Read more of this story »

There has been significant success in decreasing the levels of chemical contaminants in our nation’s water ways in recent years, thanks to the Clean Air and Water Acts passed by Congress. However, low levels of many contaminants (such as metals, pesticides, and synthetic molecules like PCBs) persist in many rivers and streams, home to salmon and related trout species.

Read more of this story »

In the spring of 2007 the Supreme Court ruled the Clean Air Act provides the authority for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. The ruling cleared the way for the EPA to consider scientific evidence to determine if greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to public health, and if so, should be regulated. Despite that decision, little headway was made under the Bush Administration and then-EPA administrator Stephen Johnson.

The stage was set for change when the Obama administration took office, and the GOP immediately set out to block the EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in anticipation of action from the EPA finally moving forward and acting on the court’s ruling. Here’s how it has played out:

Read more of this story »

Power plants play a huge role in emitting pollutants that make up the ozone. This pollution browns and blackens our horizons. We call it smog. Smog has been linked to premature deaths, thousands of emergency room visits, and tens of thousands of asthma attacks each year. Pollution in the ozone is particularly dangerous to small children and the elderly, who are often warned to stay indoors on days with poor air quality due to pollutants.

Not only are the pollutants spewed out by power plants bad for our health, but they contain greenhouse gases that have been linked with climate change; thus they are killing the world as we know it as well.

Read more of this story »

In order to cut harmful emissions from maritime vessels, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the next steps of its coordinated effort on Wednesday. The steps include creating a rule under the Clean Air Act that would establish tough engine and fuel standards for U.S. flagged ships. The proposed rule would harmonize with international standards and lead to improved air quality throughout the country.

The new proposal follows a proposal made between the United States and Canada in March that would set aside thousands of miles of coast between the two countries as an Emission Control Area (ECA). The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency, will begin review of the ECA plan this month. The passage of the ECA plan would result in the enforcement of stringent standards placed on large ships that operate within 200 nautical miles of U.S. or Canadian coasts.

Read more of this story »

Last month the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its so-called ‘endangerment findings’, an announcement that set the table for future federal CO2 regulations under the Clean Air Act on the basis of greenhouse gases (GHG) representing a threat to human health and welfare.

The EPA’s landmark announcement was released at a time when public skepticism about the root causes of climate change is on the rise, and the sizable group of critics that oppose the endangerment findings were given a boost of ammunition this week.

The release of an undated and unsigned White House of Management and Budget memorandum (marked as ‘Deliberative - Attorney Client Privilege’) provides nine pages of critiques and challenges to the EPA’s assertion that GHG are a threat to human health and welfare. The memo is based on a collection of opinions from representatives of various federal agencies. The memo questions the scientific rigor employed by the EPA in preparing its endangerment findings report, and even suggests that the proposal to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act “would have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities”.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

The criminal trial of W.R. Grace & Co., an international chemical company under federal indictment since 2005, began yesterday in Libby, Montana.

W.R. Grace & Co. is charged with violating the Clean Air Act and obstruction of justice while operating vermiculite mines in the Northwestern Montana town. Charges focus on whether company officials knew that the mining endangered Libby’s community.

Read more of this story »

Environmental Management

To begin with, the Army Strategy for the Environment, was developed to serve as a policy guidance document leading the Army to “establish a long-range vision that enables the Army to meet its mission today and into the future.” Their motto? “Sustain the Mission - Secure the Future.” Some may find it trite, but without a vision and goals, it’s hard to get anywhere.

There is also the Army Environmental Policy Institute, which ”assists the Army Secretariat in developing policies and strategies to improve or resolve environmental policy issues that may have significant short or long-term impacts on the Army.” It works towards the Army’s triple bottom line of Mission, Environment, and Community.

Read more of this story »

President-elect Barack Obama’s

If that alone wasn’t enough to make me want to have her babies, she’s been quoted for calling Bush’s EPA the “Emissions Permissions Agency!” Uh, marry me now! Seriously.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups secured a big victory last week when the U.S. Court of Appeals decided to regulate pollution spikes from refineries, called “flares”. The decision will affect 21 refineries located in California.

Read more of this story »

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that, as a result of its enforcement actions, U.S. companies will spend a record-breaking $11.8 billion on pollution control and projects to clean up the environment this year.

The EPA calculates that the moves will result in a best ever reduction in pollution of 3.9 billion pounds per year, nearly four times the reduction achieved during 2007.

Read more of this story »

Huh, maybe a clean energy future does lie ahead. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today that the EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

The board sided with the Sierra Club and found that since Massachusetts v EPA Supreme ruled that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, new coal-fired power plants must implement Best Available Technology for controlling CO2.

What? The EPA cannot refuse to protect the environment? Awesome!

This decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must readdress their carbon dioxide emissions.

“Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy,” said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. “This is one more sign that we must begin repowering,  refueling and rebuilding America.”

The EAB shot down every lame Bush excuse for failing to regulate what is the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This should make things easier for when Obama takes over - and am I the only person that wants that to happen…like now?

According to the Sierra Club, coal emits 30% of our nation’s global warming pollutants. And this was an issue, why? “Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric,” Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, went on to say.

Source: Sierra Club |  Image: Jan Tik on Flickr under Creative Commons

If you haven’t made up your mind who to vote for in tomorrow’s presidential election, I’m not sure that what I am about to tell you will help — but it just might. Both candidates told the web site sciencedebate2008 that they accept the scientific agreement that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are changing the Earth’s climate. And both candidates have said they want to cap emissions produced by the burning of those fossil fuels.

But only Barack Obama has said he would regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

Read more of this story »