by David Doniger, via NRDC’s Switchboard

Climate change is not the first planetary pollution crisis we have faced.  That distinction belongs to the depletion of the earth’s protective ozone layer.

This Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the world’s most successful environmental treaty, the Montreal Protocol.  That’s the treaty that saved the ozone layer, saved millions of lives, and avoided a global catastrophe.

We too often take the rescue of the ozone layer for granted.  A whole generation has grown up not hearing much about it, except maybe once each September when the return of the Antarctic ozone hole gets a brief mention in the news.

As we struggle to curb the carbon pollution that’s driving climate change, it’s worth remembering, and learning from, our success in solving the ozone crisis.

The story begins nearly 40 years ago when two chemists, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, discovered that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released from aerosol sprays could rise miles over our heads into the stratosphere.  There the sun’s harsh rays split the CFCs apart, triggering reactions that destroyed ozone molecules.  As the ozone shield weakened, more dangerous UV rays could reach the earth’s surface.  That would have condemned millions of people worldwide to die from skin cancer, go blind with cataracts, or suffer from immune diseases.

Their discovery made big news and galvanized Americans. Aerosol sales plummeted, as millions of consumers switched to pump sprays and roll-ons.  Some companies quickly redesigned their products.  But others dug in. For more than a decade, the chemical companies that made CFCs reacted much like today’s coal and oil companies: They denied the science, attacked the scientists, and predicted economic ruin.

But scientists and lawyers at NRDC – well before I got here – fought back.  They helped Rowland and Molina tell their story to Congress and the news media.  They pushed for bans on CFC aerosols here at home, and pressed the U.S. to demand the same from other countries.

In the next few years, Congress added ozone layer protections to the Clean Air Act, federal agencies mopped up the last aerosols, and the State Department began working with other nations on a treaty.  In 1980, EPA issued an “endangerment” finding, saying that the other uses of CFCs in refrigerators, air conditioners, and industrial processes also posed a threat to the ozone layer and to public health.

But when Ronald Reagan took office, things bogged down.  Those of you who remember Anne Gorsuch and James Watt will know that protecting the ozone layer was not a priority in Reagan’s first years.  EPA did nothing, treaty talks stalled, and CFC use rebounded, so by the mid-1980s, production was back to its 1974 peak and rising fast. The danger was growing again.

So I and an NRDC colleague sued EPA under the Clean Air Act, because EPA was obligated by the endangerment finding to issue CFC regulations.   To its credit, the Reagan administration followed the science and settled our lawsuit with a plan of action. EPA worked with NASA and other agencies to amass a compelling, peer-reviewed scientific assessment.  EPA brought together industry and environmentalists and others to agree on alternatives.  The State Department restarted treaty talks.

Congress held hearings under the bipartisan leadership of Senators Max Baucus, John Chafee, and Al Gore, and Representatives Henry Waxman and Sherwood Boehlert, keeping the danger in the public eye.  And the news media covered the story, without giving equal time to marginal skeptics.

The discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole added new urgency.  By 1986, even the chemical industry acknowledged CFC limits were needed.

In 1986 I proposed the idea of a 10-year global phase-out – to start using available alternatives immediately and to create market incentives to rapidly perfect and deploy solutions for the remaining uses.  Again to their credit, Reagan’s EPA Administrator Lee Thomas and Secretary of State George Schultz put such a plan on the international negotiating table.

Yet not everybody was on board. Interior Secretary Donald Hodel urged President Reagan to tell people to just wear hats and sunglasses.  His plan became a punch line. Reagan continued to back the treaty.

Read more

In the House of Representatives’ final act before its two-month vacation, House Republicans approved 233-175 a pro-coal package on Friday that dismantles or delays an array of public health protections. H.R. 4309 may be named for the fictitious “war on coal,” but it rolls back protections in the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, blocking EPA carbon pollution standards and fuel efficiency standards.

In a year where fossil fuel groups have pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, the House GOP’s last act before November is a symbolic gesture for coal, that risks Americans’ health and even the coal industry itself.

Over their careers, the 233 members who voted for the Big Coal package have received more than $20 million over their careers from coal — according to an analysis of OpenSecrets.org data and additional analysis by Oil Change International. The 175 members who voted against undermining public health have just $8 million in career coal contributions. In just the 2012 cycle, the Big Coal votes have taken $4.5 million more than those voting against the bill.

Like today’s vote, campaign contributions from the coal and coal-dependent utilities industries break clearly across partisan lines: House Republicans have raised almost $20 million from coal and utilities industries, double the $10.2 million by Democrats. Coal mining companies alone have contributed $4.4 million to House Republicans over their careers, nearly five times the amount to Democratic members.

* Based on data from OpenSecrets.org with additional analysis by Oil Change International. Oil Change International has purchased, analyzed, and refined this data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

With more than 300 votes targeting the Environmental Protection Agency, de-funding clean energy, and promoting unfettered use of fossil fuels, the current House of Representatives has been dubbed the most anti-environmental House in history.

And if Republicans gain control of the Senate, the same record will define that body too. That’s the warning from Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Senate candidate running against incumbent Republican Scott Brown.

In a debate last night between the two candidates, Warren responded to a question about the existence of climate change. Her answer: the election is about far more than policy leadership on the issue from a Massachusetts senator, it’s about determining the future of how the entire Senate acts on climate change.

“Sen. Brown has been going around the country, talking to people, saying, you’ve got to contribute to his campaign because it may be for the control of the Senate. And he’s right. … What that would mean is if the Republicans take over control of the Senate, Jim Inhofe would become the person who would be in charge of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency. He’s a man that has called global warming ‘a hoax.’ In fact, that’s the title of his book.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the fiercest climate deniers in Congress. Along with making factually incorrect claims about climate change, Inhofe has also attempted to roll back EPA clean air regulations and stop the military from investing in clean energy technologies. He’s also the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Public Works, a body that deals with a wide range of environmental and infrastructure issues.

Under a GOP-controlled Senate, Inhofe would become Chairman and play a much more prominent role in dictating energy and climate policy.
Read more

by Arpita Bhattacharyya

This year marks the 50^th Anniversary of the release of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, a book often credited with launching the modern environmental movement. As we celebrate recent vital regulations, from new fuel economy standards to carbon pollution standard, it’s important to look back on how one book moved the American public to realize the importance of environmental protection and called the government to action.

In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson broke down four years of research on the harmful impacts of DDT, a pesticide first used to kill malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops during World War II and later used to kill agricultural pests.  The generous use of DDT on crops killed far more than the targeted insects and remained in the environment even after dilution with water.  The consequence?  DDT entered into the food chain and built up in fatty tissues of animals, leading to cancer and genetic damage.  It was dangerous for birds and animals and threatened the entire globe’s food chain. Silent Spring’s most famous chapter detailed a town in which DDT’s effects had “silenced” all animals and residents.  Importantly , however, Carson did not call for a complete ban of DDT.

She wrote:

“It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I do contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm. We have subjected enormous numbers of people to contact with these poisons, without their consent and often without their knowledge.”

Even with this explanation, the chemical industry responded forcefully.  Monsanto, for example, published a brochure titled “The Desolate Year,” warning of famine and disease without the use of DDT.  Yet Carson’s meticulous research, with 55 pages of notes and list of experts, withstood the attacks and was recognized by President John F. Kennedy, who asked the President’s Science Advisory Committee to research Carson’s claims. DDT was eventually banned in 1972.  For the American public, it raised far bigger questions about more than just DDT.  If DDT had this dangerous impact on humans and animals, what other poisons were unknowingly lurking in neighborhoods, water, and food?

The threat of invisible pollutants added to the pollution problems Americans could see and feel in their cities during rapid industrialization.  In the 1940s and 1950s, smog had blanketed major cities and sewage and industrial waste floated in U.S. rivers. In 1948, pollutants trapped over the industrial city of Donora, Pennsylvania killed twenty and permanently injured hundreds.

In these conditions, the publication of Silent Spring lit a spark among environmentalists and the general public alike to address industrial pollution, both the visible and invisible. As the decade went on, teach-ins, TV shows, and various forums educated the public on threats the humans and the environment faced from pollution.  Then in June 1969, the Cuyahoga river caught on fire due to oil slicked debris and pollution from decades of industrial waste. The flaming river was a powerful symbol of the costs of unchecked industrialization, and Americans demanded government action to clean up pollution.

At the end of 1969, President Nixon and Congress sprang into action to address public concerns on the environment.  Congress passed the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that declared a national environmental policy, promoted efforts to protect the environment and public health, and encouraged deeper understanding of the threats humans and ecosystems faced.  Importantly, NEPA called for the federal government to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) for all federal project planning.  NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to advise the President on environmental issues.

On New Year’s Day 1970, Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), stating that he was:

Read more

by Catherine Woodiwiss

This week, the National Climate Summit 2013 Coalition released a petition calling on both Presidential candidates to address rapidly accelerating climate change.

The statement, written and endorsed by over 1300 faith leaders, elected officials, civil rights groups, environmental activists, business representatives, and others, calls on both Presidential candidates to “act in the best interests of this and all future generations of American’s now by publicly acknowledging the climate emergency”; and committing to host a climate summit to craft actions for national solutions within their first 100 days in office.

This is only the latest step in a long, hot summer filled with faith groups demanding that climate change get its place at the table during the last weeks of the election season.

Since the spring, faith groups across the aisle have grown bolder in taking their demands for specific action on energy and climate change to political leaders.  In connection with Earth Week last April, the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate released a Congress report card, which detailed each Member’s record on climate change and clean energy standards. Though each Representative scored differently, the overall grade was a miserable F.

“The U.S. Congress has failed to meaningfully address the rapidly deepening crisis,” said the group. “This is a moral and ethical failure of the highest order.”

And following an Earth Week declaration to the White House that climate change was an election issue, a coalition of young Evangelicals unveiled a new campaign in July: Young Evangelicals for Climate Action.  The group’s main organizing effort, spearheaded by young author and former congressional candidate Ben Lowe, is a social media campaign calling on Presidential candidates to outline their plan of action for addressing climate change.

“The [2012] Presidential election will be the most important one we’ve ever had, or may ever have, when it comes to climate change,” wrote Lowe in July, urging more action on comprehensive climate legislation that includes putting a price on carbon pollution, addressing deforestation and ocean acidification, and providing aid for communities to adapt to existing impacts.

“It’s crucial for President Obama and Governor Romney to make overcoming the climate crisis a campaign promise and a national priority. [But] currently, neither of the major candidates is showing the courageous leadership we need.”

Coming from faithful youth, this censure of failed leadership is a new development in a rising chorus of calls for climate protection from the typically-conservative Evangelical movement. And in this election year, their voices are particularly amplified.

Read more

Compilation via the Sierra Club, NRDC and the National Wildlife Federation

TransCanada will say anything to build its toxic Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would cut through the country. Over the years, TransCanada’s political and PR maneuvering has provided a remarkable timeline of alarming contradictions and lies.

Compiled by the Sierra Club, NRDC, and the National Wildlife Federation, this list of ridiculous flip-flops puts into perspective just how trustworthy this toxic oil company is. Which is to say, it isn’t trustworthy at all. Would you let these guys build a pipeline next to your community and handle some of the most toxic fuels known to humankind?

September 17, 2009: According to TransCanada’s own analysis, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be a boon for corporate profits, but a burden for American consumers.

TransCanada, in testimony to the Canadian National Energy Board, “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.”

December 31, 2009: TransCanada admits Keystone XL would raise gas prices.

TransCanada submits its first permit application.  In the appendix to its application to the Canadian National Energy Board, the company writes, “A Canadian heavy crude producer is expected to realize an increase in the heavy crude price of approximately $3.00 per barrel by avoiding a discount at the [United States Gulf Coast].”

June 2010: Without explaining its 180 degree turn, TransCanada now touts a new study that claims Keystone XL would lower gas prices.

From a study published on TransCanada’s website, “supplies from reliable sources leads to lower costs, thereby putting downward pressure on prices.”

July 21, 2011: TransCanada begins bullying landowners and threatening eminent domain authority.

TransCanada in a letter to Nebraska landowner R. Joe Moller, “This letter is Keystone’s final offer, and it will remain open for one month after the date of this letter or until you reject it.  While we hope to acquire this property through negotiation, if we are unable to do so, we will be forced to invoke the power of eminent domain and will initiate condemnation proceedings against this property promptly after the expiration of this one month period.”

September 9, 2011: Despite its documented bullying, TransCanada now claims that negotiations with landowners have been voluntary and takes credit for successfully appropriating huge chunks of American land.

TransCanada in a press release, “To date, through direct discussions with affected land owners, Keystone XL has negotiated voluntary easement agreements with over 90 percent of Nebraskan landowners and 95 per cent of those landowners in the Sand Hills.”

September 26, 2011: Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, says the route has been “exhaustively analyzed” and claims it would be “next to impossible” to now change it.

Alex Pourbaix in an interview with Postmedia News, “I reminded the governor that this route has been exhaustively analyzed…It would be next to impossible to go back and suggest that any of those inferior routes [be taken].”

According to the Financial Post, “TransCanada contends it would be unacceptable for Nebraska lawmakers to pass ‘after the fact’ legislation to force changes to Keystone XL’s route if it is approved at the federal level.”

Said Alex Pourbaix, “I think the likelihood of that occurring is very slim … What possible new information would be gained by having a state-level siting review?”

October 11, 2011: Pourbaix meets with Nebraska State Senators and once again claims that moving the route would “jeopardize the project.”

Read more

by Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts

Veteran science correspondent Miles O’Brien has weighed in on the PBS NewsHour climate change segment featuring denier Anthony Watts, calling it a “horrible, horrible thing.”

The segment by reporter Spencer Michels — and an accompanying blog post of his interview with Watts 00 were part of the Monday NewsHour broadcast. Asked by Bud Ward, editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, about the segment, O’Brien said that it “reflects badly both on the program and, indirectly, on himself”:

That might raise the question: Why not use veteran science correspondent Miles O’Brien, who NewsHour brought in to cover complex science issues after he and the science staff had been let go by CNN? Climate change is an issue on which O’Brien has done substantial earlier coverage, and it’s a subject he says he is eager to continue reporting on.

There’s an answer to that question, actually. O’Brien said in a phone interview that he is a freelancer with a contract to do 15 science stories a year for NewsHour … specifically excluding climate science. “I’m not in the loop on climate stories,” O’Brien said, characterizing the recent NewsHour broadcast as “a horrible, horrible thing” that he fears reflects badly both on the program and, indirectly, on himself.

The Heartland Institute praised PBS for “attempting to bring balance to the debate over man-made global warming.” Science bloggers, media critics, and the general public have criticized the NewsHour segment as an egregious example of false balance, with the debunked conspiracy theories of Anthony Watts used to “counter” a Koch-funded study that affirms the scientific knowledge of manmade climate change. Scientists are portrayed by Michels as “believers,” as opposed to “skeptics” such as Watts.

The general public has spoken out as well, with over 15,000 people signing a Forecast the Facts petition to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler demanding an investigation of how this violation of PBS journalistic standards made it to broadcast.

The massive and widespread 2012 drought that has gripped the nation since the spring refuses to die, according to the latest report from the U.S. Drought Monitor — and in fact, it’s expanded a little: as of September 18, 64.82 percent of the contiguous U.S. was suffering from at least moderate drought, slightly more than the 64.16 percent reported a week earlier, enough of a gain to set a new record for this drought category. [Climate Central]

The economy in rural parts of 10 Midwest and Western states continued to look weak in September as the drought weighed down agricultural businesses. A new survey of bankers in the region released Thursday showed that the overall economic index remained in negative territory at 48.3 in September. [CBS]

Suburban residents may have noticed an influx of ruby-throated hummingbirds flitting around their backyards this summer. The small birds are looking for food in new places because of the prolonged summer drought, experts said. [Daily Herald]

A team of biologists has just announced the first documented case of bird-to-bird malaria transmission in Alaska. [Climate Central]

Boise endured one of the smokiest days of the year Thursday —  which is saying something in the 2012 summer of smoke — but the air quality remained in the moderate range all day as that smoke stayed up high in the atmosphere. [Idaho Statesman]

Cuts are happening throughout the American wind sector, which includes hundreds of manufacturers, from multinationals that make giant windmills to smaller local manufacturers that supply specialty steel or bolts. In recent months, companies have announced almost 1,700 layoffs. [New York Times]

Insurers and reinsurers should do more to help mitigate the impact of severe weather and climate risks, according to a report issued Thursday by Boston-based Ceres. [Businessweek]

British MPs are calling on Shell and others to halt “reckless” oil and gas drilling in the Arctic until stronger safety measures are put in place. [Guardian]

Representatives of Brazil, South Africa, India and China are meeting to define a common position ahead of November’s United Nations’ climate change conference in Doha. [Washington Post]

Communities with windfarms in their area could get money off their electricity bills or grants for facilities such as playgrounds, the government has suggested. [Guardian]