SACRAMENTO, California, November 5, 2008 (ENS) – California voters approved Proposition 1A, the Safe, Reliable High Speed Passenger Train Bond Act Tuesday by a margin of four percentage points. The act approves nearly $10 billion in bond money to build a modern bullet train linking northern and southern California that is expected to reduce air pollution by taking cars off the road.

“Californians showed their support once again for modern, clean energy technologies with their approval of Prop 1A, the high-speed rail bond,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California, one of several environmental organizations that endorsed the measure.

“Better public transportation is critical to solving global warming and creating real energy independence in California,” she said.

Artist’s conception of the California bullet train
(Image courtesy NC3D)

Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said Tuesday night, “Thanks to tonight’s vote, a state-of-the-art, new transportation choice will link every major city in the state and move people and products like never before. The citizens of California have put the 21st century golden spike in the ground with a clear affirmation of high-speed trains.”

While voters approved Prop 1A, they struck down Props 7 and 10, both opposed by environmental and consumer groups around the state and across the country.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, California League of Conservation Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Sierra Club led the fight against Props 7 and 10.

Proposition 7, the Renewable Energy Generation Initiative, sought to increase renewable electricity mandates but was opposed by nearly every environmental organization because of drafting flaws that locked in loopholes for utility compliance, among other cited problems. It gained only 35 percent of the vote.

Proposition 7 would have erected complex regulatory barriers, excluded smaller renewable energy providers and made it harder to bring more renewable energy to California, according to the groups.

Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California’s senior advocate, said, “Once again, California voters have shown that they are able to see through the smokescreen of clever ads and deceptive ballot language to do what’s best for our state. Now the real work begins: convincing the California Legislature to adopt meaningful, enforceable renewable power standards and convincing state regulators to do a better job at encouraging clean vehicles in our state.”

Proposition 10, the Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy measure, was also rejected, attracting only 40 percent of the vote.

It was backed by billionaire oilman and recent natural gas and wind energy advocate T. Boone Pickens. Critics of the proposition have noted Pickens’ financial interest in supporting natural gas vehicles.

Proposition 10 was written to provide large subsidies to natural gas, a non-renewable fossil fuel source, that the groups point out would have crowded out better vehicle technologies and cleaner fuels.

Prop 10 would require $5 billion in public bond money to fund a grab-bag of alternative fuel, vehicle, and energy measures which was predicted to balloon to $10 billion by the time it was to have been repaid.

“Californians were not be fooled by clever packaging and fancy TV ads,” said Del Chiaro. “This initiative was a special interest give-away to the natural gas industry and voters rightly said ‘no way.’”

The groups said the failure of Propositions 7 and 10 in no way reflects negatively upon the strong support for renewable energy or clean, alternative-fueled vehicles in the state.

David Pettit, director of NRDC’s Southern California Clean Air Program, said, “California voters overwhelmingly support renewable energy and alternatives to oil, and voted No on Props 7 and 10 to sustain California’s momentum and leadership on clean energy solutions. We cannot delay investing in solutions that will free us from our addiction to fossil fuel.”

“The fact that voters struck down Props 7 and 10 does not mean Californian’s support for clean energy solutions has waned,” said Del Chiaro. “On the contrary, Californians are keenly interested in promoting real, big and bold clean energy solutions as demonstrated by their willingness to pass Prop 1A.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

CHICAGO, Illinois, June 3, 2008 (ENS) – By a wide majority, Illinois residents say they want cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars, sooner rather than later, and they are willing to pay more up front for them.

In a statewide poll conducted by InTouch on behalf of environmental law and science groups, 89 percent of people surveyed said they support or strongly support the idea of paying $1,000 more for a new car at the time of purchase if they can recoup those costs in gas savings within two years.

Sixty-five percent of those surveyed put themselves in the “strongly support” column.

The poll of 1,798 residents was conducted on May 22. Its margin of error is plus or minus 2.31 percent.

The survey was commissioned by the Environmental Law and Policy Center; Environment Illinois; Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter; and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The groups are members of the Illinois Climate Action Network.

Jack Darin, director of the Sierra Club’s Illinois chapter, said, “What’s so encouraging about the poll results is that they’re close to uniform statewide. … Urban folks, rural folks – everyone wants more fuel efficient, cleaner cars, SUVs, and pick-ups.”

Fuel efficiency is the goal for Illinois
respondents to a poll in May 2008.
(Photo credit unknown)

Poll results were identical in union and non-union households, with a slightly higher proportion of union respondents saying they would gladly foot a higher bill for a new car up front, in exchange for lower gas prices down the road.

The poll comes just days before an expected vote in the Illinois House of Representatives on House Bill 3424, which would require Illinois to adopt the California Clean Car Standards already in adopted by 14 other states.

No state can implement these standards until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waives its weaker standard so that California can put its stricter standard in place. But the EPA has denied California this waiver, so the Clean Car Standards are still in limbo.

The Clean Car Standards include regulation of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas most responsible for global warming. The worse the fuel efficiency, the more carbon dioxide emitted, so as cars use less gas, they emit less CO2.

“In this era of $4/gallon gas, people need long-term help,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. “Adopting the Clean Car Standards is a true win-win-win: Good for our economy, good for our environment, and good for our respiratory health.”

When compared to the newly raised federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, 85 percent of those surveyed support requiring stronger standards that would take effect more quickly.

The Clean Car Standards will be phased in over an eight-year period; the average fuel economy for passenger cars will start at six miles more per gallon than under the new CAFE program and will increase to 9.5 miles per gallon more in the final year, the commissioning groups point out.

By reducing demand for gasoline, the Clean Car Standards will help keep gas prices in check, they say.

The groups predict that by 2020, the Clean Car Standards would save Illinois drivers nearly $1.9 billion in fuel costs compared to the new federal CAFE standards.

“Between now and 2020, global warming pollution will be reduced by around 40 percent more in Illinois under the Clean Car Standards than the new CAFE program,” said Ron Burke, director of the Midwest Office for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a national group.

“Plus, the new CAFE program does nothing more to reduce smog-forming pollutants, which will be cut under the Clean Car Standards,” he said.

In this election year, 73 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support a candidate who votes in favor of adopting the Clean Car Standards, while only 11 percent who would support a candidate opposed to the legislation.

Rebecca Stanfield, state director of Environment Illinois said, “It’s time for the entire General Assembly to sit up and take notice. Our state’s residents are on record saying they want cleaner, more fuel efficient cars.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 2, 2008 (ENS) – Hundreds of the nation’s most prominent scientists and economists have issued a first-ever joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.

“Failure to act now is the most risky and most expensive thing we could do,” warns statement co-author James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The coal-fired Bruce Mansfield power
plant in Pennsylvania, like all
coal-burning power plants, releases
greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere. (Photo by Kiyo Komoda)

Issued just before the U.S. Senate begins debate on the Warner-Lieberman climate bill, the statement marks the first time U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.

The more than 1,700 signatories, compiled by Union of Concerned Scientists, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 National Academy of Science members, and more than 100 authors and editors of the 2007 climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who all shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

“Economists now join climate scientists in a unified call for action to address the causes of climate change,” said McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.

Dr. James McCarthy (Photo courtesy AAAS)

McCarthy served as co-chair for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

“There is a strong consensus that we must do something about reducing the emissions that cause global warming,” he said. “The debate right now is about how much we need to cut.”

The statement proposes that the United States should reduce global warming pollution “on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050″ and that the first step should be reductions of 15 to 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. It calls on the United States to set an example and bring nations together to meet the climate challenge.

“The fact that so many scientists and economists have spoken out and signed this letter should give policymakers the confidence that we can avert serious adverse climate impacts,” McCarthy said.

The statement’s co-authors include Mario Molina, co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in discovering the threat to the Earth’s ozone layer of chlorofluorocarbon gases, or CFCs, becoming the first and only Mexican citizen to ever receive a Nobel Prize for science.

Dr. Mario Molina
(Photo courtesy Wikipedia)

“The United States worked with other nations to take on the ozone threat; so, too, must we lead the international effort to reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change,” said Molina, who now serves as professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the Center for Atmospheric Sciences in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego.

One of the co-authors is Geoff Heal, an economist at Columbia University’s Business School. “Preventing dangerous climate change is a great investment. It will cost between one and two percent of GDP, and the benefits will be between 10 and 20 percent. That’s a return of 10 to 1 – attractive even to a venture capitalist,” said Heal.

The statement affirms the scientific evidence for global warming, saying, “the strength of the science on climate change” compelled the signers to warn policymakers of climate change’s growing risks, including “sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, snowmelt, floods and disease, as well as increased plant and animal species extinctions.”

Acting quickly to cut global warming pollution would be the most cost-effective way to limit climate change, the scientists and economists state. If the United States delays taking action, they say, future cuts would have to more drastic and would be much more expensive.

And those costs would come in addition to the increased cost of adapting to more climate change.

On the other hand, the scientists and economists advise, smart reduction strategies would allow the economy to grow, generate new domestic jobs, protect public health, and strengthen energy security.

“The consequences of global climate change constitute one of the most serious threats facing humanity,” warned Jagadish Shukla, professor of earth sciences and global change and chair of the Climate Dynamics Program at George Mason University.

President of the Institute of Global Environment and Society, Shukla was a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

“While the poor and the impoverished will suffer the most,” said Shukla, “the potential for catastrophic climate change that can adversely affect the habitability of the entire planet is quite real.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 24, 2008 (ENS) – The Bush administration has frequently meddled with scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a survey released today by a scientific advocacy group. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that nearly two-thirds of the 1,586 staff EPA scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained of recent political interference with their work.

The reported interference is greatest in offices where scientists write regulations and conduct risk assessments. “Our investigation found an agency in crisis,” said Francesca Grifo, director of Union of Concerned Scientists’s Scientific Integrity Program, who contends the report reflects an effort by the administration to distort science to “accommodate a narrow political agenda.”

The investigation shows that researchers “are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations,” said Grifo.

The report is the latest addition to a long list of complaints by scientists across the federal government who say the Bush administration has inappropriately interfered with their work and frequently manipulated science for the benefit of industry.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, has conducted similar surveys with staff at the Food and Drug Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and found comparable allegations of political meddling.

The advocacy group also published a report on climate science last year, detailing significant interference by the Bush administration with climate scientists at seven federal agencies.

This latest report contains complaints that political appointees have manipulated EPA scientific findings and analyses. Agency scientists reported inappropriate editing of documents, pressure from political appointees to scientific methods and findings, and needless delays of scientific reports.

EPA scientists in the field verify environmental
sampling, monitoring, and measurement
technologies. (Photo courtesy EPA)

The survey reports concern by agency scientists over political meddling with EPA’s scientific assessments of climate change and with the science supporting regulation of mercury and other air pollutants.

Agency scientists also complained of interference with EPA’s assessment of toxic chemicals and pesticides and with its oversight of groundwater contamination.

UCS sent its survey to more than 5,400 EPA scientists at the agency’s headquarters, research laboratories and 10 regional offices.

Of the 1,586 who responded, 60 percent reported they had personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in the past five years.

More than 500 EPA scientists knew of “many” or “some” cases “where EPA political appointees had inappropriately involved themselves in scientific decisions,” according to the study.

Nearly 400 scientists, some 31 percent, reported misstatements by EPA officials that misrepresented scientists’ findings, UCS said.

The report said 22 percent complained of political appointees using selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.

Scientists also reported concerns about being able to openly discuss their work and about half said agency policy often fails to make proper use of its scientific judgements.

The report highlighted concern about the influence of the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB, which has broad power to review regulations.

“Currently, OMB is allowed to force or make changes as they want, and rules are held hostage until this happens,” said a scientist at the agency’s Office of Air and Radiation who wishes to be unidentified criticizing the administration. “OMB’s power needs to be checked as time after time they weaken rulemakings and policy decisions to favor industry.”

EPA officials could not be reached for comment by press time, but agency statements indicate the Bush administration is not overly concerned about the report.

EPA scientist prepares to test sensors for detecting
changes in water quality that would result
from the intentional release of contaminants.
(Photo courtesy OMB)

The agency carefully values its scientists and carefully weighs their assessments along with other concerns when forming policy, according to an EPA spokesman, who pointed out that agency chief Stephen Johnson is a career EPA scientist with nearly three decades of experience at the agency.

But Johnson has been under fire for much of his three-year tenure as head of the EPA, most recently for a decision regarding federal air quality standards for smog-forming ozone.

In March, Johnson announced a tightening of the ozone rules, but he did not go as far as the agency’s science advisory board recommended.

Democrats – along with environmentalists, public health advocacy groups and state air officials – widely criticized Johnson’s decision. The chair of the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee has summoned the EPA chief to explain himself at a hearing early next month.

In a letter sent today, Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, told Johnson to expect additional questions about the Union of Concerned Scientists survey.

Waxman called the findings of the survey “disturbing” said they suggest “a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science in EPA’s decisionmaking.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, echoed that concern and said he would push for an investigation by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The survey “is a scathing indictment of the Bush administration’s repeated efforts to twist, misuse, and ignore scientific facts in favor of special interests,” Whitehouse said.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 7, 2008 (ENS) – Mel Martinez says the time to act on climate change is now. The junior U.S. Senator from Florida said Sunday that he will support federal legislation that curbs carbon emissions, but the Orlando Republican says he wants to ensure the costs are fairly distributed.

Congress clearly recognizes the need to address carbon dioxide emissions that are raising the planetary temperature. Martinez says, “To date there are no fewer than 73 bills that would directly address climate change issues.”

“The expense of addressing climate change should be shared across all regions of America, not just some specific areas,” Martinez wrote in a special article in the “Orlando Sentinel” newspaper on Sunday.

Senator Mel Martinez (Photo courtesy
Office of the Senator)

“In the Southeast,” he said, “because of the types of power generation we depend on, climate-change legislation has the real potential to increase our power rates dramatically.”

The Southeast depends on fossil fuels and nuclear power for 94 percent of its electric power generation but most of the states have little or no fossil fuel resources, and no nuclear resources to tap into, leaving them dependent on other states and countries for fuel, according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

More than 93 percent of the coal distributed in the region for electric power in 2005 had to be to imported from other states and countries, sending $7.3 billion out of the region.

“As former president of the Orlando Utilities Commission,” Martinez said he is sensitive to the impact that rate increases have on the most vulnerable.

“We have to be sensitive to the effects even modest increases have on those living on a fixed income, the elderly and lower-wage earners. In whatever action we take, we must ensure this population is protected,” the senator wrote.

A Cuban American and the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George W. Bush in his first term, Martinez does not agree with the president that the climate can wait.

“On the question of climate change, I believe we need to take action now to reduce carbon emissions,” wrote Martinez. “The evidence is overwhelming that our climate is suffering a change due to the actions of mankind.”

“Common sense tells us that billions upon billions of tons of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere will have a negative effect. I believe we have a responsibility to examine the specific impacts, and to take action to minimize the carbon emissions we put into the atmosphere,” Martinez wrote.

Better alternative fuels that burn cleaner, wind and solar power, hybrid vehicles and “further development of nuclear energy to supplement our domestic energy demands,” is the mix Martinez would adopt.

The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, says the Southeast, including Florida, would benefit from a national renewable energy standard because it would reduce the need to import coal and other fossil fuels, keeping energy dollars in the Southeast and boosting regional energy self-reliance.

The UCS’ most recent analysis found that under a 20 percent national renewable energy standard, annual payments to local Southeast landowners who produce bioenergy would reach $2.7 billion by 2020.

The House and the Senate separately have each passed different versions of a national renewable energy standard measure, but no law has been enacted.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, March 19, 2008 (ENS) – Four dozen groups spanning the political spectrum sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Tuesday urging lawmakers to include scientists who work for the federal government in pending legislation designed to strengthen protection for whistleblowers.

The coalition of academic, consumer, environmental, government reform and health groups, which includes the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Federation of American Scientists, was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS.

“Scientists are less inclined to speak out when they have no protection against retaliation,” said Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program.

“We must encourage federal scientists to report when research is censored or manipulated,” she said. “Bringing misconduct to light can help protect American families from unsafe consumer products, unsafe drugs, and a polluted environment.”

Sometime in the next few weeks the House and Senate are expected to reconcile differences between their versions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

In general, both versions strengthen protections for federal workers who report waste, fraud and abuse. But the final bill may not extend those protections to federal scientists who speak out when federal research is distorted or suppressed. The House legislation includes specific protections for scientists, but the Senate version does not.

“Federal government scientists play a crucial role in providing data and scientific analyses to policy makers so they can make the best, most informed decisions about our environment, health and national security,” the coalition letter states. “Whether it is toy safety, drug efficacy or air quality, we count on federal agencies to use independent and unbiased science to protect us from harm.”

Federal scientists need whistleblower protection now more than ever, Grifo said. Over the last few years private groups such as UCS and news organizations have documented what appears to be a growing incidence of political interference in federal science.

For example, more than a third of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists at nine agencies who responded to UCS questionnaires since 2005 reported they fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency’s work.

An example of the difficulties that government scientists can encounter is happening now at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Service is placing its scientists in an ethical bind by issuing contradictory and confusing directives, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, an organization of government workers in natural resources agencies, which signed the letter to the Senate.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
Pete Pattavina holds a threatened
Eastern indigo snake on the Ft.
Stewart Military Base in Georgia
(Photo courtesy FWS)

On one hand, the Service is encouraging its scientists to be open and honest, but, on the other hand, they are under orders not to share any agency scientific “documents, assessments and drafts” with outsiders, PEER points out.

On January 28, 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a “Scientific Code of Professional Responsibility” which tells agency scientists to:

* “Place reliability and objectivity of scientific activities, reporting and application of scientific results ahead of…allegiance to individuals and organizations”

* “Distinguish between positions that are rooted in scientific information assessments and those rooted in organizational values, and make this distinction in written and oral presentations”

* “Disseminate scientific information to the scientific community and the public to promote understanding and appreciation for fish and wildlife and their habitats.”

These precepts contrast with the “guidance” issued by Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall on February 3, 2006 in which he warned scientists to avoid “premature briefings.”

“It is imperative that all documents, assessments and drafts remain inside the Service, except for discussions as appropriate with recognized federal and state peers,” wrote Hall.

“Rather than being clear and unambiguous, the Fish and Wildlife Service has cloaked its ethics guidelines in mixed messages and contradictory side orders,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.

Ruch cited a PEER survey of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists showing what Ruch calls “widespread confusion as to what they are allowed to say or write.”

“Basic principles of scientific openness and honesty should be government-wide, said Ruch, not confined to the agency that is the source of political embarrassment this quarter.”

The letter’s 48 signatories include: American Association of Law Libraries, American Association of University Professors, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, Association of American Publishers, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Californians Aware, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Inquiry, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Common Cause, Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Conservation Northwest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Doctors for Open Government, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Essential Information, Ethics in Government Group, Federation of American Scientists, Georgians for Open Government, Government Accountability Project, Health Integrity Project, Justice Through Music, Liberty Coalition, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Research Center for Women & Families, National Women’s Health Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, OMB Watch, OpenGovernment.org, PEN American Center, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, The Multiracial Activist, The New Grady Coalition, The Ornithological Council, The Rutherford Institute, The Student Health Integrity Project, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Western Nebraska Resources Council.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.