Image: www.freefoto.com
Image: www.freefoto.com
A day after the US Senate voted to uphold the US Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit today challenging EPA's failure to address such pollution from ocean-going ships, aircraft and nonroad vehicles and engines used in industrial operations. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the District of Columbiaby Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of Oceana, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the International Center for Technology Assessment. Together, aircraft, ship and nonroad vehicles and engines are responsible for 24 percent of U.S. mobile source greenhouse gas emissions, and emit approximately 290,000 tons of soot every year. Pollution from these sources is projected to grow rapidly over coming decades.
"The shipping industry is a major contributor to global warming pollution. Annual U.S. shipping emissions are equivalent to from 130 million to 195 million cars. These emissions are on track to triple over the next 20 years. It is time for the EPA to issue common sense rules - like requiring fuel efficient cruising speeds - to control the pollution from this important sector," said Eric Bilsky, Assistant General Counsel, Oceana.
The coalition petitioned EPA in late 2007 and early 2008, to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels, aircraft, and nonroad vehicles and engines respectively endanger public health and welfare, and if so, to issue regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from these sources. Despite having had more than two years to do so, EPA has not responded to the petitions.
"Yesterday Congress rejected an attempt to strip EPA of its authority to protect the public from global warming pollution," said Sarah Burt of Earthjustice, who is representing the coalition. "EPA has a clear moral obligation and legal duty under the Clean Air Act to act decisively to protect public health and the environment on which all Americans depend."
"The Clean Air Act works to reduce dangerous pollution like greenhouse gas emissions, and it must be implemented immediately," said Vera Pardee, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe for 40 years, reaping economic benefits 42 times its cost. Cost effective solutions to achieve significant greenhouse gas pollution reductions from ships, airplanes, and nonroad engines exist today. The Obama administration needs to move forward far more quickly to implement them to avoid devastating climate disruption. Delaying common-sense pollution-reduction measures is the wrong policy and wrong on the law."
"The evidence of climate change is becoming clearer each and every day," said Danielle Fugere, Regional Program Director for Friends of the Earth. "We can no longer afford the EPA's refusal to address important and growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions."
"The shipping industry is a major contributor to global warming pollution. Annual U.S. shipping emissions are equivalent to from 130 million to 195 million cars. These emissions are on track to triple over the next 20 years. It is time for the EPA to issue common sense rules - like requiring fuel efficient cruising speeds - to control the pollution from this important sector," said Eric Bilsky, Assistant General Counsel, Oceana.
The coalition petitioned EPA in late 2007 and early 2008, to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels, aircraft, and nonroad vehicles and engines respectively endanger public health and welfare, and if so, to issue regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from these sources. Despite having had more than two years to do so, EPA has not responded to the petitions.
"Yesterday Congress rejected an attempt to strip EPA of its authority to protect the public from global warming pollution," said Sarah Burt of Earthjustice, who is representing the coalition. "EPA has a clear moral obligation and legal duty under the Clean Air Act to act decisively to protect public health and the environment on which all Americans depend."
"The Clean Air Act works to reduce dangerous pollution like greenhouse gas emissions, and it must be implemented immediately," said Vera Pardee, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe for 40 years, reaping economic benefits 42 times its cost. Cost effective solutions to achieve significant greenhouse gas pollution reductions from ships, airplanes, and nonroad engines exist today. The Obama administration needs to move forward far more quickly to implement them to avoid devastating climate disruption. Delaying common-sense pollution-reduction measures is the wrong policy and wrong on the law."
"The evidence of climate change is becoming clearer each and every day," said Danielle Fugere, Regional Program Director for Friends of the Earth. "We can no longer afford the EPA's refusal to address important and growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions."
"EPA needs to shift into high gear and limit the impact that industrial non-road vehicles and engines impose on our common airshed," said Dan Galpern, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. "Even the Bush EPA admitted that climate pollution could be slashed from over-powered diesel engines used in industrial operations, if it chose to do so. Now EPA, at long last, is restricting climate pollution from cars and light trucks, and certain stationary sources. But the climate crisis will not be allayed without the maximum achievable reduction in GHG emissions. This requires reasonable restrictions on monster earth movers, heavy mining and logging equipment, agricultural pumps and other industrial machinery that presently spew climate pollution without end."
Source: Friends of the Earth
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
