First-ever criminal charges brought against egg producer for violating California Prop 2

An investigation of the California egg producer's facilities revealed birds locked in cramped, overcrowded cages in which they could not fully spread their wings. Decaying corpses lay in cages next to live birds laying eggs for human consumption.

An investigation of the California egg producer’s facilities revealed birds locked in cramped, overcrowded cages in which they could not fully spread their wings. Decaying corpses lay in cages next to live birds laying eggs for human consumption. Photo by The HSUS

Eight years after voters approved the landmark ballot initiative, and two years after the law took effect, a law enforcement agency today brought criminal charges against a California egg producer, Hohberg Poultry Ranch, in southern California, with 39 counts of violating Prop 2 and 16 other counts of violating the state anti-cruelty code. Specifically, the . . . 

The post Breaking news: First-ever criminal charges brought against egg producer for violating California Prop 2 appeared first on A Humane Nation.

Related Stories

Read more

Scott Pruitt’s Misleading Senate Testimony – Will ‘Alternative Science’ Replace Real Science at EPA?

By Scott Weaver

Earth as seen from a NOAA weather satellite. Photo: NOAA/NASA

As a climate scientist who is trained to base his conclusions strictly on scientific evidence and not politics, I find it particularly troubling that Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s pick to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is misrepresenting the scientific data that shows the earth’s atmosphere is warming.

Pruitt hopes to run the agency responsible for protecting the lives and health of Americans from environmental threats, and that includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. And as the Supreme Court has ruled, EPA has the authority to address greenhouse gases.

However, in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on January 18, and then in follow-up written answers to Senators, Pruitt made several misleading, or flat-out inaccurate, statements.

In his attempt at subterfuge, Pruitt leaned on false and misleading climate-skeptic myths that have been debunked time and time again.

For instance, consider this one question and answer:

Written question from Sen. Jeff Merkley: Are you aware that each of the past three decades has been warmer than the one before, and warmer than all the previous decades since record keeping began in the 1880s? This trend is based on actual temperature measurements. Do you believe that there is uncertainty in this warming trend that has been directly measured? If so, please explain.

Written answer from Scott Pruitt: I am aware of a diverse range of conclusions regarding global temperatures, including that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the “hiatus.” I am also aware that the discrepancy between land-based temperature stations and satellite temperature stations can be attributed to expansive urbanization within in our country where artificial substances such as asphalt can interfere with the accuracy of land-based temperature stations and that the agencies charged with keeping the data do not accurately account for this type of interference. I am also aware that ‘warmest year ever’ claims from NASA and NOAA are based on minimal temperature differences that fall within the margin of error. Finally, I am aware that temperatures have been changing for millions of years that predate the relatively short modern record keeping efforts that began in 1880. (Questions for the Record, page 145)

In response to the scientific evidence that the last three decades have each been warmer than the one before it, Mr. Pruitt offered negligent claims that both the satellite data and surface based observations have shown there to be no warming over the last two decades – the so-called global warming hiatus.

Science does not agree with this assessment.

The idea of a hiatus and a potential discrepancy between satellite and surface based data have been under intense objective scrutiny by the scientific community for some time – and the results are in:

  • NOAA scientists recently published a peer reviewed article in the Journal Science that clearly shows the “hiatus” to have never existed.
  • Then last month a follow up study, undertaken by a separate group of researchers as an objective check on the NOAA result, also confirmed that the global warming hiatus never happened.
  • Additionally, the alleged satellite discrepancy has also been debunked – its origin an artifact of necessary, but potentially faulty, post-processing techniques that are employed when using data gathered by a satellite from space, as opposed to direct surface temperature measurements from thermometers. Stated plainly, raw satellite observations from space are not as accurate as those taken in the actual location, so these raw observations need to be quality controlled for scientific accuracy.

Next, in the same answer, in what can only be described as countering his own misguided narrative, Pruitt attempted to blame the increasing temperature trend – which he just stated did not exist via the hiatus argument – on an unfounded discrepancy between satellite based and urban land based data.He claimed the increase in urbanization was causing a fictitious rise in global temperature – an impact long shown to be minimal at best, especially when applied to the massive geographic expanse of the world relative to the lesser change in the geographic extent of cities.

Pruitt went on to quibble with the fact that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded, by overemphasizing the role of negligible differences in how various scientific agencies around the world calculate the globally averaged temperature.

Actually, the diversity of approaches is a scientific strength, because it provides a balanced view of the data – much like seeking a second opinion on a medical diagnosis. It’s vital to note that despite these trivial differences in methodology, the three long-running analyses by NASA, NOAA, and Great Britain’s UK Met Office all showed 2014 to 2016 to be the three consecutive warmest years on record. This fact is indisputable.

Pruitt concluded his misdirection by pointing out his awareness that temperatures have been changing for millions of years, and predating the relatively short modern record. Mr. Pruitt is indeed correct that the rapid warming in recent decades is quite alarming in the context of the much slower and longer term natural changes – although I don’t think that was what he was trying to say.

Pruitt seemed unaware of the latest scientific evidence on the various topics he chose to explore during his testimony. That indicates an ignorance of science coupled with a lack of preparation which adds up to being unfit to lead a scientifically-based government agency.

Read more

The US Could Lead the Next Tech Revolution by Investing in Clean Energy

By EDF Blogs

SolarPanelWorkerFinalBy Jonathan Camuzeaux, manager, Economics & Policy Analysis

Risky Business Report Finds Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy is both Technologically and Economically Feasible

In the first Risky Business report, a bi-partisan group of experts focused on the economic impacts of climate change at the country, state and regional levels and made the case that in spite of all that we do understand about the science and dangers of climate change, the uncertainty of what we don’t know could present an even more devastating future for the planet and our economy.

The latest report from the Risky Business Project, co-chaired by Michael R. Bloomberg, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., and Thomas F. Steyer, examines how best to tackle the risks posed by climate change and transition to a clean energy economy by 2050, without relying on unprecedented spending or unimagined technology. The report focuses on one pathway that will allow us to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through the following three shifts:

1. Electrify the economy, replacing the dependence on fossil fuels in the heating and cooling of buildings, vehicles and other sectors. Under the report’s scenario, this would require the share of electricity as a portion of total energy use to more than double, from 23 to 51 percent.
2. Use a mix of low- to zero-carbon fuels to generate electricity. Declining costs for renewable technologies contribute in making this both technologically and economically feasible.
3. Become more energy efficient by lowering the intensity of energy used per unit of GDP by about two thirds.

New Investments Will Yield Cost Savings

Of course, there would be costs associated with achieving the dramatic emissions reductions, but the authors argue that these costs are warranted. The report concludes that substantial upfront capital investments would be offset by lower long-term fuel spending. And even though costs would grow from $220 billion per year in 2020 to $360 billion per year in 2050, they are still likely far less than the costs of unmitigated climate change or the projected spending on fossil fuels. They’re also comparable in scale to recent investments that transformed the American economy. Take the computer and software industry, which saw investments more than double from $33 billion in 1980 to $73 billion in 1985. And those outlays continued to grow exponentially—annual investments topped $400 billion in 2015. All told, the United States has invested $6 trillion in computers and software over the last 20 years.


The US Could Lead the Next Tech Revolution by Investing in Clean Energy
Click To Tweet


This shift would also likely boost manufacturing and construction in the United States, and stimulate innovation and new markets. Finally, fewer dollars would go overseas to foreign oil producers, and instead stay in the U.S. economy.

The Impact on American Jobs

The authors also foresee an impact to the U.S. job market. On the plus side, they predict as many as 800,000 new construction, operation and maintenance jobs by 2050 would be required to help retrofit homes with more efficient heating and cooling systems as well as the construction, operation and maintenance of power plants. However, they would be offset by a nearly 34 percent loss in the coal mining and oil and gas sectors, by 2050, mainly concentrated in the Southern and Mountain states. As we continue to grow a cleaner-energy economy, it will be essential to help workers transition from high-carbon to clean jobs and provide them with the training and education to do so.

A Call for Political and Private Sector Leadership

Such a radical shift won’t be easy, and both business and policy makers will need to lead the transition to ensure its success. First and foremost, the report asserts that the U.S. government will need to create the right incentives.  This will be especially important if fossil fuel prices drop, which could result in increased consumption.  Lawmakers would also need to wean industry and individuals off of subsidies that make high-carbon and high-risk activities cheap and easy while removing regulatory and financial barriers to clean-energy projects. They will also need to help those Americans negatively impacted by the transition as well as those who are most vulnerable and less resilient to physical and economic climate impacts.

First and foremost, the report asserts that the U.S. government will need to create the right incentives. 

Businesses also need to step up to the plate by auditing their supply chains for high-carbon activities, build internal capacity to address the impacts of climate change on their businesses and put internal prices on carbon to help reduce risks.

To be sure, this kind of transformation and innovation isn’t easy, but the United States has sparked technological revolutions before that have helped transform our economy—from automobiles to air travel to computer software, and doing so has required collaboration between industry and policymakers.

We are at a critical point in time—we can either accelerate our current path and invest in a clean energy future or succumb to rhetoric that forces us backwards. If we choose to electrify our economy, reduce our reliance on dirty fuels and become more energy efficient, we will not only be at the forefront of the next technological revolution, but we’ll also help lead the world in ensuring a better future for our planet.

This post originally appeared on our Market Forces blog.

Read more

Congressional Review Act: A Law of Unintended and Long-Lasting Consequences

By Carol Andress

3802348922_e99184a252_bWith legislation flying fast and furious through the Capitol – much of it using new or unusual legal mechanisms – lawmakers today must be doubly mindful of unintended consequences. Case in point: Actions rushed through the House and Senate under an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the details of which can cause deeper, more lasting impact than the simple name implies.

The CRA dates to the 1990s. It says that any rule finalized by a federal agency can be subject to an expedited congressional repeal for 60 legislative days after the agency sends up a copy of the final rule and a report detailing the reasons for its promulgation. Within that window, either chamber can introduce a joint resolution of disapproval – which, if passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, effectively voids the rule.

The law sounds simple enough. But it leaves a lot of room for error or mischief.

The CRA enjoys fast-track privileges, allowing a CRA bill to go straight to the floor without committee hearings. A so-called resolution of disapproval can be brought up at any time, with little or no notice. In the Senate, passage requires only a simple majority (51 votes). The measures are not subject to filibuster.

Until January, only one such resolution had ever been passed and signed into law, and the CRA has never been tested in court. But now there are at least 10 different CRA actions moving through the House and Senate. It’s worth a close look at what those measures would really do.

Hands Tied

If the President signs the joint resolution, the agency rule is voided. What’s more, that agency is forever barred from issuing any rule that is “substantially the same” as the as the one voted down. And therein lies the most serious problem.

Because this vague provision has never been clarified by the courts, agencies will almost certainly hesitate to undertake a new rule on the same topic, no matter how serious and well founded the action might be or regardless of new information (this is exactly what happened to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the only agency so far to have a rule disapproved through the CRA).

In short, CRA disapproval is a drastic and extreme legislative move that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly by either political party.

CRA Attack on BLM Waste Rule Defies Logic

Take for example the CRA resolution passed last week by the House of Representatives, which would roll back a Bureau of Land Management rule requiring oil and gas companies operating on millions of acres of federal and tribal land to take cost-effective, common-sense steps to reduce nearly 110 billion cubic feet of taxpayer-owned natural gas they currently waste each year through leaks, venting, or simply burning it off (called flaring).

That gas is worth an estimated $330 million dollars annually — more than $1.5 billion since 2013 — and is enough to supply every home in a city the size of Chicago for a year. Besides squandering a valuable energy resource, the waste generates air pollution affecting the health of millions of Americans.

BLM’s much-needed and long-overdue standards to address this problem took years to craft, and reflect input received in over 300,000 public comments.  Industry lobbyists have glibly suggested that a resolution of disapproval means that rule could somehow be sent back to the agency for a redo. But this is not how the CRA works. Lawmakers in that chamber need to understand this critical difference before they vote.

Waking Up to the Problem

The good news is lawmakers in both houses appear to be increasingly aware of the issues involved with the CRA. A resolution roll back the BLM rule passed the House on a vote of 221-191, with a record 11 Republicans voting no (and three Democrats voting yes).

The bill is could hit the Senate floor at any time. Before they vote, Senators should step back and understand that the CRA resolution offers up an axe in place of the scalpel that many are seeking, and weigh their decision accordingly. We need our lawmakers to stand up for their constituents – American taxpayers – to promote their interests over the needs of the oil and gas lobby.

Image source: Flickr/k3nna

Read more

EDF joins with 23 organizations to launch Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director

Accelerating full replacement of lead service lines (LSL) – the lead pipes that runlslr-collaborative-logo from the drinking water main under the street to homes – is a priority for EDF. These pipes are the primary source of lead in water and, when disturbed, may release lead particles that expose consumers, without warning, to extremely high levels. As part of the effort to encourage safe and effective removal of LSLs replacement, EDF helped launch a new Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative with 23 national public health, water utility, environmental, labor, consumer, housing, and state and local governmental organizations to help communities develop and implement voluntary programs to eliminate these pipes.

Today, the Collaborative released an online toolkit to assist communities in lead service line replacement. The online toolkit includes:

  • A roadmap for getting started,
  • Suggested replacement practices to identify and remove lead service lines in a safe, equitable, and cost-effective manner,
  • Policies that federal and state leaders could adopt to support local efforts, and
  • Additional resources that may be helpful when developing local programs.

USA Today highlighted the Collaborative and the toolkit in an article also released today.

The toolkit is intended to be a living resource.  Therefore, the Collaborative is seeking communities to pilot and provide feedback on the materials.

The voluntary efforts promoted by the Collaborative are not a substitute for a long-overdue overhaul of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead and Copper Rule (LCR).  Even under the best of scenarios, the revised rule will be promulgated in 2018 and go into effect in 2021.  The next administration’s statements about regulations puts even that distant date in doubt.

Instead of waiting for a new rule, the Collaborative’s toolkit leverages from the knowledge and experience of its members and their constituents.  It draws from the successful LSL replacement programs of Madison, WI, Lansing, MI, and the ongoing work of Boston, MA and Washington, DC.  It also learns from programs in Cincinnati, OH, and Milwaukee, WI that are launching comprehensive efforts as well as the states of California, Michigan, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin that laid foundations for communities to undertake replacement programs in 2016.

The Collaborative is grounded in the following principles:

  • Removal of lead service lines in contact with drinking water provides an opportunity to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to lead from drinking water.
  • LSL replacement initiatives must be designed to ensure residents are protected during and after the removal and that the work is done in a cost effective manner.
  • LSL replacement initiatives should address barriers to participation so that consumers served by LSLs can benefit equitably, regardless of income, race or ethnicity.
  • A collaborative, community-based approach, built on contributions from residents, health officers, utilities, community leaders, local elected officials, can help provide the strong foundation needed for successful action.
  • Innovative models are needed to help communities find the tools, strategies and resources needed to replace LSLs based on the latest science and current best practices.
  • By providing models for LSL replacement, it is possible to advance support for initiatives at all levels of government and in different types of communities.
  • Successful LSL replacement initiatives will take careful planning and time.
  • This effort is focused on mechanisms to support local action not on EPA’s efforts to revise the Lead and Copper Rule.

The members of the Collaborative are:

  • American Public Health Association
  • American Water Works Association
  • Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
  • Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
  • Blue Green Alliance
  • Children’s Environmental Health Network
  • Clean Water Action
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Justice and Sustainability Associates
  • Learning Disabilities Association of America
  • National Center for Healthy Housing
  • National Association of County and City Health Officials
  • National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
  • National Association of Water Companies
  • National Conference of State Legislatures
  • National Environmental Health Association
  • National Rural Water Association
  • Natural Resources Defense Council
  • RESOLVE
  • Rural Community Assistance Partnership
  • Trust for America’s Health
  • United Parents Against Lead
  • Water Research Foundation

Of course, this is just part of the solution, but were are very encouraged by the broad interest and participation in getting lead service lines out of use throughout the country.

Read more

States, Power Companies Lead in Cutting Carbon; Election Not Slowing Expected 2017 Progress

By EDF Blogs

bi-wind-farm-aerial-summer-2016-768x437

The Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island. Photo courtesy of Deepwater Wind.

By Pam Kiely, senior director, Regulatory Strategy, and co-authored by Charlie Jiang, EDF associate

2016 was a big year for progress in the U.S. power sector. Renewable energy sources provided 16.9 percent of the country’s electricity in the first half of 2016, up from 13.7 percent for all of 2015. The country’s first offshore wind farm opened off the coast of Rhode Island. Most importantly, carbon emissions from the power sector are projected to continue to decline and hit levels not seen since 1992.

Strong leadership by forward-thinking governors, policymakers, and power company executives who recognize the imperative of lower-carbon generation and the promise of clean energy, powerful market forces intensifying the push to lower-carbon resources, and the critical federal regulatory overlay of the Clean Power Plan — which has made clear that unlimited carbon pollution is a thing of the past — have all combined to deepen a trend towards cleaner electricity production at this dynamic moment in time.

Even with any possible political maneuverings in Washington, D.C. to reverse clean energy and climate progress, it is clear that the transition to a low-carbon future is well under way.

States and power companies are surging ahead — and given the favorable economics of clean energy and the urgent need to reduce climate-destabilizing pollution it would be foolish to turn back.

  • More than 21 gigawatts of wind and solar power (utility-scale and rooftop) are projected to have been installed in 2016, accounting for 68 percent of new U.S. capacity additions. That’s according to analyses by FERCSNL EnergyEIA, and SEIA/GTM Research.
  • Some of the country’s oldest and least efficient power plants were scheduled to close in 2016, transitioning 5.3 gigawatts of capacity, in no small part due to increasingly favorable economics for low-carbon generation.
  • Since 2014, solar installation has created more jobs than oil and gas pipeline construction and crude petroleum and natural gas extraction combined. According to recent reports, there are now more than 400,000 jobs in renewable energy.

Together, these trends indicate the U.S. power sector is well-positioned to continue to reduce carbon pollution at a significant pace. And because of the favorable economics for low-carbon generation and the urgent need to protect against climate risks, hundreds of major corporations are on record supporting the Clean Power Plan and the achievement of emission reduction targets.

Power sector carbon emissions declined to 21 percent below 2005 levels in 2015, and are expected to drop again in 2016, meaning the power sector is already two-thirds of the way towards meeting its 2030 pollution reduction goals under the Clean Power Plan.


States and power companies lead in cutting carbon.
Click To Tweet


Notably, this de-carbonization of the electric sector has proceeded while the U.S economy has grown. In addition, recent analysis by the Brookings Institution shows that as of 2014, at least 33 individual states have also decoupled their economic growth from carbon pollution — continuing to grow their gross domestic product while significantly slowing their rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

Heading into 2017, companies from coast to coast are well-positioned to secure ongoing reductions in carbon emissions from their fleets – thereby helping the United States to achieve international commitments under the Paris Agreement, delivering greater value to customers and shareholders while ensuring state or municipal policy objectives will be achieved, and sharpening their ability to meet declining emissions limits in accordance with a federal regulatory framework.

Even the vast majority of states litigating against the Clean Power Plan can comply with the CPP targets by optimizing the carbon pollution benefits from already planned investments and compliance with existing state policies. The Clean Power Plan is crucial to making certain that states and companies take advantage of the opportunity to ensure the carbon reduction potential of these investments are fully realized, so they can in fact achieve these reasonable protections.

De-carbonization of the electric sector has proceeded while the U.S economy has grown.

The shift to a lower-carbon future should continue, as power companies recognize both the imperative to reduce emissions and the benefits of moving in this direction despite changing political winds in Washington.

For example, shortly after the November election, a number of executives from historically coal-intensive companies convincingly reaffirmed their commitment to de-carbonization:

  • No matter who occupies the White House, “[coal is] not coming back,” said American Electric Power CEO Nick Akins. “We’re moving to a cleaner-energy economy and we’re still getting pressure from investors to reduce carbon emissions. I don’t see that changing.”
  • “It can’t just be, ‘We’re going to get rid of these regulations, and you guys can party until the next administration comes,’” Cloud Peak Energy Vice President Richard Reavey said. “There are serious global concerns about climate emissions. We have to recognize that’s a political reality and work within that framework.”
  • “Markets are driving a lot of the behavior,” said Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy. “[W]e’ll continue to move toward a lower carbon energy mix.”
  • “We’ve always had a point of view at Southern that there’s a reasonable trajectory in which to move the portfolio of the United States to a lower carbon future,” said Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning. “There’s a way to transition the fleet now.” In a later interview, Fanning added: “It’s clear that the courts have given the EPA the right to deal with carbon in a certain way.”
  • “Regardless of the outcome of the election,” said Frank PragerXcel Energy’s Vice President of Policy and Federal Affairs, “Xcel Energy will continue pursuing energy and environmental strategies that appeal to policymakers across the political spectrum because we are focused on renewable and other infrastructure projects that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions without increasing prices or sacrificing reliability.”

“Markets are driving a lot of the behavior.”

Acting on these commitments, many power companies are continuing to expand their renewable investments while phasing out high-carbon generation, putting them in a solid position to comply with robust carbon pollution regulations.

Here are a few recent highlights just from the last months:

  • At the end of December, Florida Power & Light (FPL) showed strong leadership when announcing plans to shut down the recently-acquired 250-megawatt Cedar Bay coal plant at the end of the year. “I’m very proud of our employees for proposing this innovative approach that’s environmentally beneficial and saves customers millions of dollars,” said CEO Eric Silagy. FPL plans to replace the retired power with natural gas and solar — the company added 224 megawatts of solar capacity in 2016. FPL also noted that their system is now “cleaner today than the 2030 carbon emissions rate goal for Florida outlined by the Clean Power Plan,” while average residential bills are about 30 percent lower than the national average.
  • On December 30, Southern Company announced an agreement with Renewable Energy Systems America to develop 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy scheduled to come online between 2018 and 2020. The agreement comes as Southern Company continued to boost its renewable portfolio with the acquisition of 300 megawatts of wind power in late December, bringing its total to more than 4,000 megawatts of renewable generation added or announced since 2012.
  • Duke Energy acquired its first solar project in Colorado on Dec. 8. The purchase advances Duke’s goal of owning more than 6,000 megawatts of renewable energy projects by 2020.

After the election, a number of power companies reiterated their commitment to reducing air pollution and meeting their obligations under the federal Clean Air Act by transitioning aging coal plants.

  • PNM Resources spokesman Pahl Shipley said the company has no change in plans for retiring two units at a New Mexico plant, totaling 837 megawatts of capacity, in 2017. PNM will replace the retired capacity with solar and nuclear power.
  • The Tennessee Valley Authority is moving forward with plans to retire two coal plants in 2017, as well as a third in 2018.
  • Colorado-based electric cooperative Tri-State Generation will move forward with plans to retire its 100-megawatt Nucla coal plant and Unit 1 of the Craig coal plant. “We are moving forward with retirement activities and developing a transition plan for the employees and communities,” said Tri-State spokesman Lee Boughey after the election.

Duke Energy acquired its first solar project in Colorado on Dec. 8.

These announcements follow one of the biggest clean energy leadership stories of 2016 – commitments by two midcontinent utilities, Xcel Energy and Berkshire Hathaway Energy, to go big on cost-effective investments in new wind resources.

  • This past year, Minnesota regulators approved a plan for Xcel Energy to construct as much as 1,800 megawatts of new wind power and 1,400 megawatts of solar in the state by 2030. Xcel also received approval to build a 600 megawatt wind farm in Colorado.
  • Berkshire subsidiary MidAmerican Energy secured approval to construct a massive 2,000 megawatt wind farm in Iowa that will be the “largest wind energy project in US history.” Said CEO Bill Fehrman: “Our customers want more renewable energy, and we couldn’t agree more.”

State policymakers have not stayed on the sidelines, either. 2016 sustained progress as states moved forward with commonsense efforts to reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants. And even with promises to roll back critical clean air, climate, and clean energy progress coming out of Washington, D.C., states made clear after the election that they will not be slowed down by potential federal backsliding:

  • On December 7, Illinois enacted a comprehensive new energy bill that will in part double the state’s energy efficiency portfolio and allow for 4,300 megawatts of new solar and wind power while providing for continued operation of zero-emission nuclear facilities. These measures are expected to reduce the state’s carbon emissions 56 percent by 2030.
  • On December 15, Michigan lawmakers approved a new bill to increase the state’s renewable portfolio standard to 15 percent by 2021, up from 10 percent. Republican Governor Rick Snyder touted the bill in a statement: “What we’re in is a huge transition in how we get our energy. We’ve got a lot of aging coal plants that are beyond their useful life, and it’s not worth investing in them anymore … We can transition to both natural gas and renewables and let the markets sort of define the balance between those two, so we’re moving away from an old energy source [where] we had to import all of this coal.”
  • Also in December, Washington Governor Jay Inslee proposed the state adopt a first-of-its-kind carbon tax of $25 per metric ton of carbon pollution. The proposal supplements the state’s innovative Clean Air Rule, adopted in September, which caps carbon emissions from individual polluters.
  • Nine states comprising the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are engaged in a stakeholder process designed to establish new, more protective, standards for climate pollution.
  • In Oregon, regulators are evaluating options for a market-based mechanism that could link to the California-Quebec carbon market, releasing a partial draft report on November 21.

“What we’re in is a huge transition in how we get our energy.”

  • Governors such as Colorado’s John Hickenlooper continue to display strong leadership and a keen understanding of the imperative to move to a low-carbon future. After the election, Hickenlooper said he remains committed to fulfilling the goals of the Clean Power Plan, no matter what happens to the rule.
  • In Pennsylvania, a spokesman for Governor Tom Wolf’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) noted that: “Pennsylvania’s carbon footprint has been shrinking rapidly due to market based decisions being made in the state’s electric generating sector … It is likely that this trend will continue.” He added that the DEP “will continue to seek ways to continue addressing climate change.”
  • In California, Governor Jerry Brown mounted a vigorous defense of California’s climate leadership and the role the state will continue to play in setting the stage for ongoing progress and defending the important progress of the last eight years. “We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers and we’re ready to fight. We’re ready to defend,” he said.

The momentum that power companies and states have generated towards achieving a clean energy future is powerful and encouraging.

Looking to 2017 and beyond, market trends are expected to continue to help facilitate de-carbonization of the electric sector, while federal and state policies must continue to provide certainty about the pace and depth of emissions reductions needed to address the threat of climate change. These policies will help companies plan clean energy investments in a way that maximizes benefits for consumers and facilitates optimal deployment of available resources.

The Clean Power Plan remains crucial to achieving these goals. Any disruption in the Clean Power Plan’s implementation could put long-overdue and readily achievable emission reductions at risk.

As we ring in the New Year, EDF will keep working with a diverse set of stakeholders across the country — including many state officials and power companies — to defend these critical environmental safeguards. At the same time, we will work vigorously to ensure that we achieve the reductions in carbon pollution envisioned by the program.

This post originally appeared on our Climate 411 blog.

Read more

Food waste, guilt and the millennial mom: how companies can help

By Jenny Ahlen

edf-business-of-food-blog-graphic_shelton-grp_12-7-16I spend a lot of time these days thinking about food waste.

Why? First, I’m the mother of a toddler who oscillates between being a bottomless pit, easily cleaning her plate, to being a picky eater who only takes a couple of bites before the bulk of her meal ends up in the trash.

Second, I’m married to a chef who, because he’s a smart businessman, runs his kitchen with the precision of a comptroller: wasted food means lost profit, so every scrap of food is utilized wherever possible.

Finally, I interface almost daily with Walmart, the world’s largest grocer. Walmart recently pledged to root out 1 gigaton of greenhouse gas reductions from its global supply chain, and I’m certain that food waste will play an integral part in reaching that goal.

But before you conclude that I’m an outlier—some sort of obsessive, “food waste weirdo”— a recent study shows that I’m not the only one struggling with this issue:

Now we all know that just because one feels guilty about something doesn’t mean one’s behavior will change.  Cost, however, is a frequent driver of behavior, so consider these numbers:

In other words, 2.5-4% of the 2015 US median household income is being thrown away! That’s bad news for our wallets—and our planet (NRDC estimates that food rotting in landfills accounts for 16% of U.S. methane emissions).

So it’s a no-brainer that wasting food serves no one’s interests.  What’s not so clear is: what can be done about it?

A business opportunity… with a coveted consumer

This is where I see a real opportunity for grocers—like Walmart—and the food companies that fill their shelves. For the most part, these companies are talking non-stop these days about how to win over the most coveted customer of all, the “millennial mom”.

Inviting millennial moms to be partners on eliminating food waste could be the perfect strategy. They jenny_helen_expertare young (meaning they have years of brand loyalty ahead of them), cost-conscious and environmentally engaged; saving them money while alleviating their food waste guilt is a clear win-win.

I’m not saying this will be easy; that same study reveals that real barriers exist:

However, while conceding that it’s difficult (if not downright un-wise) to portray millennial moms as a monolithic group, marketing profiles of these women consistently portray them as, a.) hungry for information about products; and b.) willing to take action on issues… but only if roadblocks or impediments have been removed.

So, grocers and food companies, how can you burnish your brand with millennial moms while making a real dent in food waste?

Step number 1: engage and educate

Run marketing campaigns, both in-store and out, that will inform these coveted customers on:

  • Proper handling and storage of their food to minimize spoilage; and
  • How to fully utilize their food purchases. In other words, teach them to think like my husband, the chef, so they can make use of scraps and leftovers.

Step number 2: make it easy

Design and implement initiatives that make for fun, easy adoption:

  • Clarify date labeling so that perfectly good food isn’t perceived as bad. The USDA just requested that companies switch to “best if used by” language to give consumers more accurate guidance.
  • Suggest meals that enable moms to buy just what they need—and use it up. There’s a real business opportunity here: did you know that, as of 4 pm each day, 80% of mom’s don’t know what’s for dinner that night? Suggesting recipes that will be totally consumed will make her life easier!
  • Inspire composting (and discount composters)… their garden will thrive because of you! Or help make curbside composting possible like in Boulder, Seattle and San Francisco.
  • Be creative… people love to compete! Only 13.5% think that their household wastes more than their average neighbor (study). Help people understand that they may in fact be wasting way more food and money than their friends, family, and neighbors to motivate them to do something about it.

In the meantime, I will carry on, hopeful that while my daughter learns to clean her plate, an array of giant food companies and grocers will take up the mantle of tackling food waste on a massive scale.

Read more

At last: EPA promulgates nanomaterial reporting rule

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist. Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.  

nanomaterial-infographic

Today, EPA issued its long-awaited rule to gather risk-relevant information on nanoscale materials. The new rule will finally allow EPA to obtain basic data on use, exposure, and hazards from those that manufacture or process these materials, which has long been recognized by experts as essential to understand and manage their potential risks.

Nanomaterials – a diverse category of materials defined mainly by their small size – often exhibit unique properties that can allow for novel applications but also have the potential to negatively impact our health and the environment.  Some nanomaterials:  more easily penetrate biological barriers than do their bulk counterparts; exhibit toxic effects on the nervous, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and reproductive systems; or have antibacterial properties that may negatively impact ecosystems or lead to resistance.

Numerous expert bodies have identified the need for the kinds of information on nanomaterials EPA will now be able to collect, including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and EPA’s Office of Research and Development.  The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a report last year noting that the number of products containing nanomaterials increased fivefold in the global market between 2006 and 2011, and are being used in hundreds of new products ranging from cosmetics and personal care products to clothing and textiles, solar cells, plastics for the automotive and aircraft industries, and food packaging.

EPA’s new rule institutes a one-time reporting requirement for existing nanomaterials, as well as a standing one-time reporting requirement for new nanomaterials before they are manufactured.  Companies that manufacture, import or process existing nanomaterials, or intend to start doing so for a new nanomaterial, are required to submit the following categories of “reasonably ascertainable” information to EPA:  chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available environmental and health impacts data.  By collecting such data, EPA will finally be able to draw a clearer picture of the nanomaterials in and entering commercial use, and better determine whether action to mitigate risk is needed, on a case-by-case basis.

This basic rule has been a very long time coming.  As illustrated in the graphic above, EPA has been attempting – for over a decade – to issue such a rule to gather even this most basic information on nanomaterials in the U.S. market.  Over the years, we have blogged extensively on EPA’s slow progress, due to opposition from both industry and other parts of the Federal government at every step.

There are a number of notable aspects of what is included – and not included – in the final rule:

  • It applies both to nanoscale materials already in commerce and to new nano forms of existing chemicals that companies intend to make or process in the future. (Wholly new nanoscale chemicals would be required to be reviewed under TSCA’s new chemicals provisions.)
  • In promulgating the rule, EPA affirmed its broad authority to collect existing information under section 8(a) of TSCA, rejecting industry arguments that such authority was highly constrained.
  • EPA removed reporting exemptions it had proposed for nanoclays and zinc oxide, and rejected industry calls to include numerous additional exemptions.

The rule is not perfect and omits reporting EDF and others urged be included.  For example:

  • Aggregates of nanoscale particles must fall within the 1-100 nanometer (nm) range to be reportable. We argued that aggregates comprised of nanoparticles between 1-100 nm be reported even if the aggregate is larger, given that such aggregates can often disaggregate in the environment or during use.
  • Companies that submitted a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) for a nanoscale material at any time since 2005 do not have to report for that material. Our concern is that this will miss new information on that material that has been developed since the PMN was reviewed.
  • Chemical substances “formed at the nanoscale as part of a film on a surface” are exempted from reporting. We argued that such films can break down or erode over time especially if exposed to the elements, potentially releasing the nanoscale materials.

Still, with this rule finally finalized, EPA can at last begin to get basic risk-relevant information needed to make sound decisions about which materials and uses present concerns and which do not.

 

For more detail on the history of this rule, see these earlier blog posts:

 

 

Read more