Reducing climate pollution through regulation with the Clean Air Act is not the preferred method of the Obama administration. Both Jackson and President Obama have stated that legislation is less cumbersome and would harness market forces. Last fall (27 Oct. 2009), in testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works regarding the climate and energy bill (S. 1733, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act), Jackson stated in the Q&A of the hearing that, “There is only one way to get economy-wide market incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that is through new legislation.”

Without legislation, EPA is forging ahead on regulation because it is required to by law. A 2007 Supreme Court decision determined that global warming pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act, ordering the EPA to assess whether these pollutants pose a threat to the health and welfare of Americans.

In December 2009, EPA completed its analysis and found that climate pollution indeed poses such a threat (see, U.S. EPA: Greenhouse Gases "Threaten the Public Health and Welfare of the American People"). The conclusion of this analysis is commonly referred to as the endangerment finding. Due to the result of this analysis, EPA is now required to take further steps under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from dangerous climate change.

Currently, there are proposals in Congress to limit EPA's authority to regulate climate pollutants. This proposal is led primarily by Senator Lisa Murkowski along with a few others (see, As Weather Extremes Hammer Arkansas Farms, Senator Lincoln Endorses Veto of Finding that Climate Change Threatens Farmers), which, if it were to pass, would essentially overturn the endangerment finding and strip the EPA of its regulatory powers.

Jackson also addressed in this week's Congressional letter the potential impact of the proposal. She stated that voting for the proposal would be a “vote to reject the scientific work of the thirteen U.S. government departments that contribute to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. It also would be viewed by many as a vote to move the United States to a position behind that of China on the issue of climate change, and more in line with the position of Saudi Arabia.”  

Yesterday, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works regarding President's Proposed EPA Budget for FY 2011, Administrator Jackson said one of the key aspects of the FY 2011 budget is taking action on climate change. These efforts are aimed at additional regulatory efforts, including new emission standards for mobile sources such as passenger cars and light-duty trucks, and providing state grants focused on developing technological capacity for addressing climate emissions.

Jackson also answered questions about the EPA endangerment finding and the science behind the analysis. When asked by Senator Inhofe (widely known to believe that "climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people") if recent errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment report merited a review of the EPA endangerment finding, Jackson reiterated the multiple scientific sources used in the EPA analysis -- not just the IPCC; and stated the following:

"It is incumbent on me as Administrator to review any new information as it comes out and if anything changes [from] the multiple lines of evidence from many many sources, not just the IPCC. [If there are changes], then I would call for a review of the findings. But I have not seen that. "

Jackson further reiterated the science by stating, "The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming...That conclusion is not a partisan one."

For more on the science & IPCC see, Statement from WWF Regarding the IPCC and the Strength of Our Science (10 Feb 2010).

Sin of the Hidden Trade-off

A claim suggesting that a product is ‘green’ based on a narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues. Paper, for example, is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from a sustainably-harvested forest. Other important environmental issues in the paper-making process, such as greenhouse gas emissions, or chlorine use in bleaching may be equally important.

Sin of No Proof

An environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. Common examples are facial tissues or toilet tissue products that claim various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing evidence.

Sin of Vagueness

A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. ‘All-natural’ is an example. Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring, and poisonous. ‘All natural’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’.

Sin of Worshiping False Labels

A product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists; fake labels, in other words.

Sin of Irrelevance

An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. ‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs are banned by law.

Sin of Lesser of Two Evils

A claim that may be true within the product category, but that risks distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole. Organic cigarettes could be an example of this Sin, as might the fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicle.

Sin of Fibbing

Environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples were products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered.

In June and July of 2008, a team of interviewers surveyed 465 businesspeople in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia on behalf of ASI regarding promotional products they had received. The purpose of the interviews was to understand how advertising specialties influence end-users’ purchasing decisions; determine the number of impressions of popular advertising specialties; and analyze the Cost Per Impression (CPI) of advertising specialties compared with other popular advertising media.  

Further, during October 2008, an online panel survey was conducted among recipients of advertising specialties to augment the non-wearables sample from the in-person interviews. Results have been combined in the report where appropriate. There were 213 completed Web based interviews, for a total of 618 completed surveys for this study.  

Respondents were asked if they had received any promotional products in the last  12 months. Most respondents were business/professional people (84%) and all were age 21 or older.  

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS:

 • Instant recall: More than 8 out of 10 (84%) respondents remembered the advertisers of the promotional products they’re received.  

A few years back, we had a customer in Seattle who needed 80 dozen organic cotton t-shirts printed for a trade show. The order was placed on a Tuesday, and needed to be at the event in Seattle on Friday. Rush orders are nothing new for us, but we knew we had to act quickly in order to meet their deadline.

We sprung into action immediately. The t-shirts were purchased locally and received in our print facility the following morning.Luckily, we had a space in our production schedule to accommodate the order. As soon as the shirts arrived we put them into production. The order was printed, packed and ready for shipment within hours. We shipped 15 boxes to Seattle via UPS 2-day service for on time delivery at the event. Another happy customer. Another success!

Or was it?

At the end of the business day, I was in my office having a conversation with our production manager to go over the schedule for the rest of the week. When we finished our business he said to me, "there has to be a better way".

"A better way to do what"? I said.

He continued, "do you realize how much it cost to ship that order to Seattle via 2-day service? It was a small fortune! All the boxes. All the jet fuel. The carbon footprint for 500 lbs. traveling 2,500 miles on a jet must be enormous! What if there was a way to eliminate the 2,500 mile t-shirt"?

"Go on", I said.

"We'll, I've been thinking. What if we ordered the blank shirts from a warehouse in Seattle, had them printed in Seattle and delivered to the event in Seattle. Imagine what could be saved by keeping it local all the way through. It saves time. It saves jet fuel. Simple".

"What about quality control", I said? "How can we keep an eye on the order if we're here in Atlanta and it's being produced in Seattle"?

"That's not so simple", he said. "It's going to take some time, but what we need to do is develop a trusted network of print and embroidery contractors. One by one, city by city, we'll reach out and find the best contractors in each city to ensure the highest product quality while maintaining our production standards andenvironmental integrity".

I knew it wouldn't be easy, but we were motivated to make a change and lead the industry in a new direction.

The following morning when we got to the office, we went to work. One by one, we did our research to find the best of the best in each city. It's taken a lot of time and effort, but now we're pleased to offer the most comprehensive network of print and embroidery contractors in the industry. We have partners in every major and mid-size market in the United States who are specially trained in eco-friendly screen print and embroidery techniques and practices. Chances are, there's one in your neighborhood too.

Through our efforts we've been able to cut our delivery times on average by more than 50%. Even more impressively, we've cut our carbon footprint by a factor of 40, and completely eliminated the 2,500 mile t-shirt.

Last year in the United States alone, over 84 million lbs. of toxic pesticides were sprayed on conventional cotton fields.  Although cotton represents less than 3% of the world's agriculture, it accounts for over 15% of the world's pesticide use.  

Did you know that just one shirt made from organic cotton saves over 1/3 lb. of pesticides?  If we can get 1 in 20 American companies to change their habits and purchase t-shirts made from organic cotton instead of conventional cotton, we will save the use of nearly 1.7 million lbs. of pesticides annually.  It may not be good news to the pesticide industry, but I'm sure the cotton farmers who risk daily exposure to these carcinogens will appreciate it.