The National Academy of Science's new report on the hidden health costs of U.S. reliance on fossil fuels has generated high-profile media coverage around the country, most of it focusing on the $62 billion annual estimate for coal rather than the $56 billion projection for vehicles.

(Photo: SILive.com)

But Greenwire's write-up is particularly interesting, if only for its responses from the National Mining Association and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative and climate-denying D.C. think tank that has taken $2 million from Exxon Mobil this decade. From the Greenwire piece (sub.req'd.):

"Energy production from fossil fuels causes air pollution, which damages people's health and welfare. That was big news -- in the 1970s," Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote in an e-mail. "Did we really need a 346-page study with more than 50 expert contributors to tell us that?" ...

"That aside, without energy, we'd all freeze in the dark," Lewis added. "The net cost of not having energy vastly outweighs the supposed 'hidden' costs."

Interestingly, Lewis' quip about "the net cost of not having energy" was similar in substance from the that of the Mining Association, which asserted that "the health and welfare benefits" of burning coal for electricity "clearly outweigh the cost."

(Photo: MetroDCLiving.com)

In its report today on the "unpriced consequences of energy production and use," the NRC was acting under a congressional mandate to map the health impacts of various energy sources. Climate change was not factored into the NRC's conclusions, but the report nonetheless had a grim tale to tell about transportation fuel consumption.

The NRC found that the manufacture and burning of fuel for U.S. cars and trucks produced $56 billion in external costs in 2005, the year that the report was requested. That hidden cost averaged between 1.2 and 1.7 cents per vehicle mile traveled, depending on the type of fuel used.

In discussing the relatively small difference between the external costs of conventional gas-burning autos and the costs of hybrids or electric vehicles, the NRC wrote:

Although operation of the [electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles] produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates.

In other words, hybrids and electric vehicles are still likely to consume serious amounts of coal -- at least until the nation adopts an effective renewable electricity standard. The NRC notes that "further legislative and economic initiatives to reduce emissions from the electricity grid could be expected to improve the relative damages from electric vehicles substantially."

Streetlights are an enormous part of any city's energy consumption and cities that wish to cut down on their emissions and their energy bills are getting in line to convert their older street lamps to LED technology. According to Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) and Department of Energy (DOE) data, street lighting costs are one of the biggest components of a city’s utility bill, accounting for 10 percent to 38 percent of the total. With nearly 35 million street lights in the United States, about 1 percent of all electricity is used by street lighting systems.

Like other cities in the Bay Area experimenting with LED streetlights, including San Francisco and Oakland, San Jose has embraced the nascent technology as part of a sustainability platform called Green Vision, which sets ambitious targets for reducing energy consumption and emissions, including an expected 50 percent or more energy and cost savings from the street lamp conversions.

"Our goal has always been to move to a more energy efficient light," said Laura Stuchinksy, Transportation Sustainability Officer at the San Jose Department of Transportation.

Stuchinsky said San Jose intends to replace all 62,000 streetlights throughout the city before the Green Vision target date of 2022. The city implemented a pilot streetlighting project in Hillview North in 2008 that replaced 118 low-pressure sodium streetlights with LEDs and a recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus fund grant of $2.2 million will offset implementation costs for the next wave of conversions expected later this year.  Further, the city intends to backfill with new renewable energy generated locally and possible purchases through PG&E. San Jose currently spends $4 million annually on street lights, which consumes over 35 million kilowatt hours of electricity, according to Stuchinsky.

In addition to the benefits to the city, the public seems to like the new lights. The Hillview North project, contracted to Echelon Corporation and funded with part of a $200,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from HUD, had received positive reviews from the community. Even though the new streetlights use less energy, the LEDS give off a broader spectrum of white light than the current yellow hue of the low-pressure sodium lamps, which gives neighbors a greater sense of safety, according to Stuchinsky.

LED lights side-by-side with sodium lights. Photo: PG&E

Astronomers at Lick Observatory, 14 miles east of San Jose, are concerned about any increase in city lights, especially LEDS, said Stuchinksy, as they are unable to filter the white light in the same way they do with yellow from sodium lights.  In order to convert more lights and remain Dark-Sky compliant, San Jose has been working with manufactures to develop solutions for dimming lights at night or for motion-sensors that would help reduce overall light when it is not needed. While the technology is not yet perfect, Stuchinsky believes that the possibility of contracting with a large municipality like San Jose is leading vendors to be more innovative.

Another obstacle to expansion of LED streetlights is the rate schedule at large utilities such as PG&E, which until recently didn't break LEDs into a separate category so savings could be quantified. Municipalities like San Jose pay monthly block rates, regardless of how much energy is actually used. With PG&E's recent classification change, the utility has set a national example and will make conversion more bankable for other municipalities who have the incentive to move to a lower billing rate.

PG&E spokesperson Joseph Molica said the utility was very excited to assist cities throughout the state with LED conversions. "There are two types of incentives for city customers: a lower rate schedule and they are eligible for energy efficiency rebates," he said.

He hoped Bay Area cities would embrace the new technology as thoroughly as Los Angeles, where the city has committed to replace 140,000 existing street lamps with LEDs over the next five years, the largest conversion anywhere in the country. Molica added that ARRA stimulus funds had enabled smaller municipalities like Danville and El Cerrito to initiate trials and that the DOE grants are "coming in almost daily."

Molica said PG&E pilot programs in San Francisco and Oakland over the past two years were excellent test cases for the utility, which realized energy savings from different vendors between 50 to 70 percent [for more analysis: Oakland PDF, San Francisco PDF]. Molica also stressed that the LEDs last many years longer than current sodium lighting, so savings over the long run add up significantly. PG&E has also partnered with the CCI to reach out to more cities across the state to make conversions.

Molica echoed Stuchinsky's assertion that customers approve of the new lights, saying that PG&E conducted outreach before trials in San Francisco's Outer Richmond neighborhood and has sought continuous feedback subsequently. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom earlier this year touted a new pilot near City Hall that incorporates remote dimming technology. At the press conference, Newsom turned the lights up and down with his cell phone (Molica said Newsom used an encrypted code for accessing the system controls, but it does lead one to wonder if the savvy kids at Black Hat might try hacking the city's lights).

On Monday, reader M asked for some advice while traveling outside. While some readers stepped up with some good advice, I asked some of our local bike safety experts for their advice.

A couple of people took up the challenge, and in particular Shay Sanchez, the co-founder and program director of Cyclists Inciting Change through Live Exchange, wrote several suggestions which you can find here. Sanchez writes:

L.A. summer smog is bad enough, but throw a giant ash plume into the mix and it's time to take a serious look at keeping your lungs happy.

1. Find alternatives to biking. (Whoa! Did I just write that??!!) The air is laden with smoke and health experts are advising that we minimize our exposure to air pollutants by not engaging in outdoor physical activities. This, of course, includes city bicycling. The risks to your health can be serious, especially if you're grappling with asthma or another respiratory or cardiovascular health challenge. So if you can, think about finding an alternative to bicycling. Consider riding public transit, car-pooling, hailing a taxi, or even renting a car during this time (if you're currently car-free).
2. Take it easy. If you are going to ride, reduce your effort. During aerobic exercise (even at low-intensity) you may breathe as much as 10 times more air than you do when at rest. So it makes sense to s-l-o-w it down. Be aware that at lower speeds the speed differential between you and overtaking traffic increases, possibly increasing the risk for a collision. Be alert. Better yet, choose lower speed street alternatives whenever possible. Another benefit to streets that carry lower traffic volumes is that they feature lower air pollution levels in general. Pollution levels are likely to start decreasing at 50 feet from a main arterial.
3. Keep it short. If you are going to ride, limit the length of your journey. Many of our trips are 2 miles or less, so this should be pretty easy for many of us. For longer trips, see if you can shorten the bike portion of your trip by incorporating multi-modal options such as bus and/or train.
4. Wear a mask. Another helpful option is to wear a filtering face mask. Be sure that it's a carbon-impregnated face mask, which are known to be helpful in reducing the amount of air pollution that enters the lungs. Your mask should fit your face well, with almost no gaps between you nose and mouth.

For advice from Joe Linton, Roadblock and Ron Milam, read on after the jump.

After an obligatory shot at car-culture, Linton, chair of the Green L.A. Transportation Working Group and LACBC co-founder, offers advice for cyclists and a link to some advice to keep kids safe:

I guess I'd start with the big picture. I suspect that there are causal connections betwen our driving and the fires. Auto emissions are a major part of what's heating up the planet. In order to park and to drive, we've paved over our landscape with impermeable surfaces, breaking water cycles, shrinking groundwaters and causing desertification. Combine these with Southern California's natural fire cycles and you get the devasting fire events including what we're seeing right now. The big picture remedies include not driving, and working to heal our watersheds.

 All that said, what I can say about the day-to-day stuff seems pretty ordinary: if you're a cyclist living in a highly impacted are, go easy this week. Take the bus, drive some if you need to. Crash at your friend's place on the west side. And when the smoke clears, redouble your commitment to staying out of cars.

My creekfreak blog mate Jessica wrote about the fires, including links to natural history information. My comments there include links to Ilsa Setziol's writings - including one on how to take precautions for kids, who are more vulnerable.

Roadblock, one the leaders of the Midnight Ridazz and the Wolfpack Hustle, offers advice for riders who are going to brave the smoke on longer trips:

The wind is important to planning your trip. Guage the wind and terrain. The idea is to stay upwind from the smoke at all times. Barring that, if possible, try to take downhill routes in the smokey areas and try to place the the uphill portion of your route upwind of the fires. It might mean adding 10 or 15 miles to your route in the same manner that sailboats zig and zag across the ocean using triangular routes against the current of the wind to reach their destination. If all else fails hit the subway or take the bus.

Last but not least, Ron Milam, another LACBC co-founder and a consultant with Ron Milam consulting, offers his sage advice:

This is what the air quality was like when I grew up in L.A., which makes me appreciate how far we've come as a region to clean our air. I continue to ride during the fires and am intentionally riding a little slower so I don't breathe as hard.

A new survey released yesterday by the Public Policy Institute of California has been getting a lot of play in the press because of the strong support Californians are showing for Greenhouse Gas reduction programs, even in the midst of the current recession and budget crisis.

Often times when politicians talk about climate change, they tend to leave transportation reform out of the conversation; choosing to look at hybrid and other low- and zero-emission cars as the solution. However, the PPIC asked Californians what they thought about transit expansion and gas prices.

The results? Californians are tired of paying such a high price for gas and want more alternatives. From the PPIC's press release:

Californians (69%) are less likely than last year (76%) to report that gas prices are a financial hardship. But large majorities of some groups do, particularly Latinos (85%) and residents with annual household incomes under $40,000 (83%). And although the percentage of Californians who drive to work alone has declined 12 points since 2002, commuting patterns among employed Californians (63% drive alone, 16% carpool, 9% take public transit) are similar to last year...

...Three in four residents (77%) say the state should focus transportation planning dollars on expanding public transit and using the existing network more efficiently, up 10 points since August 2004 (67%). Just 18 percent say the state should focus on building freeways and highways.

Over at The Switchboard, the Natural Resources Defense Council's official blog, they break down those numbers for transit support by region, and what might be a surprise to some, but shouldn't be after the support for Measure R, Los Angeles is actually slightly above average when it comes to transit support.

The Switchboard goes on to state the obvious...with Californians crying out for more and better transit options; Governor Schwarzenegger and Caltrans continue to push for massive highway projects while fighting desperately in court for the right to rob funds dedicated by taxpayers to transit projects.

And Californians instinctively recognize not only the importance of transit, but the need to make our entire transportation system more efficient.  The environmental benefits of such an approach are made clear in a new publication, co-sponsored by NRDC, and released earlier this week: Moving Cooler: Transportation Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.   This first-of-its-kind study looks at nearly 50 measures and combinations thereof, assessing their potential to save fuel, reduce heat-trapping pollution and save consumers money. 

California’s policymakers would be well-advised to read Moving Cooler.  As the Kinks said, Give the People What They Want.

Since I appreciate a good Kinks reference as much as the next person, I'll leave it at that.

Photo: CowCar

It's not simply that meat is a contributor to global warming; it's that it is a huge contributor. Larger, by a significant margin, than the global transportation sector.

Really? Klein cites a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which found that the livestock industry -- the process of bringing meat from farm to table -- generates 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions "measured in CO2 equivalent."

Transportation, according to the UN report, generates 13.5 percent of global emissions measured by the same method.

And that's an important caveat. Two gases produced in large quantities by livestock are methane and nitrous oxide, which have 23 times and 296 times the "global warming potential" of CO2. Measuring methane and nitrous oxide in "CO2 equivalent," then, pads the climate impact of livestock versus CO2 emitters such as cars and power plants.

The 2006 UN report's comparison rings hollow in another way as well. Measuring the movement of feed to factory farms, not to mention the movement of packaged meat to supermarket shelves, means that livestock is part of the world's transportation sector, not a separate and distinct source of emissions.

Later in his column, Klein also cites a University of Chicago study that found adopting a vegan diet would be healthier for the environment than driving a hybrid car. As Dan Lasher of the Natural Resources Defense Council discovered, however, the Chicago researchers drastically underestimated the amount of CO2 released by one gallon of gas, among other "generic calculations."

The Coalition for Clean Air's recently released report, "Getting to work: Your clean air commute," is a guide for employers, workers and policymakers in order to provide smarter transportation benefits to our workforce. CCA surveyed large employers in Los Angeles County, reviewed literature and consulted with transportation demand management (TDM) experts to compile their findings.

The report highlights best practices for employers to promote bicycling, carpooling, parking management, telework, transit, vanpooling and walking. It concludes with a series of policy recommendations, including:

· Expanding employer-based transit passes

· Expanding use of parking cash-out

· Improving work site transfer policies to allow employees to more easily switch to workplaces closer to home

Learn more about clean air commuter options, and share your thoughts and stories here.

Yesterday, the California Air Resource Board voted to adopt what are being hailed as the "nation's first comprehensive plan to slash greenhouse gases" despite protests from businesses and car dealerships that contend the new standards will be bad for business.

While the new regulations aim to cut emissions in all sectors of the economy, almost one-third of the recuctions are expected to come from the automobile industry.  The Green Car Congress explains what impact the vote will have:

The Scoping Plan requires the largest sectorial chunk of reductions to come from transportation, outlining projected 62.3 MMTCO₂e (37%) in reductions through a variety of measures.

The key transportation instrument is the Pavley standards, followed by the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. In the final plan, however, ARB has increased its estimate of reductions in regional transportation greenhouse gases achieved through land-use changes and transit policies designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT); this is prior to setting the targets required by the newly enacted SB 375 (anti-sprawl bill).

ARB is also evaluating the use of feebates as a measure to achieve additional reductions, either as a backstop to the Pavley regulation if the regulation cannot be implemented, or as a supplement to Pavley if the waiver is approved and the regulation takes effect.

But the CARB isn't done yet.  Later today they're expected to vote on new rules requiring all trucks using California roads, whether they're based in California or not, to switch to low-emission vehicles or retro-fit they're current trucks with carbon filters by 2012.  By 2020, all trucks will need to have certain high-efficiency engines.  The move will cost an estimated $5.5 billion to implement, and the state has set aside $1 billion to ease the burden on truckers.

That hasn't stopped some in the industry from bringing some histrionics to a debate over whether California is serious about cleaning up it's terrible air quality.

While Northgate has purchased a new truck in its nine-vehicle fleet that serves Pacific Pride and Shell gas stations, it was an expensive transaction.

"And you might as well drive the old truck off a cliff. You won't be able to sell it." 

Nevertheless, the potential benefits of the new rules are staggering.  The California Air Resources Board estimates that over the next 15 years the rule will prevent 9,400 premature deaths, result in 150,000 fewer asthma cases and save up to $68 billion in public heath care costs.

I'll post an update when the vote is finalized.

Photo: Wired

It's certainly not a surprise that cars cause pollution.  But, as our elected leaders in Washington debate a $25 billion bailout of the American oil industry, it's worth revisiting the cost of car culture locally.

Researchers at Cal State Fullerton estimate that the cost of air pollution in California, pollution primarily caused by cars, trucks and other heavy machines, cost Californians $28 billion ever year.  Much of this astronomic value comes from lost work time, hospital vists and even the 3,000 deaths that are caused because of health complications that exist because of unclean air.

The Times reports that the Cal-State Fullerton study has broader implications than upcoming ballot votes by Congress:

“Pollution from international goods movement is causing a health crisis in California and the federal government is not going to bail us out. We need to stand up and fight this ourselves and hopefully, some day, we’ll have a Governor that will fight for California as well.” stated Senator Lowenthal.

The California Air Resources Board estimates 3,700 deaths a year are directly attributed to diesel pollution emanating from goods movement. That is in addition to the $200 billion in additional health care costs that CARB attributes to goods movement over the next 15 years.

“I held off on this bill last year at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger, and spent the whole year working with his office. Unfortunately the pressure from Governor Palin and multi-national corporations was too much for him and the Governor chose those interests over the health and well-being of Californians,”
concluded Lowenthal.

Port of Los Angeles at Twilight

The issue of whether or not to charge a $60 fee on all containers entering the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to be used to mitigate the pollution caused by shippers has been a contentious one.  Earlier this summer the legislature passed, for the second time, legislation creating the fee however Governor Schwarzenegger has yet to sign the legislation while his office continues to battle the legislature over the budget.

However, an unlikely opponent to the legislation has just made Schwarzenegger's choice even harder.

One day before she was tapped by John McCain to be his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wrote Schwarzenegger asking him not to sign the legislation because it would be bad for the economies of Alaska and California.  As the bill's author, Long Beach Senator Alan Lowenthal, notes in the Times, Palin's letter is fascinating for what it doesn't say.

The letter doesn't mention the environmental impact the ports have on the surrounding communities.  It doesn't mention what the funds would be used for.  It doesn't mention the 3,400 Californians killed every year because of pollution.  It focuses only on the impact the increased cost of doing business would have on the people of Alaska without doing any analysis on what that impact would actually be.

In response to the Governor's veto of similar legislation last year, Lowenthal's bill lowered the fee imposed on goods being transferred from one ship to another in half to $30.  Experts estimate that the average impact of the fee on Alaskan consumers would be an increase of ten cents to the average pair of sneakers.

For a pdf. copy of Palin's letter click here.  To read the text, read on after the jump.

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

I am writing to join Governor Lingle of Hawaii in urging you not to sign Senate Bill 974. This legislation would impose a $30 fee per 20 foot equivalent for shipping containers. (Many shipping containers are 40 feet long, so the fee or tax would double to $60.) As I understand it, the fee would apply to all shipping containers processed through the main ports in California (Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland).

I have previously written to Governor Gregoire of Washington in opposition to a similar container tax the Washington Legislature considered in 2007. The Alaska Legislature also passed a resolution opposing that bill. I have enclosed a copy) of that resolution.

Enactment of Senate Bill974 will have negative impacts on both Alaska and California.  For Alaskans, a very large percentage of goods (90 percent or more) shipped to Alaska arrive as marine cargo in a container. Many communities lack road access and depend entirely on the shipment of goods by container. Shipping costs have increased significantly with the rising price of fuel and these higher costs are quickly passed onto Alaskans. This tax makes the situation worse.

Similarly, the tax may harm California by driving port business away from its ports. New  port developments such as the one in Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada, could become attractive to shippers.

I respectfully request due consideralion be given to our state anci that 1,ou nrit sign Senate Bill 974.

Sincerely,
Sarah Palin
Govt'rnor

Photo: Brande Jackson/Flickr

What is more important, the health and safety of people living near ports or the cost to truckers and consumers of helping truck carriers meet modern environmental standards and fairness towards independent truckers?  That question could be answered later today when a federal court hears arguments from the American Trucking Association against the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The ports, to the wild approval of local residents and environmental advocates concerned about air quality, have decided to ban all pre-1989 trucks from the ports beginning on October 1 and slowly raise the bar on emissions standards that by 2012 all trucks will meet 2007 emission standards.

Concerns about the "concession agreements" between the ports and truck contractors lie at the heart of the ATA's lawsuit.  The plans the ports are proposing have been compared to agreements between landlords and tennants, giving the ports power over hiring practices, maintenance and employee health insurance.  The ATA argues that they are placing smaller carriers at a disadvantage, especially independent truckers that could be banned altogether from the Port of Los Angeles by 2012. 

While agreements have been reached between the ports and trucking companies representing literally thousands of truckers, the ATA is still concerned the agreements will have a long lasting negative impact on the industry.  From an ATA press release:

“The Port of Los Angeles’ further intrusion into the competitive structure of the drayage market makes the ATA lawsuit even more important and illustrates precisely the type of disruption of trucking services in the economy that Congress found so inefficient and disruptive,” said ATA President and CEO Bill Graves. “Creating an artificial, non-competitive market with highly inflated costs and prices hinders our national competitive ability and sets a dangerous precedent.”

However, the ruling from today's lawsuit may not have much impact on the long term prospects of the "clean trucks" program.  Art Wong, spokesperson for the Port of Long Beach, tells the Contra Costa Times:

"But regardless of what the judge does, we will move ahead with the fee and the ban on dirty trucks," Wong said. "It might be trickier without the concession agreement, but we're going to clean up these trucks one way or another."

Photo: Chrisnu/Flickr

Not content to let the courts handle it, California's Junior Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced legislation, S. 2555, that would over rule the EPA and allow states to set their own emissions standards for automobiles. The Senator announced the legislation in an email to supportes that urges them to go to Boxer's website to email their representatives.

Boxer expects a future president to over turn the EPA's decision to deny states the power to regulate emissions within their borders but claims the issue needs to be addressed now. At the end of her letter, she reminds voters that she'll need 60 senators to support her to overcome a filibuster. Unless she thinks that President Bush is going to sign this bill into law and over rule his own EPA, she'll need 67 Senators to make a veto proof two-thirds majority willing to vote for S.2555.

The full text of the Senator's email is after the jump.

Click here to email your Senators, urging them to co-sponsor my bill to overturn EPA Administrator Johnson's decision! Slowly but surely, we're getting to the truth behind Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's terrible decision to block an effort by California and 18 other states to fight global warming.

While carefully peeling back white tape on redacted documents -- and with EPA personnel peering over their shoulders -- staffers from the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee have been closely reviewing additional documents dribbled out from the EPA over the past few weeks.

And what have we learned? Administrator Stephen Johnson clearly overruled the unanimous recommendations of his legal and technical staff who advised him to grant California's waiver request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions -- putting partisan politics ahead of science, the law, and the health & safety of the American people.

Ultimately, I'm convinced that Administrator Johnson's decision will be overturned -- either by the next President or the courts. But we can't afford to wait that long.

That's why I recently introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to reverse Administrator Johnson's decision and give California and 18 other states -- representing more than half of our country's population -- the right to fight global warming. Will you help me get this critical bill passed?

Please forward an email to your Senators now, encouraging them to co-sponsor my bill to grant California's greenhouse gas emissions waiver and overturn Administrator Johnson's terrible decision!

On Wednesday, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson came back to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Once again, I confronted him with the facts and challenged him to explain how he could make a decision that ignored the science and the law, discarding the recommendations of his own experienced staff.

Here's what we learned in the latest documents that the EPA shared with us:

A senior aide to Administrator Johnson wrote that "it is obvious to me that there is no legal or technical justification for denying" California's request -- and that he "will face a pretty big personal decision about whether [he is] able to stay in the job" if he rejects California's waiver.

Another senior aide described the "compelling and extraordinary" conditions that make California particularly "vulnerable to climate change" -- including water resources, wildfires, long coastline, large population, and many others.

Administrator Johnson didn't just overrule his own staff: He also disregarded the advice of former EPA Administrator William Reilly -- appointed by President Bush's father -- who urged Johnson to approve California's waiver.

Unfortunately, Administrator Johnson still refuses to change his mind, even when confronted directly with the cold, hard facts at Wednesday's hearing -- and he still hasn't even turned over all of the documents we asked for, including information about contact he had with the White House, missing the original deadline he agreed to.

I guess I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

Well if Administrator Johnson won't do his job, then it's time for Congress to step up and do his job for him. Please forward an email to your Senators now, encouraging them to co-sponsor my bill to grant California's greenhouse gas emissions waiver and overturn Administrator Johnson's terrible decision! Thanks to the help of more than 70,000 friends and supporters who emailed Administrator Johnson to protest his decision and call on him to release all of the documents about his flawed decision-making process, we're getting to the truth -- and it's ugly.

Administrator Stephen Johnson's decision to overrule his staff and tarnish the reputation of the Environmental Protection Agency by standing in the way of the fight against global warming is unconscionable. It's politics at its worst. Now it's up to Congress to fix his mess. Will you help me do it? Please forward an email to your Senators now!

In Friendship, Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator

P.S. We're going to need 60 votes to pass this bill and overcome a likely Republican filibuster, so every vote in the Senate will make a huge difference. Please forward an email to your Senators now, encouraging them to co-sponsor my bill to grant California's greenhouse gas emissions waiver and overturn Administrator Johnson's terrible decision!

Photo: LA Times