Author: Main Feed – Environmental Defense

Climate and clean energy legislation got strong support today from an unlikely source — Frank Luntz, the prominent Republican pollster.

Luntz's firm, The Word Doctors, just finished a national poll of more than 1,000 American voters. He unveiled the results of that poll [PDF] this morning at a news conference with EDF President Fred Krupp and NRG Energy's CEO David Crane.

The bottom line: Americans are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment.

Luntz says:

Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think. A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike.

And even those that don’t still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.

(You can play the audio of the entire event at the bottom of this post.)

Here are some of the most interesting results from the poll:

• A majority of Americans believe climate change is occurring and is caused at least in part by humans. Only a small minority — 18 percent — do not believe climate change is real. (Those numbers stay about the same if you call it "global warming.")
• 57 percent agreed with the statement: It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change. It is still in America's best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe.
• National security is the main reason that people support cap and trade. Across the demographic board, people liked the idea that clean energy will: liberate us from this oil addiction.

This is the latest in a long line of polls that show Americans want clean energy. But Luntz's reputation as longtime Republican advisor may give this one extra political resonance.

Luntz said his data shows a bipartisan consensus on the issue and provides a road map for getting legislation passed.

EDF's Fred Krupp summed it up:

Frank’s research proves that that no matter who Americans voted for in 2008, in 2010 they want to see Congress act on climate legislation. It’s a national security priority, it’s a crucial means to reduce pollution, and it’s essential to creating permanent American jobs.

Complete audio recording of the news conference.

Today, EDF announced the first 20 companies that have signed on to our Climate Corps program for summer 2010. It’s amazing how far this program has come since we launched it two years ago.

We piloted the program in 2008 with just seven MBA students placed in Bay Area companies. Those students didn’t know what exactly they were in for, and frankly, neither did we. But together, they found $35 million in savings through energy efficiency. Even more impressive: the companies actually followed their recommendations. To date, projects that account for 97% of those energy savings have either been achieved or are underway.

Last summer we nearly quadrupled the program, placing 26 fellows in organizations throughout the country. Those Climate Corps fellows helped their host companies identify net operating savings of more than $54 million. These projects could also reduce energy use by more than 160 million kWh a year—enough to power 14,000 homes—and avoid more than 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year.

As Gwen Ruta (vice president corporate partnerships) says, “The rapid growth of Climate Corps speaks volumes about the value it delivers to companies and the real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions it achieves.”

Consider these results:

Ryan Whisnant of the University of Michigan worked at SunGard, an IT services firm. Although SunGard had already implemented many energy-saving measures at its headquarters before Whisnant started his Climate Corps fellowship, his diligent attention uncovered lighting timer errors that resulted in 1/3 of the open floor lighting remaining on during non-business hours. According to Whisnant, fixing this problem in just one building could save SunGard nearly $20,000 annually. SunGard is one of the companies that has already signed on to host another fellow in 2010.

I also love the story about Chris Anderson and Ahold. During one facility tour, Anderson found himself looking at freezer doors, wondering why some had heaters while others had more energy efficient anti-fog film. With some additional research, he uncovered an anti-fog product that could be retrofitted on existing doors which, if implemented across most of Ahold’s stores, could reduce CO2 emissions by 26,000 metric tons per year . EDF didn’t train Chris in the most efficient freezer door models, but he saw an opportunity and ran with it.

We’ve got a great group of companies signed on for 2010 so far – some returning for the second or even the third year. And it’s not only the companies that are impressive: the students come from top-tier MBA programs including Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Yale.

Not only are we creating real business value for leading corporations, but we’re also training the next generation of business leaders. We are grateful to have Net Impact as our strategic partner in growing Climate Corps.

We’re now matching interns to companies for the summer of 2010. There’s still time to reach out to us if your company hasn’t signed on yet. For more information and details on how to host a fellow, visit www.edf.org/climatecorps.

What would you do if you were suddenly given $10,000?

I've been ruminating that question since last week's release of APTA’s monthly "The Transit Savings Report." The report figures that a transit rider living in Los Angeles could save $10,052 a year by avoiding the costs of parking, fuel, insurance and general auto operations. In New York, the annual savings amount to $13,765. Average savings are at $9,240. 

I like round numbers, so I'd settle for just $10,000 in savings. I asked some of my co-workers how they'd spend the money. One responsible respondent said she'd pay off student loans or put the money toward a down payment on a house, and another chimed in about those student loans. One said he'd buy a bicycle (my favorite notion) and put the rest into the stock market. Two said they'd devote at least a portion of the money to travel and the other half to aid Haiti—you can see why I regard my co-workers as among the kindest folks on the planet.

One of the thriftiest among the group had a list of seven options, including paying those student loans (a common obligation around here), traveling, visiting family, and buying new clothes. One would pay a year's worth of rent, buy a season pass at Squaw Valley, and spend what's left on exotic—and presumably low-budget—travel. Another would fix his roof. Maybe he would have had a different answer if it wasn't raining.

There's a trend here. Saving money by riding transit can stimulate the economy. A car that spends most of its time parked (and eating fuel when it’s rolling), can really strain a personal budget. It can prevent us from doing what we think is most important.

Not everyone has access to good transit, and lately, with transit cuts spreading across the country, access to good transit is in danger. But imagine what a difference it would make if the Senate passed a jobs bill that put a lot of new money into keeping buses and light rail running, and bus and rail drivers employed? Jobs would be saved; transit riders could continue to depend on transit; people could think about spending on things other than parking and fuel. They could replenish student loan banks, jumpstart the housing market, and help the people of an island nation that's been devastated by an earthquake.

They could do all these things and go about their everyday travel in a way that reduces air pollution from transportation. Under perfect conditions, a full conventional bus could displace 30 to 40 carbon-fueled car trips.

The Senate hasn't released its version of the jobs bill yet, but the House version falls short of ideal in the transportation funding area. It provides about $6 billion to urban transit, and of that, only 10 percent, or about $600 million, is available for operations. I say only because $600 million is less than one year's worth of operations funding cut by the state legislature and governor in California during the last few years of disappointing budget deals. That's just one state.

If Congress wants to save jobs, it needs to give a bigger share of the transportation pie to transit and allow more of it to be spent keeping transit drivers at work. Then the rest of us can start putting our annual transportation savings to work and get the economy rolling again, even as we reduce pollution.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign, of which EDF is a founding member, is releasing an important report today: "The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act." This report connects the growing number of dots linking chemical exposures to a number of serious chronic diseases that are rising in incidence. These include certain types of cancer, including childhood cancers; learning and developmental disabilities; Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease; reproductive health and fertility problems in both women and men; and asthma.

The report provides a succinct review of the state of the science in each of these areas, and argues that the U.S. has an opportunity to help ameliorate both the rise in these chronic diseases and their associated health care costs — by enacting comprehensive reform of our nation's policies addressing the safety of chemicals.

Check out the report and news release.

The many varieties of Commons we've been describing in the EDFix calls have a wide range of governance mechanisms, from Linus Torvalds' benevolent dictatorship over Linux to emissions trading markets and simple arrangements among neighbors about when to pasture their cattle or sheep. Some functional mechanisms can be very elaborate, like the water-temple rituals in Bali.

One useful model for thinking about goods in the Commons is the four-square matrix at the bottom of this page in Wikipedia, which maps excludability against rivalry, dividing the world into four categories of goods: private goods, common pool resources, public goods and club goods. (There'll be a quiz on the call.)

Charlotte Hess and Jesse Ribot have been deepening our common understanding of this territory. They will join us on Monday, January 25, 2010, for EDFix Call #5, as part of our quest to define the "Sustainability Commons." Join us on the call at noon ET (9am PT) at:

• Phone number: +1 (213) 289-0500
• Code: 267-6815

If you'd like to get announcements about upcoming EDFix conference calls and the results with podcast releases, please sign-up here:

Our bitter cold winter has become one of the hottest topics of conversation in America.

Specifically, people are talking about how a severe cold snap can occur at the same time as global warming. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the debate on the Washington Post website. In this post, I’ll try to clear up two of the issues that emerged from that debate:

1. What does a particular cold spell say about global warming, and
2. If the recent cold spell doesn’t disprove global warming, does that also mean that other kinds of extreme weather, like heat waves, aren't caused by global warming?

Climate versus weather

All of the Post’s panelists were careful enough to explain the difference between weather and climate: Climate refers to the average weather over a long period. For the most part, they did not fall for the common mistake of interpreting a cold spell as evidence against global warming.

Here's what's been happening with the weather recently: There have indeed been below-average temperatures recently in much of the eastern U.S. and in parts of Europe, Russia, northern China, and northern India. But at the same time, there were above-average temperatures in the western U.S., eastern Canada and Greenland, some other parts of the Arctic, North Africa and Central Asia, as this map shows.

This distinct pattern of temperatures was caused by an unusually persistent version of an atmospheric flow pattern known as a “Greenland block.” This Greenland block diverted frigid Arctic air far to the south in eastern North America and Europe. (More about it on the Weather Channel: "Why So Cold? Blame the Greenland Block.")

It’s important to look at weather events like cold snaps in context—we can have a relatively brief spell of cold weather in certain regions even while the global climate is warming. All the evidence shows that the world overall has been warming over the past several decades. (See a chart in a post on this same topic by Lisa Moore in 2008.)

So how do we know if the climate is warming? We look at a wide range of long-term trends. Along with rising air and ocean temperatures, the other signs of a warming climate include rising sea level, retreat of glaciers in most regions, rapid shrinkage of summer sea ice in the Arctic, and shifts in species distributions and seasonal behavior.

Global warming does cause more extreme weather

Although the Post’s panelists were accurate on the first issue, there could have been more discussion on the fact that global warming does have an effect on some kinds of extreme weather. One of the panelists even claimed that extreme events like heat waves cannot be used as evidence of global warming. That is wrong, so let's look at how the frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather events are expected to increase under global warming.

Records indicate that there has already been an increase in intensity and frequency of heat waves and heavy rainfall in many parts of the world over the past several decades. (See “Frequently Asked Question” number 3.3 excerpted from the 2007 IPCC report [PDF].) Why? Global warming drives a rise in average temperature and atmospheric moisture, promoting more heat waves and torrential downpours. On top of that, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns caused by global warming are also thought to contribute to stronger heat waves.

There will still be variations from year to year, but on average, these extreme events will increase over time as the Earth warms. On the other hand, extremely cold temperatures are becoming less common — but can still occur — as heat builds up in the climate system.

Of course, individual weather events should not be blamed on global warming, just as an individual cold snap doesn’t disprove global warming. EDF has been careful not to attribute individual events to global warming. Instead, we point to examples of what we expect to see more and more of in the future if we don’t fight global warming.

And with the trends in extreme weather we’re already seeing, that future ain’t lookin’ pretty.

Capitalizing on the momentum of Environmental Defense Fund’s groundbreaking Green Portfolio partnership with leading private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR), we are taking our Private Equity show on the road to one of the most visible and well-attended conferences, the Dow Jones PE Analyst Outlook 2010 in New York City, January 25^th – 27^th.

The event will include perspectives from elite institutional investors, fund managers and advisors about the major PE investing trends for 2010, including a focus on environmental performance.

Environmental Defense Fund will be the first and only NGO to attend the conference, and Tom Murray will speak on a panel about where investors should focus in 2010. He’ll introduce attendees to our Green Returns program, an innovative and flexible approach designed to create business and environmental value for the private equity sector that was developed as part of EDF’s partnership with KKR.

Tom's panel will also include speakers from top PE funds 3i, THL and Huntsman Gay, all of which take a hands-on approach to investing in their portfolio companies.

I look forward to hearing what role the top representatives of the private equity sector sees for environmental innovation in 2010 and beyond. Share your ideas and best practices with us here.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Tomorrow's Federal Register will contain a short notice from EPA that partially corrects a decades-old Agency practice that has denied the public access to the identity of chemicals that present substantial risks.

This welcome action begins to pull back the curtain on the chemical secrecy that has been a hallmark of life for the public under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As I noted in a previous post, this action is one of a host of changes needed to remedy the major excesses and abuses of confidentiality under TSCA. EPA's action makes clear that some things can be done even as we await TSCA reform.

Here's what EPA's notice outlines as the new policy and practice, to take effect immediately:

If, in submitting a "notice of substantial risk" as required under Section 8(e) of TSCA, a company claims the identity of the chemical in question to be confidential business information (CBI), EPA will:

1. review the claim at the time of submission;
2. generally deny the claim if the chemical is on the public portion of the TSCA Inventory (i.e., was not claimed CBI in that context); and
3. inform the submitter of that decision in a manner that constitutes a final EPA action and hence is not challengeable except via judicial review.

What's changing?

All three of these steps represent significant departures from the status quo:

First, EPA will actually review such claims as they come in, to determine whether they are consistent with the new policy or not. In the past, EPA has rarely reviewed such claims ever, let alone at the time of submission, with the result being that virtually all such claims were by default allowed to persist in perpetuity.

The Federal Register notice forthrightly acknowledges this past practice: 

"Previously, EPA's general practice had been to redact chemical identity from TSCA section 8(e) postings where the identity was claimed CBI even when the chemical identity was listed on the public portion of the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory."

Second, EPA is putting prospective claimants on notice that, when reviewing such claims, "EPA expects to find that the chemical identity clearly is not entitled to confidential treatment." This effectively reverses prior policy and practice, under which such claims were presumed to be legitimate even without actual review of them.

Third, EPA's decisions will be communicated to the claimant via a "determination letter" that represents a final Agency action. In the past, EPA has often had to engage in a prolonged song-and-dance exchange of letters with claimants as a prelude to making a final decision – chewing up precious Agency resources and hence drastically curbing the number of EPA challenges of CBI claims.

What's the basis for the change?

EPA's new policy is based on the common-sense notion that the identity of a chemical that is already known to the public – by virtue of it being listed on the public part of the TSCA Inventory – has already been disclosed, and hence cannot be claimed CBI in a different context.

EPA also notes that, by the way, this new policy is consistent with a core part of its mission: "To promote public understanding of the potential risks posed by chemicals in commerce."

Why this is only a first step towards what's needed

EPA's action is a great first step, but it's only that. Unless EPA goes further, its new policy will still deny the public access to the identity of many other chemicals posing substantial risk – but whose identities have been masked as CBI and hence don't appear on the public portion of the TSCA Inventory.

(Indeed, I suspect that most of the chemicals with identities claimed CBI in Section 8(e) notices are also claimed CBI on the TSCA Inventory. EPA did not but should provide such statistics, so that the magnitude of the change it's making – and of the larger problem – can be better gauged.)

Here's why EPA must go further:

First, public interest must trump private interest.

While TSCA provides wide latitude for companies submitting information to EPA to claim it CBI, one bright spot – in theory – is that TSCA prohibits granting CBI status to data from health and safety studies (see section 14(b)).

Why would Congress, when drafting TSCA, have gone out of its way to carve out an exemption from CBI eligibility for data from health and safety studies – effectively establishing the public's right to know such information – only to render impotent that right by denying the public the right to know to which chemical the data apply? That makes no sense.

In its regulations, EPA itself has defined the identity of a chemical to be an integral part of a health and safety study (see here and here).

EPA's regulations also acknowledge the primacy of public over private interest. Part 2 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations lays out EPA's regulatory provisions governing "public information," including procedures to be followed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Look at this interesting provision found in Section 2.202(d):

"If two or more of the sections containing special rules apply to the particular information in question, and the applicable sections prescribe conflicting special rules for the treatment of the information, the rule which provides greater or wider availability to the public of the information shall govern." (emphasis added)

But as is so often the case under TSCA, what TSCA giveth with one hand it taketh away with the other.

TSCA provides an exception to the exception for health and safety data: In disclosing such data, EPA cannot make public data that discloses either:

• "processes used in the manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance or mixture" or
• in the case of a mixture, "the portion of the mixture comprised by any of the chemical substances in the mixture."

Based presumably on this provision of TSCA, EPA regulations provide certain conditions under which a company may assert a confidentiality claim for the identity of a chemical – even when associated with a health and safety study. It should be noted, however, that these regulations only apply to new, not existing, chemicals. Moreover, they state that EPA will deny such a claim unless the claimant demonstrates that "the specific chemical identity is not necessary to interpret a health and safety study." See 40 CFR §720.90(c)(3).

I ask you: How on earth could it not be essential to know the identity of a chemical in order to understand health and safety information about that chemical?

Finally, the astute reader will notice that nothing in TSCA's exception to the rule that health and safety data must be made public speaks to chemical identity. Only the divulgence of information describing how a chemical is made or processed, or revealing how much of a given chemical is in a mixture, is excepted.

I suspect that some talented chemical industry lawyers have racked up many billable hours devising arguments as to why EPA must interpret such a limited provision so broadly as to extend it all the way to including something never mentioned at all in the provision: chemical identity.

I would argue that such an interpretation flies in the face of:

• the express words of TSCA,
• the clear intent of Congress to provide public access to health and safety information,
• the core principles of right-to-know and the primacy of public over private interest,
• sound public policy, and
• last but not least, plain old common sense.

So I welcome EPA's action as a good first step in correcting a particularly egregious example of chemical secrecy under TSCA. It appears that EPA sees it as a first step toward addressing this problem as well: Its Federal Register notice describes the new policy as "part of a broader effort to increase transparency and provide more valuable information to the public." Other recent actions announced by EPA fit this mold. For example, its disclosure of the identities of 530 chemicals on the TSCA Inventory previously exclude as CBI; and its proposal to require disclosure of the identities of inert ingredients in pesticide formulations.

I also look forward to the next installment in EPA's effort.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to implement a new rule this year that can help improve our understanding of sea turtles and how the fishing industry interacts with them. This is good news because the current data on “sea turtle interactions” isn’t very plentiful in most fisheries. The rule would be important because managers need to understand the activities that affect sea turtles so they can develop effective conservation programs that recover threatened and endangered populations, such as Loggerhead sea turtles.

The rule would work by identifying fisheries in state and federal waters that will be required, upon NMFS’ request, to take scientific observers on fishing trips to gather information about the number of sea turtles encountered and the types of interactions. Several fisheries would be put on a list, called an Annual Determination, and would be subject to carrying observers for 5 years. NMFS is proposing to include fisheries such as trawl fisheries and gillnet fisheries in this Annual Determination.

In addition to the use of observers, NMFS should consider using new technologies (such as at-sea video monitoring) that can be cost effective and may allow an increase in the level of monitoring, especially in fisheries where accommodating an observer is difficult. 

Good data will help NMFS evaluate existing sea turtle protections and develop better management measures. Regulations based on good data, sound science, and industry, accountability can improve management of sea turtles and help rebuild endangered populations.

The start of a new year is a time to look forward, get a gym membership, and make resolutions. Here at Way2Go, we decided to follow the lead of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and make a transportation wish list for 2010, carrying over the best from '09 and adding some new goals for the upcoming decade.

• Fix-it-First: Federal funding for transportation infrastructure improvements should be prioritized so that existing roads and bridges are repaired before we expand our system. This saves money in the long run and provides immediate jobs.
• Restore American transit and transit manufacturing jobs: This past year has seen many drivers and transit manufacturing jobs lost. Let's fix local agency budget gaps, restore transit service, and get these Americans back to work.
• Tailored mass transit: We'd like to see more Federal funding for transit that provides more choice, like rural transit in the San Joaquin Valley, CA and flexible suburban bus routes in Prince William County, VA.
• Passenger rail: The White House's and Joe Biden's interest in rail has been all over the news. We’d like to see reliable and faster passenger rail in the US. Kick back and see the US without long security lines and with mismatched socks.
• Pedestrian safety: People should have a diversity of transportation choices. Feet (and sometimes skis) matter, too–though sometimes it doesn’t seem like it. Let's make it easier and safer to walk with smart designs like Project for Public Space's work in New York City.
• Bicycle safety: More bike boxes, safe bike networks, and fewer accidents.
• Modernized, cleaner freight: Funding for a freight system that is efficient and provides environmental benefits. Our freight system is expected to grow 80% in the next 10 years, and we need solutions to reduce pollution and congestion.
  

  Innovative data programs like New York MTA’s make it easier for people to take transit. Courtesy NYC MTA.

• Real-time data: At the very least, riders should know when the next bus is coming. Transit agencies should continue to communicate with riders via social media programs, like Twitter, Facebook, Flikr, and blogs. We also encourage social media innovations like San Francisco County Transportation Authority's bike data iPhone and Android app, a user-driven app that allows bikers to map their routes and help SFCTA gather data are creative solutions and New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority's open source data for app developers (check out their very cool short film).
• Pay-as-you-drive insurance: Let's incentivize reduced VMT and get PAYD in every state, so drivers can opt for an insurance policy that best reflects their lifestyle.
• Smart pricing: In 2010 we'd like to see broader adoption of smart parking policies, such as parking cash-out. We also look forward to the release of and San Francisco's pricing study examining the benefits of applying cordon pricing, that's proven successful in Europe, to reduce pollution and improve transportation.

Today the Monterey Bay Aquarium – with whom Environmental Defense Fund partners on its Seafood Selector – updated its popular Seafood Watch pocket guides. A number of new and revised rankings were part of the update, including the first-ever farmed salmon to reach the ‘Green’ (Best Choice) list.

Perhaps the most notable new ranking is for Alaska pollock, which was moved from ‘Green’ (Best Choice) to ‘Yellow’ (Good Alternative). If you’ve never heard of pollock, it’s related to cod and is actually the fourth most popular seafood item in America. It’s the whitefish used in fish sticks, fish filet sandwiches, and surimi (imitation crab meat). Pollock is the largest fishery in the United States (and the largest food-fish fishery in the world), with annual catches averaging two billion pounds.

Some people may interpret the ‘Good Alternative’ ranking to mean that the Alaska pollock is no longer sustainable. Rather, Monterey Bay Aquarium’s new report, which took more than a year to write, highlights some environmental challenges facing the fishery, but ultimately concludes that pollock is still a good choice for both seafood consumers and businesses. (This fact was confirmed yesterday when the pollock fishery was recommended for re-certification to the Marine Stewardship Council).

Here’s a brief outline of Monterey Bay Aquarium’s findings:

1. Pollock biology
The good news: Pollock mature quickly, are short-lived and reproduce often, making them resilient to fishing pressure. Important spawning areas are also off-limits to fishing.

2. Status of pollock stocks
The good news: pollock populations are not overfished, and are still considered healthy;
The bad news: they have steadily declined from all-time highs earlier this decade. The stock is also influenced by changing environmental conditions, and climate change is affecting the Bering Sea faster than many other places on Earth.
Outlook: Fishing quotas have been reduced in each of the last four years to account for less pollock, and the latest projections show the stock rebounding by 2012.

3. Bycatch
The good news: the pollock fishery is one of the ‘cleanest’ – averaging less than 1% bycatch relative to overall catch.
The bad news: bycatch of chinook salmon – a commercially and culturally important species in coastal Alaskan communities – steadily increased from 2001-2007, peaking at 120,000 fish.
Outlook: the pollock industry instituted a voluntary bycatch avoidance program in 2008 that helped reduce salmon bycatch by more than 80% in just two years. Additional regulations are scheduled to go into effect in 2011.

4. Habitat & ecosystem impacts
The good news: the latest government study concluded that groundfish fisheries (including pollock) have only minimal and temporary impacts on the Bering Sea floor.
The bad news: the study also showed that midwater pollock trawls contact the bottom more than originally thought (~44% of the time), which reduces sensitive habitat features in parts of the Bering Sea. There are also concerns about the effect of the fishery on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals.
Outlook: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has closed sensitive areas to pollock fishing in an effort to protect bottom habitats and important marine mammal sites. Additionally, new science will continue to identify sensitive areas in need of protection.

5. Management
The good news: the pollock fishery is managed by one of the strongest catch share management systems in the world. It is well-equipped to tackle conservation challenges quickly and effectively, and features a number of characteristics shared by few others:

• The pollock fleet regularly catches less than their quota, meaning that in many years, they intentionally leave millions of pounds of fish in the water;
• The North Pacific Council has set the Total Allowable Catch at or below the levels recommended by its scientific advisory body every year since 1977;
• Most pollock vessels have 100% observer coverage – which is paid for by industry – minimizing the government’s cost to effectively manage this fishery;
• The cooperative nature of the pollock fleet means they can share information and respond to environmental issues – such as salmon bycatch – in real-time (as opposed to the slower nature of the Council process);
• The pollock management plan features a number of protections for the marine ecosystem at-large, including a provision to ensure that pollock populations are large enough to provide adequate food for marine mammals and other predators;
• The management system and the pollock industry cooperatively collect an unprecedented amount of scientific information about the fishery and the marine ecosystem. These data are used for stock assessments, monitoring quotas and bycatch, assessing habitat and ecosystem impacts, and improving the conservation and management of marine resources in Alaska.

The bottom line is that pollock remains a sustainable seafood choice for both consumers and businesses. The fishery has demonstrated unparalleled sustainability leadership in the past and is well-positioned to address new environmental issues. Their innovative catch share management system is more responsive than conventional approaches, meaning they can identify and address issues as they arise (as opposed to most fisheries, which often find out once it’s too late). Finally, all Monterey Bay Aquarium and Environmental Defense Fund seafood rankings are updated as new information emerges, meaning any changes in the pollock fishery will quickly be reflected in future assessments.

We recently interviewed three EDF scientists on the climate crisis and how important it is that we act now.

Read our Climate Crossroads Q&A.

You can also pose your own climate questions below and we'll get back to you here in the Green Room.

Laura Harnish is the California Regional Director.

We here at EDF are saddened by the catastrophe that has struck Haiti and the stark realization that things will continue to get worse as the shortage of freshwater begins to claim even more lives. Read Peter Gleick’s blog about how the need for freshwater is critical in Haiti.

Although we are consumed in our daily lives with California's "water crisis" this is an excruciating reminder that many other areas of the world are much more vulnerable to water shortages, especially in a disaster.

Give what you can to support Haiti in this time of crisis. Two good organizations to donate to are: the Red Cross  or Doctors Without Borders.

And don’t forget to have an emergency preparedness kit to deal with an earthquake or other natural disaster in California. For more information go to 72 Hours.

The proposed $3 billion petroleum coke-fired Las Brisas power plant in Corpus Christi suffered another setback Friday when the executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) said two significant environmental questions were not adequately answered by the plant's permit application.

The agency's own Executive Director (ED) recommended to remand the application for additional data. This follows hard on the heels of a brief by the TCEQ's internal Office of Public Interest Counsel (OPIC), which last month recommended denial of the permit for a list of reasons that closely mirrored those outlined in our own Environmental Defense Fund brief in permit hearings last fall.

In replying to our brief, TCEQ's executive director recommended that the application be sent back for a better analysis of the potential air pollution resulting from the dockside handling of enormous quantities of pet coke and limestone for the plant. He also agreed that the applicant's emissions modeling for the plant was flawed and should be revisited.

EDF's attorney, Tom Weber, said the agency’s filing was encouraging, but he said there are other serious problems with the Las Brisas application that aren't being addressed. "We're pleased that the TCEQ’s executive director recognizes the clear deficiencies in Las Brisas’ application regarding modeling of pollutant emissions," Weber said. "However, Las Brisas’ application should also be denied because it fails to analyze whatsoever hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns, both of which can cause significant health problems especially in children and senior citizens."

Still, the executive director's reply brief represents a second setback for the Las Brisas application from within TCEQ itself and should make it very difficult for the three-member commission to approve the application unless a number of serious problems with the carbon-intensive plant are first addressed.

New evidence has emerged that underscores the global climate threat and the need for an effective climate bill. These are just the 10 most startling global warming facts we learned in 2009.

1. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher today than at any time in measurable history.

A study published in the journal Science reports that the current level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere — about 390 parts per million — is higher today than at any time in measurable history — at least the last 2.1 million years. Previous peaks of CO2 were never more than 300 ppm over the past 800,000 years, and the concentration is rising by around 2 ppm each year.

2. 2000-2009 was the hottest decade.

The World Meterological Organization reported that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record, with 8 of the hottest 10 years having occurred since 2000.

3. 2009 will end up as one of the 5 hottest years.

2009 will end up as one of the 5 hottest years since 1850 and the U.K.’s Met Office predicts that, with a moderate El Niño, 2010 will likely break the record.

4. Arctic ice cover – already perilously thin – is vulnerable to further melting.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that while a bit more summer Arctic sea ice appeared in 2009 than the record breaking lows of the last two years, it was still well below normal levels. Given that the Arctic ice cover remains perilously thin, it is vulnerable to further melting, posing an ever-increasing threat to Arctic wildlife, including polar bears.

5. The Arctic summer could be ice-free by mid-century — sooner than scientists expected.

The Arctic summer could be ice-free by mid-century, not at the end of the century as previously expected, according to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

6. The East Antarctica ice sheet – thought to be colder and more stable that the West – is also shrinking.

Recent observations published in the highly respected Nature Geosciences indicate that the East Antarctica ice sheet has been shrinking. This surprised researchers, who expected that only the West Antarctic ice sheet would shrink in the near future because the East Antarctic ice sheet is colder and more stable.

7. Climate changes are already observed in the United States and are projected to grow.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program completed an assessment of what is known about climate change impacts in the U.S. and reported that, “Climate changes are already observed in the United States and…are projected to grow.” These changes include “increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.”

8. Slight changes in the climate may trigger abrupt threats to ecosystems.

According to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey, slight changes in the climate may trigger abrupt threats to ecosystems that are not easily reversible or adaptable, such as insect outbreaks, wildfire, and forest dieback. “More vulnerable ecosystems, such as those that already face stressors other than climate change, will almost certainly reach their threshold for abrupt change sooner.” An example of such an abrupt threat is the outbreak of spruce bark beetles throughout the western U.S. caused by increased winter temperatures that allow more beetles to survive.

9. Coastal wetlands from New York to North Carolina could be lost.

The EPA, USGS and NOAA issued a joint report warning that most mid-Atlantic coastal wetlands from New York to North Carolina will be lost with a sea level rise of 1 meter or more.

10. U.S. production of corn, soybeans and cotton could decrease as much as 82%.

If we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century, some of the main fruit and nut tree crops currently grown in California may no longer be economically viable, as there will be a lack of the winter chilling they require. And, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. production of corn, soybeans and cotton could decrease as much as 82%.

Take action to fight these effects of global warming and support the clean energy future »

Cynthia Koehler is Senior Attorney and California Water Legislative Director for EDF.

This weekend’s Celebration of the Life of Tom Graff at the Scottish Rite Temple in Oakland was all that one might imagine. Hundreds of Tom’s friends, family, fans, colleagues old and new came together to share favorite stories, fond memories, laughs and of course a tear or two, or more, for California’s foremost eco-Godfather (or Delta Force, as a legal rag once notably labeled Tom). Looking out over the standing-room only crowd filled with public officials, water agency folk, enviros and so many friends, it was impossible not to be struck by Tom’s extraordinary reach and breadth.

Speaker after speaker noted not only Tom’s braininess, strategic acumen, and analytical skill but also and more critically, the man’s fundamental humanity, his graciousness, kindness, unfailing humor, love of life, family and his fundamental regard for people of all stripes. Not merely an ardent and effective “lawyer for fish,” Tom was a listener, a teacher, the one in the room who could find the way to ‘yes’ without compromising integrity or principle.

My own association with Tom began more than 20 years ago in a courtroom presided over by a massive pink plastic salmon hung on the wall by a judge determined to keep the lawyers’ collective eyes on the prize. That trial resulted in the famous Hodge flows to protect salmon on the Lower American River, and marked a turning point in California’s water history. The recent Delta legislation may well prove to be another such turning point, and was an effort that Tom followed with intense interest.

In our conversations about the bill’s progress over the course of the summer and fall, Tom’s focus – just like all those years ago on the American River — was on the public trust flows, the eco-requirements of the natural world and how to most effectively assure them over time. Certainly Tom did not support the water bond, and was disappointed (as were we all) when the beneficiary pays and fee provisions were excised from the package. But he was quite pleased that through all of the negotiations the bill retained the provision directing the SWRCB to determine the Delta’s public trust needs, and he exhorted us to retain the primacy of the public trust, something the bill does explicitly.

Tom passed the morning that the Delta legislation was signed, and standing on the levee listening to the Governor give the first of what would be many tributes, it struck me that Tom’s reaction to the final product most likely would have been to grin and say, with his trademark twinkle, “Good job, but let’s get more next time.” Absolutely. Ensuring that the environmental promise of the Delta legislation becomes a reality is perhaps one of best legacies we can strive for in the wake of this extraordinary man

Nearly four decades after the passage of the Clean Air Act, more than half of all Americans still live in areas that don’t meet clean-air standards. Dirty air increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer and respiratory problems. While everyone suffers some harm, the 22 million Americans with asthma are particularly vulnerable.

Industrial chemicals are accumulating in our bodies, as well as in animals, plants, land and water yet we know very little about their safety.

Human health and the environment are inextricably intertwined. Environmental Defense Fund is working to tackle these issues, the most serious threats impacting our nation today:

• unhealthy air and
• exposure to toxic chemicals.

Breakthrough: Requiring chemical testing

Of the more than 80,000 man-made chemicals in use in the U.S., only about 200 have been required to be tested for safety. Current laws are tilted so drastically in favor of the manufacturers that only one group of chemicals, PCBs, has ever been banned.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s main law governing chemicals, places the burden for proving chemicals are harmful on the U.S. government. That means manufacturers can bring chemicals to the marketplace without adequate safety testing.

EDF has long advocated for chemicals policy reform. Working with our Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition partners, we have put forward a framework for legislative reform that has been endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — and is the basis for new legislation currently moving forward in both houses of Congress.

The coming year will be a watershed in our decades long campaign to protect our nation from harmful chemicals and other toxic substances.

Success Story: Cleaning up petroleum refining complexes

Plants that refine petroleum emit the most deadly forms of air pollution. Pollution pouring from a refinery stack is regulated by the EPA; however, these refineries are often part of larger chemical complexes. Neighboring factories manufacturing plastics and other substances emit the same dangerous pollution, but are held to a lower clean air standard.

Thanks to pressure from EDF’s air quality experts, President Obama has agreed to set aside inadequate safety recommendations from the Bush administration and conduct new research that evaluates safety based on total emissions from a complex, not just those from the refinery.

Goals for 2010

Cleaner air for U.S. ports. Container ships, tankers and other large sea-going vessels burn low grade “residual fuel” or “bunker fuel.” This major source of air pollution imperils the health of more than 87 million Americans who live in ports and coastal communities. EDF has proposed the creation of Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to dramatically improve fuel quality and reduce harmful pollution by requiring all ocean-going ships that come within 200 miles of U.S. coasts meet the strongest international clean air standards.

Earlier this year the EPA submitted an application to the International Maritime Organization (the international body that governs global shipping regulations) to begin creating ECAs in 2010. Over the coming months EDF will continue to provide scientific data and technical expertise to help the U.S. government make the cas efor cleaner ports.

Safer products for consumers. As legislation to reform our nation’s chemical safety regulations moves through Congress, EDF is also working on-the-ground to deliver safer, greener products to Americans. Working in partnership with Walmart, EDF has developed a web-based system to categorize 100,000 products for toxicity, carcinogenicity and hazardous waste.

In the coming year, Walmart and EDF will begin evaluating everyday products like shampoo, laundry detergents and air fresheners for chemicals of concerns. Walmart will begin incorporating this data into its buying decisions, meaning manufacturers that can reduce or eliminate harmful chemicals from their products will have a competitive advantage over those that do not.

Restoring science to ozone safety standards. In 2008 the Bush administration established an ozone health standard that was substantially lower than recommended by EPA’s panel of expert advisors on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Then, in an unprecedented move, Bush’s regulatory czar ordered EPA scientists to scrap a separate science-based ozone standard to protect crops, forests and other plants hard hit by ground-level ozone.

EDF and other organizations protested the move and successfully convinced the Obama administration to overturn the Bush standards and issue new standards based on CASAC recommendations. We will be working with EPA to ensure the new standards provide the greatest human health protections possible from smog and other ground-level pollutions.

Global warming is the most profound environmental challenge of our time — and the impacts are accelerating at an alarming rate. The Greenland Ice Sheet is melting faster than predicted and could begin to raise sea levels significantly. Rising waters threaten to submerge 52 low-lying island states by mid-century.

Avoiding irreparable harm to our planet requires a global strategy. As a critical first step, the United States must cap its emissions of heat-trapping pollution. EDF is working to pass strong national legislation that will foster the transition to a low-carbon economy that creates millions of jobs.

On the global stage, our team of experts will continue to press for an international pact in 2010 that includes the participation of the United States, other major emitters and developing countries in a transparently managed international carbon market.

Breakthrough: Hope for saving rainforests

In December, the 193 nations taking part in the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen agreed in principle to conserve rainforests. The burning of forests accounts for more than one-sixth of global warming pollution worldwide.

Although the world’s leaders failed to produce a legally binding treaty for ratification, a coalition of environmental groups, business interests and developing countries began hammering out a framework to pay developing countries for not cutting trees. This is an idea EDF has long championed and developed with our Brazilian partners.

Called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), the plan makes rainforests worth more alive than dead, by awarding countries that reduce deforestation with credits to be sold on the international carbon market. Norway and other countries have pledged billions in financing.

A successful international treaty must include a strong, verifiable system for monitoring emissions. EDF played a central role in spurring progress towards enforceable monitoring standards in Copenhagen. Anticipating the importance of this issue, we showed how reduced deforestation can be verified accurately using satellite-based radar sensors.

Success story: House of Representatives passes historic climate legislation

Two decades after EDF first sounded the alarm on global warming, we won a huge victory in June 2009, when 219 House members voted to cap global warming pollution, passing the American Clean Energy and Security bill. EDF was instrumental to the victory, the result of the largest advocacy campaign in our history.

We contributed scientific and economic research, expert testimony in Congress and nonstop efforts to persuade undecided House members in 40 key districts to vote yes.

EDF helped build momentum for national action by winning key state-level victories and defending them in court. We also co-founded the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an influential business-environmental alliance that provided a blueprint for legislation in the House and Senate.

With jobs at the center of the debate, we mapped businesses in major manufacturing states whose employees are part of the new green economy. This helped convince legislators of the significant economic opportunities that will be unleashed by enacting a declining cap on carbon.

Goals for 2010

Passing a strong climate bill in the Senate. Building on our efforts in the House, EDF’s climate team, more than 50 strong, now has its sights on the Senate, where we must overcome an expected filibuster. To meet this formidable task, EDF co-founded a nonpartisan coalition of more than 70 environmental, civil rights, faith, labor and veterans groups.

Staff at the war-room-like headquarters in Washington, D.C. call supporters, enlist new allies and conduct opposition research. Our efforts range from buttonholing senators one by one to delivering 400,000 messages from our members urging legislators to pass a climate bill. “This is the defining environmental issue of our time,” says our legislative director Elizabeth Thompson. “We must act now, for our climate, our economy and our children.”

Engaging China and India on climate. No international climate agreement can be successful without concrete commitments from China and India, Asia’s economic tigers. The U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen moved China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter, one notch closer to setting firm targets for emissions reductions.

EDF has worked in China since 1991, helping to create a national market to cut sulfur dioxide pollution. Now we’re helping China tackle greenhouse gases in the same way.

Working with us, the China Beijing Equity Exchange established an environmental commodities exchange and completed its first trade in 2009, with emission credits generated by Green Commuting, a program EDF first developed for the Beijing Olympics that has expanded to more than 20 cities. The stage is now set for China’s eventual engagement in a global carbon market.

For India, a decentralized nation of 1.2 billion people, action to control rapidly rising global warming pollution must begin at the local level.  To reach the country’s 700 million people under the age of 35, we helped launch the Indian Youth Climate Network, now 300,000 strong, that advocates climate action.

We also helped produce a popular film called A New Beginning, dramatizing the link between global warming and rural poverty. EDF will continue to engage China and India to meet the global warming challenge.

“India’s going to be a central climate player, so we’re positioning EDF as an honest broker for change,” says Richie Ahuja, the Delhi-based director of our India program.

Revolutionizing the electric grid. Imagine if America’s aging electric grid were interactive, like the Internet. When the supply of electricity runs short, an intelligent grid could signal unneeded appliances to operate later. When solar or wind generation peaked, the grid could route excess power to the batteries of plug-in hybrid cars. Consumers could even sell their stored power to their utility.

That’s the vision of the Pecan Street Project, an initiative developed by the City of Austin in collaboration with EDF, Austin Energy and the University of Texas. Our team’s goal is to reinvent the way electricity is generated and used. More than a dozen leading companies, including Dell, GE and IBM, have partnered with us this year to make that vision a reality.

Pecan Street puts Austin at the forefront of a movement to deliver electricity in ways that reward conservation and integrate clean energy sources, while creating jobs around the country. With its partners, EDF is preparing recommendations for smart-grid innovations like cooperative solar farms that can be replicated by cities nationwide. 

Overfishing is emptying our oceans of seafood and damaging fragile ocean habitats that are home to countless marine species. Conventional fisheries management has failed — resulting in plummeting fish stocks and struggling coastal communities.

But there is a solution: catch shares. This innovative tool combines accountability and market incentives and has been proven to:

• reverse declines in fish populations;
• increase per-boat revenues;
• dramatically reduce bycatch (non-targeted species thrown overboard dying); and
• reward the use of environmentally better fishing practices.

Catch shares include scientifically established limits, and they can work together with other important tools like marine reserves to build healthy oceans.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now strongly supports catch shares as a highly effective fisheries management tool, giving us even greater momentum to reform fisheries here in the U.S. and in neighboring countries.

Breakthrough: Saving unique underwater habitat

Thanks to the decade-long efforts of EDF, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted to protect a vast expanse of deepwater coral — a reef covering 25,000 square miles along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Situated 1,000 feet below the ocean’s surface, the reef is thought to be the world’s oldest and largest deepwater coral ecosystem.

Home to countless marine species, many yet undiscovered, this veritable wonderland holds vast potential to enhance our understanding of oceans and sea life. The new management plan strikes an innovative balance — protecting critical habitat while allowing fishermen to maintain traditional fishing grounds through “allowable gear zones.” These designated areas have been carefully mapped to provide golden crab and royal red shrimp fisherman access while protecting the reef’s majestic mountains and pinnacles from harm.

Success story: New hope for New England fisheries

New England fish stocks were once so abundant, colonial fisherman bragged that fish could be pulled from the water by the basketful. Today, cod populations and other important fish are a fraction of their historic levels. Frustrated by the failure of conventional management practices to revive their iconic 400-year-old fishery, the New England Fisheries Council looked for new solutions.

After two years of planning and negotiations, the fisheries council voted unanimously to adopt a sector catch shares system. So many fishermen opted in that 90 percent of the available fish will be under catch shares in the next year. The approved plan allows fisherman to create cooperatives that are allotted an annual fishing quota.

With a long-term financial interest in a percentage of the catch, co-ops have strong incentives to ensure the health and viability of fish stocks. Catch shares also give fishermen the flexibility to determine when to fish, allowing them to avoid dangerous weather and other unfavorable conditions.

Goals for 2010

Expanding catch shares in the U.S. Working with fishermen, fishery managers and stakeholders on catch share options will remain a top priority in 2010, with a goal of expanding catch shares to more than 100 species of fish.

Recreational fishing is in trouble too — in many places the management doesn’t work well for fishermen or for the oceans. EDF will expand our outreach to recreational fisheries to find solutions to the problems that tour boats and private anglers face.

As the nation’s leading advocate for catch shares, EDF will help ensure that NOAA has the necessary resources — $50 million in federal funding — to help fishermen and managers design and implement catch shares.

Taking catch shares international. EDF has pioneered how to design catch shares that work for the unique challenges of reviving many U.S. fisheries, but since many of the most severe cases of overfishing occur outside of U.S. waters, international engagement is essential to solving the problem.

EDF is reaching out to fishery regulators and fishermen in Mexico, Belize and Cuba to extend the success of catch shares to neighboring nations whose coastal communities have been hard hit by overfishing. Working in cooperation with fishermen, each nation’s local organizations and government regulators, we will work to establish new catch shares that help revitalize the fisheries that are important to people and ecosystems along the Mesoamerican Reef and in the Gulf of California.

Protecting coral reefs. Coral reefs are rich ecosystems that countless species of fish rely on to protect and feed their young. EDF’s work to restore fishing stocks cannot succeed without the protection of precious coral habitat. The health of many reefs is already in jeopardy becaues of rising sea temperatures and ocean pollution. But also trade in ornamental coral species is rapidly accelerating their decline.

EDF’s scientists and researchers will work to document and raise awareness of this widespread problem and pressure lawmakers and the international community to end unsustainable trade in coral species.

Over the past century, misguided land and water management policies, combined with population growth and counterproductive subsidies, have resulted in large-scale damage to some of our nation’s most important ecosystems.

Today, hundreds of species are in danger of extinction, and cities and towns are at risk from the extremes of flood and drought. The changes brought by global warming will only exacerbate these problems.

To ensure our environmental future, we need to protect land and freshwater ecosystems on a scale never before attempted. This can be done only by creating the right economic incentives to reward preservation, restoration, efficiency and pollution reduction.

To accomplish this goal, Environmental Defense Fund is working hand-in-hand with the landowners whose livelihoods are inextricably tied to healthy ecosystems.

Opportunity: Protecting Hawaii’s unique biodiversity

Hawaii is like nowhere else on earth. Thousands of unique plants, animal and ecosystems are found only on these remote islands, where, far from the mainland, flora and fauna evolved in isolation. Preserving and protecting this natural wealth poses a unique conservation challenge since many of the state’s 329 endangered species reside primarily on private lands.

As the pioneer of incentive-based conservation programs for private landowners, EDF worked with key government agencies as well as farmers and ranchers to secure $67 million in state and federal funding to create the Hawaii Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

The new program will enroll up to 15,000 acres of private land for the restoration of habitat for endangered species like the nene and the creation of riparian forest buffers to reduce the impact of farm runoff on Hawaii’s limited freshwater systems and the ocean. Farmers and ranchers who agree to place some of their land in this new program will receive financial and technical assistance and assurances that they will not face onerous regulations on the rest of their property.

Success Story: Celebrating a Celebrated Frog

Mark Twain would be overjoyed. EDF worked with East Bay Municipal Utility District to protect an endangered species habitat on 28,000 acres in central California. The California red-legged frog, made famous by Mark Twain in “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County,” and myriad other rare species will benefit as part of the largest single Safe Harbor agreement ever in California. EDF devised Safe Harbor agreements, which allow private landowners to voluntarily conserve endangered species without fear of new federal restrictions.

Today, more than 4 million acres nationwide are under Safe Harbor agreements, protecting species like the northern aplomado falcon, San Joaquin kit fox and northern spotted owl.

Goals for 2010

Keeping flocks and herds moving. Elk, caribou, pronghorn antelope, grizzly bears, migratory birds and other iconic American species rely upon ancient migratory patterns to move from safe winter lands to summer breeding territory. Unfortunately, climate change, development and habitat loss are fracturing these routes faster than animals can adapt — putting some of our nation’s most imperiled species at greater risk of extinction.

EDF will work with private landowners in Western states to create five new protected habitat “corridors” that will link public and private lands. These corridors will allow migratory species to safely reach feeding and breeding grounds while sheltering them from encroaching human development, fences and other movement barriers.

Balancing clean energy and wildlife. Energy choices can have a big impact on wildlife, especially endangered species. Over the next year, we will study how tomorrow’s energy sources will impact our nation’s biodiversity — before large-scale production begins. Our efforts will allow us to help energy companies and government agencies anticipate and mitigate the impact of energy development on habitat and wildlife so we do not have to choose between fighting global warming and fighting for the protection of species.

Restoring the abundance of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi and its tributaries dominate our nation’s landscape, draining 41 percent of the continental United States and defining the agricultural and industrial heartland’s connection to nature. Vast majorities of the nation’s migratory birds and Gulf of Mexico fisheries are dependent upon it. However, the Mississippi River and Tributaries watershed suffers from severe habitat loss and degraded water quality.

EDF will work to recover this natural and economic treasure through the:

• modernization of laws and regulations to improve pollution controls and reward conservation,
• restoration of important habitats by reconnecting the river to its floodplain and wetlands and
• reductions in nitrogen pollution from farm runoff.