A federal appeals court ruled that the EPA can regulate the emissions of large power plants in a recent and critical ruling for the environmental movement. It’s a big setback for conservative states and energy trade groups that had been challenging the power of the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that coal and oil fired power plants must be equipped with mechanisms to reduce mercury emissions by some 91 percent under the Clean Air Act.

The opposition was led by a group of conservative states including Michigan, Alaska, and Idaho that claimed the new regulations would cost $9.6 billion and 16,000 jobs in all.

“Congress was focused on the health hazard of emissions and the slowness of EPA regulation of them, and concluded it was reasonable to make decisions without considering costs,” Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote in the opinion, reported in The Washington Post. There was no congressional requirement for the agency to focus on the economic hit.

But the panel may have been swayed by groups like the American Lung Association stating that mercury regulation could prevent some 11,000 premature deaths, 5,000 heart attacks , and 130,000 asthma attacks due to polluted air.

“Today’s legal victory is another giant step forward on the road to cleaner, healthier air,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund said to The Hill. “The court recognized that mercury and other dangerous air toxins from coal-fired power plants are a threat to public health, and that we should all be protected from them. Now we must complete the essential work to achieve these clean air protections for our children and for all Americans.”

Related on EcoSalon

Mercury in Seafood: How Do You Know How Much You Can Safely Eat?

Will Regulating Green House Gas Emissions Be the Dawn of a New Era?

EPA Found Guilty of Violating Their Own Clean Air Act Standards

Image: Martin Nikolaj Bech

The post Win for the Clean Air Act: Court Decides EPA Can Regulate Mercury Emissions appeared first on EcoSalon.

With air pollution on the rise around the world, just breathing could put pregnant women at risk.

Most women realize that certain behaviors are bad for fetal health, so those who use cigarettes or drink regularly often stop during pregnancy. One thing pregnant women can’t stop doing though, is breathing, and according to a recent study about air pollution, that could increase their risk of developing deadly complications such as preeclampsia.

Researchers from the University of Florida found that pregnant women who endure constant exposure to air pollution are significantly more likely to develop a high blood pressure disorder during pregnancy, which causes big problems for mother and fetus.

There are very few places on Earth where air pollution isn’t an issue…even inside our homes. For many years, coal-fired power plants and fossil-fuel powered cars have been chugging air pollution into the atmosphere. This is bad news for any creature that breathes, but researchers found that heavy exposure to four of these air pollutants is especially bad for pregnant women.

“The pollutants include two specific types of fine and coarse particulate matter, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. These inhalable particles are released from industries and forest fires and can form when gases react with each other in the air. Sulfur dioxide is emitted from power plants and industries. Most carbon monoxide is produced by car exhaust,” explains a University of Florida press release.

During the study, the researchers examined data from more than 22,000 women who gave birth in Jacksonville, Florida, between 2004 and 2005, along with environmental data from their communities. More than four percent of these women developed a hypertensive disorder during pregnancy, and even after controlling for factors like socioeconomic status, exposure to co-pollutants and smoking during pregnancy, exposure to air pollutants throughout the first two trimesters of pregnancy was found to increase risk of developing hypertensive disorders such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia and the deadly condition it leads to, eclampsia.

On the basis of these findings, the researchers say more air pollution control is necessary to prevent dangerous complications in pregnant women and babies. Which makes it even more disheartening to learn that the U.S. Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment recently killed a bill that would have allowed the Division of Air Quality to adopt rules that are more stringent than federal regulations.

Apparently when it comes to air pollution, our government thinks the status quo is good enough.

Related on EcoSalon

TV Sunrise is a Fraud, But Extreme Air Pollution in China Isn’t

10 Quick Ways To Detox Your House

Commit Airocide: NASA’s Revolutionary Air Purifier

Image: blmurch

The post For Pregnant Women, Air Pollution Just As Bad As Cigarettes appeared first on EcoSalon.

It’s no secret that anything resembling an environmental protection law that even nods to the possibility of human-induced climate change is under sustained and rabid attack by industry groups and the politicians who represent them. (Okay. Breathing.) The tactic over the last two years has been to go after the EPA, which is charged with creating regulations that abide by these laws. Myriad word bombs and legal challenges over the organization’s ethics and tactics have been lobbed at it by climate change deniers for years now.

Well, the Justice Department just made it clear in legal briefing that if you got a problem with the EPA, you should take it up with Congress. (Note: Today’s the day we take stuff up with Congress.) The government’s environmental watchdog is simply executing on existing law. If you’re a member of Congress, then take it up with yourself. Bottom line? If you don’t like what’s going down, change the law, and leave the EPA out of it.

Here’s the verbiage: As reported in Politico, the filing states that states, industry groups and other groups’ objections to EPA rules (here related primarily to the Clean Air Act) “is not really to EPA’s actions; rather it is to the decisions Congress made and to the strict requirements Congress itself imposed on sources of air pollution.”

So it’s the law, stupid. Well, it’s the law for now, anyway. The target on the back of these laws (and efforts to strengthen and update them) may be more attainable for climate change deniers when you get up tomorrow morning. To be fair, both parties have a problem with the existing antiquated Clean Air Act, though efforts to create new law didn’t make it though Congress as it was the last two years. (So keep in that going forward now, we’re not even talking progress. We’re talking about maintaining whatever footholds have been established in recent decades.)

Consider this: Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the favorite to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee if control of the House changes, says he’s geared up to investigate administration’s “poisonous regulations.” In fact, he told Politico that “If we have the gavel, I can assure you that the oversight subcommittee will be very busy. We’ll have a seat reserved for [the administration’s top climate and energy advisor Carol Browner].” EPA administrator Lisa Jackon would doubtless be spending a lot of time on the Hill, as well.

Attempting to go with a non-partisan note here, we all have varied opinions on what needs to happen in the arena of federal environmental law. Just ask yourself what it is you want and keep that in mind when you, if you haven’t already, go act on your wishes, that is to say, Vote. Now, please.

Image: samantha celera

The post The Law of Land and Sea and Air: Yet <em>Another</em> Reason to Vote! appeared first on EcoSalon.

I don’t know about you, but when elderly lesbian doppelganger slash Republican Lindsey Graham is one of the few Senators espousing a common-sense, ecologically-minded legislative opinion, I pay attention. Complete with a double spit-take and a heaping helping of “WHAAA?”

Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, firing the next salvo in the knock-out grudge match between Alaskans and the Earth, has sponsored a bill that would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s right to regulate air pollutants. Even though that’s, you know, what the EPA does. The core argument is that Congress should be regulating environmental policy, not an actual environmental regulatory group. Here’s where the startling sanity of Lindsey Graham comes into play: “If we stop them [the EPA], are we going to do anything?” Three guesses and a prize of their choice to the lucky winner.

The Murkowski bill counts at least 40 co-sponsors (including Democrats from Arkansas, Nebraska, and Louisiana). Several other Democrats from coal states have not yet stated which way they will vote, leaving open the possibility that the bill will find the 51 votes it needs to pass.

Since Obama’s climate bill hasn’t yet passed, the EPA’s Clean Air Act is the only governmental means of cutting carbon emissions currently available. There’s also nothing stopping Congress from crafting its own energy legislation in addition to whatever actions the EPA takes. But a consensus on energy policy in Congress is a long way off. Depending on which way the vote goes this afternoon, the reality of effective greenhouse emissions regulations may become just as distant. With Democrats scrambling to protect corporate profits and Republicans speaking up for sensible environmental protection (and no legislative consensus or leadership in sight), the score could very well be Alaska 1, Earth 0.

Image: dbaron

The post The Audacity of Doing Your Job: Lindsey Graham Steps Up For the EPA appeared first on EcoSalon.

A bill sponsored by Senators on both sides of the aisle is up for review, but whether it pays more than lip service to pursuing clean energy remains to be seen:

On Monday, Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will launch their bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill. I’m quite certain there will be something in it to dissatisfy everyone.

No bill that could pass Congress right now or in the immediate future would be sufficient to put us on the path to stabilizing the world at 2°C. We simply aren’t sufficiently desperate to do what is needed, which is nonstop deployment of a staggering amount of low-carbon energy, including efficiency, for the rest of the century.

Continue reading the full story over on Grist.

Editor’s note: Article by Joseph Romm. Originally published by our friends at Grist.org. Grist is a media organization that has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a humorous twist since 1999. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Grist on Twitter, too!

Image: exothermic

The post What to Look for in the Bipartisan Climate and Clean Energy Jobs Bill appeared first on EcoSalon.

On April 17th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.

This opens the door to regulating the six main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)) under the Clean Air Act. A 60-day comment period in effect until June 23rd.

This ruling could be the beginning of our government finally taking action on global warming. Currently, greenhouse gases are not considered “pollutants”. If this rule holds it will have sweeping implications for the largest greenhouse gas emitters, and could set us on the path toward a green economy.

Expect a fight. Three major industries would be heavily affected by this proposed regulation.

Coal, Cars, and Cows

Coal-fired power plants are some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. According to Reuters, the coal industry would rather see greenhouse gases regulated by legislation, presumably because the coal states hold a lot of sway in Congress.

According to Grist, automakers will be one of the first on the list to be regulated because “they’re perceived as the lower-hanging fruit.”

California has long been trying to regulate tailpipe emissions, but in 2005 the Bush administration denied the state a waiver that would have allowed it to implement tougher standards than the federal standards. President Obama has said he supports granting the waiver to California, a move automakers oppose.

Cows and other ruminant animals emit methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than Co2, so this regulation could have a huge impact on large-scale farm operations and force agribusiness to pay pollution fines.

According to Farm Policy, former U.S. Agriculture Secretary, Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), is already co-sponsoring legislation to protect livestock producers from what is being called a “cow tax.”

Supporters of the regulation claim this will be the dawn of a new clean economy, creating thousands of high-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. Opponents say it’s just too expensive and it will kill our economy and take the jobs that are left along with it.

Further Reading:

CBS 5
LA Times

Image: SF Brit

The post Will Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act Be the Dawn of a New Era? appeared first on EcoSalon.