This post is by John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Health Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund.

Despite EPA's refusal to formally acknowledge the danger of greenhouse gases in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), two recently released EPA reports detail the health dangers of greenhouse gases.

The first, a support document for the ANPR [PDF], summarizes the extensive body of science showing that global warming pollution presents a serious threat to human health and the environment. The document is labeled "draft" and stamped "do not circulate or cite", but is listed on the EPA Web site as one of the supporting documents for the released ANPR. From the Executive Summary:

Read more »

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Check out Stephen Colbert on the EPA's decision to delay regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It's hilarious.

This post is by Tom Olson, a consulting attorney for the Climate and Air Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.

Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally released its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - EPA's answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act's definition of "pollutant".

There are a number of differences between the final document and the leaked May 30th draft. (See this post from a Georgetown Law professor praising the draft's balance and expertise.) Most significantly, EPA chief Stephen Johnson prefaced the document with a series of denunciations by White House officials. And then, adopting the views of the White House, he disparaged the work of his own staff.

The final version also included some disturbing changes to the analysis itself.

Read more »

This post is by Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund, and former attorney in EPA's General Counsel's office.

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed by a coalition of states and environmental organizations to enforce the Supreme Court's landmark decision on global warming in Massachusetts v. EPA. The coalition asked the court to instruct EPA to carry out its duty, under the Supreme Court's decision, to determine within 60 days whether global warming pollution endangers human health and welfare.

Read more »

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense Fund, and a former attorney in EPA's General Counsel's office.

One year ago, the Supreme Court rejected the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim that it lacked legal authority to regulate global warming pollution (for example, from vehicle tailpipes). EPA administrator Stephen Johnson promised a firm and prompt response to the high Court's decision, but a year passed with no action.

Then on March 27, Johnson recanted his commitment.

So today, a broad coalition of 18 states, 3 cities, and 11 non-profit organizations (see full list*) took legal action to compel EPA to comply. The parties are led by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and include Environmental Defense Fund.

Read more »

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

Just before Christmas - after two years of stalling - the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied California's request to set its own, tougher vehicle-emissions standards. In denying the request, EPA Administrator Johnson said:

The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution - not a confusing patchwork of state rules - to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles."

What's wrong with this statement? Well, among other things, the word "patchwork". Under the Clean Air Act, there are only two possible standards for motor vehicles:

1. Federal standards
2. California standards, which are tougher than federal standards and other states may adopt.

A choice between two options is hardly a "confusing patchwork". So where did this idea come from?

Read more »

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense, and a former attorney in the EPA's General Counsel's office.

Two lawsuits were filed today against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which sits in San Francisco. The first lawsuit was filed by California, and the second by several environmental organizations - Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Conservation Law Foundation, and the International Center for Technology Assessment.

The lawsuits challenge EPA's denial of California's request for a preemption waiver under the Clean Air Act to implement the state's landmark standards for greenhouse gas emissions - requests that have been granted by EPA over 50 times in the past 40 years [PDF].

The EPA's decision relies on a flawed argument that the federal courts already have rejected and are likely to reject again.

Read more »

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense, and a former attorney in the EPA's General Counsel's office.

Two years ago, California asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pave the way for landmark standards to limit global warming from motor vehicles. Seventeen other states plan to implement the Clean Car standards, pending the EPA decision. But today - after two years of stalling - EPA said no. This decision is virtually unprecedented; EPA has granted similar requests over 50 times in 40 years.

The Bush administration is putting the brakes on state action to address the global warming crisis. Doing nothing about global warming is bad enough - but going out of your way to block the state leaders who are taking action is just plain shocking.

Read more »

This post is by Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense.

A federal judge in California today rebuked the auto industry's attempt to block California and 16 other states from setting tough new limits on global warming pollution from automobiles, calling these efforts "the very definition of folly."

Read more »

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense.

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a 90-page opinion overturning major aspects of the Bush administration's flawed fuel economy standards for light-duty trucks. Sean Donahue argued the case for Environmental Defense and Susan Fiering for the California Attorney General's office - on behalf of a larger group of state and environmental petitioners.

Among other things, the court held that the Department of Transportation (DOT):

Read more »