Environment

SACRAMENTO - Calling global warming a profound threat to our nation's long-term security, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to resist President Bush's 'dangerous strategy for endless stonewalling' and permit California and 11 other states to curb vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

Wednesday's U.S. EPA hearing in Sacramento marks the second and last public hearing on landmark regulations requiring automakers to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. California and the states need the U.S. EPA's permission to implement the rules, which California first adopted in 2002.

Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt standards stricter than federal rules by requesting a waiver from EPA. Approval of Californiaâ s waiver means the other states would get approval automatically. Congress expressly allowed California to impose stricter environmental regulations in recognition of the state's 'compelling and extraordinary conditions,' including topography, climate, high number and concentration of vehicles and its pioneering role in vehicle emissions regulation.

The 11 other states are Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The Bush administration has long opposed any targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and is expected to oppose a consensus greenhouse gas reduction proposal at next week's G-8 summit which brings together the leaders of German, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Japan.

President Bush, during an impromptu May 14 press conference in the Rose Garden, directed four federal agencies to spend the next 18 months discussing climate change. 'This Rose Garden proposal was nothing more than a stall tactic and a dangerous strategy for endless stonewalling,' Brown said. Bush's comments in the Rose Garden were made on the same day that Justice Department lawyers were in a San Francisco federal courtroom fighting charges that the Bush administration adopted legally insufficient fuel efficiency standard for SUVs, pickups and minivans.

Scientific evidence continues to buttress California's claim for a waiver under the Clean Air Act. Last week, the National Academy of Sciences reported a sharp increase in the rate of man-made carbon dioxide. The rate of increase is much greater than previously estimated by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The harm from global warming includes rising sea levels, eroding beaches, increasing drought and damage to California's system of levees. Brown noted that California is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming because of its 1,000 mile coastline.

Audio from the testimony is attached.

WHAT:

In testimony before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Sacramento, Attorney General Brown will demand that the Bush administration stop blocking greenhouse gas regulations passed by California and 11 states. The regulations, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016, amount to the most comprehensive effort to combat global warming in U.S. history.

Attorney General Brown is supported by Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, all of which have adopted the regulations.

WHEN/WHERE:

News Conference: 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, May 30, Cal/EPA Headquarters, Sierra Hearing Room on second floor, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

U.S. EPA Testimony: 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, May 30, Cal/EPA Headquarters, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Contact Press Secretary David Kravets for additional press availability: agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

WASHINGTON – Charging the Bush Administration is “acting in collusion with the auto and oil industries,” California Attorney General Jerry Brown said California is preparing to sue the federal government if it blocks the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas-causing emissions from motor vehicles.

Addressing a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearing, Brown said federal law allows California to set vehicle emission standards tougher than federal regulations, and then allows other states to adopt the California standard.

“The California legislature passed a greenhouse law in 2002 requiring automakers to reduce vehicle global warming emissions 30 percent by 2016,” Brown explained. “There is no doubt that automobile manufacturers can meet that goal, and since the federal government does not want to seek such a reduction California intends to move forward.”

Brown said that 11 other states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- have now adopted the California standard.

“Together we represent one-third of the population of the United States, and the people of our 12 states want to act now to combat global warming. We are not willing to wait while President Bush offers only rhetoric, excuses and delays. Suing the federal government is not our first choice, but we will have no choice if our legitimate efforts to protect our planet are blocked because of partisan political games in Washington.”

Brown pointed out that the states’ battle against global warming is a bi-partisan effort.

“Gov. Schwarzenegger supports our plans to sue EPA if we are not allowed to implement the California law. Protecting our planet is not a partisan issue, and the states now want to do what we can in the absence of federal action, and the EPA has no right to deny us the ability to move forward.”

Brown said the proposed California standards are the most comprehensive effort to combat global warming in U.S. history.

The California attorney general was also scheduled to testify Tuesday following his EPA testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Brown said California filed its request for an EPA waiver, which in the past has always been routinely granted, in December 2005. Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by requesting a waiver from EPA and such requests have been approved more than 50 times in the past. Approval of California’s waiver means the other states would get approval automatically.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 and subsequent amendments in 1967, 1970 and 1977 expressly allowed California to impose stricter environmental regulations in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” including topography, climate, high number and concentration of vehicles and its pioneering role in vehicle emissions regulation. Brown said Congress intended the state to continue its pioneering efforts at adopting stricter motor vehicle emissions standards, far more advanced than the federal rules.

“Our waiver request has been pending for a year and a half, which is an unreasonable delay,” Brown said. “Our patience is wearing thin. We watch the President and his EPA acting in collusion with the auto and oil industries, while we want to take reasonable, constructive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are now preparing to sue unless we receive our waiver within a short time.”

See the attached three documents for additional background.

WHAT:

Tomorrow, 9:00 a.m. Eastern, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will urge the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow vehicle regulations passed by California and 11 states which would be the most comprehensive effort to combat global warming in United States history.

Brown will also brief the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works following his EPA testimony.

Brown, California’s top law enforcement official, is supported by Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, all of which have adopted the regulations and are ready to quit stalling on global warming.

WHEN/WHERE:

EPA Testimony: 9:00 a.m. Eastern, Tuesday, May 22, EPA Potomac Yard Center, 2777 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.

News Conference: 12:00 p.m. Eastern, Tuesday, May 22, Hyatt Regency Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington VA. (Prince William Room)

Senate Testimony: 2:30 p.m., Eastern, Tuesday, May 22, 456 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 406, Washington DC.

Note to Editors:

On May 21 and May 22, Mr. Brown will be in Washington, D.C. Please e-mail Press Secretary David Kravets for additional press availability: AGPressOffice@doj.ca.gov

Updates forthcoming.

# # #

Note to Editors: Here is the reaction of California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. to President Bush’s speech today in the Rose Garden:

While Mr. Bush was in the Rose Garden today stating his desire to “cut America’s gasoline usage by 20 percent,” his own lawyers were in a San Francisco federal court defending his administration’s scandalously inadequate fuel efficiency standard for SUVs, pickups and minivans.

Brown applauded the president’s favorable comments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting back on gas-guzzling, but urged the President to take two immediate steps: 1) tell the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to grant California and 12 other states permission to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and 2) junk last year’s token 1-mile-per gallon increase in fuel efficiency standards and “propose something real.”

“The president doesn’t offer a single concrete proposal on how to combat global warming and instead directs his bureaucracy 'to work together’ to come up with a plan,” Brown said. “California already has a plan that can be adopted immediately.”

SAN FRANCISCO -- (May 14, 2007) California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today criticized the Bush administration for illegally adopting “dangerously misguided” gas mileage rules.

Brown, in a lawsuit backed by 11 states and several environmental organizations, said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s new mileage standards violate federal law by ignoring both the environment and our country’s growing dependence on foreign oil.

“After years of neglect, it is unconscionable to increase vehicle mileage standards by only one mile per gallon,” Brown said outside the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was argued Monday. “We are asking the court to reject this dangerously misguided policy that exacerbates global warming and enriches foreign sponsors of terrorism.”

Despite the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, adopted four decades ago in response to the Arab oil crisis, the Bush administration last year ordered a paltry mileage increase, from 22.2 miles per gallon to 23.5 by 2010. The National Environmental Policy Act and other regulations also require the Bush administration, when formulating new mileage standards, to consider the effects of the vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions on global warming, which the Bush administration failed to do, Brown said.

Instead, the Bush administration adopted a standard oblivious to how manmade pollution is harming the environment and changing the climate. Bush’s policy continues to feed the coffers of foreign oil-producing governments, many of them sponsors of terrorism, while the price of gas is reaching historic highs. Had the administration followed federal environmental and conservation regulations, the government would have demanded greater fuel efficiency, Brown said.

A decision by the three-judge appeals court panel is expected anytime.

Suing along with Brown are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, the District of Columbia, New York City, the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club.

While Bush ignores global warming, the U.S. Supreme Court has not.

On April 2, the Supreme Court demanded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to consider adopting regulations to combat climate change. In that case, the high court wrote “the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized.” The Supreme Court noted environmental changes “have already inflicted significant harms” from retreating glaciers, to early spring snow melts to an “accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years.”

Last week, Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said “Climate change will touch every corner and every community on this planet.” He said “It is now up to governments” to address the issue before it’s too late.

Brown agrees: “Why does President Bush want to keep us addicted to oil, foreign oil?”

The case is California v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 06-72317.

Court records in the case are attached to this release.

The KFC Corp. agreed Tuesday to comply with a 1986 voter-approved initiative requiring companies that expose consumers to harmful substances provide a 'clear and reasonable warning.'

The company agreed to warn California customers that its fried or baked potatoes contain acrylamide, a chemical known to cause cancer. Acrylamide, a byproduct created by the reaction of chemicals in food and high heat, is found in French fries and potato chips at high levels. For example, a serving of fries or potato chips has approximately 82 times more acrylamide than is allowed in drinking water under U.S. EPA standards.

Proposition 65, the initiative demanding the exposure warnings, was approved by 63 percent of California voters.

The KFC Corp., in settling a lawsuit with California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., agreed to supply consumers with acrylamide warnings to comport with Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. The company, without admitting wrongdoing, also agreed to pay $208,000 in civil penalties and $133,000 to fund Proposition 65 enforcement actions.

A hearing before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Wendell Mortimer Jr. is scheduled May 29, when the California Department of Justice and the KFC Corp. will request the court's approval.

The settlement was the first as part of an ongoing Proposition 65 enforcement action against major food and beverage producers. They include: Frito-Lay Inc., Pepsico Inc., H.J. Heinz Co., Kettle Foods Inc., Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., Wendy's International Inc., McDonald's Corp., and Burger King Corp.

The settlement agreement is attached.

Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. sued the Tulare County Board of Supervisors on Thursday to overturn the board's approval of two mega-dairies housing more than 12,000 cattle near Allensworth State Park, a nationally registered historic site honoring a pioneering black settlement founded by a former slave.

The California Department of Justice lawsuit alleges the Tulare County Board of Supervisors on March 20 violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it approved the cow pens located about a mile away from the historic site. The suit says the dairy will produce 20 tons of manure and other contaminants each day.

"Allensworth State Park will be compromised by the odors, flies and air and water pollution generated by these large dairies in such close proximity,' the Tulare County Superior Court lawsuit said. 'By bringing a large industrial dairy operation into the immediate surroundings of the park, the dairy project threatens the park's historic integrity and its function to convey a historically accurate picture of the way of life of the Allensworth pioneers.'

The park preserves a town founded by Allen Allensworth, which was an agricultural haven for former slaves and sharecroppers in the Central Valley of California. Allensworth, a slave born in 1842, served in the U.S. military during the Civil War and was the first African American to receive the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

The lawsuit claims the Tulare County Board of Supervisors violated California environmental regulations for, among other things, approving the project 'without meaningfully evaluating and identifying the impact on the unique historical resources and setting of Allensworth State Park.'

The suit also alleges that the Tulare County Board of Supervisors did not adequately address the project's environmental impacts on the adjacent Pixley National Wildlife Refuge and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve.

A copy of the lawsuit is attached.

SAN FRANCISCO--In response to Supreme Court's decision today in the landmark case Massachusetts v. EPA, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued the following statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, is a resounding affirmation of California’s actions to address global warming,” stated Attorney General Brown, who represents California as a party in that case.

In finding that the Clean Air Act applies to emission of greenhouse gases, the Supreme Court upheld California’s right to promulgate its landmark regulations limiting those emissions.

“This is an historic moment for California and the country,” said Brown. “The Supreme Court recognized the key role for states in protecting their citizens and their environment.”

The automakers have sued California, challenging the state’s authority to regulate greenhouse case emissions from cars and trucks, and they have challenged ten other states’ actions in adopting the California rules.

Attorney General Brown described today’s ruling as vindication of the state’s regulations, its legal position in support of those regulations, and in pursuing legal remedies in the courts on behalf of the state’s citizens and environment.

“The Supreme Court today has dealt a defeat to General Motors and other auto companies that are attempting to sabotage California’s pioneering controls on greenhouse gas emissions,” Brown said. “It is time for the automakers, the electric power industry, and other large greenhouse gas emitters to join California in leading the world to global warming solutions.”

In addition to Massachusetts v. EPA, Brown represents California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon, an automaker challenge to California’s regulations; Connecticut v. AEP, challenging power plant emissions; California v. GM, challenging automaker emissions; and California v. NHTSA, challenging fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs.

(SAN FRANCISCO) Six of the nation's largest auotmakers have tried to dismiss California's lawsuit against them on technical grounds but in a brief filed today by Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. the State of California affirms it's commitment to hold automakers accountable. Brown also requested a personal meeting with each of the automakers to discuss ways to fight global warming without conflict.

In September 2006, the Attorney Generals Office filed suit in San Francisco federal court against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers for creating vehicles whose emissions are the largest single source of greenhouse gasses in California. The manufacturers automobiles have contributed to an international global warming threat that has damaged Californias resources, jeopardized environmental health and cost millions of dollars to address current and future negative effects.