Well, times are a-changing. I must be turning into the old-timer who always talks about "when she was a kid" how much less expensive things were. You know, postage, gas, gum. The essentials. I remember very vividly in highschool when my friend finally got her license, we would drive over the county line into Union County (we were living in Charlotte, NC), and fill up her tank for 89 cents a gallon.

89 CENTS A GALLON! Ok, adjust for inflation and all that, but STILL. This was only 13 years ago, after all.

If you're still looking for ways to use less gas, check out this article: 101 Ways to Use Less Gas by EcoTrekker. They've broken down the tips into categories to make them easy to sift through and pick the options that work best for you.

Also, if you haven't already, take action to support clean car legislation in North Carolina. Cleaner cars means fewer emissions, and saving money at the pump!

First it was the proposed Cliffside power plant:
Gubernatorial Candidate, Richard Moore, came out first saying that the Cliffside plant can wait. This was followed only hours later by Gubernatorial Candidate, Beverly Perdue, who also said the plant can wait.

It's a shame they didn't listen to thousands of citizens across the state who have been asking for officials to STOP Cliffside (not wait).

Today it's Campaign Reform:
This time, Perdue was first out of the gate. Followed a day later by Moore supporting the exact same proposal...One initially proposed in 1995 - a bit outdated wouldn't you say?

I find this both interesting and frustrating. It's interesting because the two lead Gubernatorial candidates are coming out proactively on our issues: clean air, renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean & fair elections, getting special interests out of politics...

What's frustrating is that it seems these two candidates aren't talking to groups who work day in and day out on these issues. And, because the candidates aren't connected, their proposals are weak and/or outdated.

Perdue and Moore should be applauded (please note that the NC Conservation Network does not endorse candidates) for their attempts to do the right thing on clean energy and clean elections. But, we should also encourage them to take real stands on the issues if they are serious about protecting public health and the health of our democracy. Candidates should talk to the organizations and individuals who know most about the issues before they paint themselves green and stick a feather in their cap. Because, unfortunately, candidates' proposals often fall short of meaning real change.

Yesterday's The State of Things radio show featured a conversation regarding the proposed new Cliffside coal-burning power plant (click here for more details). The show featured Tom Williams, Environmental and Energy Efficiency spokesperson for Duke Energy and Jim Warren, Executive Director of the environmental and climate change non-profit (and NC Conservation Network affiliate) NC Waste Awareness & Reduction Network (NC WARN). You can download the broadcast here to hear more about the controversy.

Let us know what you think...about the show, about Duke Power's stance, and/or about your opinion on the Cliffside issue.

It’s nothing new that the Bush Administration is no friend to the environment, but several recent actions by the EPA have really gotten my goat. 

This week the EPA announced that politics will play a bigger role in setting air quality standards – ok well they didn’t really say that outright, but that is the effect of the changes. 

Every five years the EPA reviews air pollution standards for six air pollutants – ozone, soot, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead -  to make sure standards are protective of the environment and public health.  The changes, which the EPA says will “streamline” the process, will add policy considerations to what used to be independent staff scientist review of the science on a pollutant, and will reduce the role of the independent panel of scientific advisors.  Quoted in a New York Times article, Senior Environmental Defense Attorney Vicki Patton summed it up: “They are using this idea of streamlined and expedited decision-making as a Trojan horse to infect the most important decisions the [EPA] administrator makes with politics.”

Lead looks like it might be the first casualty of the new policy. The EPA plans to use this new politically-influenced review process for the lead air quality standards, and the draft staff paper on lead issued this week acknowledges that revoking the standard for lead is an option on the table.  Industry – lead smelters, battery makers and oil refiners - is lobbying for eliminating lead limits. Lead is a highly potent neurotoxin, especially for children. 

Also, on the water quality front, last month the agency approved its final rule that allows spraying toxic pesticides over rivers, streams and lakes without getting a Clean Water Act NPDES permit.  The EPA punts by saying these pesticides are already regulated under the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), though FIFRA does not regulate water quality or protection of ecosystems. 

If the EPA is going to keep protecting industry over the environment, perhaps it should be called the IPA.

What if I told you that there were programs that would do the following things:

• save energy costs by 25%;

• create more jobs across North Carolina (a recent study from Appalachian State University showed these programs could save $3 billion and support over 150,000 jobs in NC);

• reduce NC's dependence on out-of-state and foreign energy imports and keep jobs and money in the state;

• provide millions of dollars in energy savings to consumers and state and municipal government;

• strengthen rural communities and their economies, helping to preserve our land and heritage;

• keep energy consumers (that would be you and me) from paying $3 million in rate hikes;

• and much more.

That's right, programs that promote energy efficiency
are very rewarding for North Carolina and the people who live here. Especially since a second key proposal is for the state to reward our utilities for their productivity rather than the volume of the power they sell; this would give utilities a greater incentive to invest in energy efficiency.

Duke Energy, however, feels differently. They are currently asking the NC Utilities Commission for permission to create one of the nation’s largest coal burning plants by expanding their Cliffside plant (60 miles west of Charlotte.)

It's time for North Carolinians to stand up and JUST SAY NO to new polluting power plants. Write your letter to the NC Utilities Commission today and let them know that we deserve energy efficiency programs--NOT new power plants!

We got a little good news over the Thanksgiving holiday: NC Attorney General Roy Cooper is pushing ahead with his work to stop air pollution from blowing into North Carolina.  From the Charlotte Observer:

North Carolina's attorney general is pressing forward with a lawsuit that accuses the nation's largest federal utility of causing a "public nuisance" by failing to reduce pollution from its coal-fired power plants.

Attorney General Roy Cooper said his team was identifying experts to bolster the state's case against the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The lawsuit claims TVA has not taken enough steps to reduce the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and soot that have wafted into North Carolina from 11 coal-burning plants in Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama.

"We're going to have experts to show how visibility in the mountains will significantly improve, how many deaths will be prevented and how many hospital admissions will be reduced when TVA takes steps to cut down on its pollution," Cooper told the Asheville Citizen-Times in an interview published Thursday.

The Raleigh News and Observer praises Cooper and calls TVA's resistance and hard-nosed attitude "unfortunate".  Hopefully, we're getting close to a solution, but the situation is still a sad one:

The North Carolina mountains were once a healing mecca for people from pollution-choked cities. Doctors prescribed high country living as a way to regain healthy lungs. Now, sadly, its is the mountains themselves that need healing.

As an Organizer for the NC Conservation Network I travel all over my home state fighting to protect our health and our environment. I meet and talk with lots of different people in my travels. Often I hear from folks that they have a hard time seeing the link between their daily life (and health) and the importance of protecting our environment. 

Making Connections, which aired this week on UNC-TV, does an excellent job of showing the links between our everyday life, our land, farms, forests, natural habitats, water usage, air quality, and tourism.

Our friends at Environmental Defense worked with the Director of NC Zoo, Dr. David Jones, to create this wonderful program.  Dr. Jones says “It is time to ask tough questions about polluted air, dirty water, and development…See why now is the time for making connections." He travels across our state exploring how our health and wealth are in danger.

Click here to watch this program online.

They have also created an informative website with lesson plans and activity guides for teachers as well as ways for folks like you to get involved.

Dr. Jones asks "What will our legacy be?" 

I have hope that our state will be a leader in the recycling industry, renewable energy field, eco-tourism and organic farming. I see these replacing the vanishing small town textile mills and farms with industry that creates jobs, saves our small towns and preserves our beautiful environment.

What about you? What do you think our legacy will be?

Very short, in fact.  From mental_floss, via Treehugger:

Of course air pollution isn’t a new phenomenon at all. Many civilizations, even back before the Industrial Revolution, had trouble keeping the air clean.

In 900 BC, for example, Hit, a town located in present-day Iraq, which was then the center of asphalt mining, was hit with a visit from the Egyptian King, Tukulti, who reported a strange smell in the air generated by the ulmeta rocks, which are high in sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

Read the full post here.

So last night the Environmental Quality hazardous waste facility in Apex caught fire, sending plumes of toxic gases and particulates into the air over the town, and spurred the evacuation of roughly 17,000 people.  Reports have indicated that one of the chemicals released was chlorine, but it remains unclear what other toxics were as well.  By this morning, the fire spread to a nearby petroleum tank farm. Now it is raining, helping remove toxics from the air, but creating possible threats to water quality.

So far, of course, local officials’ first priority has been to keep residents safe and contain the disaster.  Over the coming days, there will probably be questions about how this kind of disaster can be prevented – which, if you think about it, isn’t just better for public health, it is also a lot cheaper for governments and local business.  As the initial crisis passes, we’ll be watching for answers to these questions:

Enforcement.  The EQ facility that caught fire was fined $32,000 for environmental violations back in March.  News reports this morning quote Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly as saying that state inspectors did not find any violations at the plant during the most recent inspection, Sept. 28 – 29.  One question we’ll be asking for the long-term is, could greater funding or political support for enforcement help prevent this kind of disaster?

Changes to emergency planning.  Following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush Administration removed a great deal of emergency planning and community right to know information from public websites.  The purpose was to prevent terrorists from using public information to plan attacks – but a side effect has been that ordinary citizens have had a much harder time telling what chemicals are in their neighborhoods and what the response plan involves if an accident happens.  Two years ago, Clean Water for North Carolina released a thoughtful report raising this concern, and describing the need for better management of hazardous chemicals in communities.  The Bush Administration has also supported cuts in reporting requirements to such federal databases as the Toxics Release Inventory.  When we saw the news reports on the EQ fire last night, we tried to find planning documents online, but couldn’t.  A second question we’ll be asking is, did the withdrawal of public information over the last several years make it harder for local officials or residents to react effectively when the emergency unfolded?

Impacts to aquatic systems.  What goes up mostly comes down; what happens to it then?  Today the rain is washing unknown toxins out of the air and into local streams.  Apex sits on the watershed divide between the Neuse and Cape Fear river basins.  It appears to us that the EQ facility is in the Neuse basin, while winds last night were blowing the plume just over into the Cape Fear basin.  We haven’t seen information yet on how state or local officials are keeping contaminated runoff from the site out of streams, and we’ll be curious to see what level of toxics fall as part of the rain. 

You may have heard about a couple of wonderful documentary films that are out right now, such as the "Al Gore film," An Inconvenient Truth. 

Another film, called Kilowatt Ours, will be shown for FREE across North Carolina this month.  It follows filmmaker Jeff Barrie around the Southeast as he finds out where our electricity comes from, what's the true cost of meeting our energy needs, and what can we do about it.  The film is incredibly informative.  For instance: by turning off lights and other electronics when not in use, and by switching your light bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs, the average person can save 10% on their energy bills and stop the burning of over 1300 lbs of coal as a result of the increased energy efficiency.   

RSVP today to see Kilowatt Ours at a showing near you and meet the film's maker, Jeff Barrie!

It's amazing what small and easy action you can take - all by yourself - to stop global warming, mountain top removal, air pollution, etc.  And you can save yourself some cash.     

In 2004, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report entitled Hidden Danger: Environmental Health Threats in the Latino Community. This report focused on five main environmental issues impacting Latinos across the country: air quality, water quality, pesticides, lead, and mercury. In particular, the report stated that:

Approximately 66 percent of U.S. Latinos—25.6 million people—live in areas that do not meet the federal government’s air quality standards. These include the U.S.-Mexico border region, the Central Valley of California, and the cities of Chicago, New York, Phoenix, and Houston.

Very recently, Radio Bilingϋe (a non-profit public radio network), launched their newest service: Aire Libre, a Spanish-written website focused on air quality and asthma in California. This new site features reports, radio segments, news stories, and educational messages targeted toward Latinos living in California who are concerned with adverse health effects associated with poor air quality.

While this is a wonderful resource, it makes me wonder why there aren't more services like this available for Latinos living in North Carolina...especially since the "Latino population of North Carolina is the fastest growing of any state in the country," according to our friends at El Pueblo.

If you're interested in learning more about ways to connect to NC's Latino community, check out the bilingual publication Protect Your Health and Environment/Protegiendo su Salud y el Ambiente (pdf document), that a few groups right here in North Carolina put together a few years ago to provide basic information in English and Spanish on environmental health threats to Latinos in our state. Also, be sure to check out the Agricultural Resources Center's Spanish website, full of information in Spanish on pesticides.

If you know of other resources in the state, please post them here!

From the Charlotte Observer:

A parade of young mothers, doctors and environmentalists on Thursday urged the state's top environmental board to sharply rein in power plant emissions of mercury, a toxic metal that can impair babies.

Utilities say they're lowering emissions but can't promise the 90 percent reductions environmental groups demand.

The hearing, part of a series around the state, brought to Charlotte a debate once centered on the coastal plain, where mercury-contaminated fish are most commonly found. Mercury from industrial smokestacks falls to earth, often accumulating in fish.

Will you join us for hearings on reducing mercury in  Raleigh (6/1) or Winterville (6/8)?

Are high gas prices good for the environment?  A recent NPR news story tackles that question:

You won't hear it from Democrats on Capitol Hill, but higher gas prices are a good thing for the environment. Expensive gas should slow the use of cars, and the pollution they emit. But politically savvy environmentalists aren't calling for taxes that would raise the price still further.

It seems logical that higher gas prices would cause folks to curb their driving, which would produce less pollution.  But with fluctuating gas prices, how are we going to sustain the 'drive less' mentality?

Those interviewed suggest a number of options: higher gas taxes; better fuel efficiency standards; and more and better public transportation.

What do you think?  What's the best option? 

Springtime brings flowers, green trees, and lush lawns.  And along with spring lawns come lawn mowers, which have some of the dirtiest engines in America. A recent New York Times article, "A Greener Way to Cut the Grass Runs Afoul of a Powerful Lobby", details the fight to clean up harmful emissions from lawn mowers.

According to the California Air Resources Board "quart for quart -- the 2006 lawn mower engines contribute 93 times more smog-forming emissions than 2006 cars." And the pollution produced by lawn mowers accounted for 2% of smog produced from all engines in California.

A simple solution would be to add small catalytic converters to the lawn mower's engine. However, this proposal has led to a political battle similar to the fight to add catalytic converters to cars in the 1970s.

About 6 million lawn mowers are shipped to retailers each year. On one side of the argument is the government of California; they are trying to create regulations that would tighten restrict small engine emissions, which would cut "22 tons of smog-forming chemicals from the California air daily, or the equivalent of more than 800,000 cars a day."

On the other side are Briggs & Stratton, an engine maker, and California Senator Christopher Bond, who oppose the addition of catalytic converters to lawn mowers. Their arguments against restricting small-engine standards include the increased cost, which could lead to the loss of 1,750 US jobs. The possibility that the catalytic converters could pose a fire risk is also being studied. Adding the necessary parts to the lawn mowers would cost about $20 and several studies have shown the safety of the proposed changes.

California is leading the way by initiating the fight to reduce pollution from different sources. The EPA is due to produce a draft of similar standard by the end of the year.  We'll keep an eye out and let you know when that happens.

A new report released April 5 from the National Resources Defense Council shows that the top 100 power companies have reduced emissions of some pollutants, but carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are increasing. The report, "Benchmarking Air Emissions," found that overall emissions of sulfur dioxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) fell by 44 percent and 36 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 2004 as the result of stricter pollution-control standards. CO2 emissions, however, rose 27 percent in the same 14-year period and the report predicts a bigger increase in the years ahead due a projected 66 percent increase in coal-based power production by 2030.

An interactive table on the report website allows comparison of companies and emission rates. North Carolina based Duke Power and Progress Energy rank 8th and 9th in electricity production respectively. Progress Energy ranks in the top 10 (out of 100, with 1 being highest) for overall NOx, SOx and CO2 emissions, and 14th for mercury emissions. Duke Power ranks in the top 15 for overall NOx, SOx and CO2 emissions and 17th for mercury emissions. In terms of emissions rates (pounds of pollutant per kilowatt hour electricity) from just their coal plants, Progress ranks 15 for SOx, 33 for NOx , 57 for CO2, and 46 for mercury; Duke ranks 16 for SOx, 63 for NOx , 84 for CO2, and 59 for mercury. The full report is available at the NRDC website.

Top 10, huh?  That's higher than some of our basketball teams.

NC Attorney General Roy Cooper took the next step yesterday to clean up North Carolina's air.  From the Charlotte Observer:

North Carolina sued the nation's largest publicly owned utility Monday, saying pollution blown from the Tennessee Valley Authority's coal-fired power plants cause health, environmental and economic havoc.

The suit asks a federal court in Asheville to declare emissions from 11 TVA plants in Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama a public nuisance. It seeks a court order for "reasonable and appropriate" steps to reduce the pollution.[...]

Coal-burning power plants are among the nation's largest sources of asthma-inducing ozone, haze and fine particles. Out-of-state plants cause more than 15,000 N.C. illnesses and hundreds of emergency-room visits and deaths a year, says N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, who filed the suit.

This latest step is part of an ongoing process to clean up North Carolina's air.  The NC Conservation Network has been working with groups across the state clean up coal-fired power plants, both in North Carolina and in our surrounding states.  The article also includes a great timeline of our progress:

1977 TVA starts installing pollution controls on its plants; will invest $5.7 billion by 2010.

2002 N.C. legislators adopt Clean Smokestacks Act, requiring N.C. coal-fired power plants to reduce emissions. The act directs the state to seek similar measures by neighbors, including TVA.

2004 North Carolina petitions EPA for reductions in power-plant pollution from 13 other states.

2005 Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule adopted. Requires utilities in 28 states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions, starting in 2009.

2005 EPA denies, in part, N.C. petition for pollution-cutting order against other states.

2009 Clean Smokestacks deadline for N.C. power plants to reduce ozone-forming nitrogen oxides by 77 percent.

2013 Clean Smokestacks deadline for power plants to reduce haze-forming sulfur dioxide 73 percent.

So congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to encourage Cooper to do the right thing.  It worked!

The NC Attorney General is fed up with bad air blowing into North Carolina.  Lucky for us, he's got the power to do something about it.  Roy Cooper is suing the Tennessee Valley Authority to make them clean up their polluting coal-fired power plants.  From the Charlotte Observer's editorial:

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper may be taking the only rational course left in the state's air pollution dispute with the Tennessee Valley Authority: a lawsuit demanding that TVA clean up its emissions.

That may be the only way to get the state's beef with TVA, a giant public power generator, before an impartial arbiter to decide whether further pollution reductions are in order. North Carolina had prodded TVA and power generators in 13 other states to reduce emissions. TVA argues it has already cut its pollutants more than North Carolina has. A state Justice Department spokesman said the discussions have gone nowhere.

TVA has argued that they are already planning to spend $5.6 billion to clean up the plants and they don't need to do any more.

This is the latest in a continued battle to clean up North Carolina's air.  With the passage of the Clean Smokestacks Act in 2002, we took a big step towards cleaning up pollution from North Carolina's biggest polluters--coal-fired power plants.  Now we need to get the out-of-state players to do their part.

The Clean Smokestacks Act, a landmark piece of legislation passed by the NC General Assembly in 2002, has begun to have an impact according to the News and Observer:

From the Arden community south of Asheville, the white cloud belching from the giant smokestack on Progress Energy's old coal-fired power plant looks to all appearances like pollution.

But since building an enormous $82 million scrubber that was dedicated Wednesday, the plant is mainly spewing water vapor. The scrubber removes the most of the sulphur dioxide, a harmful pollutant that contributes to respiratory problems in children and the elderly, acid rain and the white haze that shrouds the mountains.

The scrubber is the first of more than a dozen similar projects planned statewide, and its installation represents the fruits of the state's Clean Smokestacks Act.

The reduction of sulfur dioxide is making a world of difference for those living near the plants:

For residents living near the plant, the change has been immediate. Since the scrubber went into use last month, Julia Quillinan has noticed a dramatic decline in the odor near her home. She can see the plant from her front yard, and said she has grown accustomed to its sulphur smell, which is much like rotten eggs.

"I know it doesn't smell in the mornings," said Quillinan, 35, a homemaker. "In mornings, it used to be bad. It's really nice now."

Cleaner air and no more rotten eggs smell.  Why didn't we do this years ago?

On Monday, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators – Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA-ALAPCO) unveiled its model state rule to control mercury from coal fired power plants, the single largest source of mercury emissions into the environment. The model rule has also been endorsed by the Institute of Clean Air Companies, a consortium of companies that make and sell air pollution control equipment.

The hazardous air pollutant provision of the federal Clean Air Act, as we read it, requires power plants to reduce their mercury emissions by 90% to 95% (the maximum achievable control technology) by 2008. The Bush Administration ‘clean air mercury rule’, issued this past spring and under legal challenge from environmental groups and states, would allow utilities to delay controls for years to come, achieving a 69% reduction sometime after 2018 or later given the option of banking and trading mercury credits. The STAPPA-ALAPCO model rule is not as strong as the federal Clean Air Act, but is much more protective of human health than the Bush Administration rule. Specifically, the STAPPA-ALAPCO proposal calls for reductions of 80% by 2008, followed by reductions of 90% to 95% by 2012. The proposal would also block emissions banking and trading. That’s important, because mercury creates toxic hotspots downwind of emissions sources, making mercury trading particularly inappropriate. It really does matter where, specifically, emissions cuts are being made; similar cuts in different geographic locations have different health impacts and are not interchangeable, even though trading assumes they are. The STAPPA-ALAPCO model rule includes a second option to add flexibility: power plants that are already reducing emissions of mercury as a side benefit of mandatory cuts in of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides can average their reductions and achieve them over a slightly longer period of time.  (Read STAPPA/ALAPCO's comparison of their rule and CAMR.)

What does this mean for North Carolina? The state Environmental Management Commission (EMC) must decide whether to adopt state rules that mirror the weak federal rule, or protect public health and implement the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. The STAPPA-ALAPCO model provides an option for states that are unwilling to require needed reductions immediately. We’ll see what version the EMC decides in January to send forward for public comment.

Evangelical christians are considering joining the fight for cleaner air.  According to the New York Times:

In their long and frustrated efforts pushing Congress to pass legislation on global warming, environmentalists are gaining a new ally.

With increasing vigor, evangelical groups that are part of the base of conservative support for leading Republicans are campaigning for laws that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which scientists have linked with global warming.

In the latest effort, the National Association of Evangelicals, a nonprofit organization that includes 45,000 churches serving 30 million people across the country, is circulating among its leaders the draft of a policy statement that would encourage lawmakers to pass legislation creating mandatory controls for carbon emissions.

They cite the Bible as the reason for their involvement:

"Genesis 2:15," said Richard Cizik, the association's vice president for governmental affairs, citing a passage that serves as the justification for the effort: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."

In theory, this could help swing a whole new set of legislators: conservative Republicans.  But that may be wishful thinking:

A major obstacle to any measure that would address global warming is Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and an evangelical himself, but a skeptic of climate change caused by human activities.

Mr. Inhofe has led efforts to keep mandatory controls on greenhouse gases out of any emission reduction bill considered by his committee and has called human activities contributing to global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

"You can always find in Scriptures a passage to misquote for almost anything," Mr. Inhofe said in an interview, dismissing the position of Mr. Cizik's association as "something very strange."

Should the faith community be more involved in these issues?  Is yours?