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.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 16, 2008 (ENS) – President George W. Bush today outlined a new climate goal for the United States, calling for the nation to halt the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Bush touted his new climate strategy as ambitious, but environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers criticized the plan as feeble and contend it falls far short of what is needed to fend off climate change.

“Waiting until 2025 to stop the growth of greenhouse gas pollution means, for all practical purposes, admitting defeat,” said Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp. “The president needs to set a much bolder goal if we’re going to succeed.”

On the other hand, National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler said the president “laid out a constructive and balanced set of principles” to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. “Manufacturers seek climate change solutions that offer significant environmental benefits without undue risk to jobs and the economy,” he said. “Technology should play a leading role in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Climate change has been a thorny issue for Bush, who has questioned climate science and steadfastly opposed mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions despite growing national and international pressure to change course.

President George W. Bush delivered his latest
policy position on the global climate
today in the White House Rose Garden.
(Photo by Noah Robinowitz
courtesy The White House)

Speaking today in the White House Rose Garden, the president held firm to that ground, declining to support mandatory reductions.

Bush covered familiar territory, warning of efforts by Congress and federal regulators to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and defending his administration’s climate policy.

“We are doing a lot to protect this environment,” he said. “We have laid a solid foundation for further progress.”

Bush touted the recent approval of new fuel economy standards, a boost in the renewable fuels mandate, new energy efficiency regulations as well as increased funding for nuclear power, clean coal technology and hydrogen fuel cell research.

He suggested, however, that the nation “has to do more” to cut emissions from power plants and called for these emissions to peak within 10 to 15 years.

“There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies,” Bush said.

The president’s plan was, however, notably short on specifics and he did not outline a legislative proposal for Congress to consider.

But Bush did address the pressure on federal regulators to use existing laws to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are facing a growing problem,” Bush said. “Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago primarily to address local and regional environmental effects and applying them to global climate change.”

“This would automatically trigger regulations of greenhouse gases all across our economy,” he added. “This would make the federal government act like a local planning and zoning board and have a crippling effect on our entire economy. Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges.”

The president also indicated his reluctance to leave the issue in the hands of U.S. lawmakers – the Senate will soon consider legislation that calls for a nearly 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. The bill, which would create a cap-and-trade system the president has long opposed, calls for a 60 percent reduction in U.S. emissions by mid-century.

Although he did not directly address the specifics of the bill, Bush warned against legislation that would “demand sudden and drastic emission cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of harming our economy.”

Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, called Bush’s plan “the height of irresponsibility.”

She and other proponents of the Senate climate bill note that recent analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found the legislation would have little adverse impact on the nation’s economy. Furthermore, critics of the president’s plan point out that it would permit greenhouse gas emissions to rise at least 10 percent by 2025.

“The president’s short-term goal is to do nothing, his medium-term goal is to do nothing much, and his long-term goal is to do nothing close to what’s needed to save the planet from global warming,” said Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat and chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Although many environmentalists responded with scorn to Bush’s proposal, some found a silver lining in his speech.

The plan reflects the acceptance by the president that greenhouse gas limits are inevitable and marks a significant political shift in the debate over U.S. climate policy, according to Phillip Clapp, deputy managing editor of the Pew Environment Group.

“Seven years ago, President Bush questioned how much pollution was really contributing to global warming,” Clapp said. “Today he acknowledged that a major change in America’s energy economy must begin.”

The president’s speech came on the eve of the third meeting of the Major Economies Initiative, which he launched last year to coordinate international climate change action. The group, meeting Thursday and Friday in Paris, consists of 16 nations that represent some 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Leaders of those nations will meet in July, Bush said, and will try to iron out a long-term goal for global emission reductions.

He encouraged other nations to create their own national plans as part of a global effort to tackle climate change.

“We are willing to include this plan in a binding international agreement so long as our fellow major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement,” Bush said.

“We can only make progress if their plans make a major difference as well,” the president said, “even if we reduce our emissions to zero tomorrow we would not make a meaningful dent in solving the problem without concerted action by all major economies.”

But the emission target outlined by Bush stands in stark contrast to the suggestion by climate scientists that the United States and other developed nations make cut emissions some 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

This leads many critics to argue that the president’s plan makes little, if any, progress.

“Global warming is already transforming the world – last month, global warming caused a chunk of Antarctic ice about seven times the size of Manhattan to suddenly collapse,” said Emily Figdor of Environment America. “President Bush’s plan is on a crash course with scientific reality. The time for action is today – not 20 years from now.”

Others contend that Bush, who only has nine months left in office, has little chance of dictating future climate policy. All three remaining major presidential candidates favor mandatory cuts in emissions and have promised far more aggressive action to combat climate change.

“President Bush’s announcement will be soon forgotten,” said David Sandalow, an energy and global warming expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “The most important decisions in the international global warming negotiations will be made once President Bush leaves office.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11, 2008 (ENS) – Three conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Bush administration on Monday for missing the legal deadline to issue a final decision on whether or not to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, say that due to global warming the polar bear’s icy habitat is shrinking.

“Polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice for all of their essential needs,” the three groups said in a joint statement. “The rapid warming of the Arctic and melting of the sea ice pose an overwhelming threat to the polar bear, which could become the first mammal to lose 100 percent of its habitat to global warming.”

Arctic sea ice is disappearing, placing polar bear survival in doubt. (Photo by Daniel Beltra courtesy Greenpeace)

The groups filed their lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks a court order compelling the administration to issue the final decision on polar bear protection immediately.

“The Endangered Species Act is absolutely unambiguous. The Fish and Wildlife Service was required to make a final decision months ago. Now it’s up to a federal court to throw this incredible animal a lifeline,” said Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project at NRDC. “We need urgent action from this administration, to protect the polar bear and reduce greenhouse gas pollution, not continued delay.”

The Endangered Species Act listing process for the polar bear was initiated in February 2005 with a scientific petition from the three groups. In December 2005, these groups sued the Bush administration for failing to respond to the petition.

As a result of that first lawsuit, in February 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that protection of polar bears “may be warranted,” and began a full status review of the species.

A settlement agreement in that case committed the Service to make the second of three required findings in the listing process by December 27, 2007, at which time the Service announced the proposal to list the species as “threatened.”

By law, the Service was required to make a final listing decision within one year of the proposal. The decision is now more than two months overdue, the groups say.

“The Bush administration seems intent on slamming shut the narrow window of opportunity we have to save polar bears,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, and lead author of the 2005 petition seeking the Endangered Species Act listing. “We simply will not sit back and passively allow the administration to condemn polar bears to extinction.”

The groups claim the Bush administration is dragging its heels on the polar listing so oil leasing can proceed in the Arctic. A decision to list the species would mean that their habitat must be protected from any federal government activity that might threaten their survival.

Noting that the federal government initiated lease sales to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea earlier this month, Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace USA, said, “Our lawsuit has forced the Bush administration’s hand on the issue of global warming like no other, even as it rubberstamps drilling rights for Big Oil in pristine polar bear habitat. If the federal government is really serious about protecting the polar bear, then its next steps will be to cancel lease sales in the Chukchi Sea and immediately implement a plan for deep cuts in U.S. global warming pollution.”

Since the petition to protect polar bears under the Endangered Species Act was first filed in February 2005, new science paints a dim picture of the polar bear’s future.

In September, the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that two-thirds of the world’s polar bear population would likely be extinct by 2050, including all polar bears within the United States. Several leading scientists now predict the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012.

To date, the government has received approximately 670,000 comments in support of protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, including letters from eminent polar bear experts, climate scientists, and more than 60 members of Congress.

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.

It is a new year and it’s time for all of those pesky new year resolutions. Since the environmental crisis of global warming, deforestation, and drought are finally considered important issues for humanity to tackle, why not make a resolution that helps the environment?

Since Sundance Channel really wants to inform people about ways they can help the environment, here is a quick list of potential resolution you could make this year.

1) I pledge to grow some plants in my garden or in a local public garden. More plants in the world means less CO2 and healthier air for everyone to breeze.

2) I want to support green energy this year. If you put solar panels on your roof, place a windmill on next to your house, or buy your electricity from a renewable energy supplier, you can reduce the greenhouse gas pollution in the world. You may even save money in the process, although it could be a long term investment.

3) I want to add 1-3 more plants to my indoor environment. Beautify your home with a flowering plant or put ivy around that hideous windowsill. Not only do plants improve indoor air quality (which is linked to multiple respiratory diseases) but they also introduce your guests to the concept of nature.

4) I will start sorting my recycling. Making sure paper, plastic and metal are all separated insures that more recycling will happen. Just get three bins and drop the right things in there. If you need to wash out a take-out container before you drop it in the plastic bin, see if you can take the extra time to do so.

5) I will bring grocery bags when I go shopping. Bring your own shopping bags every where. Why use a bag that wastes precious energy and resources when you can bring your own reusable bag that is better, holds more and feels weightless when you strap it around your shoulder.

6) I will check my tire pressure once a week. Making sure your tires have enough pressurized air in them helps to save fuel and makes your car a safer place to be on the road.

7) I pledge to get rid of all my junk mail! As you may know, stopping junk mail is a great way to save trees, water and energy. Plus, if you do not want to get it in the mail, you do not have to. Make sure to visit the Eco-mmunity Take Action page for more details on how you can end your junk mail.

These are just a few suggestions for easy New Years Resolutions. If you come up with resolutions that should be added to this list, please consider leaving a comment on this blog post.

LOS ANGELES, California, December 6, 2007 (ENS) – Calling aviation a “large and rapidly growing source” of greenhouse gas emissions, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. is petitioning the federal government to adopt global warming regulations for aircraft.

California is part of a coalition of five states, two cities, environmental groups and a California government agency that petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency yesterday to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft operating in the United States.

Also filing petitions are the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico and the District of Columbia through their attorneys general, the state of Pennsylvania through its Department of Environmental Protection, the California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District and the city of New York.

Earthjustice filed the environmental groups’ petition on behalf of the environmental groups – Friends of the Earth, Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity.

There are currently no greenhouse gas emissions controls on aircraft.

“Aviation is a large and rapidly growing source of greenhouse gases and the EPA should have taken action by now to curb these emissions. Not to do so, ignores the tremendous opportunity for technological innovations that can increase efficiency and reduce emissions,” Attorney General Brown told a news conference Wednesday at the Los Angeles International Airport.
A plane takes off from Los Angeles International Airport (Photo courtesy Los Angeles World Airports)
“Aircraft engines burn massive quantities of fossil fuels and inject greenhouse gas pollution at high altitudes – right where these emissions have a heightened negative impact,” he said.

Because aircraft contribute large quantities of global greenhouse gas emissions and the volume of air traffic is expected to increase in the future, the petitioners are asking the EPA to make an explicit finding that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare.

The petition asks the EPA to respond within 180 days and initiate a formal process to limit emissions from all aircraft – both domestic and foreign – arriving or departing U.S. airports.

Aircraft in 2005 contributed three percent of the United States’ total carbon dioxide emissions and 12 percent of the transportation sector emissions, according to EPA estimates.

The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that emissions from domestic aircraft will rise 60 percent by 2025 due to expected increases in air transportation.

Because aircraft release emissions at high altitudes, the impact of aviation on global warming is greater than other major greenhouse gas emission sources. When nitrous oxide, for example, is emitted at high altitudes it generates much greater concentrations of ozone than when it is emitted at ground level.

“Global warming pollution is taking a massive toll on marine life,” said Dr. Michael Hirshfield, Oceana’s chief scientist and senior vice president for North America. “To preserve these critical ecosystems, the U.S. must take the lead in regulating aircraft emissions, since aircraft are a major source of carbon dioxide,” he said.

In its petition, California asserts that the EPA has the authority and the duty to adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards for aircraft after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last April that greenhouse gases are pollutants and therefore within EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.

Section 231 of the Clean Air Act reads, “The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue proposed emission standards applicable to the emissions of any air pollutant from any class or classes of aircraft engines which in his judgment causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

“With the April 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, EPA now has a mandate to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” said Alice Thomas, an attorney from Earthjustice who filed the petition on behalf of the environmental groups. “Today, we are asking the EPA to begin the process of reducing the global warming impact from one of the world’s fastest growing sectors.”

The Air Transport Association of America, ATA, which represents the nation’s leading airlines, did not comment directly on the petition, but did comment on the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade legislation that was approved by a committe of the U.S. Senate today.

“While the airlines and pilots continue to take their environmental responsibilities very seriously, we have real concerns about the costs and effects of this proposed legislation,” said ATA President and CEO James May.

“By including jet fuel in a cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, the legislation essentially would serve as an unnecessary and additional tax on fuel,” said May. “It would greatly increase airline costs and would compromise our ability to invest in new aircraft and other fleet upgrades – the very things we need to continue to improve our emissions profile.”

Last year, the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency, passed a resolution to set international emissions reduction agreements but has taken no additional action to further this goal.

In response to the persistent lack of aircraft emissions rules, the European Parliament gave preliminary approval last month to a global warming control plan that limits carbon dioxide emissions from airlines flying to and from Europe beginning in 2011.

“Global warming is the single greatest threat to the diversity of life on Earth,” said Andrea Treece, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. “We still have a window of opportunity to save species like the polar bear but that window is rapidly closing. Limiting greenhouse gas pollution from aviation is an important part of the overall solution and the EPA should do so immediately.”

The need for action to combat climate disruption is urgent, the petitioners assert. Last month, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the Nobel prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said, “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Climate change impacts that will continue to occur include increasing temperatures, heat waves, melting of glaciers, changes in precipitation, increased hurricane intensity, rising sea levels and coastal flooding, increased heat-related illnesses, and widespread extinction of species.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

Reducing domestic transportation pollution created by cars is a great way to clean up roughly 40% of the greenhouse gas pollution in the world. In order to ensure that pollution emissions go down, current technologies point to one glaring problem: there is no cheap, modern battery technology that is ready for mass production. The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association realizes just how serious the situation is and they are investing millions in research and development to see if they can come up with a new battery to fuel a new breed of Japanese cars.

Having the biggest stake in the American auto market, Japan has vested interests in developing a new battery-driven car (hopefully one you can plug in too). This truth becomes apparent when you consider that Japan is a small country that must import 100 percent of the oil they use in transportation. Before you scoff at the idea of an electric car, remember that the Tesla Roadster can knock the socks off a modern gas-guzzling Ferrari in terms of acceleration and can reach a maximum top speed over 100 mph.

If you have a fuel efficient car of your own, then make sure to comment on this blog and tell everyone about it. Also consider making a map marker on the Eco-mmunity map that tells everyone about your favorite sustainable vehicle and how you make the best use of it.

Waste Management operates a vast quantity of landfills across America, many of them sanitary landfills which are much better for the environment than traditional dumps. During September, Waste Management has announced that they will be retrofitting 60 of their landfills landfills into landfill gas to electricity plants. This initiative does prevent some pollution and is more efficient at producing electricity than traditional turbine power plants. In fact, the process produces 40% less greenhouse gas pollution than coal or fossil fuel electricity plants.

This plan is a no-brainer for the massive waste collection company, as they can reduce landfill operation costs by producing their own electricity and they can also sell excess energy back through the grid. Waste Management is additionally experimenting on how they can convert landfill gases and other waste matter into a liquid fuel that they can use in their giant fleet of garbage trucks. It should not be terribly difficult for the company because most garbage trucks are using diesel engines, and any fuel created from landfill waste would most likely require a multi-fuel engine. If some process is arrived at, the technology could probably be sold across the world, a further incentive for WM to forge ahead with this latest renewable energy project.

Check out the WM website [www.wm.com] for more details on their renewable energy projects.