Aggregator

Dialogue is often the first step towards change, and is a sign of willingness to cooperate. And there was plenty of it at the Scallop Management Workshop held recently in Brixham, England. The event was organised by WWF and EDF in collaboration with GAP2, a research project funded by the European Commission. The forum provided an […]

Dialogue is often the first step towards change, and is a sign of willingness to cooperate. And there was plenty of it at the Scallop Management Workshop held recently in Brixham, England. The event was organised by WWF and EDF in collaboration with GAP2, a research project funded by the European Commission. The forum provided an […]

Written by Lori Popkewitz Alper

Air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk according to new estimates released by WHO, showing that in 2012 around 7 million people died — one in eight of total global deaths — as a result of air pollution. 4.3 million of those deaths were attributable to indoor air pollution.

New carpet installation is one cause of indoor air pollution and can fill household air with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including probable carcinogens like formaldehyde and benzene and stain repellents.

My struggle to find a chemical-free carpet began in college, but it didn’t end there. Every space that I’ve come to call home over the years has had some form of carpeting.

The toxic carpet issue became real as I watched my first child begin to roll and fall face first into our plush, new carpet. Most conventional carpets are made from synthetic fibers doused in artificial dyes, stain repellents, adhesives and other toxic chemicals. And my son was diving head first into that toxic soup.

What can we do? BECOME A CARPET DETECTIVE!

As with any purchase, it’s important to be an informed consumer. We can all become carpet detectives! Contact retailers directly to ask questions and verify that you’re receiving a product free from toxic chemicals. Not only will this ensure that your carpet is safe for you and your family, but it will also notify retailers that we, as consumers, care about our products and we refuse to purchase products that are toxic.

Wondering where to buy a chemical free carpet? I detected a few brands that fit the bill. Some better than others. Some more expensive than others.

Earth Weave

Earth Weave is a top choice for chemical free carpets. According to James Stinnett, President of Earth Weave Carpet Mills,

“The company’s commitment lies not in the recycling petrochemical products, but rather in taking advantage of the ultimate manufacturer; Mother Nature and her renewable natural resources. There’s no safe level of toxicity”

He also refers to the “recycled pop bottle products” that other manufacturers are using as an eco-selling point, and calls this “green-washing” stating that even though these products are marketed as environmentally friendly, they’re truly not.

Earth Weave uses something called Bio-Floor, which is 100% bio-degradable, and will decompose in a similar fashion to trees and grass clippings. Their products are made of pure wool, with no dyes, pesticides or stain protections.

Bloomsburg Carpet 

Bloomsburg Carpet is a family owned business that focuses on using sustainable fibers that are ecologically friendly and readily renewable. According to the company “Our carpets meet the highest standard of indoor air quality and meet or exceed the Green Label Plus* criteria for floor coverings.”  Green Label Plus is an independent testing program that identifies carpet with very low emissions of VOCs to help improve indoor air quality.

Woolshire

Woolshire is a family owned business, using wool to make their carpets. Wool acts as a natural fire retardant and also is a non-allergenic fiber which does not promote the growth of bacteria, dust mites, or give off harmful emissions. All Woolshire carpets are certified Green Label Plus* (see above for description). They’ve also partnered with EnviroCel, a natural backing for their carpets made from recycled soda bottles and soy beans.

Helios 

Helios carpets are made in the US and are owned by Mohawk, a large conventional carpet distributor. Helios carpets are primarily made from New Zealand wool. Wool is dirt and soil resistant, fire retardant and non-allergenic. While most carpeting is tufted, Helios Wool carpets are woven. This makes them wear twice as long, and the company claims this reduces energy consumption by 50% during manufacturing and keeps them out of landfills for a many more years.

FLOR

FLOR may not be the most non-toxic of the carpet choices, but the concept is certainly eco-friendly and economical. The carpets come in 19.7-inch carpet squares and each is made with renewable and recycled content. When FLOR gets stained beyond repair, you can replace individual tiles – not a whole rug or whole room of carpet. Less waste! Designed to be taken apart, FLOR’s face fibers and backing materials can be recycled into new product through their Return & Recycle Program. Most FLOR styles meet or exceed the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label Plus* standards or low VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds).

*Note about Green Label Plus certification: Some carpet manufacturers argue that the Green Label Plus certification isn’t a very stringent or reliable standard. 

It’s time to take the burden away from the consumer and place it where it belongs – with the carpet industry. Please show our support for meaningful legislation that prevents toxic chemicals from ending up in our homes and the bodies of our children.

TELL THE SENATE: PASS STRONGER TOXIC CHEMICAL STANDARDS

BP is refusing to pay for Gulf oil spill research
By Lindsay Abrams, Salon. April 21, 2014.
“Four years after the Deepwater Horizon Explosion, BP is making much of its commitment to clean up the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Deadlines, conferences set ahead of January trial to determine BP penalties in Gulf oil spill
By Kevin McGill, Associated Press. April 22, 2014.
“A federal court magistrate has issued a seven-page schedule of hearings, conferences and deadlines…” (read more)

Cost-benefit a factor in deciding best path to coastal restoration
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. April 22, 2014.
“A new study is asking policy makers to expand their thinking about the costs and benefits of two coastal restoration techniques…” (read more)

Rules proposed for BP fines
By Kelly Connelly, The Daily Comet (Lafourche Parish, La.). April 19, 2014.
“Louisiana lawmakers are preparing for the rush of billions of dollars to state coffers…” (read more)

Federal agency plans June 5 report on BP spill
By the Associated Press. April 19, 2014.
“A federal agency looking into the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion says it plans to release…” (read more)

Researchers only 'scratching surface' of oil spill's long-term effects
By Xerxes Wilson, The Houma Courier (Houma, La.). April 19, 2014.
“Four years after more than 200 million gallons of Macondo oil began to leak into the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Centuries of sand to grow Mississippi Delta
By David Ruth, Phys.org. April 21, 2014.
“The wetlands of the Mississippi River Delta are slowly sinking and rapidly eroding, but new research from Rice University and the University of South Carolina…” (read more)

Four Years Later, a Sharp Divide on Gulf Oil Spill
By Mike Magner, National Journal. April 20, 2014.
“The state of the Gulf of Mexico four years after the worst oil spill in U.S. history is as unclear as a marsh soaked with petrochemicals…” (read more)

The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill still haunts the New Orleans seafood industry
By Doug McCash, The Times-Picayune. April 18, 2014.
“New Orleans restaurateur Frank Brigtsen said that in some ways the effects of the deadly Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Fishermen Blame BP for Low Yield
By Allen Carter, WKRG (Baton Rouge, La.). April 21, 2014.
“Fishermen say times are tough on the water and four years after the oil spill some are pointing the finger at BP…” (read more)

Why There's More Trouble For Endangered Kemp's Ridley Turtle
By Eddie Robinson, Houston Public Media. April 21, 2014.
“The Kemp’s ridley turtle, primarily found in the Gulf of Mexico, is the world’s most endangered sea turtle. As its survival hangs in the balance…” (read more)

10 Animals Who Are Still Hurting From The BP Oil Spill
By Ellie Krupnick, The Huffington Post Green. April 20, 2014.
“It's been four years since BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers…” (read more)

Dolphin health research continues after BP oil spill
By the Associated Press. April 20, 2014.
“A south Florida man’s work is helping researchers better understand long-term damage to dolphins from the massive 2010 BP oil spill…” (read more)

Numbers on the board: The Gulf Coast, four years after the BP disaster
By Brentin Mock, Grist. April 22, 2014.
“The date of that disaster happens to coincide with Earth Week, which means millions of faithful environmentalists…” (read more)

Empire’s Daybrook Fisheries Fleet is Blessed Four Years After Oil Spill
By Tyler Wing, WGNO (New Orleans, La.). April 20, 2014.
“Blessing the Daybrook Fisheries fleet is a 19 year old tradition conducted the day before fishing season starts…” (read more)

BP is refusing to pay for Gulf oil spill research
By Lindsay Abrams, Salon. April 21, 2014.
“Four years after the Deepwater Horizon Explosion, BP is making much of its commitment to clean up the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Deadlines, conferences set ahead of January trial to determine BP penalties in Gulf oil spill
By Kevin McGill, Associated Press. April 22, 2014.
“A federal court magistrate has issued a seven-page schedule of hearings, conferences and deadlines…” (read more)

Cost-benefit a factor in deciding best path to coastal restoration
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. April 22, 2014.
“A new study is asking policy makers to expand their thinking about the costs and benefits of two coastal restoration techniques…” (read more)

Rules proposed for BP fines
By Kelly Connelly, The Daily Comet (Lafourche Parish, La.). April 19, 2014.
“Louisiana lawmakers are preparing for the rush of billions of dollars to state coffers…” (read more)

Federal agency plans June 5 report on BP spill
By the Associated Press. April 19, 2014.
“A federal agency looking into the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion says it plans to release…” (read more)

Researchers only 'scratching surface' of oil spill's long-term effects
By Xerxes Wilson, The Houma Courier (Houma, La.). April 19, 2014.
“Four years after more than 200 million gallons of Macondo oil began to leak into the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Centuries of sand to grow Mississippi Delta
By David Ruth, Phys.org. April 21, 2014.
“The wetlands of the Mississippi River Delta are slowly sinking and rapidly eroding, but new research from Rice University and the University of South Carolina…” (read more)

Four Years Later, a Sharp Divide on Gulf Oil Spill
By Mike Magner, National Journal. April 20, 2014.
“The state of the Gulf of Mexico four years after the worst oil spill in U.S. history is as unclear as a marsh soaked with petrochemicals…” (read more)

The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill still haunts the New Orleans seafood industry
By Doug McCash, The Times-Picayune. April 18, 2014.
“New Orleans restaurateur Frank Brigtsen said that in some ways the effects of the deadly Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Fishermen Blame BP for Low Yield
By Allen Carter, WKRG (Baton Rouge, La.). April 21, 2014.
“Fishermen say times are tough on the water and four years after the oil spill some are pointing the finger at BP…” (read more)

Why There's More Trouble For Endangered Kemp's Ridley Turtle
By Eddie Robinson, Houston Public Media. April 21, 2014.
“The Kemp’s ridley turtle, primarily found in the Gulf of Mexico, is the world’s most endangered sea turtle. As its survival hangs in the balance…” (read more)

10 Animals Who Are Still Hurting From The BP Oil Spill
By Ellie Krupnick, The Huffington Post Green. April 20, 2014.
“It's been four years since BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers…” (read more)

Dolphin health research continues after BP oil spill
By the Associated Press. April 20, 2014.
“A south Florida man’s work is helping researchers better understand long-term damage to dolphins from the massive 2010 BP oil spill…” (read more)

Numbers on the board: The Gulf Coast, four years after the BP disaster
By Brentin Mock, Grist. April 22, 2014.
“The date of that disaster happens to coincide with Earth Week, which means millions of faithful environmentalists…” (read more)

Empire’s Daybrook Fisheries Fleet is Blessed Four Years After Oil Spill
By Tyler Wing, WGNO (New Orleans, La.). April 20, 2014.
“Blessing the Daybrook Fisheries fleet is a 19 year old tradition conducted the day before fishing season starts…” (read more)

By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

(This post first appeared on EDF Voices. Para leer en Español haga clic aquí)

This post was co-authored by Rachel Shaffer  and Declan Kingland, National Health Programs Coordinator for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Today in the United States, Latinos are three times more likely to die from asthma than other racial or ethnic groups. Latino children are 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than non-Latino whites, and nearly 1 in 10 Latino children under the age of 18 suffer from this chronic respiratory illness. Addressing the dangerous indoor and outdoor air pollution that is linked to asthma is critical for the health of Latino communities – and for all Americans.

Socioeconomics

Latinos are one of the poorest demographics in the United States, with roughly 1 in 4 Latinos living under the poverty level. Many Latinos also face challenges due to limited English-language proficiency, and in some cases, low levels of education. These issues can lead Latinos, particularly new immigrants, to low-paying jobs, often in the fields of agriculture, construction, and service.

Too often, these jobs expose workers to serious respiratory hazards from both indoor and outdoor air pollution, yet they frequently provide no healthcare benefits. For example, the toxic chemical formaldehyde, which is linked to asthma, can be found in glues, insulation, and wood products to which construction workers are disproportionately exposed. Asthma-related toxics can also be found in paints, cleaning products, carpets, and foam cushions.

Housing

Low-paying jobs held by Latinos lead to low-income families, and these families can be at even greater risk for asthma if their housing is substandard or if their home is located near major roadways, factories, or power plants, which produce air pollutants that can exacerbate asthma. People with asthma are especially sensitive to the pollutants released from cars, buses, heavy machinery, factories, and power plants, including particulate matter (soot), ground-level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide, and more.

Nearly 1 in 2 Latinos in the U.S. live in counties that frequently violate ground-level ozone standards.  Latinos are also 165% more likely to live in counties with unhealthy levels of particulate matter pollution than non-Latino whites, and nearly 2 in 5 Latinos lives within 30 miles of a power plant. Asthma triggers can also be found inside the home – from ethanolamines found in cleaning products, to bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical found in plastic products and food can linings.  Some asthma-linked toxic chemicals are even found in personal creams and lotions.

Healthcare

Statistics show that Latinos face disproportionate exposures to asthma-exacerbating indoor and outdoor air pollution. At the same time, Latinos face added challenges when seeking adequate healthcare. This is due in part to the language, educational, and economic barriers mentioned previously, which can limit access to or awareness of available health care resources that may be available. In fact, nearly 1 in 3 Latinos lacks health insurance.

These barriers to health care access can have significant consequences:

• Compared to non-Latino whites, Latinos with asthma are less likely to be prescribed appropriate asthma medications and less likely to have access to asthma specialists.

• Latinos who have an asthma emergency that sends them to the ER or hospital are also less likely to receive follow-up care or an asthma action plan.

Combined, these serious issues can make an otherwise manageable disease life-threatening.

What we can do

While these challenges are daunting, we have an opportunity to address part of the problem by demanding that our leaders take action to reduce asthma hazards – for Latinos, and for the nation as a whole. This is why EDF and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) have come together this year to help raise awareness among and empower Latinos in the U.S. to better combat this often preventable illness by strengthening the air pollution and chemicals laws that protect us.

We at EDF and at LULAC encourage you to ask your Congressman to:

• support reforms that strengthen federal chemicals regulatory policies and

• support the US Environmental Protection Agency in its efforts to clean up our air and limit pollutants that cause climate change  and increase the number of asthma attacks.

Nationwide, Latinos are among the 25 million people – including 7 million children – affected by asthma.  We can help address the immediate problem through other avenues – like improving health care coverage or worker protections.  But ultimately, we need to address the root of the problem. We need to get rid of the air pollution and toxins that are linked to asthma.  All of us, including our Latino communities, should act now to get rid of the underlying causes of the disease. Until we do, we are all at risk.

By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

(This post first appeared on EDF Voices. Para leer en Español haga clic aquí)

This post was co-authored by Rachel Shaffer  and Declan Kingland, National Health Programs Coordinator for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Today in the United States, Latinos are three times more likely to die from asthma than other racial or ethnic groups. Latino children are 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than non-Latino whites, and nearly 1 in 10 Latino children under the age of 18 suffer from this chronic respiratory illness. Addressing the dangerous indoor and outdoor air pollution that is linked to asthma is critical for the health of Latino communities – and for all Americans.

Socioeconomics

Latinos are one of the poorest demographics in the United States, with roughly 1 in 4 Latinos living under the poverty level. Many Latinos also face challenges due to limited English-language proficiency, and in some cases, low levels of education. These issues can lead Latinos, particularly new immigrants, to low-paying jobs, often in the fields of agriculture, construction, and service.

Too often, these jobs expose workers to serious respiratory hazards from both indoor and outdoor air pollution, yet they frequently provide no healthcare benefits. For example, the toxic chemical formaldehyde, which is linked to asthma, can be found in glues, insulation, and wood products to which construction workers are disproportionately exposed. Asthma-related toxics can also be found in paints, cleaning products, carpets, and foam cushions.

Housing

Low-paying jobs held by Latinos lead to low-income families, and these families can be at even greater risk for asthma if their housing is substandard or if their home is located near major roadways, factories, or power plants, which produce air pollutants that can exacerbate asthma. People with asthma are especially sensitive to the pollutants released from cars, buses, heavy machinery, factories, and power plants, including particulate matter (soot), ground-level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide, and more.

Nearly 1 in 2 Latinos in the U.S. live in counties that frequently violate ground-level ozone standards.  Latinos are also 165% more likely to live in counties with unhealthy levels of particulate matter pollution than non-Latino whites, and nearly 2 in 5 Latinos lives within 30 miles of a power plant. Asthma triggers can also be found inside the home – from ethanolamines found in cleaning products, to bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical found in plastic products and food can linings.  Some asthma-linked toxic chemicals are even found in personal creams and lotions.

Healthcare

Statistics show that Latinos face disproportionate exposures to asthma-exacerbating indoor and outdoor air pollution. At the same time, Latinos face added challenges when seeking adequate healthcare. This is due in part to the language, educational, and economic barriers mentioned previously, which can limit access to or awareness of available health care resources that may be available. In fact, nearly 1 in 3 Latinos lacks health insurance.

These barriers to health care access can have significant consequences:

• Compared to non-Latino whites, Latinos with asthma are less likely to be prescribed appropriate asthma medications and less likely to have access to asthma specialists.

• Latinos who have an asthma emergency that sends them to the ER or hospital are also less likely to receive follow-up care or an asthma action plan.

Combined, these serious issues can make an otherwise manageable disease life-threatening.

What we can do

While these challenges are daunting, we have an opportunity to address part of the problem by demanding that our leaders take action to reduce asthma hazards – for Latinos, and for the nation as a whole. This is why EDF and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) have come together this year to help raise awareness among and empower Latinos in the U.S. to better combat this often preventable illness by strengthening the air pollution and chemicals laws that protect us.

We at EDF and at LULAC encourage you to ask your Congressman to:

• support reforms that strengthen federal chemicals regulatory policies and

• support the US Environmental Protection Agency in its efforts to clean up our air and limit pollutants that cause climate change  and increase the number of asthma attacks.

Nationwide, Latinos are among the 25 million people – including 7 million children – affected by asthma.  We can help address the immediate problem through other avenues – like improving health care coverage or worker protections.  But ultimately, we need to address the root of the problem. We need to get rid of the air pollution and toxins that are linked to asthma.  All of us, including our Latino communities, should act now to get rid of the underlying causes of the disease. Until we do, we are all at risk.

By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

(This post first appeared on EDF Voices. Para leer en Español haga clic aquí)

This post was co-authored by Rachel Shaffer  and Declan Kingland, National Health Programs Coordinator for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Today in the United States, Latinos are three times more likely to die from asthma than other racial or ethnic groups. Latino children are 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than non-Latino whites, and nearly 1 in 10 Latino children under the age of 18 suffer from this chronic respiratory illness. Addressing the dangerous indoor and outdoor air pollution that is linked to asthma is critical for the health of Latino communities – and for all Americans.

Socioeconomics

Latinos are one of the poorest demographics in the United States, with roughly 1 in 4 Latinos living under the poverty level. Many Latinos also face challenges due to limited English-language proficiency, and in some cases, low levels of education. These issues can lead Latinos, particularly new immigrants, to low-paying jobs, often in the fields of agriculture, construction, and service.

Too often, these jobs expose workers to serious respiratory hazards from both indoor and outdoor air pollution, yet they frequently provide no healthcare benefits. For example, the toxic chemical formaldehyde, which is linked to asthma, can be found in glues, insulation, and wood products to which construction workers are disproportionately exposed. Asthma-related toxics can also be found in paints, cleaning products, carpets, and foam cushions.

Housing

Low-paying jobs held by Latinos lead to low-income families, and these families can be at even greater risk for asthma if their housing is substandard or if their home is located near major roadways, factories, or power plants, which produce air pollutants that can exacerbate asthma. People with asthma are especially sensitive to the pollutants released from cars, buses, heavy machinery, factories, and power plants, including particulate matter (soot), ground-level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide, and more.

Nearly 1 in 2 Latinos in the U.S. live in counties that frequently violate ground-level ozone standards.  Latinos are also 165% more likely to live in counties with unhealthy levels of particulate matter pollution than non-Latino whites, and nearly 2 in 5 Latinos lives within 30 miles of a power plant. Asthma triggers can also be found inside the home – from ethanolamines found in cleaning products, to bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical found in plastic products and food can linings.  Some asthma-linked toxic chemicals are even found in personal creams and lotions.

Healthcare

Statistics show that Latinos face disproportionate exposures to asthma-exacerbating indoor and outdoor air pollution. At the same time, Latinos face added challenges when seeking adequate healthcare. This is due in part to the language, educational, and economic barriers mentioned previously, which can limit access to or awareness of available health care resources that may be available. In fact, nearly 1 in 3 Latinos lacks health insurance.

These barriers to health care access can have significant consequences:

• Compared to non-Latino whites, Latinos with asthma are less likely to be prescribed appropriate asthma medications and less likely to have access to asthma specialists.

• Latinos who have an asthma emergency that sends them to the ER or hospital are also less likely to receive follow-up care or an asthma action plan.

Combined, these serious issues can make an otherwise manageable disease life-threatening.

What we can do

While these challenges are daunting, we have an opportunity to address part of the problem by demanding that our leaders take action to reduce asthma hazards – for Latinos, and for the nation as a whole. This is why EDF and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) have come together this year to help raise awareness among and empower Latinos in the U.S. to better combat this often preventable illness by strengthening the air pollution and chemicals laws that protect us.

We at EDF and at LULAC encourage you to ask your Congressman to:

• support reforms that strengthen federal chemicals regulatory policies and

• support the US Environmental Protection Agency in its efforts to clean up our air and limit pollutants that cause climate change  and increase the number of asthma attacks.

Nationwide, Latinos are among the 25 million people – including 7 million children – affected by asthma.  We can help address the immediate problem through other avenues – like improving health care coverage or worker protections.  But ultimately, we need to address the root of the problem. We need to get rid of the air pollution and toxins that are linked to asthma.  All of us, including our Latino communities, should act now to get rid of the underlying causes of the disease. Until we do, we are all at risk.

This post was co-authored by Lucía Oliva Hen­nelly, EDF's Tom Graff Diversity fellow, Rachel Shaffer, EDF's Research Assistant, and Declan Kingland, National Health Programs Coordinator for the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Source: iStockphoto.com

Today in the United States, Latinos are three times more likely to die from asthma than other racial or ethnic groups. Latino children are 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than non-Latino whites, and nearly 1 in 10 Latino children under the age of 18 suffer from this chronic respiratory illness. Addressing the dangerous indoor and outdoor air pollution that is linked to asthma is critical for the health of Latino communities – and for all Americans.

Socio-economics

Latinos are one of the poorest demographics in the United States, with roughly 1 in 4 Latinos living under the poverty level. Many Latinos also face challenges due to limited English-language proficiency, and in some cases, low levels of education. These issues can lead Latinos, particularly new immigrants, to low-paying jobs, often in the fields of agriculture, construction, and service. Too often, these jobs expose workers to serious respiratory hazards from both indoor and outdoor air pollution, yet they frequently provide no healthcare benefits. For example, the toxic chemical formaldehyde, which is linked to asthma, can be found in glues, insulation, and wood products to which construction workers are disproportionately exposed. Asthma-related toxics can also be found in paints, cleaning products, carpets, and foam cushions.

Housing

Low-paying jobs held by Latinos lead to low-income families, and these families can be at even greater risk for asthma if their housing is substandard or if their home is located near major roadways, factories, or power plants, which produce air pollutants that can exacerbate asthma. People with asthma are especially sensitive to the pollutants released from cars, buses, heavy machinery, factories, and power plants, including particulate matter (soot), ground-level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide, and more.

Nearly 1 in 2 Latinos in the U.S. live in counties that frequently violate ground-level ozone standards. Latinos are also 165% more likely to live in counties with unhealthy levels of particulate matter pollution than non-Latino whites, and nearly 2 in 5 Latinos lives within 30 miles of a power plant. Asthma triggers can also be found inside the home – from ethanolamines found in cleaning products, to bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical found in plastic products and food can linings. Some asthma-linked toxic chemicals are even found in personal creams and lotions.

Healthcare

Statistics show that Latinos face disproportionate exposures to asthma-exacerbating indoor and outdoor air pollution. At the same time, Latinos face added challenges when seeking adequate healthcare. This is due in part to the language, educational, and economic barriers mentioned previously, which can limit access to or awareness of available healthcare resources that may be available. In fact, nearly 1 in 3 Latinos lacks health insurance.

These barriers to health care access can have significant consequences:

• Compared to non-Latino whites, Latinos with asthma are less likely to be prescribed appropriate asthma medications and less likely to have access to asthma specialists.
• Latinos who have an asthma emergency that sends them to the ER or hospital are also less likely to receive follow-up care or an asthma action plan.

Combined, these serious issues can make an otherwise manageable disease life-threatening.

What we can do

While these challenges are daunting, we have an opportunity to address part of the problem by demanding that our leaders take action to reduce asthma hazards – for Latinos, and for the nation as a whole. This is why EDF and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) have come together this year to help raise awareness among and empower Latinos in the U.S. to better combat this often preventable illness by strengthening the air pollution and chemicals laws that protect us.

We at EDF and at LULAC encourage you to ask your Congressman to:

• support reforms that strengthen federal chemicals regulatory policies and
• support the US Environmental Protection Agency in its efforts to clean up our air and limit pollutants that cause climate change and increase the number of asthma attacks.

Nationwide, Latinos are among the 25 million people – including 7 million children – affected by asthma. We can help address the immediate problem through other avenues – like improving health care coverage or worker protections. But ultimately, we need to address the root of the problem. We need to get rid of the air pollution and toxins that are linked to asthma. All of us, including our Latino communities, should act now to get rid of the underlying causes of the disease. Until we do, we are all at risk.

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Voices Blog. 

 

By Gavin Purchas

Source: John Rae

The use of rechargeable batteries – in everything from iPhones, TV remotes, and even cars – has become pervasive over the past few years, especially as they have become more affordable. So why can’t we use them to help power our homes and businesses, too? The idea isn’t that complicated. But the cost of large-scale energy storage is still prohibitively high.

However, in select markets, like Hawaii’s commercial building market, privately connected battery storage is already cheap enough, compared to utility rates, to warrant installation. Furthermore, other energy storage markets, like California and New York, could reach the point of commercial viability in the next ten years – and not just for commercial buildings, but the residential market, too.

These insights are fleshed out in the Rocky Mountain Institute’s ground breaking study, The Economics of Grid Defection. Essentially, this report says that once solar power and energy storage are at the right price, customers could leave the central electricity grid and their utility entirely – a process sometimes referred to as ‘grid defection.’ That gives utilities in select states about ten years to come up with new business models as they potentially start to lose customers.

Perhaps more importantly though, grid defection also presents a potential solution to the grid security issues found by the latest Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) study and published by the Wall Street Journal in March, which suggests that the grid could be brought down if only 9 substations were targeted in a coordinated attack. In addition, Climate Central has noted a doubling in weather related outages since 2003. For “grid defected” customers, relying on their own generator and storage units, such events would not affect them.

However, the prospect of grid defection is not a certainty. Firstly, customers may choose to stay with their utility so as to maintain a link to the grid for selling excess electricity. Secondly, utilities could choose to get in on the “solar plus storage” market, leasing both to customers in return for a form of electricity generation that the utility can control to help manage the overall electricity system. Indeed, CEO of Sunverge, Ken Munson, sees this as an increasingly attractive business model.

Falling solar prices and huge market growth in battery technology are also key drivers of the potential for grid defection, as well as the research funding that sparked much of these advancements.

Among the more interesting potential developments in the energy storage world is the impact that Tesla’s proposed Gigafactory could have on markets other than Tesla’s electric vehicle market. Set to open in about three years, the new GigaFactory will be large enough to manufacture more lithium-ion batteries than the entire industry produces now. Navigant analyst, Sam Jaffe estimates that this could bring the cost of lithium ion batteries down around $180 per kWh, a price that Bloomberg New Energy Finance didn’t see coming until well into the next decade. For comparison, Tesla's current costs for lithium ion batteries (supplied by Panasonic) are around $200 – $300 per kWh. A drop in price this significant could be what renewable energy needs to reach even higher levels of penetration. Energy storage, among other technologies, will be instrumental in realizing the full potential of renewable energy because it guarantees that the energy produced by renewables is available at all times, even when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

The choice to produce your own energy and leave the utility behind completely will be coming for a vast number of customers in the next ten years and plenty more beyond that. Fortunately, this presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for utilities to reinvent their role in how electricity is generated, moved, managed, and consumed.

As the U.S. prepares to spend around $2 trillion over the next two decades replacing our aging, inefficient, and polluting energy infrastructure, the time for new utility business models is now.

By Gavin Purchas

Source: John Rae

The use of rechargeable batteries – in everything from iPhones, TV remotes, and even cars – has become pervasive over the past few years, especially as they have become more affordable. So why can’t we use them to help power our homes and businesses, too? The idea isn’t that complicated. But the cost of large-scale energy storage is still prohibitively high.

However, in select markets, like Hawaii’s commercial building market, privately connected battery storage is already cheap enough, compared to utility rates, to warrant installation. Furthermore, other energy storage markets, like California and New York, could reach the point of commercial viability in the next ten years – and not just for commercial buildings, but the residential market, too.

These insights are fleshed out in the Rocky Mountain Institute’s ground breaking study, The Economics of Grid Defection. Essentially, this report says that once solar power and energy storage are at the right price, customers could leave the central electricity grid and their utility entirely – a process sometimes referred to as ‘grid defection.’ That gives utilities in select states about ten years to come up with new business models as they potentially start to lose customers.

Perhaps more importantly though, grid defection also presents a potential solution to the grid security issues found by the latest Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) study and published by the Wall Street Journal in March, which suggests that the grid could be brought down if only 9 substations were targeted in a coordinated attack. In addition, Climate Central has noted a doubling in weather related outages since 2003. For “grid defected” customers, relying on their own generator and storage units, such events would not affect them.

However, the prospect of grid defection is not a certainty. Firstly, customers may choose to stay with their utility so as to maintain a link to the grid for selling excess electricity. Secondly, utilities could choose to get in on the “solar plus storage” market, leasing both to customers in return for a form of electricity generation that the utility can control to help manage the overall electricity system. Indeed, CEO of Sunverge, Ken Munson, sees this as an increasingly attractive business model.

Falling solar prices and huge market growth in battery technology are also key drivers of the potential for grid defection, as well as the research funding that sparked much of these advancements.

Among the more interesting potential developments in the energy storage world is the impact that Tesla’s proposed Gigafactory could have on markets other than Tesla’s electric vehicle market. Set to open in about three years, the new GigaFactory will be large enough to manufacture more lithium-ion batteries than the entire industry produces now. Navigant analyst, Sam Jaffe estimates that this could bring the cost of lithium ion batteries down around $180 per kWh, a price that Bloomberg New Energy Finance didn’t see coming until well into the next decade. For comparison, Tesla's current costs for lithium ion batteries (supplied by Panasonic) are around $200 – $300 per kWh. A drop in price this significant could be what renewable energy needs to reach even higher levels of penetration. Energy storage, among other technologies, will be instrumental in realizing the full potential of renewable energy because it guarantees that the energy produced by renewables is available at all times, even when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

The choice to produce your own energy and leave the utility behind completely will be coming for a vast number of customers in the next ten years and plenty more beyond that. Fortunately, this presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for utilities to reinvent their role in how electricity is generated, moved, managed, and consumed.

As the U.S. prepares to spend around $2 trillion over the next two decades replacing our aging, inefficient, and polluting energy infrastructure, the time for new utility business models is now.

By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

Para leer en Español haga clic aquí

This post was co-authored by Rachel Shaffer  and Declan Kingland, National Health Programs Coordinator for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Today in the United States, Latinos are three times more likely to die from asthma than other racial or ethnic groups. Latino children are 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than non-Latino whites, and nearly 1 in 10 Latino children under the age of 18 suffer from this chronic respiratory illness. Addressing the dangerous indoor and outdoor air pollution that is linked to asthma is critical for the health of Latino communities – and for all Americans.

Socioeconomics

Latinos are one of the poorest demographics in the United States, with roughly 1 in 4 Latinos living under the poverty level. Many Latinos also face challenges due to limited English-language proficiency, and in some cases, low levels of education. These issues can lead Latinos, particularly new immigrants, to low-paying jobs, often in the fields of agriculture, construction, and service.

Too often, these jobs expose workers to serious respiratory hazards from both indoor and outdoor air pollution, yet they frequently provide no healthcare benefits. For example, the toxic chemical formaldehyde, which is linked to asthma, can be found in glues, insulation, and wood products to which construction workers are disproportionately exposed. Asthma-related toxics can also be found in paints, cleaning products, carpets, and foam cushions.

Housing

Low-paying jobs held by Latinos lead to low-income families, and these families can be at even greater risk for asthma if their housing is substandard or if their home is located near major roadways, factories, or power plants, which produce air pollutants that can exacerbate asthma. People with asthma are especially sensitive to the pollutants released from cars, buses, heavy machinery, factories, and power plants, including particulate matter (soot), ground-level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide, and more.

Source: iStockphoto.com

Nearly 1 in 2 Latinos in the U.S. live in counties that frequently violate ground-level ozone standards.  Latinos are also 165% more likely to live in counties with unhealthy levels of particulate matter pollution than non-Latino whites, and nearly 2 in 5 Latinos lives within 30 miles of a power plant. Asthma triggers can also be found inside the home – from ethanolamines found in cleaning products, to bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical found in plastic products and food can linings.  Some asthma-linked toxic chemicals are even found in personal creams and lotions.

Healthcare

Statistics show that Latinos face disproportionate exposures to asthma-exacerbating indoor and outdoor air pollution. At the same time, Latinos face added challenges when seeking adequate healthcare. This is due in part to the language, educational, and economic barriers mentioned previously, which can limit access to or awareness of available health care resources that may be available. In fact, nearly 1 in 3 Latinos lacks health insurance.

These barriers to health care access can have significant consequences:

• Compared to non-Latino whites, Latinos with asthma are less likely to be prescribed appropriate asthma medications and less likely to have access to asthma specialists.

• Latinos who have an asthma emergency that sends them to the ER or hospital are also less likely to receive follow-up care or an asthma action plan.

Combined, these serious issues can make an otherwise manageable disease life-threatening.

What we can do

While these challenges are daunting, we have an opportunity to address part of the problem by demanding that our leaders take action to reduce asthma hazards – for Latinos, and for the nation as a whole. This is why EDF and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) have come together this year to help raise awareness among and empower Latinos in the U.S. to better combat this often preventable illness by strengthening the air pollution and chemicals laws that protect us.

We at EDF and at LULAC encourage you to ask your Congressman to:

• support reforms that strengthen federal chemicals regulatory policies and

• support the US Environmental Protection Agency in its efforts to clean up our air and limit pollutants that cause climate change  and increase the number of asthma attacks.

Nationwide, Latinos are among the 25 million people – including 7 million children – affected by asthma.  We can help address the immediate problem through other avenues – like improving health care coverage or worker protections.  But ultimately, we need to address the root of the problem. We need to get rid of the air pollution and toxins that are linked to asthma.  All of us, including our Latino communities, should act now to get rid of the underlying causes of the disease. Until we do, we are all at risk.

This blog first appeared on EDF Voices

By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

To read this post in English, click here

Este blog fue escrito con coautores Rachel Shaffer de EDF y Declan Kingland, el Coordinador Nacional para programas de salud de la Liga de Ciudadanos Latinoamericanos Unidos (League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC).

Hoy en día en los Estados Unidos, los latinos son el triple de propensos a morir de asma que otros grupos raciales o étnicos. Los niños latinos son 40% más proclives a morir de asma que los blancos no latinos y casi 1 de cada 10 niños latinos menores de 18 sufre de esta enfermedad respiratoria crónica.

Abordar la peligrosa contaminación del aire interior y exterior asociada con el asma es de importancia fundamental para la salud de las comunidades latinas – y para todos estadounidenses.

 

Socioeconomía

Los latinos son uno de los grupos poblacionales más pobres en los Estados Unidos, con casi 1 de cada 4 latinos por debajo del nivel de pobreza. Muchos latinos también enfrentan desafíos dado el escaso dominio del idioma inglés y, en algunos casos, los bajos niveles de educación. Estos problemas pueden conducir a los latinos, en especial a los inmigrantes nuevos, a empleos de salarios bajos, por lo general en las áreas de agricultura, construcción y servicios.

Dichos empleos suelen exponer a los trabajadores a serios peligros para la respiración tanto a causa de la contaminación del aire interior como exterior, incluso con frecuencia no brindan ningún beneficio de atención de la salud. Por ejemplo, la sustancia química tóxica formaldehído, que se asocia al asma, se puede encontrar en pegamentos, aislantes y productos de madera a los cuales los trabajadores de la construcción se exponen de manera desproporcionada. También se pueden hallar tóxicos relacionados con el asma en pinturas, productos de limpieza, alfombras y cojines de gomaespuma.

Viviendas

Source: iStockphoto.com

Casi 1 de cada 2 latinos en los EE. UU. vive en condados que con frecuencia violan los estándares del ozono a nivel del suelo. Los latinos asimismo son 165% más proclives a vivir en condados con niveles insalubres de contaminación por material particulado que los blancos no latinos y alrededor de 2 de cada 5 latinos viven dentro de un radio de 30 millas de una planta de energía.  Los factores desencadenantes del asma también se pueden encontrar dentro del hogar: desde etanolaminas que se hallan en productos de limpieza hasta bisfenol-A (BPA), una sustancia química tóxica que se encuentra en productos plásticos y revestimientos de productos enlatados. Algunas sustancias químicas tóxicas asociadas con el asma incluso se encuentran en cremas y lociones personales.

Cuidado de salúd

Las estadísticas demuestran que los latinos se exponen desproporcionadamente a la contaminación del aire interior y exterior que exacerba al asma. Al mismo tiempo, los latinos enfrentan otros desafíos cuando buscan atención de salud adecuada, lo cual se debe en parte a las barreas idiomáticas, educativas y económicas mencionadas anteriormente, que pueden limitar el acceso a o el conocimiento de recursos de atención de la salud disponibles que pueden estar a su disposición. De hecho, aproximadamente 1 de cada 3 latinos carece de seguro de salud. 

Estas barreras al acceso a la atención de la salud pueden traer consecuencias significativas:

• En comparación con los blancos no latinos, los latinos con asma son menos propensos a que se les receten medicamentos contra el asma adecuados y menos proclives a tener acceso a especialistas del asma.

• Los latinos con emergencia de asma que los conduce a la sala de emergencia o al hospital son menos propensos a recibir atención de seguimiento o un plan de acción contra el asma.

La combinación de estos graves problemas puede convertir a una enfermedad que de otro modo sería manejable en una que pone en riesgo la vida.

Lo que podemos hacer

Si bien estos desafíos son abrumadores, tenemos la oportunidad de abordar parte del problema si exigimos a nuestros líderes a que actúen para reducir los peligros del asma –para los latinos y para la nación en su totalidad.  Ésta es la razón por la cual EDF y la Liga de Ciudadanos Latinoamericanos Unidos (League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC) se han reunido este año para ayudar a concientizar y empoderar a los latinos en los EE. UU. para que combatan mejor a esta enfermedad que suele ser prevenible mediante la fortalización de las leyes de la contaminación del aire y de las sustancias químicas que nos protegen.

En EDF y LULAC lo invitamos a que exija a su representante en el Congreso que:

•  apoye la reforma para fortalecer a las políticas regulatorias federales de las sustancias químicas y

• apoye a la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) de los Estados Unidos en sus esfuerzos para limpiar nuestro aire y limitar la contaminación provocada por el cambio climático, que aumenta la cantidad de ataques de asma. 

En todo el país hay alrededor de 25 millones de personas latinas  –incluidos 7 millones de niños– afectadas por asma.  Podemos enfrentar el problema imediato a traves de otras avenidas – como mejorar el cuidado de salud o las protecciones de los empleados.  Pero finalmente, necesitamos hacer frente a la problema fundamental.  Necesitamos deshacernos de la contaminación del aire y de las sustancias químicas tóxicas que se asocian al asma.  Todos, incluidas nuestras comunidades latinas, deberíamos actuar ahora para deshacernos de las causas subyacentes de la enfermedad.  Hasta que lo hagamos, todos estamos en riesgo.

By Jorge Madrid

Today is Earth Day, and the tens of millions of U.S. Latinos who breathe in the country’s dirtiest air, and often live in communities threatened by climate change, have reason to reflect and act!

2012 was the hottest year on record for the continental U.S., and 2013 was tied for the fourth hottest globally. When extreme weather like heat waves and super storms, which are projected to increase with climate change, hit the country’s crops, agricultural workers are devastated, poor people of color are disproportionately displaced from their homes, and those living with the worst air quality are even more at-risk for respiratory and heart related death (leading to some 7,000 additional fatalities each year).

And there’s more bad news regarding climate change. Take a look at these extreme heat projections in the West and Southwest U.S. for 2030. Or, check out sea-level rise projections in places like Miami and New York City for 2050, along with the corresponding threats for supercharged storms.

Notice something?

Those regions have the highest concentration of Latinos and other people of color, and that number will only continue to grow. It doesn’t take a scientist to see that two freight trains — Latino population growth and extreme weather driven by climate change — are heading straight towards each other.

So will the climate change story end in disaster? Or could this be an opportunity to adapt to and overcome a great challenge? Latino leadership is critical to answering this question.

National polling data tells us that Latino voters overwhelmingly support action to fight climate change and pollution. Seventy-four percent of Latinos believe climate change is a “serious problem” — almost 10 percent more than the national average among all American adults. A full 86 percent of Latinos strongly support President Obama taking action to reduce pollution that causes climate change. Gender, income, education, nationality, and even political party affiliation do not significantly change the facts on Latinos’ commitment to tackling climate change.

Now for the exciting part: fighting back and adapting presents one of the greatest opportunities to rebuild and enhance the economy, upgrade infrastructure and homes, strengthen neighborhoods, and improve public health in the places that need it most.

Why? Because it will require major investments in clean energy, more green space and trees, more bike paths and clean transportation, and the cleaner air that goes with it. Ditching fossil fuels and moving towards clean energy will stop cooking our planet and poisoning our communities, and start creating new jobs and economic mobility.

I’ve written before that the clean economy is an opportunity for U.S. Latinos, creating new demand for goods and services, new businesses and new jobs. Overwhelmingly, Latino communities support clean energy, with some 86 percent say they prefer the country to invest in clean energy over fossil fuels.

So there’s the challenge, and the opportunity…but what are we going to do about it?

Stay connected to EDF and Voces Verdes  to find out how you can become more involved. We’re working to elevate Latino voices in the climate movement and we need your help.

And not just because it is Earth Day, but because future U.S. Latinos are depending on us!

This post was adapted from an earlier version on Voces Verdes

“Se hace camino al andar – the road is made by walking,” said Yves Moury of Fundacion Capital, quoting Spanish poet Antonio Machado. He went on to explain that the poet was telling us to find new ways to think and to act. “Always act,” he exhorted, “the road is made by walking.”

I identified with this call to action as the unofficial theme of the 2014 Skoll World Forum. The presentations, the side conversations and even the general spirit of the Forum underlined this. Here is a sampling of some of the more provocative actions and articulations I heard:

• In the opening plenary, Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, argued that the world needs more CEOs to stand up to their shareholders.
• Also in the opening plenary, Arif Naqvi, founder of private equity firm The Abraaj Group, emphasized the importance of a broad definition of stakeholder engagement because as he put it, “you can’t have islands of excellence in an ocean of turbulence.”
• Jason Saul of Mission Measurement presented a framework that promotes deriving a cost/outcome across what he deems is 132 outcomes in the world.
• Jeff Bradach of Bridgespan Group raised not only organization-centric pathways to scale, but also field-centric ones that would argue for strengthening a constellation of organizations.
• Feike Sijbesma, chairman and CEO of Royal DSM, emphasized that more than shareholders have to be a company’s priority in “future-proofing a business” as he traced the company’s transition from a coal mining company to a chemical company to its current framing as a life sciences company.
• Mike Barry of Marks & Spencer shared in a side conversation that in 10 years their most important strategic partner might be a healthcare company as they think about a frame of wellness rather than products.

Malala Yousafzai

Finally, as a tour de force at the Forum were the words of Malala, the 16-year-old Pakistani girl who survived a Taliban assassination attempt as she advocated for education for girls. She spoke passionately and eloquently with a poise way beyond her years as she proclaimed, “Education is more powerful than any weapon.” Although she was specifically speaking about education for girls, her message is really universal whether speaking about individuals, investors or companies.

As I reflect back on the Forum, I’m inspired to continue challenging companies to always act, innovating to protect the planet.

“Se hace camino al andar – the road is made by walking,” said Yves Moury of Fundacion Capital, quoting Spanish poet Antonio Machado. He went on to explain that the poet was telling us to find new ways to think and to act. “Always act,” he exhorted, “the road is made by walking.”

I identified with this call to action as the unofficial theme of the 2014 Skoll World Forum. The presentations, the side conversations and even the general spirit of the Forum underlined this. Here is a sampling of some of the more provocative actions and articulations I heard:

• In the opening plenary, Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, argued that the world needs more CEOs to stand up to their shareholders.
• Also in the opening plenary, Arif Naqvi, founder of private equity firm The Abraaj Group, emphasized the importance of a broad definition of stakeholder engagement because as he put it, “you can’t have islands of excellence in an ocean of turbulence.”
• Jason Saul of Mission Measurement presented a framework that promotes deriving a cost/outcome across what he deems is 132 outcomes in the world.
• Jeff Bradach of Bridgespan Group raised not only organization-centric pathways to scale, but also field-centric ones that would argue for strengthening a constellation of organizations.
• Feike Sijbesma, chairman and CEO of Royal DSM, emphasized that more than shareholders have to be a company’s priority in “future-proofing a business” as he traced the company’s transition from a coal mining company to a chemical company to its current framing as a life sciences company.
• Mike Barry of Marks & Spencer shared in a side conversation that in 10 years their most important strategic partner might be a healthcare company as they think about a frame of wellness rather than products.

Malala Yousafzai

Finally, as a tour de force at the Forum were the words of Malala, the 16-year-old Pakistani girl who survived a Taliban assassination attempt as she advocated for education for girls. She spoke passionately and eloquently with a poise way beyond her years as she proclaimed, “Education is more powerful than any weapon.” Although she was specifically speaking about education for girls, her message is really universal whether speaking about individuals, investors or companies.

As I reflect back on the Forum, I’m inspired to continue challenging companies to always act, innovating to protect the planet.

EDF has been a long-time supporter of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) SmartWay Program and we are proud to announce that tomorrow EPA will honor EDF with an Affiliate Challenge Award. This award not only recognizes our commitment to the program, but also our significant efforts to promote, advance, and strengthen SmartWay. The voluntary program is a public-private initiative that promotes freight sustainability through efficiency and fuel reductions. The program first began with a focus on reducing fuel consumption from long-haul trucks, and in 2011 was expanded to increase sustainability from the trucking sector operating around marine ports.

Over the course of its 10-year history, SmartWay Partners have saved 120.7 million barrels of oil. This is equivalent to taking over 10 million cars off the road for an entire year and has helped to protect the health and well-being of locals residing close to transportation hubs. Additionally, the SmartWay Program has reduced 51.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide so far, which contributes to our nation’s economic and energy security. EDF is excited about these achievements and proud to support these clean air efforts.

EDF has been a long-time supporter of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) SmartWay Program and we are proud to announce that tomorrow EPA will honor EDF with an Affiliate Challenge Award. This award not only recognizes our commitment to the program, but also our significant efforts to promote, advance, and strengthen SmartWay. The voluntary program is a public-private initiative that promotes freight sustainability through efficiency and fuel reductions. The program first began with a focus on reducing fuel consumption from long-haul trucks, and in 2011 was expanded to increase sustainability from the trucking sector operating around marine ports.

Over the course of its 10-year history, SmartWay Partners have saved 120.7 million barrels of oil. This is equivalent to taking over 10 million cars off the road for an entire year and has helped to protect the health and well-being of locals residing close to transportation hubs. Additionally, the SmartWay Program has reduced 51.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide so far, which contributes to our nation’s economic and energy security. EDF is excited about these achievements and proud to support these clean air efforts.

April 22, 2014

By Richard Denison

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

For years, the concept of prioritization as an element of TSCA reform has enjoyed support from a broad array of stakeholders.  The number of chemicals in active commerce is large, if uncertain:  surely less than the 85,000 listed on the TSCA Inventory, but still in the tens of thousands. That sheer number demands that EPA develop and apply a process to decide where to start and how to sequence the enormous task of reviewing the safety of those chemicals. 

There has also been widespread agreement that EPA should make an initial pass using available information to identify three groups of chemicals:  a) those that present significant hazard or exposure potential or both; b) those for which existing information doesn’t raise such concerns; and c) those that need more information to determine their level of concern.

As conceived, prioritization was to be a low-stakes proposition for the various stakeholders, simply the means to get the new system up and running.  Prioritization decisions would not be final actions; rather, they were expressly designed to minimize dispute, and would be barred from legal challenge.  Chemicals identified as high priority and in need of immediate scrutiny would get a more thorough assessment before any decision as to whether they posed significant risk and required a regulatory response.  Chemicals identified as low-priority would be so designated provisionally based on less than a thorough assessment, and could be revisited if and when new information arose.  And chemicals lacking sufficient information to be prioritized would be subject to further data collection and generation, and then funneled back into the prioritization process.

These concepts are well-established both in the outcomes of industry-NGO negotiations and in heavily negotiated provisions of the more recent incarnations of the Safe Chemicals Act.

But then some folks got greedy.  They broke apart a strong consensus on the need and role for prioritization, by insisting on three specific changes that raise the stakes dramatically by transforming prioritization from a sorting and sequencing mechanism into a means of skirting a thorough assessment and avoiding regulation by any level of government.  This sleight of hand was accomplished by:

1. Forcing EPA to make prioritization decisions using only existing information, no matter how insufficient that information is.
2. Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated low-priority, immediately upon such designation.
3. Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated high-priority long before EPA has completed a safety assessment and determination for the chemical.

While it contained other positive elements, all three of these changes are in the introduced version of the Senate’s Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA, S. 1009).  In the House’s original discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA):

• #1 is included.
• #2 is even worse than in CSIA, in that low-priority designations would preempt pre-existing as well as new State requirements.
• #3 is better than in CSIA, in that preemption of either pre-existing or new State requirements for high-priority chemicals would not be triggered until a final safety determination has been made, or for a chemical found not to meet the standard, a final risk management rule has been promulgated.

A few improvements have been proposed in the context of ongoing negotiations on both legislative proposals, but as of this writing the fundamental problems remain.

Let’s look in more detail at each of these moves away from the consensus on prioritization:

1.  Forcing EPA to make prioritization decisions using only existing information, no matter how insufficient that information is. 

Under no circumstances could EPA require development of new information for purposes of prioritization.  Where EPA found available data were insufficient, it would have three options – each of which represents truly bad policy.  EPA could:

• Designate the chemical low-priority despite the data gaps, undermining confidence in the viability of such decisions.
• Designate the chemical high-priority in order to trigger testing authority to fill the data gaps.  This decision would also trigger a mandatory safety assessment and safety determination.  If the data then showed the chemical was low-priority, EPA’s resources would be wasted assessing a chemical that didn’t warrant it.
• Defer the decision, and ask for voluntary submissions of information.  No deadline or even a timeframe is specified for such submissions, nor for subsequent prioritization decisions by EPA – which, even if made, would still be limited to the two unsatisfactory options just noted.  Deferral decisions and the basis for them would not even have to be made public.
  

2.  Preempting states from imposing new [or in CICA, new or pre-existing] requirements on any chemical EPA designated low-priority, immediately upon such designation.

Suddenly, a decision meant to be provisional and based on less than a full safety assessment – one using only already available information and against less than a definitive safety standard – would have sweeping consequences.  The decision would amount to a final agency action, yet would not be judicially reviewable (CICA is ambiguous on this point).  [Senate negotiations have led to a proposal that these decisions be able to be judicially challenged by a State if it first requested EPA to re-prioritize a low-priority chemical and EPA refused.  But that change would hardly address the real problem here, which is that a process meant to broadly sort chemicals would effectively lead to definitive, binding determinations of chemicals’ safety.]

3.  Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated high-priority, long before EPA has completed a safety assessment and determination for the chemical [in CSIA but not in CICA]. 

Under this provision, simply emerging from the prioritization process would trigger preemption – well before any actual determination as to a chemical’s safety had been made.  And because high-priority chemicals must undergo safety assessments and determinations, the consequences of such an early preemptive effect could be even more perverse than for low-priority chemicals:  Companies making such chemicals would have a major incentive to drag out the assessment and determination process for as long as possible, especially if they were concerned it could lead to testing requirements, restrictions or new conditions.  That’s because States would have already been taken out of the picture, and the longer the federal process took, the longer the chemical could be marketed without new requirements.  (Conversely, delaying any preemptive effect until the end of the safety assessment, determination, and where needed risk management rulemaking would provide incentives to efficiently complete that process.)

CSIA and CICA, as introduced, have no deadlines for completion of assessments, determinations and risk management rules.  Negotiations have led to some proposed deadlines, but they would still allow many years for these processes; the last thing we need are incentives to drag things out even longer.

 

Beyond the shockingly bad policy these provisions represent, there is considerable hypocrisy in those who insist on them.  The chemical industry has long argued that decisions on chemicals should be made only after a full risk assessment is conducted based on robust hazard and exposure information.  Yet it supports provisions that would not only stymie EPA’s ability to get the information it needs to make sound prioritization decisions, but would dramatically restrict States’ ability to act to protect their citizens – all in the absence or far in advance of definitive risk-based decisions by EPA.

How can this be fixed?

Restoring the prior consensus and ensuring an effective role for prioritization under a reformed TSCA require the following:

• EPA should have the authority to require development of new information to fill critical gaps needed to support robust prioritization decisions.
• Any deferrals of prioritization decisions to collect additional information must be subject to clear deadlines, and the basis for such deferrals must be made publicly available.
• Low-priority designations must be based on robust information on chemical’s hazards, exposures and uses.  Because such chemicals are to effectively be set aside for an indefinite period of time, it is essential that such decisions be fully informed.
• Low-priority designations should not be preemptive of State authority, as they are not based on a full safety assessment and are made against less than a definitive safety standard. 
• High-priority designations should likewise not have any preemptive effect; any preemption should ensue only after EPA has completed safety assessments and determinations, and where needed, risk management rules, for a chemical.
• With the removal of preemptive effects from low- or high-priority designations, such decisions should not be judicially reviewable.

As a practical matter, a strong federal system will have a strong preemptive effect without legally mandating it:  Few states will undertake to regulate chemicals EPA has designated low-priority through a process in which they have confidence.  Nor would states be likely to target chemicals EPA has designated high-priority if they are confident EPA will be able to complete their safety assessments and determinations in a timely manner.

The good news is that the issues I’ve raised in this post are under active discussion in both houses of Congress.  It is vital that we restore the original vision for a prioritization process under a reformed TSCA, and with it the strong consensus supporting that vision.