SACRAMENTO, California, December 4, 2008 (ENS) – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. once again is urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat climate change.

With U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rising year after year, according to a report issued this week by the U.S. Energy Department, and with the UN’s annual climate conference now taking place in Poland, Brown and other attorneys general say this is the time for the EPA to protect the climate.

“After eight years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming and use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat dangerous climate change,” Brown said.

Brown joined with 13 other attorneys general; the California Air Resources Board and four other state environmental agencies; the cities of Minneapolis, Seattle and Salt Lake City; and the New York City Corporation Counsel in writing a letter to the federal agency that lays out key principles EPA should adhere to in regulating greenhouse gases.

Separately, Brown submitted a comment letter to EPA responding to the 500-page advance notice of rulemaking for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act issued by EPA over the summer.

Both letters called on EPA to make a determination as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – as required by the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Gridlock on a Los Angeles freeway (Photo
credit unknown)

The letters requested that the EPA reverse the denial of California’s preemption waiver for California’s landmark greenhouse gas automobile regulations, allowing California and the 13 other states that have adopted these standards to begin immediately enforcing the regulations.

The states of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington joined California in writing to the federal agency.

They requested the EPA to adopt controls for large polluting sources such as coal-fired power plants, cement plants and refineries.

And they asked the EPA to adopt controls for cars, trucks, aircraft, ocean-going vessels, and non-road engines that are responsible for more than one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

“Technology to reduce emissions from these sources is available and cost-effective,” Brown said.

In the joint letter to EPA, Brown and his co-authors wrote, “The Clean Air Act is one of our most successful regulatory programs. It has a proven track record of effectively dealing with complex air pollution problems that implicate a multitude of sources and a wide range of economic activities, and it has done so without harming the economy.”

The attorneys general said in their letter that they “strongly disagree” with claims by departing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson that the Clean Air Act is ill-suited to the task of regulating greenhouse gases.

As the analysis by EPA’s professional staff in the advance notice of rulemaking points out, “the Clean Air Act provides EPA with flexibility to regulate through a variety of approaches, including performance standards, operational controls, market-based incentives and other measures, and also to tailor its traditional strategies to suit the particular challenges posed by GHG emissions,” the attorneys general wrote.

But while the state attorneys general are critical of the EPA’s approach to climate change, the agency said in a November 18 statement that it and the U.S. Energy Department “are helping states lead the way in an effort to promote low cost energy efficiency.”

The remark came as the EPA introduced an updated version of the “National Action Plan Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change,” produced by more than 60 energy, environmental and state policy leaders.

The updated action plan outlines strategies to help lower the growth in energy demand across the country by more than 50 percent, and shows ways to save more than $500 billion in net savings over the next 20 years.

“These actions may help to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 90 million vehicles,” the agency said.

“The significant action taken by states, utilities and energy customers advances low cost energy solutions,” said Robert Meyers, principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “The plan is a big step toward a more energy-efficient future, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing the American economy.”

The action plan contains data showing that states, utilities and other organizations are spending about $2 billion per year on energy efficiency programs. It shows that they have saved the energy equivalent of more than 30 power plants generating 500 megawatts of electricity and that they helped reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those emitted by nine million vehicles.

Initiated in 2005, the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is directed by a group of 30 electric and gas utilities, 20 state agencies and 12 other organizations. It is designed to help electric and natural gas ratepayers increase energy efficiency while saving money. Some of the same states are involved in this plan as signed the attorneys general’s letter – California, Connecticut, Massachusett, and New York.

More than 120 organizations have endorsed the original recommendations of the national action plan and have committed to making it a reality.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

STOCKTON, California, September 17, 2008 (ENS) – The central California city of Stockton has agreed to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging downtown growth instead of allowing development to sprawl. The city will cut down on emissions by constructing thousands of new residential units within its current city limits, putting a rapid transit bus system in place and requiring all new buildings to be energy efficient.

On September 9, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced the terms of the landmark agreement that will settle a lawsuit brought against the central California city by the Sierra Club.

“We cannot reach our statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets without the cooperation of our largest and fastest growing cities,” said Brown. “Stockton has shown leadership on this issue, enabling us to work together to meet our targets for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This agreement is a critical part of California’s effort to address climate change.”

This agreement comes after the city issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report for its General Plan that outlined how the city would manage its growth through 2035.

The report, issued in December 2007, estimated that by 2035, Stockton’s population would reach 580,000, an increase of almost 50 percent.

In January 2008, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit to block Stockton’s General Plan, claiming that it failed to address the amount of greenhouse gases the city would emit into an already heavily polluted San Joaquin Valley.

The Attorney General’s Office entered into negotiations with Stockton earlier this year, citing concerns about the General Plan and the need to evaluate greenhouse gas reduction impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.

“We are grateful that the attorney general came to Stockton and became involved in the city’s growth plan. The settlement represents a huge step forward for good planning that should slow down sprawl at the fringe of the city and reduce the increase in greenhouse gases due to new growth,” said Dale Stocking, an executive committee member of the Sierra Club’s Mother Lode Chapter.

Freeways criss-cross Stockton, California
(Photo credit unknown)

“The city’s commitment to adopt comprehensive green building standards and provide developer funding for a transit system should reduce vehicle trips and make Stockton a leader in the Central Valley and the state,” he said.

Under a California law passed in 2006, the state is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order requiring an additional reduction of emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Currently, California generates approximately 500 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, a number that is above 1990 levels. To achieve the 2020 target, California must reduce current emissions by at least 10 percent, said Brown.

“We appreciate the collaboration with the Attorney General’s Office; this is a win-win situation in which we can address environmentally sensitive issues,” said Stockton Mayor Edward Chavez.

“Certainly, the attorney general and his staff have been tremendous in getting this agreement put together,” the mayor said. “It will be a model that can be replicated in other communities.”

Located about 90 miles inland of San Francisco in the agricultural Central Valley, Stockton has experienced a population boom over the past decade as thousands of people have settled here to escape the relatively high cost of living in the Bay Area.

The city is an inland seaport surrounded by the thousands of miles of waterways and rivers that make up the California Delta.

To reduce sprawl under the agreement, the city will construct nearly 18,000 new home units within the current city limits, including 4,400 units to be built in downtown Stockton. The city will adopt green building regulations to ensure that new buildings are energy-efficient, conserve water and are built with eco-friendly materials.

Any new development in the city will have to be transit-friendly, and new commercial and residential development will be located near mass-transit stops.

Though new development will continue at city outskirts, the city agreed to phase it in gradually. Before approving new developments, the city will demonstrate that the projects will not undermine downtown Stockton and will complement existing commercial and residential zones.

Stockton is not the first California government to attract the attention of the attorney general over environmental concerns. San Bernardino County, Solano County, Tulare County, the city of San Diego, as well as regional transportation plans, refineries, cement plants, dairy expansions, and other large projects have also been challenged..

On their own, many California communities have begun to initiate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including Fresno, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sonoma County, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Marin County, Palo Alto, Chula Vista and Modesto.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, August 4, 2008 (ENS) – The State of California will challenge the environmental plan for a bottled water plant that Nestle Waters North America intends to build in Siskiyou County if the company does not revise its contract to pump water from the McCloud River, says the state’s top lawyer.

“It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States,” said California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.

“Nestle will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles,” Brown warned in a letter to the company July 28.

On the same day, the company issued a press release agreeing to a study and evaluation of the intended primary source of water for the project, Squaw Valley Creek, a tributary of the McCloud River.

Nestle has contracted with North State Resources to conduct the study, while scientists from the University of California-Berkeley and UC Davis will supply data and oversight of the evaluation.

Data on the existing hydrology and biology of the Squaw Valley creek watershed will be used to develop baseline information to improve understanding of the watershed.

Squaw Valley Creek (Photo courtesy
Mt. Shasta Fun Guide)

“Nestle Waters is committed to ensuring that our projects are consistent with the sustainability and long-term availability of water in the communities in which we are located,” said Nestle project manager Dave Palais.

“We are excited to get this important work started to help us better understand the watershed. The combination of North State Resources understanding and expertise in Northern California with the knowledge of some of California’s leading scientists from the University of California will result in the development of valuable data that will benefit the McCloud Community for years to come,” said Palais.

The press release states that Nestle will conduct further studies on air and water quality, traffic conditions, hazardous materials and also will explore the potential impact of climate change on water supply which will be included in a new draft environmental impact report.

Nestle, the biggest food company in the world, signed a water supply contract with the town of McCloud in 2003, but many residents oppose the deal, which they contend was signed without public participation.

The attorney general said the company’s draft environmental impact report, DEIR, “fails to address in any meaningful way the project’s likely environmental impacts.”

“The DEIR fails to analyze the global warming impacts of the project even though bouling and transporting water are highly energy-intensive,” wrote Brown. “Nor does the DEIR adequately examine the impacts of the project on air quality, water quality of the McCloud River and its tributaries, biological resources, or solid waste.

The McCloud River is unique among California’s larger rivers in that most of its water derives from springs and underground lava aquifers rather than from rainfall or snowfall. The river and its associated riparian area provide habitat for over 200 wildlife species. The Lower McCloud has been designated a Wild Trout Stream by the state Department of Fish and Game.

As originally proposed. the project would allow Nestle to bottle 520 million gallons of spring water, and potentially unlimited groundwater, from the McCloud River watershed each year for the next 50 years for sale and distribution. Nestle would construct a one million square foot water bottling facility on the site of a former lumber mill, where it would bottle spring water and other beverages.

Nestle recently indicated that its revised proposal will reduce the size of the facility to 350,000 square feet and the annual water take from 1,600 acre fect per year to 600 acre feet per year – a reduction of approximately 60 percent

In a letter sent to Siskiyou County Planning Department Interim Planning Director Terry Barber on July 28, the attorney general said that “the environmental review for the previously proposed project had serious deficiencies.”

Brown said “the suggested changes would require significant revision of the contract between Nestle and the McCloud Community Services District, a new, formal project proposal, and circulation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report.”

Brown also said the environmental analysis fails to consider the global warming impacts of producing and transporting millions of gallons of water including greenhouse gases from producing the plastic bottles, electrical demand for the project, and diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions from trucks transporting the bottled water to market.

The attorney general has asked Siskiyou County to revise its environmental impact report and circulate a new draft of the environmental impact report.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, August 3, 2008 (ENS) – Formal letters warning of impending lawsuits over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to address greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going ships and aircraft have been filed by four state attorneys general, three state agencies, New York City and a coalition of conservation groups.

The conservation groups’ notice of intent to sue was filed Thursday by the public interest law firm Earthjustice on behalf of Oceana, Friends of the Earth and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The state and local jurisdictions filed similar notices on the same day, formally declaring their intent to sue the EPA for unreasonable delay.

The states California, Connecticut, Oregon, New Jersey, and the California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, New York City, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection also filed notices of intent to sue in 180 days.

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. said, “Ships, aircraft and industrial equipment burn huge quantities of fossil fuel and cause massive greenhouse gas pollution yet President Bush stalls with one bureaucratic dodge after another.”

“Because Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency continues to wantonly ignore its duty to regulate pollution, California is forced to seek judicial action,” he said.

According to a report issued Thursday by Oceana, aircraft currently account for 12 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. transportation sources and three percent of the United States’ total carbon dioxide emissions. The United States is responsible for nearly half of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft.

A loaded cargo ship sails out of San
Francisco Bay. (Photo by Silverdigger)

The global fleet of marine vessels releases almost three percent of the world’s carbon dioxide, an amount comparable to the emissions of the entire country of Canada. Because of their huge numbers and inefficient operating practices, marine vessels release a large volume of global warming pollutants, particularly carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and soot.

Despite their impact on the global climate, greenhouse gas emissions from ships are not regulated by the U.S. government, nor are these emissions limited under the Kyoto Protocol.

The coalition of environmental groups filed petitions to the EPA in October and December 2007, requesting that the agency determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels and aircraft endanger public health and welfare, and if so, to issue regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from these sources.

The coalition asked for a response within 180 days but did not receive one.

Instead, the coalition and the state and local jurisdictions contend that the EPA delayed its legal obligations by issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ANPR, on July 11, 2008.

The ANPR does not make a finding as to whether EPA intends to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as the Supreme Court determined it was required to do in a 2007 ruling in the case of Massachusetts vs EPA.

Nor does the ANPR draw any conclusions about how to protect public health and welfare from global warming pollutants.

Instead, the ANPR compiles comments from other government agencies on the subject of regulating greenhouse gas emissions, reviews provisions of the Clean Air Act, and raises numerous issues regarding potential regulations.

In hundreds of pages, the ANPR avoids answering key relevant questions – whether greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, and if so, how and when it will take action.

“More than 15 months after the Supreme Court’s order, EPA, once again, has ignored its legal and moral obligation to act quickly to protect the health and welfare of Americans,” said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice, who is representing the coalition of environmental groups.

“The Bush administration is wasting precious time with continued foot-dragging – time that we don’t have. We have gone to court to force action by this or the next administration,” he said.

“Scientists are reporting that global climate change is damaging our oceans and our daily lives, even more rapidly than forecast,” said Dr. Michael Hirshfield, Oceana’s chief scientist and senior vice president for North America. “Does the EPA think climate change will go away by itself? ‘We’ll think about it tomorrow’ is an unconscionable conclusion for an agency whose mission is to protect the environment.”

“The latest Bush administration tactic on global warming seems to be ‘if you can’t beat them, delay them,’” said Danielle Fugere, Western Regional Program -irector for Friends of the Earth. “Instead of taking action on global warming pollution from shipping and aviation – two of the fastest growing sources of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide – EPA is yet again putting the brakes on developing innovative global warming solutions.”

The EPA has refused to regulate emissions from nonroad engines, aircraft and ocean-going vessels despite “unassailable evidence of global warming and dangerous foreign oil dependency,” says California Attorney General Brown.

Brown cites a report on global warming issued last week by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which predicts more frequent and intense hurricanes, heat waves, and flooding.

In California, where hydropower makes up roughly 15 percent of in-state energy production, Brown says diminishing snowmelt flowing through dams will decrease the potential for hydropower production by up to 30 percent by the end of the century.

“If we’re going to slow the melting of the Arctic and save not only the polar bear but thousands of species around the world, we need to implement highly effective existing environmental laws like the Clean Air Act,” said Kassie Siegel, Climate Program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Regulating greenhouse pollution from ships and aircraft under the Clean Air Act is a necessary first step towards solving the climate crisis.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, June 10, 2008 (ENS) – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed a lawsuit against companies that manufacture or distribute body care and household cleaning products that have tested highest for the carcinogenic chemical 1,4-dioxane. The lawsuit was filed May 29 in the Alameda County Superior Court.

Named as defendants are Avalon Natural Products, which makes the Alba brand products; Beaumont Products which makes VeggieWash and Clearly Natural brands; Nutribiotic, which makes grapefruit seed extract personal care products; and Whole Foods Market California, Inc., which sells the Whole Foods 365 brand.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction and civil penalties to remedy defendants’ failure to warn consumers that cleaning products such as body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps containing l,4-dioxane sold by defendants expose consumers to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.

Some natural personal care products
contain a known human
carcinogen, California alleges.
(Photo credit unknown)

Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.6, usually called “Proposition 65,” businesses must provide persons with a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing them to such chemicals.

The chemical 1,4-dioxane was listed under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer on January 1, 1988.

The California attorney general alleges that each defendant has known since at least May 29, 2004 that the body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps contain l ,4-dioxane and that persons using these products are exposed to the chemical.

In addition to violating Proposition 65, the lawsuit alleges that each defendant has engaged in unlawful business practices which constitute unfair competition.

The defendant companies face maximum fines of $2,500 per day for each violation.

The defendants’ products were tested in a study commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association, OCA, and released in March. The study analyzed “natural” and “organic” brand shampoos, body washes, lotions and other personal care products for the presence of 1,4-dioxane.

Results for all products tested is online here. http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneResults08.cfm

A reputable third-party laboratory known for rigorous testing and chain-of-custody protocols, performed the testing, the Organic Consumers Association says.

The chemical at issue in the lawsuit, 1,4-dioxane, is typically produced as a byproduct when ingredients are processed with the petrochemical ethylene oxide, which has become standard practice for many cleansing and moisturizing products.

“The OCA’s 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labeling enforcement on a scale never seen before,” says the association’s National Director Ronnie Cummins.

“We used an independent laboratory and found that numerous ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ brands tested positive for 1,4-dioxane, a cancer-causing contaminant resulting from the petrochemical ethylene oxide being attached to one or more ingredients,” Cummins said.

Last week, the Organic Consumers Association sent a letter to the four companies named in the lawsuit asking if they are planning changes to their labeling or product formulations. Only one company responded.

In a letter to the association Beaumont Products of Kennesaw, Georgia wrote, “Upon being notified that there was a problem with our product, we verified that the problem existed, then took immediate action.”

Beaumont says they have reformulated their products to remove the problem ingredient.

“These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as business as usual and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged,” says consumer activist David Steinman, who conducted the OCA study and exposed the presence of 1,4-dioxane in baby bubble bath products in his book “Safe Trip to Eden.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers 1,4-dioxane as “reasonably anticipated” to be a human carcinogen.

Few studies are available that provide information about the effects of 1,4-dioxane in humans. Exposure to very high levels of 1,4-dioxane can result in liver and kidney damage and death. Eye and nose irritation was reported by people inhaling low levels of 1,4-dioxane vapors for short periods up to several hours.

Studies in animals have shown that breathing, ingesting, or skin contact with 1,4-dioxane can result in liver and kidney damage.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, February 20, 2008 (ENS) – California’s cities and counties must take action now to combat global warming by limiting emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, says California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.

In 534 letters mailed statewide Tuesday, Brown invited mayors, local planning directors, and county supervisors to attend workshops this spring where they can learn practical ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Brown said, “These workshops will launch the first statewide movement to reduce the negative impact of local planning decisions on global climate.” The workshops will be held from March to May in Oakland, Sacramento, Visalia, Los Angeles and Monterey.

Brown began the letter by saying, “I write to you today about a myth, a challenge, and an opportunity. The myth is that there is no immediate need to address local contributions to global warming. The challenge is to take action today and at every level to address global warming. And the opportunity, particularly for local government, is to be an active force in the fight against global warming by asking the hard questions, seeking the best information, and making the sound decisions that will move California to a low-carbon future.”

The Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, requires California to cut greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020, but the rules and market mechanisms will not take effect until 2012. Meanwhile, local governments will make thousands of planning decisions that will affect the emission of greenhouse gases. The workshops are intended to help local officials make climate-friendly decisions.

Brown will co-host the workshops, which will focus on climate change and the California Environmental Quality Act. This law requires local agencies to analyze and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from projects with significant impact, including regional transportation and development plans.

Methods of modeling greenhouse gas emissions will be discussed in detail at the workshops, which will also address how cities and counties can analyze the global warming-related impacts of development efficiently and on limited budgets and find strategies to mitigate them.

Thirty thousand square feet of solar
panels on the roof provide power
to the Moscone Convention Center
in downtown San Francisco. (Photo
courtesy PowerLight Corporation)

“California must adopt the necessary changes that will encourage economic growth while reducing greenhouse gases,” Brown said. “This difficult transition from our current escalating dependence on fossil fuel demands that cities and counties encourage maximum building efficiency and innovative land-use.”

To date, the attorney general has submitted formal comments to 23 local jurisdictions throughout the state under the California Environmental Quality Act, encouraging them to evaluate and avoid or limit the increases in carbon dioxide emissions caused by land use decisions.

Attorney General Brown also has reached agreements with San Bernardino County and ConcoPhillips on specific greenhouse gas reduction strategies.

Local jurisdictions across California including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sonoma, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Marin, Palo Alto, Chula Vista, Modesto and Healdsburg already are initiating measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Many mitigation strategies are becoming realities of life in California.

The City of Berkeley, for example, is developing a program that funds solar power projects with public monies and allows the property owners to repay the city through property tax assessments.

High-density developments are being planned that reduce vehicle trips and utilize public transit. Transportation impact fees are being placed on developments to fund public transit service, and regional transportation centers where various types of public transportation meet are being planned.

Electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations are springing up across the state.

Methane is being recovered from landfills and wastewater treatment plants to generate electricity.

Developers are including energy efficient designs for buildings, appliances, lighting and office equipment as well as solar panels, water reuse systems and on-site renewable energy production.

Greenhouse gas emissions are being offset by purchases of carbon emissions credits that fund alternative energy projects.

In addition, over 120 California cities have joined the Cool Cities campaign and taking concrete steps to fight global warming, including the development of greenhouse gas emissions inventories and a local Climate Action Plan.

Twelve Cool Counties each are establishing a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and regional plan to cut emissions to 80 percent below current levels by 2050.

The California Department of Justice Website has been expanded to provide information that can help local agencies join the fight against global warming at: url]http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php[/url]

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, January 28, 2008 (ENS) – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will host a news conference Tuesday announcing a petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asking the agency to adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards for nonroad vehicles, engines and equipment.

Other states, government agencies, and national environmental organizations that are joining California in petitioning the EPA include Connecticut, Oregon, New Jersey, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the International Center for Technology Assessment, Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth.

“Millions of industrial machines in mines, on farms, and construction sites spew massive quantities of unregulated greenhouse gas pollution,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Environmental Protection Agency has not regulated the emissions from these vehicles and engines – just like it has failed to curb greenhouse gases from cars, ocean-going vessels, and aircraft.”

Among the wide range of nonroad vehicles and engine that the EPA is authorized to regulate are construction and farm machinery, logging equipment, outdoor power equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, marine vessels, aircraft, and locomotives.

Heavy machinery emits
greenhouse gases. (Photo courtesy
Ethan Casaday)

Attorney General Brown recently filed separate petitions to the EPA calling for aircraft and ocean-going vessel regulations.

Locomotives are excluded from the latest petition because regulating train emissions involves different technological and legal issues.

The nonroad engines and vehicles cited in the petition emitted 220 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2007 – an amount equivalent to the emissions from 40 million cars, Brown says.

Mining and construction equipment accounted for 32 percent of these emissions, followed by agricultural and industrial equipment. According to the California Air Resources Board, there are approximately 17.8 million of these machines and engines in California.

EPA data shows that the emissions from snowmobiles, golf carts, riding lawn mowers, agricultural equipment and off-road vehicles are growing at a faster rate – 49 percent between 1990 and 2005 – than greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles or aircraft. These vehicles emit more greenhouse gases than all domestic aircraft.

In tomorrow’s petition, California will assert that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and the duty to adopt national greenhouse gas emissions standards for the entire sector of nonroad engines and vehicles.

California and the other states and groups are petitioning the EPA to:

* Make a determination that greenhouse gas emissions from nonroad sources contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare

* Adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards, under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act, for new nonroad vehicles and engines

* Adopt the regulations that are necessary to carry out these emissions limits.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, January 25, 2008 (ENS) – Citing the potential “to manipulate the system,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today recommended that the Federal Trade Commission sharpen its guidelines for businesses that sell carbon emission offset credits.

Activities such as driving cars and running power plants produce greenhouse gas emissions which trap heat from the sun, causing global temperatures to rise. Under a carbon offset program, consumers are able to purchase emissions credits – which reflect specific environmental projects that reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases elsewhere in the environment.

The national market for carbon offset credits is expected to reach $100 million annually within the next four years. Brown said. “Currently, the market for these offsets is volatile, largely unregulated, and has serious potential for fraud.”

A 1 kW thin film photovoltaic
array on a tracking system
and a 17.2 kW system on the
roof offset some of the fossil
fueled power use of the Cambria
Office Building in Pennsylvania.
(Photo by Robb Williamson
courtesy NREL)

The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for ensuring that carbon offset projects are fairly and honestly marketed to consumers. Recently, the Federal Trade Commission requested comments, by January 25, 2008, on the marketing of carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates.

In a letter sent today to the Federal Trade Commission, Attorney General Brown and nine other state attorneys general outlined potential problems with carbon offset markets and offered recommendations to the Federal Trade Commission aimed at protecting consumers.

Other states joining today’s letter include – Vermont, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Illinois, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

“The Federal Trade Commission must set clear guidelines for the sale of carbon offset credits,” Brown said, “As more Americans try to offset their carbon emissions, the danger grows that some individuals will attempt to manipulate the system. Consumers must feel confident that they actually get what they pay for – real carbon reduction offsets.”

The attorneys general recommend that the Federal Trade Commission:

* Conduct research on consumers’ understanding of carbon offsets

* Ensure that offset projects do not double sell credits or claim credits for practices that are already required by law

* Engage in aggressive education and outreach to ensure that consumers understand the nature of carbon offsets and the potential for fraud

The states also called for a clearer definition of what qualifies as a carbon offset.

Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asserts that offset credits can be backed by projects that will go forward regardless of whether emissions credits are sold.

An alternative offset definition would only allow the sale of credits from projects that would not otherwise have gone forward.

The states also demanded that the Federal Trade Commission consider whether renewable energy certificates – proof that energy was generated by a renewable source – should count as a valid offset. The certificates may not qualify as offsets because renewable energy does not always displace traditional energy sources.

The states recommended that the Federal Trade Commission offer consumer tips on its website and place explicit details about offsets – including the name, location and project owner – on all marketing material.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, December 19, 2007 (ENS) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has denied California’s request to impose greenhouse gas emissions limits on motor vehicles. It is the first time the EPA has ever denied a waiver request under the Clean Air Act, and California officials are already preparing their lawsuit.

California sought a waiver of federal standards as the state is entitled to do under the Clean Air Act so that the state could adopt stricter standards.

California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016, while the federal government does not regulate greenhouse gas emissions at all.

The denial will trigger a lawsuit against the EPA, said California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today.

“There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request,” he said. “Governor [Arnold] Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment.”

Sixteen other states – Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington – have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards. Approval of California’s waiver would have meant that other states get approval automatically.

Traffic jam in
Los Angeles, California
(Photo credit unknown)

In rejecting California’s request, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said the energy bill signed into law by President Bush today is “a national solution” that is better than a “confusing patchwork of state rules – to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles.”

But the Energy Independence and Security Act does not regulate greenhouse gas emissions, although it does mandate a fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon in the year 2020.

The two policies differ in that the California Clean Cars Program would begin with model year 2009, a decade before the 35 miles per gallon standard in the energy bill kicks in.

“It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars,” said Brown.

State and local clean air officials today decried EPA’s denial of California’s request for a waiver. Executive Director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies Bill Becker said, “By refusing to grant California’s waiver request for its new motor vehicle standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, the Administration has ignored the clear and very limited statutory criteria upon which this decision was to be based. Instead, it has issued a verdict that is legally and technically unjustified and indefensible.”

Environmentalists are angry. Fred Krupp, president of the nonprofit Environmental Defense, called the denial “outrageous.”

“Doing nothing about global warming is bad enough – but going out of your way to block the leaders who are trying to solve this is an outrage,” said Krupp, adding that he will be working “with the rest of the environmental community to explore all legal avenues to fight this decision.”

The nonprofit Environment California said the EPA “has chosen to ignore the science behind global warming and the Clean Air Act and bowed to political pressure from automobile industry and their friends in the White House.”

“While President Bush signed into law fuel economy standards today, the two policies are not comparable with regards to global warming pollution reductions by 2020,” Environment California said in a statement.

Burning gasoline emits
greenhouse gases that
contribute to global warming.
(Photo credit unknown)

“In fact, California will emit three times more global warming pollution per year by 2020 under the fuel economy standards signed into law today by President Bush, than it would have under the Clean Cars Program had the waiver been granted,” the organization said.

David Doniger, Climate Center policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said denial of the waiver will be damaging to the climate.

“The California standards are the single most effective step yet taken in the United States to curb global warming,” he said. “By blocking the California standards, the administration has stuck a thumb in the eye of governors from both red and blue states who have led the way on global warming by adopting these landmark rules.”

“Their right to do so has been affirmed by three federal court decisions this year, including the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, just like any other,” Doniger said. “The new energy law signed by the president today explicitly preserves this Clean Air Act authority.”

EPA Administrator Johnson argues that California’s current waiver request is “distinct from all prior requests” because previous requests “covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. Greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature,” said Johnson.

“These gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union,” Johnson said. “Therefore, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, EPA did not find that separate California standards are needed to “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

But Attorney General Brown argues that California does face compelling and extraordinary conditions.

There are 32 million registered vehicles in California, twice the number of any other state and cars generate 20 percent of all human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30 percent of such emissions in California,” Brown said.

“If California’s landmark global warming law – and the corresponding 30 percent improvement in emissions standards – were adopted nationally,” he said, “the United States could cut annual oil imports by $100 billion dollars, at $50 per barrel.” Today, the price of oil hovers around $90 per barrel.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

Trucks enter the gates of the Port of Los Angeles (Photo: Port of LA – Left)

LOS ANGELES, California, December 17, 2007 (ENS) – The Los Angeles Harbor Commission on Thursday approved an agreement with the Port of Los Angeles to “identify and reduce” some of the greenhouse gases generated at the port at the same meeting that it approved a proposal to increase ship calls by 30 percent at one of the West Coast’s largest shipping terminals.

The increase will add 1,800 daily truck trips to an overburdened neighboring area where residents have complained of unbreathable air for years.

The commission hearing at Banning’s Landing Community Center in Wilmington drew about 200 people.

The panel voted 4 to 0 to certify the environmental impact report for the $1.5 billion upgrade at the TraPac Terminal.

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. is seeking to balance that traffic increase with new requirements that the Port of Los Angeles monitor and report its greenhouse gas emissions.

“This path breaking agreement calls for several important steps that will identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with maritime operations at the Port of Los Angeles,” Attorney General Brown told a December 7 news conference with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Brown and Villaraigosa told reporters the policy is specifically meant to address the global warming impact of the TraPac terminal expansion.

Under the agreement, the port will conduct a comprehensive inventory of port-related greenhouse gases, tracking these emissions from their foreign sources to domestic distribution points throughout the United States.

The port will annually report this data to the California Climate Action Registry, a program which gathers baselines emissions data about greenhouse gases generated in California.

The port will track:

* Emissions of all ships bound to and from the Port of Los Angeles terminals, encompassing points of origin and destination

* Emissions of all rail transit to and from Port terminals, encompassing major rail cargo destination and distribution points in the United States

* Emissions of all truck transit to and from Port terminals, encompassing major truck destinations and distribution points

“Today’s agreement demonstrates the commitment of the City and Port of Los Angeles to take specific and concrete steps to fight global warming,” Brown said.

Under the agreement the Port will construct a 10 megawatt photovoltaic solar system to offset about 17,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually.

The Port also is adopting a program to use electricity, rather than fossil fuels, to power ocean-going vessels when in port.

Ocean-going vessels alone emit more carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions than any nation in the world except the United States, Russia, China, Japan, India and Germany.

These emissions are projected to increase nearly 75% during the next 20 years.

“Imports of foreign goods are a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions,” which totals the equivalent of nearly all the emissions from the State of California annually, the attorney general said.

“The need for action to combat climate disruption is urgent,” said Brown.

He quoted Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chief of the Noble Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that while industrialized countries account for about 80 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, the poorest nations will suffer the most severe consequences of climate change.

Increased flooding from glacier melting could reduce freshwater availability for Central, South, East, and South-East Asia, potentially harming more than a billion people by 2050.

“Disruption of freshwater access in Africa could decrease agricultural production and may threaten up to 250 million people by 2020,” Brown said. “Latin America will likely see a drop in crop productivity due to global warming, leading to an increased risk of starvation.”

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

FRESNO, California, December 12, 2007 (ENS) – A federal district judge today upheld a 2002 California law that regulates the emission of greenhouse gases from the tailpipes of cars and trucks. The California emissions standard requires a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. The reduction would be phased in gradually starting with model year 2009.

Sitting in Fresno, Judge Anthony Ishii ruled against an automobile industry challenge to the law brought by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes most of the major car companies.

Judge Ishii rejected the automakers’ claim that U.S. foreign policy and federal fuel economy laws preempt state authority to curb emissions.

He also ruled that if California’s motor vehicle regulations are approved by by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement of the regulations will be consistent with federal law.

“This is the fourth major legal victory for California and a stinging rejection of the automobile industry’s legal challenge to greenhouse gas emissions standards,” said California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.

“This court ruling leaves the Bush administration as the last remaining roadblock to California’s regulation of tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions,” Brown said.

On December 21, 2005 California submitted to the EPA a waiver request for the state’s Clean Car program which has been pending ever since.
Car exhaust contributes to global warming, smog and acid rain.

The EPA’s waiver of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act is the last step before the California regulation can be adopted not only in California but in 16 other states that have passed similar legislation.

Judge Ishii wrote, “Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded from action.”

The EPA has granted such waiver requests some 53 times over the last 40 years and has never refused such a request.

Alliance chief executive Dave McCurdy said the organization is considering an appeal of Judge Ishii’s ruling.

“We can all agree that higher fuel economy is important, but the issue here was about federal fuel economy law,” said McCurdy today. “Under federal law, only the federal government can set fuel economy standards for all 50 states. We need a consistent national policy for fuel economy, and this nationwide policy cannot be written by a single state or group of states – only by the federal government.”

“In fact, the federal government has taken action, raising fuel economy standards for seven straight years,” he said. “Just in the last week, Congressional leaders have agreed on a new national fuel economy standard that will aggressively raise fuel economy standards for the next 12 years.

McCurdy said that automakers are acting on their own to curb emissions. “Automakers are now selling a range of fuel-efficient technologies, such as hybrids, diesel and cylinder deactivation that save gas and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and autos with these technologies are now on sale on dealers’ lots,” he said.

Environmental groups were delighted with the ruling. “This is a huge win for clean air and a cooler planet. Judge Ishii’s opinion leaves no doubt that the EPA must act now to pave the way for the innovative clean car programs being advanced by California and 16 other states across the nation,” said Vickie Patton, senior attorney with Environmental Defense, a defendant-intervener in the case.

The public too is behind the California Clean Car law. About 98,000 comments were submitted in response to EPA’s request for comment on the waiver, and most were supportive of the waiver. Only one individual automobile manufacturer and some automobile trade associations submitted negative comments.

The Bush administration has said that it will issue a decision by the end of this month.

“EPA Administrator Steve Johnson should immediately grant California’s request to move ahead with this program,” said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. “All similar California air pollution requests have been approved. Not one has been turned down in EPA history.”

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.