Author: Main Feed – Environmental Defense

Chicago Transit Authority has laid off 1,067 workers and has drastically cut service. Photo courtesy of Flickr user: TheeErin

Over the last several months, we've written occasionally about the need to solve the impending transit funding crisis. For longer than that, we've worked around the country, but especially in California and New York, to find new and innovative ways to advance transit service. Lately, we've also implored Congress to provide emergency funding to keep drivers employed as legislators have considered jobs bills.

So far, our efforts as well as the work of our allies, to keep drivers driving, mechanics working, the transit system available—and ultimately keep some of the worst tailpipe emissions in check—have been frustratingly unsuccessful.

New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and countless other metropolitan regions are facing a transit disaster. Grappling with huge budget deficits as a result of public funding cuts, transit agencies are slashing service, laying off workers, and raising fares. 

• In New York City, the Metropolitan Transportation Agency, which operates the city's buses and subways, as well as suburban rail lines, bridges and tunnels, is facing an $800 million deficit as a result of cuts in state aid and low payroll tax revenues. They expect to layoff 1,130 employees (out of their 70,000 person staff), including 500 station agents. The MTA has ended free fares for students and has reduced salaries by 10%.
• In Chicago, the Chicago Transit Authority has laid off 1,067 employees in order to balance a $300 million deficit.
• In San Francisco, the city expects to see a second fare increase in 4 months in order to balance a $12.1 million deficit, with additional service cuts. SFMTA plans to lay off 230 employees, 175 of which are bus and Muni metro drivers. 
• In Washington, D.C., where trains are bursting during rush hour, WMATA plans to lay off 60 employees and eliminate another 90 positions that are not filled. They also expect service cuts and fare increases to fill their $40 million budget gap.
• Just this weekend, in Sacramento, CA, the local newspaper reported that the regional transit agency is planning to put 300 workers on notice that they'll likely be laid off as the agency grapples with a two-year $25 million deficit. Service after 8pm and on weekends could be cut as well. This deficit has been made worse as a result of state policymakers’ decision last year to shift the state fuel tax, designated for transit operations, to other important state services, which have been jeopardized by the overall state budget crisis.

And here's an example of how these cuts add up, changing people’s commuting choices. Quoted from the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco resident MPR Howard, who has lived in San Francisco and ridden Muni for 28 years, will now be back behind the wheel: 

I will not be renewing my Muni disabled pass…. I will be putting my 45-year-old car (a 1965 Dodge Dart) back on the road. She may not be pretty or environmentally clean, but at least she gets me from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time. I've given up on Muni.

Confirmed U.S. Public Transportation Industry Layoffs, 2009-2010

* = Transit Manufacturer

Projected Upcoming Layoffs

 Prepared by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Legislative Department. Updated March 1, 2010. For more information, contact Jeff Rosenberg at [email protected], courtesty of Scott Bogren at the Community Transportation Association of America ([email protected]).

This past week has witnessed a new low in California electioneering. More than four years after bipartisan passage of AB 32, California’s landmark climate law that establishes clean energy and air pollution standards, two Texas oil companies have arrived to scuttle it. Valero and Tesoro, oil refiners that worked to kill climate policy in Washington D.C., are funding a ballot measure to indefinitely suspend AB 32. 

The measure claims it simply “suspends AB 32,” but, in fact, it would halt the implementation of clean energy and pollution standards until California’s unemployment level drops below 5.5 percent for an entire year – a market condition that has occurred just three times in the last 30 years.

Valero and Tesoro are trying to get one of the most divisive and disingenuous ballot measures in years onto an already clogged November ballot. They have reportedly pledged up to $2 million to buy signatures to qualify the measure. 

Not surprisingly, neither company is admitting involvement. With good reason. They know California’s voters would reject polluters–especially out-of-state ones–that are trying to buy their way onto the ballot. And these polluters have the most to lose from the state and the country embracing a clean energy future. In California, the companies operate four refineries that emit nearly 20% of the state’s total reported emissions that contribute to global warming. Nationally, Tesoro and Valero are among the worst polluters in the country.

Their deceptive initiative would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and chill billions of dollars of investment in California, which is home to America’s largest and growing clean energy economy. According to the non-partisan, independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the suspension of AB 32 could: “delay investments in energy technologies reaping longer-run savings, or dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or in so-called ‘green jobs’ by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case.” 

Clean air advocates, business leaders and environmental groups are fighting back. Last week, a coalition called Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs set up a website and Facebook and Twitter accounts to expose this effort and help ensure that public interests, not special interests, triumph in November. We invite you to join the coalition and show your support for a clean energy future and a healthy environment.

Over the last couple of days, I’ve heard business titans from Disney’s CEO Robert Iger to legendary oilman T. Boone Pickens to coal and mining magnate Tom Albanese of Rio Tinto espousing a similar thought – that they’re going full steam ahead with their sustainability strategies and investments in clean energy technology because it makes good business sense. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you believe about climate science; if you’re interested in business (and national) competitiveness, prudent resource and fiscal management and brand and reputational value, you should do exactly the same things as you would if you were driven solely by climate worries.

This extraordinary conversation took place at the third annual Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara. I went there hoping to hear what business was thinking in the wake of a disappointing Copenhagen convention and stalled action in on climate and energy in Congress.

Were they backing away from their environmental initiatives? Waiting it out?

Overwhelmingly, the answer was no.

Mike Morris, CEO of American Electric Power may have put it best when he said that if the science is wrong and we act now, we’ll still have made the world a better place and have strengthened our business position. If the science is right, and we don’t act now, there could be devastating results.

Boone Pickens hit hard on the competitiveness angle, noting China’s aggressive investments in clean energy manufacturing. This view was shared by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who said, “America still has an opportunity to lead, but time is running out.”

These business leaders are moving ahead to get in front of the clean energy economy and to hedge against resource constraints and volatile oil prices. They know it’s a great bet, no matter what your ideology. If only our political leaders could do the same.

The recent news from the political front on global warming has made many hearts heavy. The Copenhagen climate talks fizzle; the well-respected head of the UN climate change convention resigns. And in a polarized Congress, climate legislation languishes, while irresponsible politicians are claiming that climate science is "snake oil" and seeking ways to prosecute scientists.

How exciting, then, to get a high-wattage jolt of energy—and responsible leadership—from a powerful ally in the fight against global warming: Walmart, one of the largest companies in the world. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, these days politics doesn’t make strange bedfellows—business does.

Walmart isn't waiting for politicians or regulators to do the right thing. Last week CEO Mike Duke stood on a podium with EDF's Fred Krupp and announced a goal of eliminating 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from Walmart's global supply chain by the end of 2015 (watch webcast of the announcement). That's the equivalent of taking more than 3.8 million cars off the road for a year. Or, if you look at it another way — saving 2 billion gallons of gasoline a year.

To find these reductions, Walmart will be asking the estimated 100,000 companies that supply it to cut the amount of carbon they emit when they produce, package and ship their products. This pollution reduction goal will affect every step of the manufacturing process from raw materials to recycling.

For instance, suppliers could label clothes to be washed in cold water instead of hot water, or accelerate the innovation of fabrics that dry faster. "The significance of Walmart's commitment is the shift in perspective that it represents,” says Elizabeth Sturcken, EDF's managing director for corporate partnerships. “It's like moving from using a microscope to using a satellite to find opportunities for carbon pollution reduction across the globe."

This action, the result of five years of collaboration with EDF and others, is sure to have a tremendous ripple effect. When Walmart makes a sea change, it hauls other companies along in its wake. And these companies are not small: Colgate-Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble. Moreover, Walmart reaches consumers at home, a surefire way to change attitudes and habits. Consider a few examples:

• When Walmart decided that the shipping and storage of large containers of laundry detergent was wasteful (so much of it was water), it told suppliers it would only carry concentrates to be sold in smaller containers—and that’s become the dominant form of detergent at Walmart and all other retailers.
• When Walmart took a hard look at the DVDs on its shelves, the company asked 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment to make the plastic packaging lighter, cutting lifecycle carbon emissions significantly and saving energy. Subsequently, the lighter packaging was used for software and games as well. These greener products are now being sold everywhere – not just at Walmart – an example of how a small change can have a big multiplier effect.
• When with EDF's help, Walmart decided to educate its customers about the energy efficiency of CFLs by setting up informative displays in their stores, it sold hundreds of millions of bulbs. That compelled manufacturers to make refinements in their design and the quality of their light, transforming an entire industry.

Walmart has also been addressing its own carbon footprint—though that is dwarfed by suppliers' emissions. It is increasing the efficiency of its trucks and stores. All this is saving the company money, and that, of course, is what Walmart is about. The company can, and undoubtedly will, do more. As Mike Duke, Walmart's president, puts it: "We need to get ready for a world in which energy will only be more expensive, and there will only be a greater need to operate with less carbon in the supply chain."

More than a third of all Americans shop at the country's largest retailer every week. To critics, such big box stores are juggernauts indifferent to quality and local values. Certainly, large retailers' way of doing business reinforces corporate and global food production. Walmart, like others, relies on a massive network of transport spanning great distances. Global sourcing has occasionally resulted in shoddy or even dangerous products on retailers' shelves, such as when lead paint was found in toys from China. Like all chain stores, the outlets are physically disassociated from the very towns in which they sit, though they certainly create jobs, no small matter. But it's also true that Walmart has begun developing closer relationships with its suppliers, buying locally, demanding better quality, and now, reducing its carbon emissions.

As John Lyle, who was a professor of landscape architecture at California Polytechnic Institute, wrote: "What humans designed we can redesign and what humans built, we can rebuild." Walmart's climate initiative is an important step in that direction. Participation is voluntary, though Walmart has made it clear that companies that cut their emissions will have an advantage in getting their product onto its shelves. Compliance remains a thorny issue, as the international supply chain is plagued by practices like illegal logging and phony labeling. Walmart is working on a detailed set of guidelines for accountability (you can comment on it on EDF's Innovation Exchange website in a few weeks), and is pressing for more transparent sourcing. "We need a clear chain of custody from start to finish," explains EDF project manager Michelle Harvey.

In this recession, we've heard a lot about what's gone wrong with globalization. But today, it is possible that Walmart, one of the most agile players in the global economy, can show us how to harness the world marketplace to encourage innovation and cut dangerous pollution. "Walmart's work will impact almost every American consumer, regardless of where they shop," says Steve Hamburg, EDF's Chief Scientist. "These are the products that are sold on every Main Street: a win for the environment. The idea is to change industry norms; that will help to strengthen American businesses and reduce the impact of our consumer society."

Some thoughtful environmentalists feel we aren't going to get things right until we have a wholesale transformation of our values—and that includes cutting way down on consumption. As David Orr writes: "We do not often see the true ugliness of the consumer economy." We need a rebirth of social values that protect the environment. But that kind of change takes a long time, perhaps generations. We have experienced that painful crawl in the evolution of our attitudes about race, feminism and sexuality. How much time do we have?

We are beginning to see glimmers of change in our consumer mentality, partly because of a shaky economy and partly because of demographics. I have a hunch—based on anecdotal evidence—that baby boomers, facing empty nests and insecure stock markets, are scaling back their lifestyles, moving into smaller homes and lightening up. There does come a time when enough's enough—when we no longer feel the need for more stuff that's going to be thrown away.

There is a profound value in slowing down the pace of our lives, deepening our connections to the natural world, and honoring what is, after all, our children's heritage.

The more we understand the consequences of waste and pollution, the more intolerable those become.

I believe Walmart understands this message. As the company's president says, America needs "comprehensive legislative policy that addresses energy, energy security, the country's competitiveness and reducing pollution." Sure, cutting waste is good for business, and recasting the argument against global warming as a matter of wastefulness is smart marketing. But the message from Walmart to the American people is loud and clear: America's corporate leaders want action on global warming!

So if you're wondering who is selling snake oil these days….well, perhaps the global warming deniers will consider shrinking their packaging.



Anthony Williams, co-author of Wikinomics and its forthcoming sequel, Macrowikinomics, joined the EDFix call on Feb. 22 to give us his insights into new approaches for large-scale change we will increasingly see for addressing global issues.

His thesis is that problems like climate change won't be solved by global initiatives like COP15 alone. We also need myriad small, distributed experiments and social innovations. These will help change percolate to every corner of the planet through willing participants, rather than relying on mandates or regulations from above.

As Wikinomics describes, we're seeing creative new approaches to collaboration in efforts like open source software projects and Wikipedia. It was encouraging to hear Anthony describe how these approaches are being demonstrated in small projects (like Carbon Rally and CARMA) as well as adopted in large enterprises like IBM.

Anthony's recent work helps to explain broader principles that enable these change strategies. He emphasized transparency, openness, and collaboration but also the concept of integrity and the need for inter-generational thinking. Mobile phones are very quickly connecting communities that are so poor that it seemed they would remain unheard forever. Business, governments and society are finding new symbiotic relationships.

The next EDFix call, on Monday March 8, will build on these themes to explore how principles learned from development of Open Source Software can be applied in other business settings. We'll be joined by Brian Behlendorf, who was part of the community that developed and managed the hugely successful Apache web server and is now applying what he learned to his work on health IT working with the Department of Health and Human Services. Please join us!

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

Get Updates about EDFix Conference Calls

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

The Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is North America’s largest grouse. This chicken-sized bird is known for male courtship displays on communal stomping grounds called “leks” where they strut and display ornate plumage for females. Sage-grouse populations have declined dramatically and the bird’s range has shrunk to almost half the size of its pre-European settlement range. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that endangered species listing of Greater Sage-Grouse is warranted but precluded at this time. However, ranchers, private industries, agencies and conservation groups can make a difference through effective protection and habitat enhancement to reverse this species’ decline and avoid endangered species listing.

Learn more:

Greater Sage-Grouse fact sheet [PDF]

Guest post by Janice Bezanson, Executive Director, Texas Conservation Alliance

In a victory for wildlife and the state’s water resources, the U.S. Supreme Court recently denied a request from the City of Dallas and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to hear their case against the Neches River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Dallas and TWDB filed suit in 2007 to block development of the refuge, alleging that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had failed adequately to meet National Environmental Protection Act requirements for assessing potential impacts. Dallas and TWDB wanted to keep the Neches River available for Fastrill Reservoir, which would supply about 3 percent of Dallas’ water after 2060. Both the federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote strong opinions upholding creation of the refuge.

The implications of the decision are far-reaching. 

The refuge will preserve a unique Texas ecosystem
Located in the heart of the North American Central Flyway, the Neches River Refuge will protect up to 25,000 acres of increasingly-rare bottomland hardwood forests, crucial habitat for migrating waterfowl, songbirds, and a wide diversity of animals. Fastrill Reservoir would have impacted as much as 45,000 acres of vital forest habitat. Diverting water out of the Neches Basin to Dallas would have had serious impacts on productive timberland and on downstream public lands – two national forests, a state wildlife area celebrated for duck hunting opportunities, one of Texas’ most popular state parks, and the famed Big Thicket National Preserve, a jewel of the National Park System.

Dallas should tap existing reservoirs, not build new ones
Taking Fastrill off the table will force Dallas to look at other options – which is a very good thing! Water planners in the Dallas-Fort Worth-North Texas region (called Region C in the state water plan) are calling for four new reservoirs to meet the region’s projected water demands by 2060, which are very inflated compared the rest of the state.

Reasonable water conservation, including increased water reuse, would substantially reduce this estimated demand. Even without increased conservation or reuse, there is more than enough water in existing reservoirs – Wright Patman Reservoir, Lake Texoma, and Toledo Bend — to meet projected future demands for Region C, without building any new reservoirs. A combination of conservation, reuse, and tapping existing reservoirs can ensure a cost-effective supply for the DFW region without the economic and environmental devastation of a major new reservoir.

Photo credit: Adrian Van Dellen

Janice Bezanson, Executive Director of Texas Conservation Alliance, has 25 years experience in conservation work. She has campaigned successfully for creating wildlife refuges and other natural areas, finding alternatives to expensive reservoir projects, and improving forest management on public lands. She has served on numerous non-profit boards and, among other accolades, was the recipient of the prestigious Chevron Conservation Award.

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Supporters of the Endangered Species Act breathed a sigh of relief last week when California’s senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, withdrew her proposed amendment to suspend protections for salmon, smelt, sturgeon and other fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta. But the attack on the ESA is not going away anytime soon.

We are pleased that California’s three-year drought may end this year and that our fisheries, farms and cities will all be better off. But we are disappointed that the Endangered Species Act was granted a reprieve only because we've had more precipitation. The ESA, as the law designed to prevent extinction, cannot be implemented only when convenient.

Feinstein decided to withdraw her amendment, only after learning that Central Valley Project “Agricultural Service” contractors are likely to receive at least 40% of their maximum contractual allocations this year. Had she introduced her amendment, it certainly would have set off a contentious discussion in Congress. Ultimately we do not believe it would have survived, in part due to strong opposition from other legislators, state (PDF) and federal (PDF), as well as newspapers in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose. But it is hard to be sure, in part since it may have been linked to the President’s “Jobs” bill which contains provisions critical to many parts of the country.

The ESA as the bull's eye.
Westlands Water District has made it clear that they will pursue any and all opportunities to increase water exports by relaxing current rules that limit the extent to which the San Joaquin River is allowed to flow backward within the Delta for the first half of the year. There seems to be no end to new legal theories challenging the ESA, by Westlands and other water agencies, which are continually brought before our courts. And 2010 is an election year in which we have already seen the effects of the ESA on parts of the Central Valley brought up in campaigns for Governor, the Senate and the House of Representatives. We expect these campaigns to heat up along with the weather in coming months.

Though these attacks are testing our patience, we continue to work cooperatively with these same water agencies to develop a long-term Bay-Delta Conservation Plan – intended to protect and restore the Delta while ensuring reliable water supplies. And, of course, we still support an expanded market for much of the water already extracted from the environment throughout California. Markets can incentivize more efficient water use in our cities and on our farms and provide additional supplies to those who need water most, including farms on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.

Regrettably, however, we firmly believe the San Francisco Chronicle was overly optimistic when it opined that Senator Feinstein’s dropping her amendment (for now) represents a “Truce in the Water Wars”. If history is our guide, we fear there is much more to come.

Starting this Tuesday, we asked you to call your senators and demand clean energy legislation. We joined up with several other groups and challenged you to get as many calls in as possible within 72 hours.

You have already surpassed our greatest hopes by absolutely flooding the Senate: We believe we've collectively, across the whole campaign, sent more than 200,000 calls in to the Senate over the last 48 hours. And we're not done yet — the campaign ends tonight.

We’ve been busy here in D.C. working to get strong clean energy legislation passed. Our biggest weapon is your voice, so keep those phones ringing!

(And after you've called, share this link with your friends and family.)

“How are companies addressing the environmental impact of transportation in their supply chains?” This was the leading question of a recent article in the MIT Sloan Management Review business journal. Its well worth reading for anyone interested in corporate transportation emissions.

The article is wide-ranging; covering air, rail, long-haul trucks, and light-duty fleets. Among the points made are:

• “Only 22 Fortune 500 companies have begun blunting their supply chain’s impact on the environment”
• The amount of cargo shipped is “expected to triple in the next 20 years”
• Measuring ghg emissions is the “fundamental starting point” of “any serious entity”
• Recent volatility in the petroleum market “is a lens into the future of oil and gas prices” and taking steps to reduce ghg emissions can lessen exposure to these fluctuations
• When reducing transportation emissions, “it is best to begin with the ‘low-hanging fruit’”
• Rail transport is four times more efficient per ton than motor and 600 times more efficient than air transport

The authors also highlight many companies that have started to take action. These include:

• Abbott Laboratories, who we assisted in their move to more efficient vehicles
• Dell, who “increased first-time deliveries to customers by 80%”
• Tyson Food, who switched to aluminum wheels for its tractors
• HP, Dell, Limited Brands and Estee Lauder, who are “converting air shipments to ground or ocean transport” as a way to reduce emissions.

‘Greening” Transportation in the Supply Chain is a great read and very interesting piece of research.

One of our goals at Restoration and Resilience is to offer a better analysis of green jobs potential than past jobs multipliers have provided. To do this we’ll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects. Today we’ll start a series of posts that lay out some estimates of the job creation that could be generated by restoration of the Central Wetlands Unit. Bear in mind that we rely on assumptions and estimates throughout our analysis, and we encourage you at the outset to send us feedback on our methods.

View of the New Orleans CBD from the Central Wetlands Unit (Source: Tierra Resources LLC)

From the vantage point of the skyscrapers along Poydras Street or the top of the 40 Arpent Levee in the Lower Ninth Ward, one can see a flooded area just south of the recently-closed Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) Canal that serves as a cemetery of dead trees and submerged hopes. The Central Wetlands Unit (CWU) is a 30,000-acre expanse of degraded marsh straddling Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. Once a verdant area of cypress forest, the CWU served as a lush habitat for birds, fish, and other wildlife right next to New Orleans. After the construction of MRGO in the mid-1960s, saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico raised salinity levels in the basin, killing wetland plants, accelerating land loss, and destroying an ecosystem. Within a decade, this thriving recreation area had been transformed into an unproductive expanse of water, punctuated by ghostly cypress trunks.

Now, five years after Hurricane Katrina and under renewed focus as part of the MRGO restoration, the Central Wetlands Unit will be revitalized with support from the federal government and state agencies. Renewal of the CWU will generate employment directly in construction, dredging, planting, and other restoration work. The revitalization effort will ripple throughout adjacent neighborhoods, creating spillover economic activity in the Lower Ninth Ward, Chalmette, and other communities near the wetland. In the long term, the restored area will provide steady job opportunities in ecosystem management, recreation, and tourism for residents of Louisiana's largest metropolitan area.

The question is, just how many jobs will be created?

In Part I, we look at direct employment from dredging and site preparation in the CWU, estimating that the direct jobs payroll would be approximately $1.34 million, with the equivalent of 55 full-time positions created for dredging crew material movers and managers.

Why is the Central Wetlands Unit Important?

Map of the Central Wetlands Unit within the New Orleans Metropolitan Area (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District)

Besides serving as a local habitat for wetland fauna, a restored Central Wetlands Unit could provide valuable services for the New Orleans metropolitan area. Though it is encircled by levees, the CWU could function as a flood and storm surge “sponge” on the region's eastern reaches, taking pressure off of century-old pumping systems and other manmade defenses.

Plans are already underway to convert the Central Wetlands Unit into a natural system for water treatment. Treated wastewater from the East Bank Sewage Treatment Plant in Orleans Parish and the Munster Facility in St. Bernard Parish will be pumped into the basin, where grasses and trees would then use dissolved residual nutrients as fertilizer. In addition, a reforested CWU could serve as a sink for greenhouse gases, providing natural carbon sequestration at the doorstep of one of the Gulf Coast's largest cities.

Recreation and education are other activities that will benefit from restoration of the Central Wetlands Unit. Surrounding schools have already expressed interest in integrating outdoor learning into local science curriculums, and commercial enterprises are already drawing up plans to transform the area into a living laboratory and incubation center for a new generation of restoration-focused entrepreneurs.

What Will Restoration Require?

Detailed Map of the Central Wetlands Unit, showing areas labeled A1 – A4 (Source: Office of Environmental Affairs, City of New Orleans)

Returning the Central Wetlands Unit to its previous state will provide several years of work. Fortunately, the area is included in the MRGO restoration area, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is allocating financial resources for its revitalization. In addition, Phase I engineering and design work has provided templates for possible regeneration plans in the zone. Aside from Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) funding, future restoration work could draw support from the sale of carbon credits and corporate sponsors in the energy and transportation sectors.

The Central Wetlands Unit restoration could be broken down into four stages:

• Preparation of the basin (dredging, filling) for restoration,
• Provisioning of treated, nutrient-rich wastewater from local treatment plants,
• Planting of trees and marsh grass, and
• Protection of the restored acreage through operations and management post-completion. 

Over the next few posts on the CWU, we'll apply our jobs framework to estimate the jobs that will be created by this project. To start, let's look at employment from site preparation.

Estimating the Direct Jobs from Dredging and Filling in the Central Wetlands Unit

Within the Central Wetlands Unit, ground elevations vary from several feet below to several feet above sea level. In one possible scenario, low-lying areas would be filled in, allowing them to sustain cypress and other freshwater species. Fill could come from one of three sources: the Mississippi River bed (primarily sand), the bottom of Lake Pontchartrain (primarily mud), or the bed of Lake Borgne (though this mud may be too saline).

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

The amount needed will depend on the goals of the final restoration plan. Planting on already elevated areas, like those near the Riverbend Oxidation Pond in St. Bernard Parish, require less fill (about one million cubic yards). On the other hand, pumping in sand and mud to raise elevations in deeper areas throughout the basin (including the flooded Bayou Bienvenue “Triangle” near the Lower Ninth Ward) could require as much as twenty million cubic yards of material. For our example, let’s examine a moderately low-fill strategy requiring five million cubic yards of material.

To estimate labor costs, let’s assume that the work is carried out by three dredging crews working in shifts around the clock. Each work crew would require thirteen people (three managers and ten material movers) working each eight-hour shift. This gives us a combined dredging team of thirty-nine people, consisting of thirty-one material moving crew members and eight operation managers. Based on wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), we estimate that the median hourly wage for dredge operation managers in Louisiana is $18.01, while the median hourly wage for material moving crew members is $10.60.

Engineering firms involved in wetland and coastal restoration in Louisiana told us that the basin could be filled at a pace of 100,000 cubic yards per week for mud and 50,000 cubic yards per week for sand, which is denser than lake mud. Assuming that we decide to use only lake bottom material for filling the Central Wetlands Unit, we estimate that the five million cubic yard project would be completed in 5,000,000 / 100,000 = 50 weeks.

Fifty weeks of 13-person crews (on average) working twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week yields 50 weeks * 7 days per week * 24 hours per day * 13 work-hours per hour = 109,200 work-hours.

Using the BLS median wages, we find that the cumulative dredging/filling payroll would be (84,000 material moving crew work-hours * $10.60 per crew work-hour) + (25,200 manager work-hours * $18.01 per manager work-hour) = $1,344,252, as shown in the chart at right. The aggregate dredging crew work hours are equal to roughly fifty-five job-years, when we translate these work hours into full-time equivalent (FTE) units for employees working eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks per year.

Aside from fill, additional materials required would include a dredging boat, piping materials, and other safety and construction equipment. The job would need monitoring and legal assistance to ensure compliance with labor and environmental standards. These are some of the indirect jobs that site preparation in the Central Wetlands Unit would create in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. In our next post on the Central Wetlands, we will lay out some estimates of the indirect and induced employment stemming from this phase of the CWU restoration.

The winter rains have replenished many of the state’s groundwater reserves, including the massive Edwards Aquifer. Good thing, because depending on the outcome of the pending Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day case in the Texas Supreme Court, Texas groundwater law could be in chaos for the next few years. 

The fundamental issue in the case is whether an overlying landowner owns the groundwater beneath her property “in place” or whether ownership of the groundwater only vests once the groundwater has been captured through pumping. This question has produced a massive amount of briefing for the court. Oral argument took place on February 17^th before a courtroom packed with water lawyers (including me) just itching to shout out answers to the Justices’ questions. And, no wonder, because the outcome of this decision will determine whether the Texas system of groundwater management—which largely relies on regulatory actions by local groundwater districts with elected boards—can continue.

EDF joined with other parties to file an amicus brief in the case urging the court not to find “ownership in place.” Our reasoning: such a finding, which we do not believe is in any way required by the common law, would open up groundwater district management actions to an unlimited amount of “regulatory takings” claims from people seeking to be financially compensated for pumping restrictions. (The plaintiff in the Day case was seeking over $4 million in compensation for an alleged “taking” because the permit he got from the EAA didn’t provide for as much pumping as he wanted.) These restrictions are often necessary to maintain the aquifer levels for the benefit of all users. In systems like the Edwards, pumping limits are also needed to maintain the spring flows that are so critical to sustaining river flows. If districts were faced with high dollar takings claims on every action, they would be completely hamstrung in trying to carry out their legislatively authorized duties to protect and conserve groundwater. 

Texas’ current groundwater management system certainly isn’t perfect, but it has generally provided a fair and balanced approach to conserving this critical resource. Districts are subject to a number of legislative and due process constraints, arbitrary decisions can be challenged in court, and, ultimately, the board of directors can be voted out of office. Moreover, throwing our groundwater law into chaos would also spill over to cause great uncertainty in regional water planning, the maintenance of surface water rights and the ability to protect river flows for fish and wildlife in those rivers that are fed by springs. Finally, because so much of the investment and economic activity in this state depends on secure water rights, an adverse decision in the EAA v. Day case certainly won’t be good for the Texas economy. 

Here’s hoping the Supreme Court opts out of turning Texas groundwater law into just another guarantee of long-term employment for water lawyers.

A broad alliance of business, science and non-profit groups has reached a landmark agreement on principles for tropical forest protection in U.S. climate policies – thanks in part to the pioneering work of EDF.

The alliance – the Tropical Forests and Climate Coalition – just launched its first web site, where visitors can read the principles, known as the Tropical Forest Climate Unity Agreement.

Tropical forest destruction causes nearly a fifth of all global warming pollution, and yet it does little to raise living standards for so many of the people who live in these regions. That makes curbing deforestation one of the best, fastest and most cost-effective ways to start lowering global warming pollution worldwide.

It's a win-win situation if U.S. climate policies help tropical forest nations reduce deforestation and let U.S. companies use high-quality forest offset credits to cut carbon pollution. Everyone wins by finding that sweet spot where global emissions decline rapidly and affordably – and that's what the TFCC alliance is all about.

EDF helped get the ball rolling three years ago when it became a founding member of a business-NGO coalition called the Forest Carbon Dialogue. The FCD was a key player in forging the new TFCC alliance. Check out the TFCC site to keep up with the latest on tropical forest protection policies and news.

Just in time for spring, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL) is scheduling several days of tree planting in Westwego this March. CRCL will be working in partnership with the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (BTNEP), Jefferson Parish, National Association of Countries Research Foundation, the National Fish and Wildlife Federation, and Restore America's Estuaries, with corporate support from Coca-Cola, Entergy Corporation, and Shaw Coastal.

Volunteers will be planting three thousand trees along the Bayou Segnette Waterway. Once restored, this cypress forest will provide important nesting and habitat space for area wildlife, in addition to natural storm protection for nearby campgrounds and wetlands.

Visit the project webpage to sign up as a volunteer today.

A new voice has joined the chorus demanding action on climate change — one that will be familiar to any winter sports fans reading this.

Hockey legend Mike Richter says he worries that future generations of children won't be able to skate on frozen ponds the way he did when he was young.

The Hall of Fame goalie, who led the New York Rangers to a Stanley Cup victory in 1994 and helped the U.S. Olympic team win a silver medal in Salt Lake City in 2002, just wrote an op ed about climate change that ran in the Buffalo News, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and the Juneau Empire, among other papers.

In it, he says:

I wish we could turn back the clock. I want my boy's generation to enjoy the same rich opportunities as I had. I worry for the future of the game that I love. I worry for the future of our economy, our national security and our planet.

Richter, who has spoken out about other environmental issues in the past, has also talked about climate change in radio interviews he did during this year's Winter Olympics. You can hear some of his comments on Philadelphia's WPEN radio.

Richter was also a guest speaker at a recent Business Advocacy Day, when 200 small business leaders from around the country came to Washington to lobby for a strong clean energy and climate bill. Check out this picture of Richter talking to the audience of business pioneers (and EDF staffers who worked on the event).

EDF's Oceans program team is comprised of knowledgeable people with a wide range of experience in fisheries, marine sciences and oceans policy. In continuing with our spotlight on EDF's passionate and talented Oceans staff, we invite you to learn a little more about our Chief Oceans Scientist, Dr. Doug Rader.

EDF Chief Oceans Scientist, Dr. Doug Rader

Where is your family from?

My father’s and mother’s families have lived in North Carolina as long as anyone can remember. I grew up in Charlotte as a middle child between two brothers.

What made you so interested in the oceans? 

I’ve always been fascinated by nature. When I was a kid, my family went tent camping for weeks every summer on what was then a really isolated part of North Myrtle Beach. My mom would wake us up long before sunrise to be the first to discover what the sea had brought in: starfish, sea urchins and seaweed. Back at home, I spent my free time wading creeks, searching for snakes, crawfish and turtles. As cliché as it sounds, watching “Sea Hunt,” and “Flipper” propelled a life-long interest in underwater exploration. Recently my wife and I spent 30 minutes “up close and personal” with a whale while scuba diving.

What did you study in college?

I got my Bachelor’s Degree in 1977 from UNC Chapel Hill. I followed with a Masters focusing on Marine Biology from the University of Washington. Then, I got my Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina in Biology, focusing on the ecology of salt marshes. I was studying worms of various types that were so small you had to dye them red to see them under the microscope!

Weren’t you a teacher at one point?

I was hired the day before school started in fall 1984, to be a science and math teacher at the high school in Siler City, North Carolina. I loved it. I also taught Sunday school back when my kids were young.

Where did you work after you left teaching?

After finishing school, I realized I knew a lot about animals and plants, but not much about how ecosystems are managed. To fill that gap, I worked for North Carolina’s Division of Coastal Management, and then the Division of Environmental Management, focusing on water quality and other coastal resource issues. I was later the first director of the program to save the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary, one of the largest in the U.S. Much of my time there was spent coming to understand fisheries and fishermen.

What have you done at EDF that you are really proud of?

I led a team that analyzed every square mile of US oceans to come up with recommendations for sites that were designated by George W. Bush as marine national monuments. It was a great honor to help preserve some of the most precious areas of the ocean.

Also, for the past ten years, I have chaired the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s panel that’s developing a comprehensive plan for the ocean ecosystem in the region. As part of the plan, we recently announced that more than 23,000 square miles of unmatched deep-sea corals will be preserved. We made sure the corals were protected, but also are allowing fishermen access to certain fishing areas as long as they use gear that won’t damage the coral habitat.

I spent many years helping protect Southeast wetlands and estuaries, which are so important as habitat for fish, birds and many other animals. Our team used a successful lawsuit and a public-private partnership with Weyerhaeuser to plug a major loophole that allowed wetlands to be destroyed while installing pine tree farms, the biggest threat in the region. A similar partnership with Texas-Gulf Inc. cut pollution into the major fish nurseries of the Pamlico River from one of the largest fertilizer complexes in the world by more than 85%. 

We also stopped then-Vice President Dan Quayle from drastically changing the definition of wetlands, which would have meant that many of the nation’s most important wetlands would lose their protection.

What’s something many people don’t know about you?

My main hobby is historical archeology, blending work in musty archives with time in the field to find colonial and Native American sites. I got started when I spotted a bunch of American Indian spear points and wondered why they were there. I’ve now found and registered hundreds of Native American archeological sites in North Carolina. I’ve also now discovered the site of a long-lost Quaker Church, called Contentnea Meeting, active when Lord Cornwallis British Army marched right by on the way to Yorktown in 1781.

Never miss a post! Subscribe to EDFish via a email or a feed reader.

We need your help to unleash our clean energy future, create millions of new jobs, and reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

Join EDF and Clean Energy Works as we call Senators and demand climate action.

Today is the first day of the 72 Hours for Clean American Power calling campaign. From today through Thursday, EDF is joining forces with 10 fellow environmental organizations to flood the Senate with calls demanding climate action.

You can do your part with just three easy steps:

1) Click to call your Senators and urge them to support a strong climate and energy bill this year. It's free and takes only a few minutes. One call is worth 100 emails, so please call now. If you're not sure what to say, see suggested talking points below.

2) Forward this link to everyone you know who's concerned about global warming and our clean energy future.

3) Send an email to your Senators to reinforce our call for action. The more your Senators hear from you, the better.

This is a critical moment in our campaign — meaningful legislation is within our reach, but we have to push to make it happen. Please do everything you can over the next 72 hours to urge your Senators to act now.

Not sure what to say? No problem. We’ve got some call-in pointers and a sample call to get you started:

Make sure to tell your Senator:

• Who You Are: Senators represent their constituents. Broad-based support from a particular interest group can really get their attention. So let them know if you're a veteran, small business owner, mechanic, academic, scientist, mother, father, student – whatever group or groups you are part of.
• Where You're From: Senators need to know that you live in their state, and where in their state you live. They need to hear that people from every corner of their state are climate and clean energy advocates.
• Why You Care: Whether your inspiration is national security, jobs, love of our planet or all of the above, it is essential to let Senators know why you care.
• It's urgent! Your Senator needs to hear urgency from you. If the Senate does not act this year, especially in the next few months, the clock will run out on this Congress and it could be a long time before they take it up again. We can't afford to let pollution build up and our economy stagnate while the Senate delays.

Here is a sample call that includes all four key elements:

Hi- My Name is Brenda Smith and I'm a small business owner from Town/City, State. America desperately needs help to jumpstart our economy and create jobs – and a clean energy and climate bill can help us do it. We've waited long enough – the clean energy economy is passing us by. We are losing ground to China and India and losing jobs here in America. I want Sen. X to act now to pass a strong clean energy and climate bill. Not next year – NOW.

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

Sara Goodman of Greenwire/E&E News had a great piece picked up by the New York Times yesterday about state governments pressing for meaningful TSCA reform. I blogged earlier about the states’ reform principles, quoting Ted Sturdevant, Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, urging that “[w]e need a federal law that prevents contamination from happening in the first place, and phases out the harmful chemicals that are already in widespread use.”

Goodman’s piece yesterday focused more on the need for fundamental reform of confidential business information (CBI) claim allowances under TSCA. Recall that, under TSCA, state governments as well as the public are denied access to any CBI EPA receives. Judging by their quotes in Goodman’s piece, they’re not happy about it:

• "It doesn't seem right that we have to go elsewhere to get information, it seems like the role of the federal government [should be] to help support us," said Ken Zarker, pollution prevention manager with Washington state's Department of Ecology.
• Added Ginger Jordan-Hilliard, public health coordinator for Maine's Environmental Protection Department, "We're talking about a very basic right to know, which is needed by consumers, regulators, workers. … If [a chemical] is in products we're going to use, we feel like people ought to have access to robust information."

I got what I thought was a nice quote in there, too, pointing out that under TSCA, "[t]he presumption is against disclosure, even for information that nobody would argue is legitimate CBI. That culture has permeated the agency and its practices so deeply it's just second nature at this point."

But the other half of the equation, in addition to EPA leniency, is the chemical industry’s profligacy in making claims. Remarkably, that’s a view apparently shared by at least the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Here’s my favorite quote from Goodman’s piece:

“The trade group's vice president, [Jim] Cooper, said confidentiality claims have run amok because there is no easy EPA mechanism to switch off claims. ‘EPA has to figure out a way to provide companies with a mechanism where they can recategorize the confidentiality of chemicals,’ Cooper said. ‘It's got to be efficient, then it will be used.’”

Well, they always say that admitting one has a problem of excess is the first step toward recovery.

Dr. Doug Rader spoke to scientists, policy analysts and conservationists at WWF’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. as part of the Kathryn Fuller Science for Nature Fund seminar series. Dr. Rader spoke about how ever-stringent and complicated measures to control pressure from fishing has failed to stem the tide of collapsed fisheries around the world and in the U.S. , and how fisheries managed under catch shares have a significantly better record of preventing fisheries collapse. Watch the video!

When it comes to water, Texas is in a bit of pickle, despite the planning efforts of the Texas Water Development Board. Although the current State Water Plan is a laudable effort, more work still needs to be done.

That’s why the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s new water sustainability strategy “WaterSMART” comes at a good time. SMART stands for “Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow. The purpose of the program is to “secure and stretch water supplies for use by existing and future generations to benefit people, the economy and the environment.”

Though WaterSMART is primarily a federal policy, there are some lessons to be learned by Texas. 

First, Texas is not maximizing conservation efforts. Conservation is the closest thing to a water supply “silver bullet” there is, particularly in the municipal sector. No matter what happens in the future, using water more efficiently and guarding against waste is always good policy. Any Texas rancher will agree with me.

Perhaps the biggest lesson for Texans to learn from is the program’s attempt to integrate water and energy needs. WaterSMART specifically aims to identify and support energy projects and actions that promote sustainable water strategies. Conversely, it will also identify the water footprint of various energy technologies and make sure that it is considered as part of development. 

Texas should be planning for its future with this water and energy relationship in mind. Water supply projects that move water hundreds of miles in a pipe can be very energy intensive and may not make sense. Likewise, we should not build new energy generation unless we are sure there is enough water to supply the plant locally, without negatively impacting existing users.

I think Secretary Salazar says it best: “The federal government’s existing water policies and programs simply aren’t built for 21st century pressures on water supplies. Population growth. Climate change. Rising energy demands. Environmental needs. Aging infrastructure. Risks to drinking water supplies. Those are just some of the challenges.” 

We don’t use water the same way we did 50 years ago. Looking to the next 50 years, Texans must find progressive ways to ensure there is enough water. Being “SMART” is the first step.