As such, the number unhealthy air days has increased and Vermont’s queen city, Burlington, has dropped off the list of cities with some of the cleanest air. For a growing number of warm summer days, outside activity has become dangerous for sensitive groups and, on bad days, for everyone. It has also increased visible haze, veiling the scenic backdrops Vermonters love.
Air pollution is not the only recent climate change related risk threatening lives and health. The region now sees 50% more precipitation than it did in 1995. With steep hills and narrow valleys, this means flooding. Hurricane Irene devastated countless towns in 2011. A 2023 flood placed the state’s capital under water and 2024 flooding almost submerged the capital again and washed away buildings and homes in a nearby village. Based on disaster declarations, Washington County—home to Montpelier—is now tied for the second-most disaster-prone county in the nation.
My little city of Montpelier, Vermont is not unique. Unprecedented floods, fires, and heat waves have devastated communities from Asheville to central Texas to Los Angeles. All of which makes it a puzzling time for the entity entrusted to protect the environment and public health—the Environmental Protection Agency—to decide that the emissions that cause climate change are no longer something it needs to concern itself with.
The Endangerment Finding
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) that the term “air pollutant” in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) encompasses greenhouse gases that cause warming such as carbon dioxide and methane. In the case, the Court rejected an argument by the EPA that the CAA did not authorize it to regulate gases that cause climate change.
Instead, in a 5-4 decision, the Court concluded that it was “unambiguous” that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant.'” Since the Court concluded that the EPA had authority to regulate GHG emissions, the EPA was obligated under the Act to determine whether GHGs “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.”
In 2009, after an exhaustive review of the overwhelming science, the EPA concluded that six GHGs endanger public health and public welfare. It also concluded that the GHG emission from new motor vehicles “cause or contribute” to climate change. When this finding was challenged, a federal appeals court found that the EPA’s conclusions were “supported by substantial evidence.”
Since 2009, the endangerment finding has been the linchpin of federal efforts to reduce harmful GHG emissions across multiple sectors, primarily the transportation and power sectors where most of the U.S. GHG emissions occur. Both the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration rejected petitions to overturn the finding. Moreover, industry—even the fossil fuel industry—has generally come to accept the finding.
The EPA Wants to Rescind the Finding
Despite the overwhelming science, legal directive from the Supreme Court, and acceptance by industry, the second Trump Administration is aggressively moving to rescind this scientifically supported finding, mocking it as “the holy grail of the climate change religion.” It is also proposing to repeal all GHG emission standards for vehicles established since the finding issued in 2009.
Its rationales are both expected and surprising. Primarily, the EPA argues that the Clean Air Act does not grant it the authority to regulate pollutants unless they contribute to local or regional exposures. It is also contending that it cannot regulate pollution where the link between the pollution emitted and the harms caused appears attenuated—in essence arguing that because the link between emissions from traffic and the harms of climate change are not direct because other factors and emissions lead to climate change as well, EPA has no duty to regulate these emissions.
As the proposal puts it, “emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines in the United States do not have a sufficiently close connection to the adverse impacts identified in the Endangerment Finding to fit within the legal meaning of ‘cause’ or ‘contribute.’” This argument, some legal experts have alleged, is effectively a recycling of the failed argument that the EPA lost in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Given that many legal scholars feel that the EPA is on thin legal ground, it has concocted a stew of other rationales, likely hoping at least one will find a receptive ear with the courts.
These arguments include: climate change science is uncertain (which a recently-released Department of Energy report tries to bolster); there was not direction from Congress to regulate GHG emissions; technology does not exist that would meaningfully address the impacts of GHG emissions; eliminating emissions from motor vehicles would be futile in meaningfully addressing climate change; and that more expensive new vehicles would result in keeping older, higher emitting cars on the road because people would be deterred from buying new cars due to higher prices.
What Can We Do?
Assuming the rescission is finalized, it will almost certainly face stiff and swift challenges in court. As indicated above, this move by the EPA is on tenuous legal and scientific grounds and the agency must convince judges that its 180 turn after 16 plus years of increasingly strong science and notable harms is not arbitrary.
If the EPA is successful in fending off challenges—and it bears noting that of the nine justices who decided Massachusetts v. EPA, the only three still on the Court were in the dissent—the overturning of the endangerment finding would undo GHG vehicle emissions standards and many, if not most, other the EPA actions to curb harmful GHG emissions.
It will also cause some immediate uncertainty—which may be more difficult for industry to navigate than a predictable set of federal regulations. In the 2011 case AEP v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court relied on the EPA’s authority to regulate GHS to find states were precluded from holding emitters liable under state common law for environmental harms from climate change.
Overturning that authority could expose emitters to potentially steep liability under state common law. It may also open the door for states like California to directly regulate tailpipe and other emissions, which could create a patchwork of regulations for industry to keep pace with.
We cannot afford the confusion or the delay. Each fraction of a degree of warming poses risks to people, communities, and wildlife. It is paramount that Congress not leave this important issue to the courts and vacillate the EPA regimes. It is past time for clear direction from Congress to ensure a just, clean, and prosperous transition to a clean energy future that accounts for carbon pollution and protects us from its growing harms.
Your voice is important in our fight to protect human health, the health of wildlife, and our environment. The EPA is required to accept comments on their proposal from the public. Take action now and tell the EPA they cannot rescind the Endangerment Finding.
Alarmingly, since 2009, the rate of wetland loss has increased by 50 percent. Over the last decade, an area of wetlands the size of Rhode Island has been wiped from the landscape. Moreover, where there have been “gains” in wetland types, it has been in open ponds that do not provide the diverse habitat for wildlife or have the flood absorbing capabilities of the marshes and forested wetlands we are losing. And remaining wetlands are being harmed by human disturbance, with 80 percent of them in only fair or poor condition.
This is bad news for people and wildlife. Wetlands are some of nature’s most protective and productive features. They filter our drinking water, protect us from flooding and drought, provide wildlife habitat, and coastal and marine wetlands sequester climate change-causing carbon at ten times the rate of tropical forests. In terms of the services they provide communities, wetlands have an economic value over 11 times higher than lakes and rivers, 36 times higher than forests, and 33 times higher than grasslands.
The habitat values alone are extraordinary for a resource that covers less than six percent of the landscape of the lower 48 states. About half of threatened and endangered species rely on wetlands. Up to half of all North American bird species and 80 percent of protected bird species depend on wetlands.
The greatest threat to wetlands is activities like development and agricultural practices that drain wetlands and fill them in. Climate change is also causing some wetlands to disappear. Dryer conditions are resulting in important wetlands features, like the Prairie Potholes of the Great Plains that serve as America’s duck factory, to dry up and disappear. And sea-level rise is swallowing up important coastal wetlands that protect communities from storm surge and provide valuable habitat. Up to 90 percent of coastal wetlands could disappear by the end of this century.
As we drain wetlands, the water needs to go somewhere. As such, we are creating more small ponds, which have increased in area by seven percent since the last Status and Trends report in 2009. But ponds lack the vegetation of healthier wetlands that can slow flood waters and provide habitat for wildlife.
After the passage of the landmark Clean Water Act in 1972, wetlands losses were effectively halted. But a chipping away of protections has almost certainly led to recent wetlands losses. Supreme Court decisions over the past twenty years have shed increasing doubt over important federal protections for many wetlands.
Then, last May, the Supreme Court issued a draconian ruling that entirely stripped away federal safeguards for 63 percent of historically protected wetlands and up to about five million miles of streams.
This catastrophic 2023 Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court decision will undoubtedly result in even more severe wetlands losses if actions are not taken. Congress must step up and restore strong federal protections for all important wetlands. In the meantime, states and localities need to take action to protect their wetlands before they are paved over.
Add your voice today to urge decisionmakers to protect and restore wetlands.
We have had a bipartisan goal of no-net loss since the 1970s which just makes sense. Protecting and restoring the wetlands we have is one of the cheapest and most effective ways to protect us from catastrophic flooding, make sure the water we drink is clean and safe, mitigate drought, and protect wildlife. The price of not correcting this dangerous trend will be high for everyone.
The Assessment further states that “water infrastructure standards and management policies have been slow to meet the new challenges.”
This Assessment comes at a particularly sobering time. In May of 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Sackett v. EPA where it effectively rolled back fifty years of bi-partisan protections for wetlands and smaller streams. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Sackett decision effectively eliminates federal pollution and destruction protections under the Clean Water Act for 63% of the nation’s wetlands and up to 5 million miles of the nation’s streams.
These waters are the filters and sponges of our aquatic systems. They are nature’s way of keeping our water clean and storing water on the landscape that would otherwise flood communities and low-lying areas. At a time when the Assessment tells us we need these natural systems more than ever, the Supreme Court has opened the door for developers and others to fill, destroy, and pollute them without federal safeguards.
More Intense Flooding
The Assessment has stark news about flooding. The trend we have seen over the last several years of more intense and damaging storms will continue. As the chart below shows, the severity and intensity storms, as well as the economic damage they cause, are only getting worse:
And these disasters are directly related to precipitation changes traced to climate change:
These disasters will not hit all equally: “All communities will be affected, but in particular those on the frontline of climate change—including many Black, Hispanic, Tribal, Indigenous, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities—face growing risks from changes to water quantity and quality due to the proximity of their homes and workplaces to hazards and limited access to resources and infrastructure.”
More Threats to Water Quality
Not only will flooding increase, but the Assessment finds that “climate related events will lead to an erosion in water quality due to warming, increasing weather intensity, and sea-level rise.” Climate-driven threats to water quality include “risks to water supplies when fertilizers and pesticides are mobilized by flooding”, “exposure to harmful algal blooms”, and “increases in fecal coliform bacteria”, all while “treatment plants are challenged by sediments and debris from wildfires in their source waters.”
The below chart illustrates the many threats to water quality posed by climate change:
The Need for a Restored Clean Water Act
The Assessment found that “[t]he Nation’s aging water infrastructure, designed under regulations and standards appropriate to an unchanging climate, is deteriorating and threatening public health.” Communities need the natural benefits of wetlands and streams more than ever. Aging water infrastructure and changing precipitation patterns as a result of climate change threaten to worsen flooding, sewer overflows, drinking water contamination, and other water quality challenges.
Simply put, we need the water quality and flood storage functions of the waters the Supreme Court found no longer worthy of protections.
The loss of wetlands that absorb floodwaters upstream means more flooding downstream and greater risk to nearby communities. Wetlands play an enormous and low-cost role in absorbing floodwaters. One single acre of wetland can store 1 to 1.5 million gallons of floodwaters.[1]
Similarly, wetlands are the natural filters of our water systems. They intercept surface water and remove or retain polluting nutrients, process organic waste, and hold sediments. These natural functions can save millions in water treatment costs for communities. Small headwater streams that may no longer be protected can perform similar functions in terms of reducing nutrient and other pollution downstream. These streams also provide drinking water to at least 117 million people nationwide.
The first step to safeguarding our communities from the impacts from increased flooding and deteriorating water quality is protecting and restoring the natural systems we have that filter our drinking water and store flood waters. Instead, the Supreme Court is allowing these waters to be destroyed without federal protections. Congress needs to restore these vital and long-standing protections. Across the nation and especially in frontline communities, community health and well-being depend on it.
[1] Environmental Protection Agency, Functions and Values of Wetlands, EPA 843-F-01-002c (2001) (factsheet)
The Clean Water Act: One of America’s Most Successful Laws
The Clean Water Act is the reason that our waters are no longer on fire or used as open sewers, conditions that led to the act’s sweeping, bipartisan passage fifty years ago.
Congress passed the Clean Water Act to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The Act was passed at a time when our waterways were in crisis: the Cuyahoga River infamously has caught fire multiple times, Lake Erie was effectively a dead lake, some rivers were so polluted they peeled paint off nearby buildings.
In response, Congress created a cooperative federal structure that gave the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers broad authority to protect important waters throughout the watershed. At the time, it was clear that Congress recognized that water flows downhill. Without protecting small headwater streams and wetlands that serve and the sponges and kidney of the water system – providing flood control, recharge waters during drought, filter pollution, and habitat – the larger rivers, lake, and estuaries communities and people depend on would not be protected either.
For almost thirty years this basic, scientifically sound premise served as the underpinning of the Clean Water Act, with a flurry of successes. Along with investments made in waste water treatment, the safeguards afforded by the Act resulted in huge benefits for people and communities. As detailed in this NWF report celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Act, rivers returned to life, fish and biodiversity surged back, harmful losses of flood preventing wetlands nearly halted, and drinking water sources were kept clean.
What Sackett Means for America’s Waters
After creating confusion over the scope of the Clean Water Act in two earlier cases – SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers (2002) and Rapanos v. U.S. (2006) – the Court has now struck a catastrophic blow to fifty years of progress in protecting our waters. In a case concerning the destruction of wetlands just a few hundred feet from the treasured Priest Lake in Idaho lake, the Court, splitting 5-4 on the reasoning, ruled that the Clean Water Act only encompasses “those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic[al] features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’” and those wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with them.
This ill-advised decision places over half of America’s wetlands that provide flood protection for communities, natural water filtration for drinking supplies, and habitat for wildlife at risk of federally unregulated pollution and destruction. Moreover, the decision raises questions regarding the continued protection of many important headwater streams that don’t flow year-round but are vital to people and wildlife. Erasing these upstream waterways that store and filter water from the landscape would worsen flood, droughts, and water quality. It would also put at risk the drinking water supply of at least 117 million Americans.
As Justice Kavanaugh strongly pointed out in disagreeing with the majority rationale, “By narrowing the coverage of wetlands … the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”
With climate change fueling more intense storms, longer and deeper droughts, and temperatures that will catalyze harmful algal growth and exacerbate pollution, the functions performed by healthy natural water systems are all the more critical. And the consequences of the Sackett decision all the more severe.
Sadly, these impacts will hit frontline communities hardest. Decades of under-investment in drinking water and proper treatment of waste means communities that have already historically faced disproportionate share of flooding and water pollution, will have to bear the brunt of this ruling.
This case has also undermined EPA’s recent rule to provide clarification of which waters the Clean Water Act protects. EPA is revising this rule in response to Sackett, but its hands are now substantially tied to achieve the goals of the Act. Without Congressional action to restore strong protections, responsibility will fall to a patchwork of state protections.
Despite the Court’s decision, it is imperative that we push forward to defend clean water and the communities that depend on it. Without clean water and healthy systems, we cannot have healthy communities or wildlife.
The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” To achieve this goal, Congress created a cooperative federal structure that gave the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers broad authority to protect important waters throughout the watershed.
As such, the important small streams and wetlands that provide flood control, recharge waters during drought, filter pollution, and provide habitat have been protected. These small streams and wetlands are the kidneys and sponges of larger rivers and lakes, safeguarding the health and safety of those communities that depend on such waters.
On October 3, the Supreme Court will be asked by a radical opponent of clean water to remove federal protections for these waters. If they do, it will be open season for the federally unregulated pollution and destruction of many of the nation’s important waters.
The results would be catastrophic. Well over half of the streams that supply drinking water to communities could be rendered unsafe. At least half of the nation’s wetlands that protect communities from flooding would be at risk of being filled in and paved over. Upstream waterways that store and filter water could be erased from the landscape, worsening droughts and water quality.
With climate change fueling more intense storms, longer and deeper droughts, and temperatures that will catalyze harmful algal growth and exacerbate pollution, the functions performed by healthy natural water systems are all the more critical.
These impacts will hit frontline communities hardest. Decades of under-investment in drinking water and proper treatment of waste means communities that have already historically faced a disproportionate share of flooding and water pollution, will have to bear the brunt of this ruling. The case also threatens progress on an important rule to clarify protections. A split ruling by the Supreme Court in 2006 (in Rapanos v. US) created some confusion around which waters the Act protects. However, case law consensus has since emerged that gives EPA and the Corps the ability to protect waters that alone or collectively have a “significant nexus” to larger, navigable lakes, rivers, bays, and oceans. After attempts to rollback protections under the previous administration, EPA has been in the process of updating rules that would use science to clarify protection for important streams and wetlands.
The Supreme Court could tie EPA’s hands to clarify such protections, leaving to Congress to fix the damage done by a ruling that could cripple the Act. Given the current polarization in Congress, such a fix may prove elusive, putting communities that have been protected for the last century at risk. This would not only set water quality protections back 50 years, but further put at risk communities suffering from both waters that need extensive clean up and crumbling infrastructure that is at high risk of failing when exposed to conditions like flooding and excess pollution.
National Wildlife Federation and our partners filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the EPA that shows how narrowing the coverage of the Clean Water Act would have devastating effects on wetlands, rivers and streams, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities for the millions of people that enjoy our public lands and the outdoors. Regardless of the Court’s decision, it is imperative that we are are ready to defend clean water and the communities that depend on it. Without clean water and healthy systems, we cannot have healthy communities or wildlife.
Add your name today in support of strong clean water protections for wetlands and streams that wildlife and communities rely on!
The South Fork Wind Farm will contribute 132 megawatts to New York State’s goal of 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind power by 2035. Along with the recent approval of the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project approved last spring, it is another concrete step in realizing President Biden’s goal of generating 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind power over the next decade.
In addition to providing an enormous climate solution, offshore wind promises to generate tens of thousands of jobs while also reducing other harmful pollution from dirtier energy sources such as acid rain, mercury, coal ash, and other pollution associated with coal, oil, and gas. Climate change, as well as these other forms of pollution resulting from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, are devastating ecosystems of all kinds, including our oceans which absorb significant amounts of heat and carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.
Watching out for wildlife
However, like any major development, offshore wind does not come without any potential risks. As such, the National Wildlife Federation has been working hard to ensure that impacts to wildlife like whales, birds, and bats are avoided, minimized, monitored, and mitigated as we grow this promising new solution.
Of particular concern are potential impacts to the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. This magnificent, slow-moving, baleen whale is down to 336 known individuals that migrate up and down the Atlantic coast. Threats to this imperiled species include vessel strikes, entanglement in commercial fishing lines and nets, and disturbance from noise, which can damage the hearing of whales or cause them to avoid important foraging habitat.
The approval of this project includes several measures to protect the whale from possible threats from the construction of the project. In order to account for these potential impacts, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management — the agency in charge of leasing offshore wind — has required construction only occur in months when the whale is least likely to be there, has placed seasonal vessel speed restrictions, and required that there be constant monitoring for the presence of whales during pile-driving and that pile-driving does not occur or is shut down when a whale is detected with within a certain distance.
Given its dire situation, the National Wildlife Federation will continue to advocate for stronger measures to protect the North Atlantic right whale. We expect and will push BOEM to ensure that protective measures evolve with the changing ocean conditions and improve accordingly. BOEM must follow the science to achieve a favorable outcome for the North Atlantic right whale and wildlife.
The BOEM approval also requires monitoring for birds and bats so that we can better understand and mitigate any potential impacts of offshore wind power on other wildlife. As this clean energy industry continues to grow, it is important we are monitoring and avoid impacts to wildlife wherever possible.
Offshore wind power has the potential to be among the most wildlife-friendly climate solutions. For offshore wind projects to succeed in time to help avoid the worst of catastrophic warning, it is critical that BOEM and other state and federal agencies continue to advance and require measures that protect wildlife along the way.
Learn more about the National Wildlife Federation’s Offshore Wind program.
Confronting Climate Change
The Supreme Court has a lot to say about whether the clear science behind climate change should inform how we implement laws designed to protect us from the threats of increasing carbon pollution. One of these decisions is Massachusetts v. EPA, a 5-4 holding where Justice Ginsburg was a deciding vote for the liberal majority. The 2007 case held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can and must regulate greenhouse gases in its vehicle tailpipe emission standards under the Clean Air Act. The impacts of this decision are still being worked out and it may come back to the Supreme Court.
A 6-3 conservative majority also poses a risk of diminishing the power of the National Environmental Policy Act—the nation’s environmental reporting statute—in addressing climate change. This law requires that agencies take a “hard look” at environmental impacts before completing any major federal action. The Trump Administration has tried to eliminate the need for agencies to look at the climate change implications of their actions. The new conservative Court may uphold these rollbacks.
Additionally, one of the special features of the Clean Air Act allows California to set fuel efficiency standards—which are higher than the national standard—for its own residents. Higher fuel efficiency standards are key to reducing carbon pollution from the transportation sector, which is now the country’s largest source of emissions. Once California acts to set higher limits, other states may then choose to adopt those tougher limits. The Trump Administration is attempting to revoke California’s power to do so. If the Court upholds that action, the robust fuel standards of California, and the 13 states that have adopted the same standard, will be lost.
Impacts Beyond Climate Change
The potential impact goes well beyond climate change. For instance, in the early 2000s, the Court issued two key rulings that created confusion concerning the what waters are protected from pollution and destruction by the federal Clean Water Act. This resulted in a far narrower interpretation of what waters are covered by the Clean Water Act than were historically protected, leaving important wetlands and streams unprotected.
In the 2006 Rapanos v. United States decision, the four-justice plurality (combined with a concurrence from lone Justice Kennedy) held that the definition of “waters of the United States” within the Clean Water Act should be based on a scientific understanding of how smaller waters like seasonal streams and wetlands impact larger, downstream waters. The Rapanos ruling paved the way for President Obama’s science-based Clean Water Rule, which clarified protections for small, upper reach streams and many important wetlands that support aquatic ecosystems. This year, the administration promulgated a new rule that revokes the Clean Water Rule and is based upon the very restrictive and non-scientific view of jurisdiction waters espoused by the minority in Rapanos. Should the court revisit the Rapanos decision, it could tie EPA’s hand from protecting half of America’s wetlands and most of its stream miles – waters that provide drinking water to millions of Americans and serve as critical fish and wildlife habitat.
The “Affordable Clean Energy” plan is anything but clean, and wildlife cannot afford it. It is an illegal giveaway to the fossil fuel industry that, according to a recent study in Environmental Research Letters and the Environmental Protection Agency’s own admissions, will likely increase emissions of harmful climate change causing greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection Agency is legally required to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector.
Increasing Pollution
The Environmental Protection Agency’s new plan is not only substantially worse than the Clean Power Plan, which would have reduced emissions from the power sector 32 percent by 2030, but it is also worse than if the Environmental Protection Agency had chosen to do nothing at all. Consider some numbers:
- Scientists tell us we need to effectively achieve net zero economy-wide emissions by 2050.
- In 2018, U.S. emissions – reversing a recent downward trend – rose approximately 3.5 percent.
- Under ACE, emissions from the power sector will be 0.08 percent lower than no policy in 2030, and 0.06 percent higher than no policy by 2050.
- At the individual power plant level, the ACE rule will result in a 28 percent increase in emissions by 2030 compared to no policy.
- At the state level, emissions of acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide in 19 states are projected to increase by up to 148 percent by 2030, and smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions are projected to increase by up to 9 percent in 20 states and the District of Columbia by 2030 compared to no policy. This means more poisoned lakes, streams, and rivers, and more days where the air quality makes it unsafe for many to be outdoors.
This is because, unlike the Clean Power Plan, which sets meaningful carbon pollution reduction limits through a flexible, systems-based approach to assess each state’s ability to switch from dirty power sources like to coal to cleaner ones like wind and solar, the ACE plan focuses narrowly on efficiency – or heat rate – improvements at relatively dirty coal plants. So, instead of encouraging a shift in power generation from dirty sources to clean sources – a trend the market is already favoring – the replacement plan seeks efficiency improvements to coal plants to keep them running.
Instead of encouraging the replacement of dirty coal plants with low or no emitting generating sources like wind or solar, this new approach will have a “rebound effect.” In short, rather than replacing dirty sources with clean ones, efficiency improvements will result in dirty plants running for longer periods at slightly lower levels of pollution, increasing total pollution output. It’s as if instead of trading in your combustion engine car for an electric car, you make your combustion engine slightly more efficient and then drive it more. Plus, the ACE rule then let states relax standards for coal plants that need pollution control upgrades, making matters even worse.
The Climate Crisis and Wildlife
As a spate of recent reports make clear, we have no time to waste in addressing the climate crisis and reducing emissions. The Administration’s ACE rule – like so many of its policies – moves insolently and irresponsibly in the opposite direction.
Our wildlife are in crisis, with a third of American species in decline, and Americans are demanding action. Climate change is a multiplying factor driving this decline. We are on the cusp of runaway climate change, which will push myriad species and ecosystems – already under stress – to the breaking point.
Lovers of the outdoors are witnessing the effects on a daily basis. Streams are becoming too warm for trout, moose are declining in northern states due to increasing temperatures that allow parasitic ticks to weaken moose calves, habitat for pika and wolverines is shrinking, sea level rise is claiming breeding habitat for sea turtles and shore birds, coral reefs are collapsing, unprecedented megafires are transforming our forests, and a host of other climate related threats is increasing in intensity every year, with dire effects.
We Cannot Wait To Act
Despite the Administration’s recalcitrance, we need to move now to reduce emissions. Opportunities exist in Congress. A bill introduced in April – the Climate Action Now Act – would prohibit the administration from using taxpayer funding to pull the U.S. out of its international commitments to lower emissions so as to keep warming levels safe. The House of Representatives wisely passed the Climate Action Now Act this month. We now look to the Senate to take up a similar measure.
Additionally, we can invest in infrastructure that will lower emissions through increased efficiency, investments in rebuilding and restoring natural systems that protect communities and sequester carbon, development of clean energy and smarter transportation and urban design, and investments that will allow fossil fuel dependent regions to reduce emissions and grow strong local economies based on cleaner technologies. These investments can gain bipartisan support and serve as a down payment on future actions to reduce emissions and transform our economy.
Meanwhile, states, cities, and the private sector must continue to make decisions that advance clean energy. The market is already favoring clean sources like wind and solar. And offshore wind, which is now spinning off the coast of Rhode Island and has gained substantial commitments from populated, coastal states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, promises a vast, new source of clean, wildlife friendly energy.
In the meantime, harmful, backward looking plans like the ACE rule need to be shelved. If this Administration can’t lead on addressing the climate crisis, it should at least step aside and let Congress and the states step up.
ACT NOW: Urge Congress and Your Governor to take meaningful action to address the climate crisis before it’s too late.
Take Action!
Four years later they were reintroduced into the wild. Today there are nearly 500 living condors with approximately 300 in the wild gracing the skies of California, northern Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. While lead poisoning remains the chief danger to the bird, the growth of wind power in their habitat also poses a threat.
A new issue brief by the National Wildlife Federation and the National Audubon Society talks about how we can confront the climate crisis by building responsible wind power while protecting species like the California condor along the way.
Protecting the Condor
For the long-lived and slow breeding California condor, every fatality is a cause for serious concern. So when wind development came to the birds’ landscape, turbine strikes were a worrisome threat.
Here’s where technology came in: Wind companies wishing to build in the condors’ range teamed up with scientists and conservationists to craft a solution. Since virtually all condors are radio tagged, wind farms would use the radio technology to detect when a condor might be flying into an area where a strike was a possibly. If one did, the farms could curtail (stop) turbines that posed a threat to the bird.
While wind farms like the 700-megawatt Tehachapi Pass wind farm have sprouted in condor habitat, technology has helped thus far to avoid any harm to the condors.
The story of the California condor is an example of how technology and stakeholder collaboration can ensure that climate solutions protect wildlife along the way.
The Climate Threat to Wildlife
Climate change presents an unprecedented threat to wildlife – one that could drive species to extinction and ecosystems to collapse. A 2014 study by National Audubon Society showed that 314 of 588 bird species modeled would lose more than half of their 2010 geographic range by 2080 under likely climate scenarios. Similar harm is occurring or awaits other species: moose may be extirpated from much of their habitat in the contiguous United States; many streams may become too warm for trout or salmon; mountain species like pika and wolverines could run out of space to move higher for the cooler temperatures they need.
Some of these losses will sadly be inevitable. However, the amount of warming will make an enormous difference in whether we can preserve many species and keep important ecosystems intact.
Scientists have warned that warming above 2 degrees Celsius will likely result in chain reactions with catastrophic consequences for wildlife and ecosystems. But a recent international study demonstrates that the difference between 1.5 degrees Celsius and 2 degrees Celsius of warming has substantial wildlife implications.
For instance, of 105,000 species studied, the number of insects, plants, and vertebrae that are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic are three times as high for insects, and twice as high for plants and vertebrae with if temperatures rise 2ºC as opposed to 1.5ºC. This additional half degree of warming could also result in a tenfold difference in the number of ice-free summers in the arctic, as well as the difference between maintaining some coral reefs versus a virtual wipe out of all coral reefs around the globe.
Keeping Wildlife Safe From Climate Change with Wind Power
The pathways to a climate safe future are narrow but clear: we must dramatically reduce our carbon emissions and begin to draw carbon from the atmosphere through land use changes and other means. This means a ramp up of renewable energy. Recent reports tell us that we must get about 50 percent of our energy from renewable energy sources by 2030 and almost all of it by 2050. Currently, the U.S. is at about 17 percent.
Achieving this will require a substantial build out of wind power. Much progress has made in the last 15 years: we now have enough wind energy to power about 27 million homes, with wind power comprising at least ten percent of the power in 14 states, and over 30 percent of the power in Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Yet, estimates show that we must expand land-based wind energy generation four to five times by 2050 to keep emissions at safe levels.
Protecting Wildlife Along the Way
To do this responsibly, we have to protect wildlife along the way. Wind power poses immediate threats to wildlife, including direct fatalities to birds and bats from turbine strikes, as well as habitat disturbance. However, it also poses benefits in addition to carbon pollution reduction, such as comparatively little water use and the virtual elimination of harmful air and water emissions like mercury, wastewater, sulfur dioxide, and smog-causing emissions associated with traditional power plants.
As detailed in the recently released issue brief, protecting wildlife means ensuring that wind development is properly sited and operated to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts. It also means keeping in place strong laws that protect wildlife, like protections for migratory birds, eagles, and threatened and endangered species, some of which are currently under attack. And, as with all energy development, we must ensure that the environmental impacts of wind projects are evaluated and addressed.
As demonstrated by the innovations that are protecting the condor, collaboration between conservationists, industry, communities, and wildlife professionals can secure a bright future for wildlife now and in the future as we tackle climate change through solutions like wind power.
Learn more from our new issue brief, Responsible Wind Power & Wildlife
Inspired to take action for wildlife and responsible wind?
Take action to support offshore wind power today! (Below action alert available for residents of CT, DE, FL, GA, MA, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, RI, SC, & VA).
This moves follows an October 2017 announcement that EPA intends to entirely repeal the Clean Power Plan. However, because of two Supreme Court decisions and a 2009 EPA finding that carbon pollution threatens public health and welfare, EPA is legally required to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector.
EPA Goes Backwards on Climate Progress
As such, to replace the Clean Power Plan, EPA has released a new plan. It guts the main framework of the Clean Power Plan, which sets meaningful carbon pollution reduction limits based largely on each state’s ability to switch from dirty power sources like to coal to cleaner ones like wind and solar. The replacement plan only asks for modest upgrades to coal plants and will let states relax standards for coal plants that need upgrades, meaning they can keep operating longer. It may actually increase emissions by encouraging these dirty plants to operate longer, rather than switching to cleaner generating sources. This could not only lead to more carbon pollution, but more other pollution that will increase instances of serious health problems like childhood asthma.
In response to this announcement, NWF President and CEO Collin O’Mara said:
Reducing carbon emissions from power plants and other sources is an essential component of confronting the monumental problem of climate change. The EPA’s strategy is as ill-conceived as it is ill-timed to coincide with the tragedies fueled by a changing climate that communities are experiencing from coast to coast. The EPA should reverse course on this proposed rule—and Congress should pursue innovative, swift climate solutions, such as Congressman Carlos Curbelo’s market-driving approach to reduce emissions.
Americans Want Action to Address the Climate Crisis
Americans are realizing the urgent threat climate change presents to wildlife, our communities, and our economy. As a result, most Americans support reducing carbon emissions and developing clean, renewable technology like wind and solar. The Clean Power Plan represented an opportunity to reduce harmful pollution 32% by 2030 – the equivalent of taking about 70 million cars off the road.
This new rule will effectively wipe out those gains unless other action is taken.
Climate & the Wildlife Crisis
Our wildlife are in crisis, with a third of species in decline. Climate change greatly exacerbates this decline. Sadly, unchecked climate change will drive many species to extinction.
The effects are already alarming. Streams are becoming too warm for trout, moose are declining in northern states due to increasing temperatures that allow parasitic ticks to weaken moose calves, habitat for pika and wolverines is shrinking, sea level rise is claiming breeding habitat for sea turtles and shore birds, and a host of other climate related threats is increasing in intensity every year, with dire effects.
Congress and Others Must Act
The planned repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan is just the latest in a long list of rollbacks to sensible regulations. This list includes suspending and likely rescinding a rule aimed at curbing on methane waste, which is a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas drilling on public lands; the announced withdrawal from the Paris Climate agreement where the international community committed to keeping the planet safe; abandoning efforts to ensure coal mining on public lands accounts for carbon pollution; cutbacks in funding for climate science; and a host of other moves undermining efforts to address climate change. It is clear that we must look beyond this Administration to tackle the climate crisis for wildlife.
With have limited time. The impacts of climate change are growing and multiplying. And they will only get worse. Congress must step up and pass a price on carbon. There are signs of progress. For the first time, a Republican introduced a bill that would put in place a meaningful carbon tax that, if enacted, would help drive down carbon pollution in line with the Paris climate agreement.
Meanwhile, states, cities, and the private sector must continue to make decisions that advance clean energy. The market is already favoring clean sources like wind and solar. And offshore wind, which is now spinning off the coast of Rhode Island, promises a vast, new source of clean, wildlife friendly energy.
Progress is still too slow. By replacing the Clean Power Plan, the Administration took another step back. Congress, states, leaders in business, and others should answer by taking steps forward. Call on Congress to step up and lead on climate action!