Environment

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.