ALBANY, New York, December 15, 2008 (ENS) – New York Governor David Paterson Saturday signed legislation to increase the collection and recycling of plastic carryout bags from large stores and retail or grocery chain stores across the state.

Originally passed by the State Legislature in June, the bill was held up by a potential conflict between the state law and a more expansive bag recycling law passed by the City of New York in January.

With a comprehensive plastic recycling law in place at the state level, local governments are pre-empted from adopting their own laws on this issue.

The state legislation initially threatened to preempt New York City’s law, and would have reduced the number of city stores required to accept bags from consumers for recycling.

However, Governor Paterson Saturday announced an agreement on legislation that “grandparents” in the city’s plastic bag law, so as to allow it to remain in full force and effect.

Plastic bag caught in a New York City tree
(Photo by Andrea Demers)

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said, “Today marks a great victory for environmental responsibility in New York City and throughout the state. Thanks to the efforts of the City Council and a host of environmental advocates, the legislation signed by Governor Paterson has been altered to preserve the city’s landmark plastic bag recycling law.”

The state’s compromise measure met with the approval of state agency officials, environmentalists, entertainer Bette Midler, who founded the New York Restoration Project, even the American Chemistry Council.

The new state law takes effect on January 1, 2009. It covers retail stores with more than 10,000 square feet of retail space, or those that are part of a chain with more than five stores, each with more than 5,000 square feet of retail space.

These stores must provide bins for the collection of used plastic carryout bags, recycle the returned bags, and keep records for three years describing the amount of plastic bags collected and recycled.

“Even during difficult times we must be protective stewards of our environment, and continue to find ways to keep our daily routines from negatively impacting the long-term health of the planet,” said Governor Paterson, announcing the new law. “By making changes in our daily lives and business practices, we can conserve natural resources, save energy and reduce our ecological footprint.”

Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis said, “Governor Paterson has delivered a significant win for the environment. This new law will help boost recycling and reduce waste goals all New Yorkers share.”

Senator Carl Marcellino, chairman of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee and co-author of the bill, said, “This bill will make it convenient and easy for residents across the state to recycle plastic bags. Their efforts will save landfill space, reduce litter and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. It is small steps like these that green our world.”

Assemblyman Robert Sweeney, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation, the bill’s other co-author, said, “This is the strongest state plastic bag recycle law in the country. New York consumers and environmentalists can be proud that our state is taking strong action to reduce the amount of loose plastic bags that would otherwise end up in our delicate ecosystem. This law will also cut down the amount of petroleum used to produce these bags.”

Midler commended Governor Paterson for recognizing the need for New York City to have a more stringent program for recycling plastic bags. “Americans use over 84 billion plastic bags annually, about one billion of them in New York City,” she said. “This is an important step toward building a comprehensive solid waste management regime, and on behalf of all of us in New York City, I thank you for your understanding of the severity of the problem and your cooperation in finding a solution.”

Eric Goldstein, New York Urban Program Director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, said, “The billions of plastic bags that are used in New York State every year impose a mounting environmental burden. They litter our streets, sidewalks, highways and parks. They get into waterways and endanger marine life. They end up in landfills, where it can take up to 1,000 years for them to decompose. Substituting throw-away plastic bags with reusable sacks is a small lifestyle change that can make a big difference over time.”

“This is a significant victory for New York’s citizens and the environment,” said Sharon Kneiss, vice president of the Products Divisions of the American Chemistry Council, a chemicals industry association. “The new law creates one consistent standard statewide that all municipalities can follow, while allowing existing programs to continue uninterrupted.”

“The two states with the largest populations on each coast now have statewide plastic bag recycling programs,” Kneiss said, referring to recently enacted similar legislation in California. “Clearly, lawmakers recognize that plastics are a valuable material that should be recycled.”

The American Chemistry Council’s latest statistics show that the recycling of plastic bags and wraps increased 24 percent nationwide in 2006. Legislation in New York, California and numerous large cities is expected to increase the amount of plastic bags and wraps that are diverted from landfills and turned into new consumer products, such as durable decking, fencing, railings, shopping carts and new bags.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, March 28, 2008 (ENS) – More than 70 groups from 27 states are objecting to a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would exempt factory farms from reporting emissions of hazardous gases from animal waste.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice submitted formal comments on behalf of the groups, which include family farmers and environmental advocates who say the federal agency’s proposal will harm people living and working near factory farms.

They object that “EPA’s proposed administrative reporting exemption for hazardous emissions at AFOs [animal feeding operations] is unlawful and arbitrary and should not be finalized.”

“It defies logic. EPA is attempting to do away with the very rules it has used to bring polluting factory farms into compliance,” said Earthjustice attorney George Torgun, who helped the groups to file their comments during the public comment window which closed Thursday.

“Requiring polluters to report toxic releases is essential to keeping communities informed about public health risks and is the first step in reducing these risks,” he said.

Concentrated animal feeding operation along a
highway in Iowa. Each building holds
up to 3,000 pigs. (Photo by
Elise Bauer)

Under the proposed rule change, large chicken production facilities, hog confinements, and cattle feeding operations would no longer have to report releases of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and other toxic gases.

The EPA says that the source and nature of such pollution makes an emergency response “unnecessary, impractical and unlikely,” and that the proposal “is protective of human health and the environment.”

The federal agency says this proposed rule “would reduce the burden on the regulated community of complying with these reporting requirements and allow emergency responders to focus on hazardous substance releases that would require a response.”

But reporting is not onerous or difficult. One telephone call or online report submission to the National Response Center fulfills the requirement to report the release of hazardous substances.

“This ill-considered proposal may save polluters a toll-free phone call, but it will make it harder for local emergency responders to protect communities,” said Earthjustice attorney Keri Powell. “It undermines public safety and goes against the law.”

The rule change would drop reporting requirements for hazardous air releases from big animal-feeding operations such as Threemile Canyon Farms in Boardman, Oregon, where the EPA found waste from the operation’s 52,000 dairy cows pumps more than 5.5 million pounds of ammonia into the atmosphere each year.

Family farms across American have given way to large-scale industrial animal feeding operations. The federal government estimates that animal density at poultry, swine, dairy and cattle operations has increased on average between 50 and 176 percent.

Earthjustice argues that the EPA proposed the rule change in December after pressure from agriculture industry lobbyists – in spite of findings by its own scientists that toxic gases from factory farms can pose serious health risks, including respiratory illness, lung inflammation and increasing vulnerability to asthma.

Sudden exposure can also be fatal, Earthjustice points out, citing a study which found that 19 workers at factory farms in Iowa were killed from hydrogen sulfide released during manure agitation.

“Yet again EPA is flaunting its willingness to place the financial interests of industry over the health and safety of our environment and our communities,” says Scott Edwards, legal director of the Waterkeeper Alliance.

“Factory farming is having a devastating impact on our nation’s waterways and now EPA is helping to insure that our airsheds also fall victim to this destructive practice,” said Edwards.

The EPA says release notifications must still be made to emergency response authorities when hazardous substances are released to the air from sources other than animal waste, such as ammonia tanks, as well as releases of hazardous substances to soil and water.

Today’s comments were submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of groups in – Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

NEW YORK, New York, January 20, 2008 (ENS) – Environmental advocates and state and city governments filed lawsuits Thursday to force the U.S. Department of Energy to adopt stronger energy efficiency standards for residential furnaces and boilers.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed suit on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, arguing that a two percent increase in efficiency standards adopted by the Energy Department in November will cost consumers billions of dollars and fail to reduce global warming emissions of carbon dioxide, CO2.

The city of New York and the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York also challenged the DOE standards in a joint lawsuit filed separately.

“Stronger energy efficiency standards for furnaces and boilers would save money, stop pollution and spare health,” said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. “The Bush administration’s stagnant standards disregard the law and public interest, benefiting industry at the expense of consumers and the environment.”

“Without increased fuel efficiency, consumers nationwide will unnecessarily spend potentially millions more in home heating costs, while their furnaces and boilers spew millions more tons of harmful CO2.”

The new DOE standards for gas-fired furnaces – the most common home heating appliance – represent a small increase from 78 to 80 percent efficiency.

When the DOE announced its new standards for furnaces and boilers in November 2007, the agency tried to put a good face on the move.

“As a nation, we must find better and more ways to both conserve energy and use it more efficiently and productively. These amended standards will not only cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, but they also allow consumers to make smarter energy choices that will save energy and money,” said DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner.

“Improving appliance standards is a top priority of the Department of Energy, and in the coming years, we intend to maintain and, where possible, accelerate the extraordinary progress we have made over the last two years,” he said.

Higher efficiency standards translate into economic benefits, especially in northern states where the cost difference between low and high efficiency models can be recovered more quickly through reduced heating bills.

Advocates for residents in these regions said the weak national standards hurt renters who are stuck paying the higher fuel costs of less efficient models installed by landlords.

“By adopting such weak new standards, the Energy Department is telling New Yorkers and others that reducing greenhouse gases and heating bills just doesn’t matter,” said Ramin Pejan, attorney at the New York City Law Department. “The success of the City’s PlaNYC efforts to improve air quality in a cost-effective manner depends, in part, on cooperation from federal agencies.”

“DOE chose to implement a standard so weak it is simply meaningless,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Ballo. “The vast majority of products on the market already meet the standard DOE has adopted. This is a blink and you’ll miss it efficiency increase.”

Ballo says the Energy Department recognized that adopting a 90 percent efficiency standard nationwide would maximize consumer value, saving $11 billion over a 24 year period, while also preventing the emission of 141 million tons of carbon dioxide over the same span.

Yet the federal agency instead opted for a standard that 99 percent of furnaces on the market already meet, resulting in much less cost savings and virtually no reduction in CO2 emissions.

The lawsuits challenge what plaintiffs call flaws in the Energy Department’s economic analysis that led the department to undervalue the benefits of stronger standards. For example, a stronger standard would most likely drive down the cost of natural gas, but the agency officials failed to consider this factor in making their decision.

The plaintifs contend that the Energy Department also failed to place a dollar value on the decreased carbon dioxide emissions that would result from a stronger efficiency standard.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.