Aggregator

…and the Terminator, and Indiana Jones, and a Titanically popular director and more. If you don’t get where I’m going with this thread, you may have been under a rock for the past week, because when Hollywood talks about climate change, all kinds of new audiences listen.

Years of Living Dangerously is an incredibly ambitious documentary on climate change airing on Showtime. It is also a fascinating case study in how to market a scary, complicated concept to mass audiences and stimulate new conversations across both virtual and physical communities.

Al Gore – Won the Nobel Peace Prize

 

Ian Somerhalder - has 4.85 million followers on Twitter

 

Al Gore, with 2.71m followers, is no slouch in social media – I’m just illustrating that perhaps Mr. Somerhalder has a bit more active fan base.

There are many different ways to tell a story and start a conversation. At EDF we focus on science, economics, partnerships and bipartisan outreach to find solutions to climate change. Our stories stem from the results we drive, and yes, we love talking about science and statistics.

The teams behind both the making and the marketing of the YEARS documentary are focusing on the human element. The series uses celebrities as the lens to educate the audience through human stories and simple language. They find the real value in communicating climate change at an emotional level.

There’s also a human component in experiencing the documentary. There's no need to watch YEARS alone from your couch. The YEARS team is promoting human interaction: from social sharing through millions of celebrity followers, to spurring community action , to providing tools to host your own “viewing party” and find groups to watch with in your neighborhood.

In order to get climate change into the mainstream conversation, we need to lean on people who have high visibility in the mainstream. The bold names extending their environmental passion to this documentary include: Jessica Alba, Matt Damon, Michael C. Hall, Don Cheadle, Olivia Munn, America Ferrera, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lesley Stahl, Thomas Friedman, Harrison Ford, Ian Somerhalder and Chris Hayes.

Because EDF is chock full of scientists and economists, I’d be shunned in the break room if I didn’t provide you with some statistics:

Take over 16 million followers x thousands of tweets, favorites and shares, and YEARS just gathered a massive mainstream audience around an important issue.

At EDF, we are especially proud to be featured in the Years of Living Dangerously documentary.  Our flagship fellowship program, EDF Climate Corps, is featured in the May 26th episode, as Jessica Alba follows three of our Climate Corps fellows through their summer internships working with Caesars, Office Depot and Texas Southern University to help those organizations find energy efficiencies and become more sustainable.

In the coming weeks, we’ll be introducing you to our Climate Corps fellows and the important work they do every year in hundreds of organizations. And yes, we’ll also be inserting ourselves into the mainstream conversation, so please feel free to tweet and share (#YEARSProject, @EDFBiz). Especially if you’re Jessica Alba …

 

Additional reading:

Craig K. Comstock of HuffPo says YEARS could be the 2014 version of The Day After – http://huff.to/1eqyw0S

How YEARS came to EDF’s Eric Pooley with a great idea – http://bit.ly/1g3ujPm

…and the Terminator, and Indiana Jones, and a Titanically popular director and more. If you don’t get where I’m going with this thread, you may have been under a rock for the past week, because when Hollywood talks about climate change, all kinds of new audiences listen.

Years of Living Dangerously is an incredibly ambitious documentary on climate change airing on Showtime. It is also a fascinating case study in how to market a scary, complicated concept to mass audiences and stimulate new conversations across both virtual and physical communities.

Al Gore – Won the Nobel Peace Prize

 

Ian Somerhalder - has 4.85 million followers on Twitter

 

Al Gore, with 2.71m followers, is no slouch in social media – I’m just illustrating that perhaps Mr. Somerhalder has a bit more active fan base.

There are many different ways to tell a story and start a conversation. At EDF we focus on science, economics, partnerships and bipartisan outreach to find solutions to climate change. Our stories stem from the results we drive, and yes, we love talking about science and statistics.

The teams behind both the making and the marketing of the YEARS documentary are focusing on the human element. The series uses celebrities as the lens to educate the audience through human stories and simple language. They find the real value in communicating climate change at an emotional level.

There’s also a human component in experiencing the documentary. There's no need to watch YEARS alone from your couch. The YEARS team is promoting human interaction: from social sharing through millions of celebrity followers, to spurring community action , to providing tools to host your own “viewing party” and find groups to watch with in your neighborhood.

In order to get climate change into the mainstream conversation, we need to lean on people who have high visibility in the mainstream. The bold names extending their environmental passion to this documentary include: Jessica Alba, Matt Damon, Michael C. Hall, Don Cheadle, Olivia Munn, America Ferrera, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lesley Stahl, Thomas Friedman, Harrison Ford, Ian Somerhalder and Chris Hayes.

Because EDF is chock full of scientists and economists, I’d be shunned in the break room if I didn’t provide you with some statistics:

Take over 16 million followers x thousands of tweets, favorites and shares, and YEARS just gathered a massive mainstream audience around an important issue.

At EDF, we are especially proud to be featured in the Years of Living Dangerously documentary.  Our flagship fellowship program, EDF Climate Corps, is featured in the May 26th episode, as Jessica Alba follows three of our Climate Corps fellows through their summer internships working with Caesars, Office Depot and Texas Southern University to help those organizations find energy efficiencies and become more sustainable.

In the coming weeks, we’ll be introducing you to our Climate Corps fellows and the important work they do every year in hundreds of organizations. And yes, we’ll also be inserting ourselves into the mainstream conversation, so please feel free to tweet and share (#YEARSProject, @EDFBiz). Especially if you’re Jessica Alba …

 

Additional reading:

Craig K. Comstock of HuffPo says YEARS could be the 2014 version of The Day After – http://huff.to/1eqyw0S

How YEARS came to EDF’s Eric Pooley with a great idea – http://bit.ly/1g3ujPm

By Ben Ratner

Recently, the White House took a crucial stride to tackle methane pollution and natural gas waste. A key aspect of the strategy tasks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with enacting policy to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry. Yesterday, EPA formally initiated its process, issuing five white papers focused on the biggest opportunities to cut the industry’s methane emissions. A final decision for action is expected later this year.

The Administration’s strategy to reduce methane emissions is an urgently needed development to slow the rate of climate change in our lifetimes. That’s because methane is an incredibly powerful and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas. Whether you’re a concerned citizen who wants better protections from pollution, an individual compelled to see the U.S. do more to defend the people and places most vulnerable to global climate change, or an energy watchdog who wants to minimize needless waste—know that solutions are within our grasp.

Let’s look at a key piece of the process that the White House galvanized and that EPA has now started to carry forward. EPA’s white papers provide thorough, technical assessment of oil and gas methane emission sources and mitigation technologies, and they provide the factual basis to support policy action. The process requests feedback from the public and a range of expert stakeholders that will help EPA answer:  Is now the time to create a real methane policy for oil and gas? I am optimistic the answer will be a resounding “YES.”

A problem worth addressing

The last six months have brought an improved scientific understanding of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain. A joint Purdue-Cornell regional study released this week adds to this growing list, reporting some of the highest methane emissions we’ve ever seen from drilling. To understand what all of this could look like, one of our experts explains it as the equivalent of losing 54 LNG tankers worth of natural gas to the atmosphere every year through venting, leaks, and flaring. That’s a tremendous amount of methane that if lost to our oceans would be seen as a major tragedy.

So far more than one-third of today’s human-caused global warming comes from highly potent, short-lived climate pollutants that include methane. Plus, methane can escape with compounds that contribute to smog and include carcinogens, which led the American Lung Association to urge the White House to issue policy to protect public health. Any way you slice it, methane emissions are a problem.

We can fix it

Available, proven technologies that can slash emissions are on the shelf waiting to be deployed. EDF released a report last month by the consultancy ICF International that found many proven technologies exist that can cost-effectively help cut onshore methane emissions by 40 percent in five years. At an annual cost of less than a penny per Mcf (thousand cubic feet of produced gas), this is hardly a dent in industry’s pocketbook. The ability to design practical regulations that make good use of such cost-effective measures is a big reason why Colorado, Wyoming, and Ohio have adopted policies in the last year to drive down oil and gas air emissions.

More than voluntary action needed

Now EDF is a strong supporter of industry taking voluntary steps to address challenges, and corporate use of leading practices is a big part of the answer on methane. But voluntary action alone is not enough. Consider this:

First, there are literally thousands of oil and gas producers in the United States (to say nothing of pipeline and processing companies). The only way to ensure higher standards of performance is to level the playing field through policy. Without that, the positive results from the proactive companies will be undermined by the rest of the field. We can do better.

Second, although a large chunk of methane solutions more than pay for themselves, not all those measures will be implemented voluntarily, as companies often bypass such investments for even more profitable ways to deploy capital. And for the additional chunk of methane controls with a positive but small cost to the operator, there remains a strong national interest in implementation, as doing so would result in enhanced U.S. energy security, cleaner air and a safer climate. But that interest would lose out in a policy vacuum because individual company financial incentives don’t fully encompass those key national objectives.

We’re confident the case will prove out

It isn’t easy to get things done in Washington, and the hardest work remains ahead for President Obama’s methane strategy. But, we are off to a strong start, and two things are apparent. One, reducing methane emissions is becoming a big tent issue, and there can be lots of winners if we get it right. Two, this is a tailor made opportunity for putting in place sound policy, developed collaboratively for the country.

By Ben Ratner

Recently, the White House took a crucial stride to tackle methane pollution and natural gas waste. A key aspect of the strategy tasks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with enacting policy to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry. Yesterday, EPA formally initiated its process, issuing five white papers focused on the biggest opportunities to cut the industry’s methane emissions. A final decision for action is expected later this year.

The Administration’s strategy to reduce methane emissions is an urgently needed development to slow the rate of climate change in our lifetimes. That’s because methane is an incredibly powerful and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas. Whether you’re a concerned citizen who wants better protections from pollution, an individual compelled to see the U.S. do more to defend the people and places most vulnerable to global climate change, or an energy watchdog who wants to minimize needless waste—know that solutions are within our grasp.

Let’s look at a key piece of the process that the White House galvanized and that EPA has now started to carry forward. EPA’s white papers provide thorough, technical assessment of oil and gas methane emission sources and mitigation technologies, and they provide the factual basis to support policy action. The process requests feedback from the public and a range of expert stakeholders that will help EPA answer:  Is now the time to create a real methane policy for oil and gas? I am optimistic the answer will be a resounding “YES.”

A problem worth addressing

The last six months have brought an improved scientific understanding of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain. A joint Purdue-Cornell regional study released this week adds to this growing list, reporting some of the highest methane emissions we’ve ever seen from drilling. To understand what all of this could look like, one of our experts explains it as the equivalent of losing 54 LNG tankers worth of natural gas to the atmosphere every year through venting, leaks, and flaring. That’s a tremendous amount of methane that if lost to our oceans would be seen as a major tragedy.

So far more than one-third of today’s human-caused global warming comes from highly potent, short-lived climate pollutants that include methane. Plus, methane can escape with compounds that contribute to smog and include carcinogens, which led the American Lung Association to urge the White House to issue policy to protect public health. Any way you slice it, methane emissions are a problem.

We can fix it

Available, proven technologies that can slash emissions are on the shelf waiting to be deployed. EDF released a report last month by the consultancy ICF International that found many proven technologies exist that can cost-effectively help cut onshore methane emissions by 40 percent in five years. At an annual cost of less than a penny per Mcf (thousand cubic feet of produced gas), this is hardly a dent in industry’s pocketbook. The ability to design practical regulations that make good use of such cost-effective measures is a big reason why Colorado, Wyoming, and Ohio have adopted policies in the last year to drive down oil and gas air emissions.

More than voluntary action needed

Now EDF is a strong supporter of industry taking voluntary steps to address challenges, and corporate use of leading practices is a big part of the answer on methane. But voluntary action alone is not enough. Consider this:

First, there are literally thousands of oil and gas producers in the United States (to say nothing of pipeline and processing companies). The only way to ensure higher standards of performance is to level the playing field through policy. Without that, the positive results from the proactive companies will be undermined by the rest of the field. We can do better.

Second, although a large chunk of methane solutions more than pay for themselves, not all those measures will be implemented voluntarily, as companies often bypass such investments for even more profitable ways to deploy capital. And for the additional chunk of methane controls with a positive but small cost to the operator, there remains a strong national interest in implementation, as doing so would result in enhanced U.S. energy security, cleaner air and a safer climate. But that interest would lose out in a policy vacuum because individual company financial incentives don’t fully encompass those key national objectives.

We’re confident the case will prove out

It isn’t easy to get things done in Washington, and the hardest work remains ahead for President Obama’s methane strategy. But, we are off to a strong start, and two things are apparent. One, reducing methane emissions is becoming a big tent issue, and there can be lots of winners if we get it right. Two, this is a tailor made opportunity for putting in place sound policy, developed collaboratively for the country.

By EDF Blogs

Ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fort Carson solar array. U.S. Army photo by Michael J. Pach.

By: Stephanie Kline, Program Associate, Clean Energy

At the U.S. Defense Department, the multiple national security threats created by sea level rise and severe weather command daily attention; climate change has been on its radar for years.  The recently published Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR), an assessment of U.S. defense readiness, addresses the growing threat that climate change poses to military capabilities and global operations. Adding to that, the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that extreme weather events will begin occurring more frequently across the globe. As first responders in the wake of extreme weather events, the U.S. military will be called upon to provide emergency support and services for a large portion of them.

The timing of these reports highlights a growing defense challenge but also provides an opportunity for the Defense Department to lead from the front in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The military’s success in preparing for and mitigating climate change impacts will depend in large part on where it gets energy and how smartly it uses energy, especially amid budget constraints. Consider this: the Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, despite accounting for less than one percent of total domestic use.

Each of the branches – Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps – is making significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but more must be done to meet energy goals and prepare for the global consequences of climate change. To do this, the Defense Department should:

• Play a larger role in creating a smarter, more resilient U.S. electricity grid. The security risks of an aging and inadequate power grid are direct threats to military capabilities. Case in point: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey served multiple logistical and emergency response functions during Superstorm Sandy – but parts of the base lost power during the storm. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, power outages on domestic Army bases alone more than doubled.  Military bases that are proactive, rather than reactive, in their relationships to the electricity grid will be more resilient to extreme weather and grid attacks.

• Increase energy efficiency. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 20 percent of the Defense Department's energy consumption occurs on domestic bases, where the annual energy bill tops $4 billion. The Navy recently conducted its inaugural Fleet Energy Training Event to highlight new conservation developments and train sailors in applying best energy practices. One of the goals is to shift sailors' attitudes from "saving energy if you can" to "saving energy unless you can't." All branches will be best served by instilling a similar mindset in each service member. Combined with service-wide efficiency programs, this will make a significant dent in reducing massive energy bills at domestic bases.

• Develop new partnerships. Collaboration with government, communities, universities and nonprofit organizations helps maintain readiness standards while enhancing environmental stewardship. Several years ago, the Defense Department collaborated with Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, Environmental Defense Fund, and several other partners on a species conservation project at Fort Hood. This partnership enabled the Army to continue combat training operations, employed a market-based solution that benefitted nearby landowners, and facilitated the recovery of the Golden Cheeked Warbler. Similar, energy-based collaborations will link bases with groundbreaking research and help to spur clean energy innovation.

• Identify new ways to finance energy improvements. Tighter budgets mean less money to meet multi-level energy mandates. Private-public partnerships that incorporate third-party financing provide an opportunity to save billions of tax payer dollars, update and build critical military energy infrastructure, and boost the nation's clean energy market. Nearly 80 percent of future defense energy projects are expected to be financed by third-party providers, which will require changes in the way the military and government traditionally conduct business. For example, the military needs to streamline its energy project contracting processes. States, such as North Carolina, should encourage bases to take a more active role in energy management and remove any legislative barriers that prohibit such progress.

Ultimately, the military’s ability to mitigate climate change effects will rely heavily on strategic, diverse partnerships to navigate financing options, design new efficiency measures, and shape policy.  From both a security and economic view, our military will be well served by relying on clean energy options.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By EDF Blogs

Ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fort Carson solar array. U.S. Army photo by Michael J. Pach.

By: Stephanie Kline, Program Associate, Clean Energy

At the U.S. Defense Department, the multiple national security threats created by sea level rise and severe weather command daily attention; climate change has been on its radar for years.  The recently published Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR), an assessment of U.S. defense readiness, addresses the growing threat that climate change poses to military capabilities and global operations. Adding to that, the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that extreme weather events will begin occurring more frequently across the globe. As first responders in the wake of extreme weather events, the U.S. military will be called upon to provide emergency support and services for a large portion of them.

The timing of these reports highlights a growing defense challenge but also provides an opportunity for the Defense Department to lead from the front in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The military’s success in preparing for and mitigating climate change impacts will depend in large part on where it gets energy and how smartly it uses energy, especially amid budget constraints. Consider this: the Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, despite accounting for less than one percent of total domestic use.

Each of the branches – Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps – is making significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but more must be done to meet energy goals and prepare for the global consequences of climate change. To do this, the Defense Department should:

• Play a larger role in creating a smarter, more resilient U.S. electricity grid. The security risks of an aging and inadequate power grid are direct threats to military capabilities. Case in point: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey served multiple logistical and emergency response functions during Superstorm Sandy – but parts of the base lost power during the storm. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, power outages on domestic Army bases alone more than doubled.  Military bases that are proactive, rather than reactive, in their relationships to the electricity grid will be more resilient to extreme weather and grid attacks.

• Increase energy efficiency. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 20 percent of the Defense Department's energy consumption occurs on domestic bases, where the annual energy bill tops $4 billion. The Navy recently conducted its inaugural Fleet Energy Training Event to highlight new conservation developments and train sailors in applying best energy practices. One of the goals is to shift sailors' attitudes from "saving energy if you can" to "saving energy unless you can't." All branches will be best served by instilling a similar mindset in each service member. Combined with service-wide efficiency programs, this will make a significant dent in reducing massive energy bills at domestic bases.

• Develop new partnerships. Collaboration with government, communities, universities and nonprofit organizations helps maintain readiness standards while enhancing environmental stewardship. Several years ago, the Defense Department collaborated with Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, Environmental Defense Fund, and several other partners on a species conservation project at Fort Hood. This partnership enabled the Army to continue combat training operations, employed a market-based solution that benefitted nearby landowners, and facilitated the recovery of the Golden Cheeked Warbler. Similar, energy-based collaborations will link bases with groundbreaking research and help to spur clean energy innovation.

• Identify new ways to finance energy improvements. Tighter budgets mean less money to meet multi-level energy mandates. Private-public partnerships that incorporate third-party financing provide an opportunity to save billions of tax payer dollars, update and build critical military energy infrastructure, and boost the nation's clean energy market. Nearly 80 percent of future defense energy projects are expected to be financed by third-party providers, which will require changes in the way the military and government traditionally conduct business. For example, the military needs to streamline its energy project contracting processes. States, such as North Carolina, should encourage bases to take a more active role in energy management and remove any legislative barriers that prohibit such progress.

Ultimately, the military’s ability to mitigate climate change effects will rely heavily on strategic, diverse partnerships to navigate financing options, design new efficiency measures, and shape policy.  From both a security and economic view, our military will be well served by relying on clean energy options.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By EDF Blogs

Ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fort Carson solar array. U.S. Army photo by Michael J. Pach.

By: Stephanie Kline, Program Associate, Clean Energy

At the U.S. Defense Department, the multiple national security threats created by sea level rise and severe weather command daily attention; climate change has been on its radar for years.  The recently published Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR), an assessment of U.S. defense readiness, addresses the growing threat that climate change poses to military capabilities and global operations. Adding to that, the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that extreme weather events will begin occurring more frequently across the globe. As first responders in the wake of extreme weather events, the U.S. military will be called upon to provide emergency support and services for a large portion of them.

The timing of these reports highlights a growing defense challenge but also provides an opportunity for the Defense Department to lead from the front in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The military’s success in preparing for and mitigating climate change impacts will depend in large part on where it gets energy and how smartly it uses energy, especially amid budget constraints. Consider this: the Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, despite accounting for less than one percent of total domestic use.

Each of the branches – Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps – is making significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but more must be done to meet energy goals and prepare for the global consequences of climate change. To do this, the Defense Department should:

• Play a larger role in creating a smarter, more resilient U.S. electricity grid. The security risks of an aging and inadequate power grid are direct threats to military capabilities. Case in point: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey served multiple logistical and emergency response functions during Superstorm Sandy – but parts of the base lost power during the storm. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, power outages on domestic Army bases alone more than doubled.  Military bases that are proactive, rather than reactive, in their relationships to the electricity grid will be more resilient to extreme weather and grid attacks.

• Increase energy efficiency. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 20 percent of the Defense Department's energy consumption occurs on domestic bases, where the annual energy bill tops $4 billion. The Navy recently conducted its inaugural Fleet Energy Training Event to highlight new conservation developments and train sailors in applying best energy practices. One of the goals is to shift sailors' attitudes from "saving energy if you can" to "saving energy unless you can't." All branches will be best served by instilling a similar mindset in each service member. Combined with service-wide efficiency programs, this will make a significant dent in reducing massive energy bills at domestic bases.

• Develop new partnerships. Collaboration with government, communities, universities and nonprofit organizations helps maintain readiness standards while enhancing environmental stewardship. Several years ago, the Defense Department collaborated with Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, Environmental Defense Fund, and several other partners on a species conservation project at Fort Hood. This partnership enabled the Army to continue combat training operations, employed a market-based solution that benefitted nearby landowners, and facilitated the recovery of the Golden Cheeked Warbler. Similar, energy-based collaborations will link bases with groundbreaking research and help to spur clean energy innovation.

• Identify new ways to finance energy improvements. Tighter budgets mean less money to meet multi-level energy mandates. Private-public partnerships that incorporate third-party financing provide an opportunity to save billions of tax payer dollars, update and build critical military energy infrastructure, and boost the nation's clean energy market. Nearly 80 percent of future defense energy projects are expected to be financed by third-party providers, which will require changes in the way the military and government traditionally conduct business. For example, the military needs to streamline its energy project contracting processes. States, such as North Carolina, should encourage bases to take a more active role in energy management and remove any legislative barriers that prohibit such progress.

Ultimately, the military’s ability to mitigate climate change effects will rely heavily on strategic, diverse partnerships to navigate financing options, design new efficiency measures, and shape policy.  From both a security and economic view, our military will be well served by relying on clean energy options.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

April 15, 2014

Scientists fear BP blowout killed far more birds than officially reported
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. April 15, 2014.
“Almost from the start wildlife advocates described the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a war on the Gulf ecosystem…” (read more)

Louisiana House committee approves $725 million budget for 2015 coastal plan, over protests from St. Bernard, Plaquemines
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 14, 2014.
“A Louisiana legislative committee Monday approved $725 million for a fiscal year 2015 coastal plan…” (read more)

Coastal Restoration Spending Advances
By Sue Lincoln, WRKF Radio. April 15, 2014.
“Members of the House Transportation Committee put their stamp of approval…” (read more)

One of the Smartest Investments We Can Make
By Jane Lubchenco, Huffington Post Green. April 15, 2014.
“For the past 25 years, every U.S. president beginning with George H. W. Bush has upheld a straightforward…” (read more)

Continuing Impacts of BP Oil Spill (+video)
By Debbie Williams, WKRG TV (Mobile, Ala.). April 14, 2014.
“In February with the wind howling out of the north and a trip to the beach was less than appealing…” (read more)

Scientists fear BP blowout killed far more birds than officially reported
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. April 15, 2014.
“Almost from the start wildlife advocates described the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a war on the Gulf ecosystem…” (read more)

Louisiana House committee approves $725 million budget for 2015 coastal plan, over protests from St. Bernard, Plaquemines
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 14, 2014.
“A Louisiana legislative committee Monday approved $725 million for a fiscal year 2015 coastal plan…” (read more)

Coastal Restoration Spending Advances
By Sue Lincoln, WRKF Radio. April 15, 2014.
“Members of the House Transportation Committee put their stamp of approval…” (read more)

One of the Smartest Investments We Can Make
By Jane Lubchenco, Huffington Post Green. April 15, 2014.
“For the past 25 years, every U.S. president beginning with George H. W. Bush has upheld a straightforward…” (read more)

Continuing Impacts of BP Oil Spill (+video)
By Debbie Williams, WKRG TV (Mobile, Ala.). April 14, 2014.
“In February with the wind howling out of the north and a trip to the beach was less than appealing…” (read more)

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.

Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.

While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.

In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.

Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.

Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.

Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.

The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.

This commentary originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.

By EDF Blogs

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.

Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.

While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.

In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.

Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.

Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.

Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.

The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.

By EDF Blogs

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.

Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.

While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.

In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.

Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.

Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.

Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.

The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.

By EDF Blogs

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.

Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.

While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.

In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.

Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.

Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.

Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.

The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.

Alissa Sasso is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Cross-posted from EDFVoices blog] Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous […]

The post Report: Staggering amounts of toxic chemicals produced across America first appeared on EDF Health.

By Alissa Sasso

Alissa Sasso is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[Cross-posted from EDFVoices blog]

Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by EDF, Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility.

While it’s no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law it’s harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work.

Our new report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we identify which of these chemicals are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; where they are being produced or imported; and how they are being used. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state, and by site location.

Among our findings: 

• At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the US annually in amounts of one million pounds or more.
• At least 14 exceed one billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA).
• More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children’s products.

Our interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals.

TOP 5 States with
the Most Sites

TOP 5 Companies with
the Most Chemicals

1. Texas 91 sites 1. BASF Corp. 24 chemicals 2. Ohio 40 2. Dow 23 3. Pennsylvania 39 3. DuPont 12 4. Louisiana 36 4. Lanxess 12 5. New York 31 5(tie). ICC Industries
5(tie). SolvChem 10

 

TOP 5 Chemicals by Volume
(billion pounds per year)

1. Ethylene dichloride 28.1 2. Benzene 23.7 3. Vinyl chloride 16.7 4. Toluene 15.1 5. Styrene 10.2

While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals we have identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to twelve-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information, masking it from public disclosure. EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies often don’t know and aren’t required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used.

Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe.  In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals – such as those featured in our report – we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that – if done right – would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market.  And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.

 

By Alissa Sasso

Alissa Sasso is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[Cross-posted from EDFVoices blog]

Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by EDF, Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility.

While it’s no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law it’s harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work.

Our new report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we identify which of these chemicals are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; where they are being produced or imported; and how they are being used. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state, and by site location.

Among our findings: 

• At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the US annually in amounts of one million pounds or more.
• At least 14 exceed one billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA).
• More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children’s products.

Our interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals.

TOP 5 States with
the Most Sites

TOP 5 Companies with
the Most Chemicals

1. Texas 91 sites 1. BASF Corp. 24 chemicals 2. Ohio 40 2. Dow 23 3. Pennsylvania 39 3. DuPont 12 4. Louisiana 36 4. Lanxess 12 5. New York 31 5(tie). ICC Industries
5(tie). SolvChem 10

 

TOP 5 Chemicals by Volume
(billion pounds per year)

1. Ethylene dichloride 28.1 2. Benzene 23.7 3. Vinyl chloride 16.7 4. Toluene 15.1 5. Styrene 10.2

While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals we have identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to twelve-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information, masking it from public disclosure. EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies often don’t know and aren’t required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used.

Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe.  In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals – such as those featured in our report – we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that – if done right – would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market.  And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.

 

April 15, 2014

Written by Dominique Browning

Today the DC circuit court denied and dismissed legal challenges to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

All of you were key in fighting for these vital protections a few short years ago. They cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants; that pollution enters our air, then our water, our fish, and ourselves. Mercury, and all the other poisons coming from coal plants, are extremely dangerous to pregnant women, and have been proven to harm the developing brains of fetuses.

After 21 years of dirty politics, the standards passed. Even so, polluters turned around to sue for the right to keep polluting. This time they lost.

Moms Clean Air Force—all of you—made a big difference in getting those standards passed. You signed petitions, wrote letters, met with elected officials, and made phone calls. The new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are now a beacon: our voices matter. We can accomplish impossible dreams.

Polluters don’t care about health—ours, or our children’s. But we do.

We’ll direct the same focus and passion to fighting the biggest problem of them all: The greenhouse gas pollution that is causing our climate to change. Powerful stuff. But then again, so are you.

All the best, with my gratitude to you for joining forces.

 
TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

Last Thursday morning, with my heart quickly jumping, I entered the grandeur of the United States Senate hearing room for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ Keeping the lights on — are we doing enough to ensure the reliability and security of the US electric grid? hearing as an invited witness. I was eager […]