May, 17 2011, 11:44am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Paul Cort, Earthjustice, pcort@earthjustice.org, 510-550-6777
Maya Golden-Krasner, maya@cbecal.org, 323-826-9771, ext. 121
Angela Johnson Meszaros, Angela@CleanAirMatters.net, 323-341-5868
Clean Air Advocates to Challenge EPA on Smog Enforcement
Government inaction means more pollution for hardest-hit California communities
SAN FRANCISCO
Clean air advocates in California's polluted San Joaquin Valley and L.A. Basin announced today their intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to enforce 30-year old pollution standards required by the Clean Air Act. The lawsuits would force the EPA to adopt a plan to bring California air quality into compliance with the federal standard for ozone.
Earthjustice today filed a letter on behalf of San Joaquin Valley advocates, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air and the Sierra Club, putting EPA on notice that if the agency doesn't act on the Valley's failure to attain the 1-hour ozone standard within 60 days, the groups will sue. The one-hour ozone standard limits the maximum concentration of ozone people can be exposed to over a one-hour period.
L.A.-based groups Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, Desert Citizens Against Pollution, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Coalition for a Safe Environment, and Communities for a Better Environment filed a similar notice today relating to the failure in the L.A. region to meet the standard.
Ozone, a major component of smog, is a long-standing health threat across the nation, but California leads the way as the most dangerous place to breathe. Of the ten U.S. cities with the worst air quality, eight are in California, according to the American Lung Association's annual State of the Air report released in April. Los Angeles and Bakersfield top the list as the smoggiest cities in the country.
Under the Clean Air Act, even the worst polluted areas of the country, like the San Joaquin Valley and the L.A. Basin, were required to meet the national one-hour standard for ozone no later than November 15, 2010. Air quality monitoring data from 2010 showed that the San Joaquin Valley did not attain that standard by the statutory deadline. Neither did L.A.
Paul Cort, an attorney with the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice who is representing the San Joaquin Valley groups, said, "This pollution limit was put in place decades ago. While most of the country has made progress in cleaning up the air and is moving on to address new, more protective pollution limits, the San Joaquin Valley and L.A. still can't even comply with the weakest ozone standard--and EPA is refusing to make them. Meanwhile, people are dying."
"The San Joaquin Valley has a public health crisis on its hands. Our children suffer some of the highest asthma rates and our elderly some of the highest rates of heart disease," said Kevin Hamilton, a Registered Respiratory Therapist and founder of the group Medical Advocates for Healthy Air of Fresno. "We've waited long enough for the responsible agencies to do their jobs. We need action and we need it now."
The same is true in the notoriously smoggy L.A. region.
"Ozone pollution exacerbates asthma, causes lung damage, and leads to premature deaths everywhere in L.A.," explains Maya Golden-Krasner, an attorney with Communities for a Better Environment in L.A. "These harms are magnified in communities such as Wilmington and southeast L.A., where pollution from freeways and industrial sources already chokes neighborhoods."
"The human costs of our failure to reduce ozone pollution are felt most acutely by the thousands of families who live with asthma. The economic cost of asthma stands at $2.6 billion, but the human costs are incalculable. Just imagine the pain of watching your child gasp for air during an acute asthma attack. We must get serious about protecting health and keeping health care costs down, and one way to accomplish this is to have EPA enforce the one hour ozone standard," said Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles.
When the deadline to meet the standard was missed back in November, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air and the Sierra Club petitioned the EPA asking for an official finding that the San Joaquin Valley's 1-hour ozone plan had failed. This would trigger the need to put together a new plan that would meet the standard within five years. EPA, however, has refused to respond to the petition, instead suggesting that the people of the Valley and the L.A. region should wait another 13 years for the next round of clean air standards to be met. The anticipated lawsuits would demand action immediately.
Background
The one-hour ozone standard is aimed at limiting dangerous peaks in air pollution that trigger asthma attacks and other breathing problems and are linked to spikes in emergency room visits and deaths. After a decade of little progress toward meeting the ozone standard, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 setting firm deadlines for meeting the standard and outlining the new minimum requirements for state and local air quality plans.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed by the chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") and volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") in the presence of sunlight. Both of these compounds come from the exhaust of cars, trucks, construction and farm equipment, oil refineries, factories and other air pollution sources. Ozone reacts with internal body tissues causing damage to lungs, exacerbation of asthma, reduction of lung capacity, increased respiratory-related hospital admissions, and even premature death. The health impacts are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable - children, the elderly, and persons already suffering from respiratory ailments.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Budget Proposal Shows GOP 'Is the Party of Cutting Social Security and Medicare'
"Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," said the head of Social Security Works. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him."
Mar 20, 2024
Defenders of Social Security and Medicare on Wednesday swiftly criticized the biggest caucus of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives for putting out a budget proposal for fiscal year 2025 that takes aim at the crucial programs.
The 180-page "Fiscal Sanity to Save America" plan from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) follows the release of proposals from Democratic President Joe Biden and U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas)—who is leading the fight to create a fiscal commission for the programs that critics call a "death panel" designed to force through cuts.
The RSC document features full sections on "Saving Medicare" and "Preventing Biden's Cuts to Social Security," which both push back on the president's recent comments calling out Republican attacks on the programs that serve seniors.
The caucus plan promotes premium support for Medicare Advantage plans administered by private health insurance providers as well as changes to payments made to teaching hospitals. For Social Security, the proposal calls for tying retirement age to rising life expectancy and cutting benefits for younger workers over certain income levels, including phasing out auxiliary benefits.
The document also claims that the caucus budget "would promote trust fund solvency by increasing payroll tax revenues through pro-growth tax reform, pro-growth energy policy that lifts wages, work requirements that move Americans from welfare to work, and regulatory reforms that increase economic growth."
In a lengthy Wednesday statement blasting the RSC budget, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman pointed out that last week, former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in the November election, "toldCNBC that 'there's a lot you can do' to cut Social Security."
"Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
"Now, congressional Republicans are confirming the party's support for cuts—to the tune of $1.5 trillion. They are also laying out some of those cuts," Altman said. "This budget would raise the retirement age, in line with prominent Republican influencer Ben Shapiro's recent comments that 'retirement itself is a stupid idea.' It would make annual cost-of-living increases stingier, so that benefits erode over time. It would slash middle-class benefits."
"Perhaps most insultingly, given the Republicans' claim to be the party of 'family values,' this budget would eliminate Social Security spousal benefits, as well as children's benefits, for middle-class families. That would punish women who take time out of the workforce to care for children and other loved ones," she continued. "This coming from a party that wants to take away women's reproductive rights!"
The caucus, chaired by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), included 285 bills and initiatives from 192 members in its budget plan—among them are various proposals threatening abortion care, birth control, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) nationwide.
"The RSC budget would also take away Medicare's new power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, putting more money into the pockets of the GOP's Big Pharma donors," Altman warned. "And it accelerates the privatization of Medicare, handing it over to private insurance companies who have a long history of ripping off the government and delaying and denying care to those who need it."
"In recent days, Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," she noted. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him. The Republican Party is the party of cutting Social Security and Medicare, while giving tax handouts to billionaires."
"The Democratic Party is the party of expanding Social Security and Medicare, paid for by requiring the ultrawealthy to contribute their fair share," Altman added. "Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler also targeted the Republican presidential candidate while slamming the RSC plan, saying that "Donald Trump's MAGA allies in Congress made it clear today: A vote for Trump is a vote to make the MAGA 2025 agenda of cutting Social Security, ripping away access to IVF, and banning abortion nationwide a hellish reality."
"While Trump and his allies push forward their extreme agenda, the American people are watching," Tyler added, suggesting that the RSC proposal will help motivate voters to give Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris four more years in the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
While Mulling Israel Claims, Biden Urged to 'Stop Weapons Sales Now'
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," said one campaigner. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately."
Mar 20, 2024
As the Biden administration wrestles with whether to certify that Israel is complying with a presidential directive requiring human rights assurances from governments receiving American weapons, Palestine defenders on Wednesday renewed calls for a suspension of U.S. arms sales to Israel's genocidal government and military.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has until March 25 to certify to Congress that Israel is adhering to President Joe Biden's February 2023 memo stating that "no arms transfer will be authorized where the United States assesses that it is more likely than not that the arms to be transferred will be used by the recipient to commit... genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949... or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law."
If Israel fails to provide written assurance that it is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international law, arms sales would automatically be suspended. According toHuffPost, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew on Tuesday privately claimed to the State Department that Israel is in compliance with domestic and international law.
However, the Israeli daily Haartezreported Wednesday that officials from three State Department bureaus—Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Population, Refugees, and Migration; and the Office of Global Criminal Justice—as well as the United States Agency for International Development are deeply skepitcal of Lew's claim.
"America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Uncommitted National Movement—a coalition of pro-Palestine, peace, and progressive groups urging people to vote "uncommitted" in U.S. Democratic primaries in a bid to pressure Biden to push Israel for a Gaza cease-fire—led demands for a suspension of arms transfers to Israel.
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," Uncommitted National Movement co-chair Layla Elabedsaid in a statement Wednesday. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately. America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Canadian Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off arms exports to Israel. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly subsequently said that the government would cease future weapons sales to the country.
Other countries including Japan, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium have suspended or restricted weapons sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 113,000 Palestinians since the October 7 attacks while forcibly displacing around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people and fueling famine and disease by besieging the embattled strip. Most of those killed have been women and children.
On January 26, the
International Criminal Court ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts. Both the ICJ and a U.S. federal judge have found that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza. Palestinians, human rights groups, and legal experts have accused Israel of ignoring the World Court's directive.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Human Rights Watch and Oxfam called Israeli assurances that U.S.-supplied weapons are not being used in violation of international law "not credible." The groups also dismissed false Israeli claims that the country is not blocking humanitarian aid from reaching starving Gazans.
The U.S. gives Israel approximately $4 billion in annual military aid. Since October 7, the Biden administration has requested an additional $14.3 billion in armed assistance for Israel, while repeatedly circumventing Congress to fast-track emergency weapons transfers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite WSJ Reporting, Julian Assange Lawyer Says 'No Indication' of Plea Deal
"The United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition," said an attorney for the jailed WikiLeaks journalist.
Mar 20, 2024
As the world awaits a U.K. court ruling on Julian Assange's potential extradition to the United States, The Wall Street Journalreported Wednesday that the WikiLeaks founder's attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice officials "have had preliminary discussions" about allowing him to plead guilty to a reduced charge to end the lengthy legal battle.
"If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense," the Journal detailed, citing unnamed sources. "Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S."
"The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence, and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded," according to the report—on which a Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
The 52-year-old Australian has been imprisoned at London's Belmarsh Prison since British authorities dragged him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019, after the South American nation's president terminated the diplomatic asylum granted to him in 2012. In the United States, he faces Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges for publishing material that includes the "Collateral Murder" video, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs.
Assange attorney Barry Pollack said in a statement Wednesday that "it is inappropriate for Mr. Assange's lawyers to comment while his case is before the U.K. High Court other than to say we have been given no indication that the Department of Justice intends to resolve the case and the United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition on all 18 charges, exposing him to 175 years in prison."
Human rights and press freedom advocates worldwide and even some U.S. lawmakers have warned of the broader impacts of a conviction. Kathleen McClellan and Jesselyn Radack wrote Saturday in Salon that the precedent set by the cases of Assange, Timothy Burke, and Catherine Herridge "will apply in future to anyone engaging in such entirely normative journalistic activities as cultivating sources while protecting their anonymity, and seeking to publish information in the public interest that governments or other powerful forces seek to control."
Focusing specifically on Assange's case, Croatian philosopher and Belmarsh Tribunal co-founder Srećko Horvat similarly said in December that "more than one man's life is at stake, but the First Amendment and freedom of the press itself. As long as the Espionage Act is deployed to imprison those who expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe."
Ahead of a U.K. High Court hearing on extradition last month, Stella Assange, Julian's wife and the mother of two of his two children, pointed to her husband's physical and mental health problems, and warned that "this case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially."
The Journal noted Wednesday that the court "is expected to decide within weeks whether to grant Assange a further right to appeal his extradition" and the United States has pledged that "he could be transferred to his native Australia to serve any sentence."
Australia's government "could shorten any sentence once he landed on Australian soil," the paper added. Nick Vamos, a partner at London law firm Peters & Peters and a former head of extradition for England and Wales' Crown Prosecution Service, said that "I honestly think as soon as he arrived in Australia he would be released."
Shortly before the February hearing, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined 85 members of Australia's Parliament in voting for a motion demanding that the U.S. and U.K. drop the extradition effort and allow Assange to return to his home country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular