Press Advisory
April 28, 2011

Contact:
Cherise Udell, President, Utah Moms for Clean Air: 510-306-6963 or nomadicmuse@yahoo.com
Stephan Bennhoss, Principle, Rowland Hall: 801-924-5930.

When: 2:15 to 3:15 on April 28, 2010 and April 29th, 2010
Where: Rowland Hall, 9th and 9th campus

What: Rowland Hall students on the school’s Green Team (lead by 6th grade teacher, Molly Lewis) will engage in a frenzy of creative activity this afternoon in an effort to tell President Obama and Michelle Obama how important it is to Protect the Clean Air Act – and to increase efforts to clean-up Utah’s dirty air. They will draw, paint and write poetry describing how Utah’s dirty air affects them.

Why: According to the 2011 State of the Air Report by the American Lung Association, roughly half the people (50.3%) in the United States live in counties that have unhealthful levels of either ozone or particle pollution. Utah is no exception. Utah’s air pollution is at times the worst in the nation – and as a result every year between 1,000 and 2,000 Utahns die prematurely due to chronic air pollution exposure. Clearly, not enough is being done to clean-up Utah’s air and safeguard public health. Across the nation, it is estimated that approximately 100,000 Americans die prematurely due to air pollution exposure. Yet, the death toll due to air pollution only begins to touch the vast magnitude of human suffering caused by breathing our dirty air — for every 75 deaths per year due to air pollution in the U.S., health scientists have estimated that there are 505 hospital admissions for asthma and other respiratory diseases, 3,500 respiratory emergency doctor visits, 180,000 asthma attacks, 930,000 restricted activity days, and 2,000,000 acute respiratory symptom days. Utah Moms for Clean Air and Rowland Hall’s Green Team call upon upon President Obama to protect the integrity of the Clean Air Act and to prove through his actions that safeguarding the health of American citizens is one of his top priorities.

Utah Moms for Clean Air President, Cherise Udell, will be in Washington D.C. May 2 – 4th meeting with Utah Senators and Congressmen, as well as the E.P.A. On Tuesday, May 2nd she has been invited to the White House along with other clean air advocates from across the nation and will deliver the student’s art work to the President or Mrs. Obama.

References:

American Lung Association, State of the Air Report 2011. (www.stateoftheair.org)

Dockery, D.W., and C.A Pope III. Acute Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution. Annual Review Public Health, 1994, vol. 15,107-32.

Testimony of George Thurston, Hearing, Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Review of EPA’s Proposed Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS Revisions, May 8, 1997.

Forty years ago, we wore bell bottoms and trouser suits, were infatuated with lava lamps … and breathed dirty air. Thankfully, more than our tastes have changed. Because of the Clean Air Act of 1970, the air is cleaner, and we are healthier.

You need only consider the damage caused by polluted air—children wheezing with asthma, fish contaminated by mercury, days of school and work missed due to illness, serious diseases such as cancer, and even premature death—to see that clean air is essential for good health. That is precisely what led President Nixon in 1970 to sign the Clean Air Act. His hope was that the historic legislation would put the nation on a path to provide “clean air, clean water, and open spaces for the future generations of America.”

Clean Air is a Smart Investment

The Clean Air Act has proven a remarkable success. In its first 20 years, more than 200,000 premature deaths and 18 million cases of respiratory illness in children were prevented. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson reported recently, “The total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to more than 40 times the costs of regulation. For every dollar we have spent, we get more than $40 of benefits in return.” In 1990, when President George H.W. Bush signed amendments that toughened emission standards for nearly two hundred of the most toxic, cancer-causing air pollutants, the Clean Air Act became an even better tool for protecting human health.

“The total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to more than 40 times the costs of regulation. For every dollar we have spent, we get more than $40 of benefits in return.”

There is more that needs to be done to fulfill the Clean Air Act’s promise. Far too many Americans are still breathing dirty air and suffering as a result, thanks to a handful of polluting industries that fight clean air laws tooth and nail. Their profits take precedent over our health, despite the benefits that clean air provides to our economy and our society.

Pressure From the Inside

Polluters and their allies have spent decades negotiating exemptions for power plants, slandering science, misleading the public and pressuring the EPA with untruths and propaganda. As a result, coal-fired power plants continue to emit millions of tons of toxic air pollution every year. They are by far the country’s largest source of mercury, which impairs the ability of growing children to think and learn.

Coal-fired power plants also emit particulate matter, lead, arsenic, acid gases and cancer-causing pollutants such as benzene. The technology to reduce this kind of pollution isn’t years away. It’s available now, but many big polluters simply don’t want to spend money on pollution controls. Thanks to litigation by Earthjustice, the EPA is now under a court-ordered deadline to issue the first ever national emission limits on toxic air pollution from coal plants. Additionally, we went to court and won a decision that Bush-era standards for particulate matter, one of the deadliest forms of air pollution, were wholly inadequate. The EPA is currently considering stronger protections for this dangerous pollutant. New standards are expected sometime in 2011.

These and other pending proposals by the EPA, including rules to reduce toxic pollution from industrial boilers—which will save an estimated 4,900 lives and $38 billion every year according to EPA—have the potential to improve the lives of many Americans by reducing toxic air pollution in our communities. But polluters will escalate their campaign to avoid, weaken, derail, and kill these rules with bogus claims that healthy economies and healthy communities are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. Improvements to air quality are actually an engine of economic growth and innovation. In the case of industrial boilers, for example, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies—the state authorities that actually implement clean air protections—predicted in a recent report that adding pollution control equipment to boilers could create up to 40,000 new jobs in the coming years.

The Best is Yet To Come

The Clean Air Act has successfully improved our health and our economy, thanks to the hard work of those leaders who pushed for strong protections in the face of tremendous opposition. Because clean air fosters healthy communities and a stronger economy, Earthjustice will continue working to protect Americans’ right to breathe by securing the strongest possible health protections and preventing the most dangerous polluters from dodging their legal requirements to clean up our air. The Clean Air Act has helped us accomplish a great deal over the last 40 years, and that’s only the beginning.

A Success Story, with Many Chapters Still to Come

EPA’s Clean Air Act Turns 40 /
Agency achieved significant health and environmental benefits

Clearing the Air: Q&A with Earthjustice Attorney, Jim Pew

By Wendy Abrams
Huffington Post

As a mother of four, the question is absurd to me. Really, can you imagine if you asked someone that question and they answered, “Well, some is ok, as long as it doesn’t kill them, subjecting them to injury and chronic illness seems fine.” That would be insane.

HOW MUCH POISON IS OK FOR OUR KIDS? As a mother of four, the question is absurd to me. Really, can you imagine if you asked someone that question and they answered, “Well, some is ok, as long as it doesn’t kill them, subjecting them to injury and chronic illness seems fine.” That would be insane.

But that is the insanity we are living with today. Coal-fired power plants spew mercury, lead, arsenic and radioactive waste into our air and water with disastrous consequences.

The coal plants are not just spewing a little toxic pollution. They are literally flooding tons into our air and water. Consider this: It takes one gram of mercury per year to contaminate a 20-acre lake so the fish are unfit for human consumption. America’s coal-fired power plants put 72,386 pounds of mercury into the air every year! (To put that in perspective, that’s over 31 million grams of mercury put into our air and water every year.)

Mercury has been proven to cause neurological damage in children. It lowers their IQ and is linked to childhood asthma, cancer and autism. 410,000 infants are born every year in America having been exposed to unsafe levels of mercury while in the womb. Mercury reduces a child’s ability to become a productive member of society, and we all pay a huge price in the impact it has on our families, communities and country.

Yet there are still those who oppose regulations crying, “We can’t afford pollution controls! It’s too expensive!” But for WHOM is it too expensive? In every instance, it is cheaper to prevent pollution than to clean it up. But when polluters pollute for free, it is no wonder they pay to fight regulations. (And they fight hard: the utilities spent $134 million lobbying in 2010.) The parents of children with asthma and autism don’t have the time or money to fund lobbying efforts to reduce mercury from power plants. Without regulations, the burden falls on all of us pay the enormous costs of the injustice of unchecked pollution. We pay with our health, well-being and all of the associated costs, including the huge financial burden of skyrocketing healthcare costs and government funded clean-up efforts.

As with the deceptively clever “Clear Skies Initiative” (Bush-era legislation that actually allowed for MORE pollution) the polluters have succeeded in convincing elected officials that it is not cost effective to cut pollution.

Until now.

Here’s the good news. For the first time ever, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed national standards to reduce toxic air pollution from power plants. The benefits of the proposed Mercury and Air Toxic Standards are staggering. The reductions in mercury alone would:

• Prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths a year
• Prevent as many as 11,000 heart attacks each year
• Prevent approximately 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms each year
• Prevent 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis among children each year
• Prevent more than 12,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions each year
• Prevent 850,000 days of work missed due to illness each year.

The EPA studies have estimated the new ruling will not only improve health, but the economic benefits will outweigh the costs by more than 10 to 1. This is good environmental policy, this is good public health policy and this is good economic policy- pure and simple. Without regulations you and I pay the price to clean up the polluters’ mess. Worse yet, if the mess is not cleaned up, you and I pay an even greater price.

Yesterday, April 14, British mining giant, Rio Tinto, the parent company of Kennecott Copper, held its AGM (annual shareholders’ meeting) in London. With the support of the London Mining Network, Utah Moms for Clean Air acquired proxy shareholder status to attend the meeting and ask some uncomfortable questions.

Before the AGM, Utah Moms for Clean Air led a peaceful protest rally against the company. Approximately 150 colourful balloons were popped one at a time, each representing a premature death due to the air pollution spewing from the company’s operations in the greater Salt Lake City area.

As in previous years, the company’s highly questionable environmental and social record came under public scrutiny from campaigners around the world. As proxy shareholders, community activists, Chalid Muhammed, Cherise Udell, Meg Townsend, Roger Moody and Patricia Feeney were able to attend the full shareholder’s meeting and speak directly to the Rio Tinto Board and CEO.

Chalid Muhammad, a prominent Green activist from Indonesia, demanded to know why the company had not fulfilled its undertakings to fully compensate local people for human rights abuses (rape and burning down a village) and loss of their land at Rio Tinto’s now-closed Kelian gold mine in Kalimantan.

Meg Townsend, who works for a prominent New York law firm, declared the company had failed to observe the religious rights of Native Americans at one of its prospective mine sites in Michigan, USA., and may contaminate the entire Lake Superior watershed with byproduct waste from their planned mining operation of nickle.

Cherise Udell representing Utah Moms for Clean Air pointed out that residents of Salt Lake City, and in particular young children, were grievously suffering from toxic emissions at the company’s massive Bingham Canyon copper mine. She said between 1,000 and 2,000 Utahns die prematurely every year due to chronic air pollution exposure. Since Kennecott is the area’s #1 pollutor and responsible for aboout 30% of the pollution in the Wasatch Front airshed, they are also responsible for about 30% of the premature deaths. Furthermore, she challenged Rio Tinto’s CEO as to why the Bingham Mine does not have a bond.

Patricia Feeney, director of Oxford-based Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) raised urgent questions about the impacts on water quality of the company’s proposed Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine in Mongolia.

Other questions related to the company’s position on the rights of Indigenous Peoples to withhold their consent for mining projects, including at the Pebble project in Alaska. The issue was also spotlighted in a letter by a leader of the Aboriginal Mirrar people in Australia, who fear for the consequences of the company’s uranium extraction on their territory.

Rio’s empty promises

The question and answer session lasted two hours – one of the longest since Rio Tinto first became a “battle ground” between communities and the company in 1981. Asked for his assessment of who had “won”, and who had “lost” at this year’s AGM, co-founder of Partizans (People against Rio Tinto), Roger Moody, said:

“It’s not a case of winning or losing. On the one hand, Rio Tinto has certainly made some concessions to its opponents – for example selling some of its more dubious coal mines. On the other hand, the gap between its promises and actual performance is as wide as ever. For example, the company says it’s in contact with aggrieved Indonesian communities still suffering from lack of compensation for the impacts of its closed-down Kelian gold mine. But, as Chalid Muhammad pointed out today, their grievances have remained unaddressed for the past couple of years.”

“The company says it’s always ready to dialogue with its ‘stakeholders’. And, one of these stakeholders, Cherise Udell, made a passionate plea on behalf of thousands of children affected by toxic emissions from the company’s Salt Lake copper mine. “But, when she simply asked for a public debate in Utah about the costs and benefits of the Bingham Mine expansion, Rio Tinto CEO, Tom Albanese, replied that Rio Tinto does not need need a citizen’s majority as to whether we can mine or not. “You have a regulatory process,” said Mr. Albanese, “to decide whether we can have a permit to expand.” To which Ms. Udell replied, “That is true, but the system is broken, otherwise I would not need to be here in London defending the rights of Utah children to breathe clean air.”

For photographs of the protests and the AGM, see

http://londonminingnetwork.org/2011/03/london-events-around-the-rio-tinto-agm/.

http://sallieslondonposts.blogspot.com/

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Britain-Queen-Elizabeth-II-demonstrator-bursts-balloons-outside-Rio-Tinto-annual-general-meeting-Queen/ss/events/wl/123010queenelizabeth/im:/110414/ids_photos_wl/r2508892809.jpg/#photoViewer=/110414/ids_photos_wl/r3233081076.jpg

Greetings Friends of Clean Air:

A fabulous opportunity has presented itself: Rio Tinto, the parent company of big polluter, Kennecott, is having their shareholder meeting on April 14th in London. With the help of the London Mining Network (a watchdog group on mining activities around the world) Utah Moms for Clean Air will attend this meeting (as proxy shareholders) and let the Board of Directors know we are not happy about Kennecott’s assault on our air shed, nor or we happy about how entrenched their company is in Utah politics and our state agencies, such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Following the shareholder’s meeting we will hold a press conference for the British Press along side other activists from communities around the world where Rio Tinto has violated human rights and degraded the environment.

Furthermore, we considering a rally outside the headquarters of Rio Tinto to bring additional attention to the colonial-like relationship Rio Tinto has with the state of Utah.

This trip to London could be a pivotal moment in our fight against Kennecott’s request to expand their operations by 30%. We all need copper. We need it for our hybrids. We need it for our electronics. But Utah Moms for Clean Air just wants Kennecott and Rio Tinto to play fair, not manipulate our government, and to use the best available technology to reduce the air pollution they contribute to our airshed.

Help Utah Moms for Clean Air defend the children of Utah. Help defend your children. Consider how much clean air is worth to you and make a donation to our April London trip!

Thank you!

Cherise Udell
Founder and President, Utah Moms for Clean Air
510-306-6963

P.S. The Catalyst Magazine will host a blog of our activities in London starting Monday:

http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1&.rand=f21jhudcgkm0l

London Mining Network

Public meeting, Wednesday 13 April, 7.30pm, Amnesty UK’s Human Rights Action Centre

Rio Tinto: what the company won’t tell you

Speakers (7.30-8.10):

Chalid Muhammad, Chairman of the Indonesian Green Institute, acted as a witness in negotiations between the company and communities around its now-closed Kelian gold mine in Indonesia , where numerous human rights abuses occurred.

Joan Sekler, film-maker, will show extracts of her film Locked Out about Rio Tinto’s failed union-busting activities in California.

Cherise Udell, Utah Moms for Clean Air, is challenging the company over air pollution from its Bingham Canyon operations at Salt Lake City.

Panel discussion (8.10-9.00)

The speakers will be joined by Meg Townsend, who works in a New York City law firm handling high-profile environmental litigation and represents Michigan groups concerned about water pollution and violations of Indigenous rights at the Eagle Mine; Tricia Feeney of Oxford-based Rights and Accountability in Development, who will speak about the company’s Oyu Tolgoi project in Mongolia; Martin Stanley, who will report on the impacts of the company’s operations in Madagascar; Roger Moody, mining researcher and leading authority on Rio Tinto; and other visitors from Utah.

For venue details, see http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10151.

Other events

Protest rally led by Utah Moms for Clean Air outside Rio Tinto’s AGM, Thursday 14 April.

The protest will be on the pavement in front of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster.

See http://www.qeiicc.co.uk/files/uploaded_files/map.pdf for location.

Free London screening of Locked Out

London Independent Film Festival, 16.00 on Sunday 17th April at Shortwave Cinema, London SE1 [0207 357 6845 info@shortwavefilms.co.uk ]

See http://www.londonindependent.org/tickets.htm

Huffington Post
By David Eichenthal, President and CEO, Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies

When developers of a new coal fired power plant came to Washington County, Georgia to propose a new coal fired power plant in 2008, their argument to the local community consisted of two words — ‘more jobs.’ In communities across the nation, utilities and developers of new plants tell local officials and residents that any concerns they may have about environmental or health risks related to coal plants should be outweighed by the economic impact that plant construction will have.

And for many communities, where other industries have left and poverty and unemployment rates are high, it is often a compelling argument. But in a first-ever study released last week, the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies found that when it comes to jobs, promises of economic panacea coming from new coal fired power plants need to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

We looked at the six largest coal powered plants to come online between 2005 and 2009 and found that job creation in the host counties for five of the six plants analyzed fell woefully short of initial job estimates. Overall, of the six plants studied in five counties around the country, only 56% of jobs promised actually materialized. Only one county experienced the job growth that was promised. In the other four, coal plant construction delivered just 27% of the jobs projected.

The report found total employment and construction jobs grew in five of the six counties with new plants between the start of construction and completion. But only one county experienced an increase in construction employment that was equal to or greater than the predicted employment impact of the coal plant construction project. When taking into account national trends, three of the host counties actually saw a decline in construction employment. Many workers appear to have frequently been imported for the project — leaving little lasting economic benefit for the plant’s host community.

Our findings weren’t news to the coal industry. A spokesman for the National Mining Association responded to the Ochs report that “it is standard for companies to round up on direct and indirect jobs, and underestimate plant construction costs.” Somehow, that message isn’t shared with local governments when plant developers seek tax abatements or help with financing new plants.

Thankfully, there is an alternative. The least costly way to address any new need for energy is by making better use of the energy sources that we have already. And, it turns out, that focused investment on energy efficiency — everything from more efficient lighting to better insulation — also creates more local jobs over a sustained period of time.

Last year’s decision by a Kentucky electric cooperative to cancel a new coal plant reflect this economic reality. The economic arguments for coal should have resonated in a place like Kentucky — the nation’s third-largest coal mining state that trails only West Virginia in coal production related employment. Proponents of the now-canceled Smith plant promoted it as a source for new jobs in some of the areas hardest hit by the recession, promising 700 new construction jobs in a county where one in ten were out of work and one in five lived in poverty.

Yet, the decision to cancel the Smith plant turned on the very economic and financial arguments most often made in support of coal, with cooperative officials calling it “a business decision.” For one the finances did not work — as has been the case in the nearly one hundred other coal plant cancellations since 2001, increased construction costs and the financial risks associated with additional carbon regulation led to increases in the likely cost.

But the economics did not work either. In the case of the Smith plant, an Ochs Center analysis found that significant investment in energy efficiency to reduce demand would cost less than creating new capacity through a new plant. And it would create jobs — 5,400 new jobs across Eastern Kentucky — and a three year total economic impact of $1.2 billion. When coupled with investments in renewable energy, it would also meet the same energy needs as the now-canceled Smith plant.

Given our finding that coal plants only create a fraction of promised jobs, the Smith plant cancellation may be a turning point where more and more local governments and utilities recognize that energy efficiency can both save dollars and create jobs for local economies in need of revival. There is little need for an environmental argument in advocating for energy efficiency over coal plants when it comes down to a matter of dollars and sense.

Given our finding that coal plants only create a fraction of promised jobs, the Smith plant cancellation may be a turning point where more and more local governments and utilities recognize that energy efficiency can both save dollars and create jobs for local economies in need of revival. There is little need for an environmental argument in advocating for energy efficiency over coal plants when it comes down to a matter of dollars and sense.

Los Angeles Times
By Louis Sahagun
April 7, 2011

It is well known that air pollution from cars and trucks on freeways — a combination of soot, pavement dust and other toxic substances — can cause respiratory disease, heart attacks, cancer and premature death.

Now, exposure to pollution particles roughly one-thousandth the width of a human hair has been linked to brain damage in mice, including signs associated with memory loss and Alzheimer’s disease, according to a USC study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

In a statement, senior author Caleb Finch, an expert on the effects of inflammation and holder of USC’s ARCO/William F. Kieschnick Chair in the Neurobiology of Aging, said “You can’t see them, but they are inhaled and have an effect on brain neurons that raises the possibility of long-term brain health consequences of freeway air.”

The study relied on a unique technology developed at USC for collecting particulates in a liquid suspension and recreating air laden with freeway particulate matter in the laboratory, which enabled scientists to conduct controlled experiments on cultured brain cells and live animals.

Exposure lasted a total of 150 hours, spread over 10 weeks, in three sessions per week lasting five hours each.

How can we protect the millions of people who live alongside freeways from this type of toxicity? In an interview, lead author Todd Morgan, a research professor in gerontology at USC, said, “Our data would suggest that freeway pollution could have a profound effect on the development of neurons and brain health in children and young kids, especially those who attend schools built alongside freeways.”

“So limiting one’s exposure — especially children’s exposure — to freeway pollution is essential to control asthma, cardiovascular conditions and cognitive development,” Morgan said.

The study was prompted by earlier research by a separate group in Mexico that noted significant differences in brain samples collected from children and young-adult accident victims in smog-laden Mexico City compared with those in Veracruz, which has cleaner air. The brain tissue collected in Mexico City showed more extensive inflammation, oxidized DNA and other pathological markers of Alzheimer’s disease, Morgan said.

“As a society, we need to figure out ways to minimize the level of the very, very nasty particulates we are dumping into the air we breathe,” Morgan said. “It’s having terrible consequences.”

The 2011 Utah Bike Summit will be held on Friday, April 29th from 8am-5pm on the Miller Campus of Salt Lake Community College located at 9750 South 300 West, Sandy, UT. The Keynote speaker will be Andy Clarke, President of the League of American Bicyclists.

This year’s event will bring together excellent speakers who are passionate about cycling in Utah. Topics at the summit will cross the cycling spectrum. A few highlights:

· Cycling: Utah’s Prescription for Good Health – Dr. Max Testa
· The Tour of Utah: How it puts Utah on the map for competitive cycling – Steve Miller, President of the Utah Cycling Partnership
· How to Keep Utah as a Top Cycling Destination – Paul Oelerich
· Panel Discussion: Trail Building Basics & Best Practices
· Bike Lanes and Beyond – Becka Roolf
· Panel Discussion: How to Put On a Community Cycling Event
· Panel Discussion: Creating Safe Routes to our Schools
· Panel Discussion: How to Make Utah the Country’s MTB Mecca

A Meet & Greet Reception with state & local representatives, sponsored by Specialized, will follow at the SLC Bicycle Transit Center, 250 South 600 West, from 6-7:30pm. A light dinner will be served.

On Thursday, April 28th, there will be a special film showing of Race Across the Sky 2010 at 7pm at the Jordan Megaplex. Come meet with Leadville 100 MTB Racers. Win great door prizes and raffles prizes. (All proceeds will benefit the state advocacy group Bike Utah.) Tickets for the movie can be purchased online as soon as April 18th from Jordan Commons Megaplex website or at the theater.

Register now for the 2011 Utah Bike Summit at:
www.utahbikesummit.com

Bike Summit Registration is $30, ($15 for students) and includes lunch, a continental breakfast and snacks.

If you have questions or would like to volunteer to help, please e-mail Tara McKee (taramckee@cycleandstyle.com). (Volunteers will get a complimentary registration.)