortunately, only products manufactured after January 1, 2015 will require the label, and mattresses are not required to be labeled. But again, it’s a step in the right direction.

The Chicago Tribune reported reported:

“…that major furniture retailers including Crate and Barrel, Room & Board, and Williams-Sonoma (Pottery Barn, West Elm) all say they have mostly eliminated the chemicals from their products. IKEA, La-Z-Boy, The Futon Shop, Scandinavian Designs and Wal-Mart also said they have told vendors to stop adding flame retardants to furniture.”

The nation’s largest furniture company, Wisconsin-based Ashley Furniture, reported to the Chicago Tribune it is committed to making products that don’t contain flame retardants.

This is big news. According to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Ashley Furniture is not only the biggest furniture retailer in the US, they’re also the biggest manufacturer, and one of the biggest in the world with nearly $4 billion in sales. We now need Ashley Furniture to take the next step by announcing a clear public time frame for phasing out these chemicals in furniture foam and fabrics.

How to find flame retardant-free furniture

With the new safety regulations in place my search for chemical-free furniture just became a bit easier. While manufacturers aren’t required to remove flame retardants from their furniture, these new requirements are a few steps closer to transparency when it comes to our furniture purchases.

Let your dollars do the talking and seek out furniture retailers and manufacturers that commit to carrying furniture without toxic flame retardants.

• Check if the company is on the CEH list and has removed all flame retardant chemicals from their furniture.
• Ask retailers and manufacturers if the product/model you are considering is flame retardant-free.
• Verify that the furniture you’re planning to purchase was manufactured after January 1, 2015.
• Let retailers who continue to use toxic flame retardants know that you won’t be purchasing their products.
• When purchasing furniture, use the NRDC guide and verify with the store that the product is flame retardant-free.
• Look for the new label from companies that sell furniture in the state of California which discloses if upholstered furniture products contain flame retardants.
  
  


TELL THE SENATE: PASS STRONGER TOXIC CHEMICAL STANDARDS




Written by Molly Rauch

MCAF members testify for stronger smog standard in Texas.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





I went to Texas to participate in EPA’s public hearing on the smog standard on January 29, 2015. Here is the testimony I delivered.

I am here as a public health expert to talk about the health effects of smog, and to respectfully urge you to set the smog standard at 60 parts per billion – which is more stringent than the standard you proposed in November. The scientific record demonstrates that this level would provide the strongest public health protections for Americans.

I want to tell a somewhat personal story as a way of explaining why parents need a more stringent standard.

I am the mother of three school age children, and I live in Washington, DC, an area of the country with consistently high levels of smog. Several years ago, when my children were still quite young, I developed asthma-like symptoms that bothered me in the summer. I eventually realized that breathing smog on hot, humid days likely triggered the coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, and pain that I felt. I received a prescription for an inhaler and was told that I was now considered among the “vulnerable.”

What did that mean? It meant that I should take precautions on days with high air pollution, because those days could trigger the very uncomfortable symptoms I had started to have. My lungs were sensitive. And the way to protect myself, as a vulnerable person, was to pay attention to the Air Quality Index.

And so, at the suggestion of my doctor, I started looking at the AQI in the newspaper and online. Now I make sure to avoid prolonged outdoor time on high ozone days. Because I don’t want my children’s lungs harmed by smog either, I also do the same for them, making sure that they go to the library instead of the playground when the AQI hits orange. The AQI is a tool I can use, as a parent, to try to keep my kids and myself safe.

The problem is that the AQI is a function of the NAAQS. It represents the health determination implicit in the EPA standard. If the EPA standard is too lax, the AQI doesn’t help parents.

Parents need a NAAQS standard that tells us the truth. Through the AQI, we rely on this measure to make determinations about how to care for our children, our parents, and ourselves. We use it to keep our babies safe. If the smog standard is too lax, as it currently stands, the air quality alert system can tell us that it’s safe to send our kids outside to play, even when it’s not. We deserve to know the truth about whether the air is safe to breathe.

Smog at levels below 65 parts per billion can harm some of the most vulnerable among us – potentially people like me, and my children. That’s what the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Panel said to your agency, based on their thorough and expert review of the science. Our national standard needs to reflect that determination. Parents have a right to know the truth.

We know that breathing smog triggers asthma attacks, interferes with lung development, increases lung infections, increases hospital visits, and is associated with premature death from cardiovascular and respiratory causes. Breathing smog gets in the way of little lungs developing properly, exacerbates the national childhood asthma epidemic, and it causes our elders pain, suffering, and even death.

The science is clear on this issue. Study after study has shown appreciable health impacts of breathing smog at levels currently common in cities like Dallas.

Right now, EPA has the opportunity to protect millions of Americans from dirty air and unnecessary illness. According to EPA’s analysis, strengthening the smog standard to 60 ppb would confer profound health benefits to Americans. At this level of protection, EPA estimates 7,900 fewer deaths, 1.8 million fewer asthma attacks in children, and 9.2 million fewer restricted activity days or lost school days, each year. The monetized benefits of this level of protection in 2025 would be upwards of $37 billion.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended a standard in the range of 60 to 70 ppb. The CASAC was clear that a standard of 60 ppb would offer more public health protection than a standard of 65 or 70.

EPA should follow the science. The scientific record shows that setting the allowable level of smog at 60 ppb would provide the strongest public health protections for American families. New, stronger standards for smog pollution will help millions of Americans with asthma and other respiratory ailments, like myself, breathe easier.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





By Dick Munson

Labor, business, and environmental leaders have formed a unique coalition that will urge Illinois lawmakers to pass new standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy, leading to tens of thousands of new, local jobs.

Members of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, including Environmental Defense Fund, argue that the state should not settle for an old stagnant energy system – one that struggles to meet new Environmental Protection Agency clean energy standards, raises electricity prices for families and businesses, and fails to create new jobs. Instead, we should move decisively toward a cleaner, more reliable, and affordable energy future that increases employment right here in Illinois.

More than 100,000 individuals across the state already work in the clean energy industry, exceeding the number employed in the state’s real estate and accounting sectors combined. That figure is growing at an impressive rate of nine to 10 percent annually. Coalition members predict even sharper job growth if lawmakers embrace their recommendations for spurring a clean energy economy in Illinois, including:

• Revising the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the share of power coming from renewable sources, like wind and solar, to 35 percent by 2030;
• Increasing energy efficiency standards to reduce electricity use in Illinois by 20 percent by 2025, creating tens of thousands of new jobs for people who design efficiency measures, weatherize buildings, and upgrade appliances and technologies in homes and businesses;
• Supporting market-based strategies to reduce carbon pollution. Members said that a new revenue stream could be used to invest in areas such as workforce development, low-income bill assistance, and research and development for new clean energy technology.

These principles and the work of the Clean Jobs Coalition are particularly relevant because of two recent developments. First, the U.S. Environmental Protection unveiled its proposed Clean Power Plan last year, which would set the nation’s first ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Meanwhile, Exelon is reportedly preparing to seek a bailout funded by Illinoisans for as much as $580 million to prevent threatened closures at some nuclear plants. Instead of watching other states capitalize on the Clean Power Plan and prosper, or stagnating the state’s economic growth by doubling down on aging power plants, this coalition aims to make Illinois the hub of America’s clean energy future.

Fortunately, there’s a lot of clean energy support among Illinoisans that reinforces what the Clean Jobs Coalition is advocating for.

Many Illinois leaders have gone on record supporting changes in energy standards. Before taking office, Gov. Bruce Rauner said that he supports expanded energy efficiency, restructuring the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and “increasing investment in clean energy.” In December, 53 state legislators signed an official comment letter signaling their support for the Clean Power Plan.

Recent polling shows overwhelming support for clean energy to meet Illinois’ future energy needs. Three out of four voters (75 percent) support increased energy efficiency, 67 percent support more solar, and 59 percent support wind. By contrast, just one-fifth support more nuclear power (19 percent) or coal (21 percent).

EDF is proud to join forces with other environmental groups, such as Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club; consumer advocacy groups, including Citizens Utility Board; labor unions, including the Chicago Building Trades; and businesses, including SoCore Energy and Schneider Electric, to spur a clean energy economy in Illinois – one that leaves a healthier environment for future generations and creates tens of thousands of new jobs across Illinois.

Photo source: iStock

By Dick Munson

Labor, business, and environmental leaders have formed a unique coalition that will urge Illinois lawmakers to pass new standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy, leading to tens of thousands of new, local jobs.

Members of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, including Environmental Defense Fund, argue that the state should not settle for an old stagnant energy system – one that struggles to meet new Environmental Protection Agency clean energy standards, raises electricity prices for families and businesses, and fails to create new jobs. Instead, we should move decisively toward a cleaner, more reliable, and affordable energy future that increases employment right here in Illinois.

More than 100,000 individuals across the state already work in the clean energy industry, exceeding the number employed in the state’s real estate and accounting sectors combined. That figure is growing at an impressive rate of nine to 10 percent annually. Coalition members predict even sharper job growth if lawmakers embrace their recommendations for spurring a clean energy economy in Illinois, including:

• Revising the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the share of power coming from renewable sources, like wind and solar, to 35 percent by 2030;
• Increasing energy efficiency standards to reduce electricity use in Illinois by 20 percent by 2025, creating tens of thousands of new jobs for people who design efficiency measures, weatherize buildings, and upgrade appliances and technologies in homes and businesses;
• Supporting market-based strategies to reduce carbon pollution. Members said that a new revenue stream could be used to invest in areas such as workforce development, low-income bill assistance, and research and development for new clean energy technology.

These principles and the work of the Clean Jobs Coalition are particularly relevant because of two recent developments. First, the U.S. Environmental Protection unveiled its proposed Clean Power Plan last year, which would set the nation’s first ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Meanwhile, Exelon is reportedly preparing to seek a bailout funded by Illinoisans for as much as $580 million to prevent threatened closures at some nuclear plants. Instead of watching other states capitalize on the Clean Power Plan and prosper, or stagnating the state’s economic growth by doubling down on aging power plants, this coalition aims to make Illinois the hub of America’s clean energy future.

Fortunately, there’s a lot of clean energy support among Illinoisans that reinforces what the Clean Jobs Coalition is advocating for.

Many Illinois leaders have gone on record supporting changes in energy standards. Before taking office, Gov. Bruce Rauner said that he supports expanded energy efficiency, restructuring the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and “increasing investment in clean energy.” In December, 53 state legislators signed an official comment letter signaling their support for the Clean Power Plan.

Recent polling shows overwhelming support for clean energy to meet Illinois’ future energy needs. Three out of four voters (75 percent) support increased energy efficiency, 67 percent support more solar, and 59 percent support wind. By contrast, just one-fifth support more nuclear power (19 percent) or coal (21 percent).

EDF is proud to join forces with other environmental groups, such as Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club; consumer advocacy groups, including Citizens Utility Board; labor unions, including the Chicago Building Trades; and businesses, including SoCore Energy and Schneider Electric, to spur a clean energy economy in Illinois – one that leaves a healthier environment for future generations and creates tens of thousands of new jobs across Illinois.

Photo source: iStock

By Dick Munson

Labor, business, and environmental leaders have formed a unique coalition that will urge Illinois lawmakers to pass new standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy, leading to tens of thousands of new, local jobs.

Members of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, including Environmental Defense Fund, argue that the state should not settle for an old stagnant energy system – one that struggles to meet new Environmental Protection Agency clean energy standards, raises electricity prices for families and businesses, and fails to create new jobs. Instead, we should move decisively toward a cleaner, more reliable, and affordable energy future that increases employment right here in Illinois.

More than 100,000 individuals across the state already work in the clean energy industry, exceeding the number employed in the state’s real estate and accounting sectors combined. That figure is growing at an impressive rate of nine to 10 percent annually. Coalition members predict even sharper job growth if lawmakers embrace their recommendations for spurring a clean energy economy in Illinois, including:

• Revising the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the share of power coming from renewable sources, like wind and solar, to 35 percent by 2030;
• Increasing energy efficiency standards to reduce electricity use in Illinois by 20 percent by 2025, creating tens of thousands of new jobs for people who design efficiency measures, weatherize buildings, and upgrade appliances and technologies in homes and businesses;
• Supporting market-based strategies to reduce carbon pollution. Members said that a new revenue stream could be used to invest in areas such as workforce development, low-income bill assistance, and research and development for new clean energy technology.

These principles and the work of the Clean Jobs Coalition are particularly relevant because of two recent developments. First, the U.S. Environmental Protection unveiled its proposed Clean Power Plan last year, which would set the nation’s first ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Meanwhile, Exelon is reportedly preparing to seek a bailout funded by Illinoisans for as much as $580 million to prevent threatened closures at some nuclear plants. Instead of watching other states capitalize on the Clean Power Plan and prosper, or stagnating the state’s economic growth by doubling down on aging power plants, this coalition aims to make Illinois the hub of America’s clean energy future.

Fortunately, there’s a lot of clean energy support among Illinoisans that reinforces what the Clean Jobs Coalition is advocating for.

Many Illinois leaders have gone on record supporting changes in energy standards. Before taking office, Gov. Bruce Rauner said that he supports expanded energy efficiency, restructuring the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and “increasing investment in clean energy.” In December, 53 state legislators signed an official comment letter signaling their support for the Clean Power Plan.

Recent polling shows overwhelming support for clean energy to meet Illinois’ future energy needs. Three out of four voters (75 percent) support increased energy efficiency, 67 percent support more solar, and 59 percent support wind. By contrast, just one-fifth support more nuclear power (19 percent) or coal (21 percent).

EDF is proud to join forces with other environmental groups, such as Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club; consumer advocacy groups, including Citizens Utility Board; labor unions, including the Chicago Building Trades; and businesses, including SoCore Energy and Schneider Electric, to spur a clean energy economy in Illinois – one that leaves a healthier environment for future generations and creates tens of thousands of new jobs across Illinois.

Photo source: iStock

By Dick Munson

Labor, business, and environmental leaders have formed a unique coalition that will urge Illinois lawmakers to pass new standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy, leading to tens of thousands of new, local jobs.

Members of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, including Environmental Defense Fund, argue that the state should not settle for an old stagnant energy system – one that struggles to meet new Environmental Protection Agency clean energy standards, raises electricity prices for families and businesses, and fails to create new jobs. Instead, we should move decisively toward a cleaner, more reliable, and affordable energy future that increases employment right here in Illinois.

More than 100,000 individuals across the state already work in the clean energy industry, exceeding the number employed in the state’s real estate and accounting sectors combined. That figure is growing at an impressive rate of nine to 10 percent annually. Coalition members predict even sharper job growth if lawmakers embrace their recommendations for spurring a clean energy economy in Illinois, including:

• Revising the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the share of power coming from renewable sources, like wind and solar, to 35 percent by 2030;
• Increasing energy efficiency standards to reduce electricity use in Illinois by 20 percent by 2025, creating tens of thousands of new jobs for people who design efficiency measures, weatherize buildings, and upgrade appliances and technologies in homes and businesses;
• Supporting market-based strategies to reduce carbon pollution. Members said that a new revenue stream could be used to invest in areas such as workforce development, low-income bill assistance, and research and development for new clean energy technology.

These principles and the work of the Clean Jobs Coalition are particularly relevant because of two recent developments. First, the U.S. Environmental Protection unveiled its proposed Clean Power Plan last year, which would set the nation’s first ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Meanwhile, Exelon is reportedly preparing to seek a bailout funded by Illinoisans for as much as $580 million to prevent threatened closures at some nuclear plants. Instead of watching other states capitalize on the Clean Power Plan and prosper, or stagnating the state’s economic growth by doubling down on aging power plants, this coalition aims to make Illinois the hub of America’s clean energy future.

Fortunately, there’s a lot of clean energy support among Illinoisans that reinforces what the Clean Jobs Coalition is advocating for.

Many Illinois leaders have gone on record supporting changes in energy standards. Before taking office, Gov. Bruce Rauner said that he supports expanded energy efficiency, restructuring the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and “increasing investment in clean energy.” In December, 53 state legislators signed an official comment letter signaling their support for the Clean Power Plan.

Recent polling shows overwhelming support for clean energy to meet Illinois’ future energy needs. Three out of four voters (75 percent) support increased energy efficiency, 67 percent support more solar, and 59 percent support wind. By contrast, just one-fifth support more nuclear power (19 percent) or coal (21 percent).

EDF is proud to join forces with other environmental groups, such as Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club; consumer advocacy groups, including Citizens Utility Board; labor unions, including the Chicago Building Trades; and businesses, including SoCore Energy and Schneider Electric, to spur a clean energy economy in Illinois – one that leaves a healthier environment for future generations and creates tens of thousands of new jobs across Illinois.

Photo source: iStock

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Emily Guidry Schatzel, National Wildlife Federation, 225.253.9781, schatzele@nwf.org
Elizabeth Van Cleve, Environmental Defense Fund, 202.553.2543, evancleve@edf.org
Jacques Hebert, National Audubon Society, 504.264.6849, jhebert@audubon.org

Conservation Groups React to Coastal Restoration Cuts in President’s Budget
Proposed budget jeopardizes critical wetlands restoration

(NEW ORLEANS – February 4, 2015) On Monday, President Obama unveiled a $4 trillion proposed budget that would tap more than $3 billion in future oil and gas revenues from Gulf Coast states to pay for other national conservation priorities. This shift would divert monies from coastal restoration projects in Louisiana.

National and local conservation organizations committed to coastal Louisiana restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society and Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation – issued the following statement in response:

“We are encouraged by and committed to the elements of the President’s budget that take on climate change, support the development of clean energy, and fully fund the woefully underfunded Land and Water Conservation Fund and other crucial conservation initiatives. But we are disappointed by the budget’s proposed diversion of critically needed and currently dedicated funding for coastal Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta.

“This proposed budget undercuts the Administration’s previous commitments to restore critical economic infrastructure and ecosystems in the Mississippi River Delta, where we are losing 16 square miles of critical wetlands every year – a preventable coastal erosion crisis. Those wetlands, and the culture and economic infrastructure they protect from hurricanes, will be lost without complete and ongoing intervention. And that intervention – currently underway through implementation of the 2012 Coastal Master Plan – cannot be successful without sufficient funding.

“We urge Congress to fund the President’s commitments to coastal restoration and conservation by maintaining GOMESA funding that is vital to the Gulf Coast and by identifying additional funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other priorities. The Mississippi River Delta is a national treasure that is home to millions of Americans, provides vital wildlife habitat, and supports billions of dollars in seafood production, navigation interests and energy production. This landscape deserves our full attention – and comprehensive restoration.”

The budget proposal would shift hundreds of millions of dollars of offshore oil and gas GOMESA revenue from Louisiana to other spending needs. Louisiana already constitutionally dedicated these future monies to the critical efforts now underway to restore coastal Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta.

Additionally, the groups expressed strong disappointment that the Administration’s proposal walks away from an essential longstanding commitment to Army Corps of Engineers funding for construction of critical restoration projects. For four years, the Administration has proposed investing in the Corps budget to restore the delta through the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) program. In fiscal year 2013, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo Ellen Darcy explained the investment to Congress that restoring coastal Louisiana is “a nationally significant and urgent effort to both restore habitat and protect the important Louisiana Gulf region from the destructive forces of storm driven waves and tides.”

“The LCA program is far too important to abandon or delay,” said EDF, NWF, NAS and LPBF. “The Administration and Congress should do all they can to fund it as soon and as fully as possible.”

###