The Asian Citrus Psyllid is the insect that spreads the disease hurting Florida's citrus crops. (Photo courtesy of USDA-ARS)
Disease is damaging Florida citrus crops. And Mark Brush reports… researchers say the citrus growers need a new kind of disease resistant tree:
Transcript
Disease is damaging Florida citrus crops. And Mark Brush reports… researchers say the citrus growers need a new kind of disease resistant tree:
The disease is called Huanglongbing disease and that’s Chinese for “yellow shoot disease.” It’s spread by a little Asian insect.
Right now, about 4% of the citrus crop in Florida is hit by the disease , but researchers say it can wipe out whole orange groves if it’s not contained.
The National Research Council says long term – growers should plant genetically modified trees that resist the disease.
George Bruening is a plant pathologist at the University of California – Davis and he chaired the study for the National Research Council:
“And so if you had a genetically modified tree, Florida citrus and the people of Florida would be very much ahead, because there would be less use of insecticides, for example.”
Bruening says these types of genetically modified orange trees don’t exist yet. And it’ll take years to develop them and get government approval.
Two Supreme Court rulings have left landowners, regulators, and lower courts confused over what waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. (Photo courtesy of Abby Batchelder CC-2.0)
The water from this pipe flows directly into Cedar Lake in Michigan. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Closeup of the water coming out of the pipe. (Photo by Mark Brush)
This is the new storm drain that Sheila Fitzgibbons and her husband Richard Ellison say polluted the lake they used to train scuba divers in. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Cedar Lake was originally dug as a gravel pit. Freshwater springs feed the lake and divers say they used to be able to see up to 30 feet when they were underwater. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Fitzgibbons and Ellison say this lake used to flow cleanly and have fish in it. (Photo by Mark Brush)
The nation started cleaning up lakes and rivers in 1972 after passing the Clean Water Act. But two U-S Supreme Court rulings have left some waterways unprotected from pollution. Mark Brush visited one couple who says a lake they used was polluted and the government has let them down:
Transcript
The nation started cleaning up lakes and rivers in 1972 after passing the Clean Water Act. But two U-S Supreme Court rulings have left some waterways unprotected from pollution. Mark Brush visited one couple who says a lake they used was polluted and the government has let them down:
Sheila Fitzgibbons and her husband Richard Ellison were looking for a good spot to open up a scuba diving business. They found Cedar Lake in Michigan. Unlike the other lakes they looked at, this was crystal clear water.
“Ours always stayed clean and it took care of itself and aquatic plants were very healthy. We had a lot of nice fish in here – healthy fish that only go into clear water.”
They said they could take six scuba diving students underwater at a time – and have no problem keeping track of them because the water was so clear.
But that all changed in the spring of 2004. Richard Ellison was in the lake on a dive:
“We were with our students down on the bottom, doing skills and stuff with them, and all of the sudden it sort of looked like a big cloud come over, you know. And the next thing you know, it just turned dark and it was just all muddy. It looked like we were swimming in chocolate milk.”
Ellison and Fitzgibbons say the lake was never the same after that. They blamed the local government’s new storm drain. They said it dumped dirty water right into the lake. Local officials said it wasn’t their new drain, but a big rainstorm that was to blame.
Fitzgibbons and Ellison sued in federal court. They said the new drain violated the Clean Water Act. The local government argued, among other things, that the lake was not protected by the Clean Water Act. The case was dismissed – and Fitzgibbons and Ellison closed their dive shop.
Just what can or cannot be protected by the Clean Water Act used to be an easy question to answer. But two Supreme Court rulings – one in 2001 and one in 2006 – muddied the waters.
After the rulings, it wasn’t clear whether a lot of isolated lakes, wetlands and streams still were protected by the Clean Water Act.
Some developers and farmers saw the court rulings as a big win. They felt the government had been exercising too much power over waterways, limiting what they could build or do on their own property.
Jan Goldman-Carter is a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation. She says the people who enforce the nation’s water protection laws were left scratching their heads after the rulings:
“The confusion generated by these decisions has wrapped up the agencies, the courts, and even landowners and local governments with really not knowing when a water is protected or not. And that’s had the effect of actually, kind of, unraveling the fabric of the Clean Water Act, which really is our primary protection of our nation’s water supplies.”
Goldman Carter says – polluters are getting the signal. In many places – no one is watching:
“When the polluters recognize that basically the enforcers are not out there, and no one’s really in a position to deter their activities, it’s a lot cheaper for them to pollute than to follow the law.”
The New York Times recently reported that judgments against major polluters have fallen by almost half since the Supreme Court rulings.
In 2008 EPA officials said the rulings kept them from pursuing hundreds of water pollution enforcement cases. We asked for an interview with the EPA officials, but they would only answer questions by e-mail. They agreed the Supreme Court decisions do limit their ability to protect water quality.
The EPA is now calling on Congress to pass a new law. It’s called The Clean Water Restoration Act. The bill’s sponsors say they want to put back what was taken away by the Supreme Court.
The bill was introduced a year ago. It’s been stalled in Congress ever since.
Rising sea levels are infringing on the habitats of coastal birds. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife service)
Wildlife researchers say that many coastal birds and birds that live around the oceans are threatened by a warming climate. Mark Brush has more on the State of the Birds report:
Transcript
Wildlife researchers say that many coastal birds and birds that live around the oceans are threatened by a warming climate. Mark Brush has more on the State of the Birds report:
The report was put together by the US Fish and Wildlife Service along with state wildlife agencies and other researchers. It finds birds that rely on low-lying islands and other coastal habitats are most at risk from a warming climate. The researchers say these birds are in danger because of rising sea levels. And because the birds are having a tougher time finding the creatures they feed on. They say these kinds of birds would have a hard time finding new places to live.
Ken Salazar is the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The agency was in charge of publishing the report:
“For too long, in my view, we have stood idle as the climate change crisis has grown. I believe that what this State of the Birds report indicates is that we are at a point in time in our history in America where there is a call to action.”
The report adds to research that shows a third of the nation’s bird species are endangered, threatened or in significant decline.
It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was one way to help jump start the economy. (photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy)
The Recovery Act called for a multi-billion dollar home weatherization program. It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was the ultimate “shovel ready” project to help jump start the economy. But as Mark Brush reports, so far, it just hasn’t worked out:
Transcript
The Recovery Act called for a multi-billion dollar home weatherization program. It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was the ultimate “shovel ready” project to help jump start the economy. But as Mark Brush reports, so far, it just hasn’t worked out:
The Department of Energy’s Inspector General found the data alarming.
Of the ten states receiving the most money for home weatherization – eight of them weren’t even at two percent of their goal.
One reason for the hold-up is bureaucracy. There’s a law that says if you get federal money – you have to pay workers a “prevailing wage” or a fair wage. And there was confusion over how much to pay people.
Don Skaggs is with Ohio’s Office of Community Services. He says most states waited until the issue was resolved – but Ohio didn’t wait:
“So we decided to go ahead and do production. And then once we understood what the requirements were, we would go back and retroactively adjust those wages for those staff, which is what we did.”
So Ohio’s on track – but most states are not. The Department of Energy said it’s working on these problems – and expects things to ramp up soon.
Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the EPA. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
The Environmental Protection
Agency’s position on greenhouse
gases is being challenged in
court. The EPA says it needs
to regulate gases, such as carbon
dioxide, to protect human health
and welfare. Mark Brush reports
several trade associations want
to stop the EPA:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency’s position on greenhouse gases is being challenged in court. The EPA says it needs to regulate gases such as carbon dioxide to protect human health and welfare. Mark Brush reports… several trade associations want to stop the EPA:
The legal challenges are coming from several groups including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Home Builders. There are some groups that question the science behind the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases. But others are staying away from that controversial position.
Lisa Chai is with the National Association of Home Builders.
“We definitely are not taking a stance on the science. Our concern is that the Clean Air Act and existing statutes should not be used to regulate greenhouse gases because they are just not suited for them.”
Chai says her group worries that EPA regulations would trigger an expensive permitting process for multi-unit and even some single family homes. The EPA says it intends to only regulate the biggest sources of greenhouse gases – things such as large power plants, industries, and refineries.
Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:
The EPA says it has a duty to regulate greenhouse gasses to protect us from global warming.
The state of Texas, Virginia, and Alabama have filed legal challenges to try to stop the EPA. They say the coming regulations will be bad for the economy. And they call into question the science that EPA based its decision on.
Here’s the Texas attorney general – Greg Abbott:
“The information on which the EPA relies can neither confirm nor deny that there has been global warming, or that temperatures have risen.”
The EPA says it’s evaluated all the science available for the last ten years, and that the evidence is quote “compelling” that climate change is real – and that it’s a threat to human health and welfare.
Those three states challenging the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases are countered by sixteen other states supporting the EPA’s decision.
If all goes according to plan, the nuclear reactors will go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:
Transcript
The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:
The Southern Company plans to build the reactors in Georgia. They say, if all goes well, they’ll go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars.
Investors have seen nuclear energy as a risky bet. But now that the President says the government will guarantee the loans, Wall Street might be enticed back to nuclear energy.
And then there’s the question of safety. President Obama’s Energy Secretary is Steven Chu. He says these new generation reactors are safe.
“We expect that the newer generation reactors will be ideally completely passively safe. Which means that, uh, you don’t actually need to control the reactor. If you lose control of it, it will not melt down.”
Some environmentalists say nuclear energy is not worth the costs – and there’s still no permanent place to store nuclear waste that’s radioactive for thousands of years.
Renewable energy groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:
The groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy. Most power companies in the country are basically regulated monopolies.
Denise Bode is the president of the American Wind Energy Association. She used to work as a public utility regulator. Bode says it’s up to the government to ask one question when they regulate these monopolies.
“What’s in the public interest? And, you know, often times as a state public utility commissioner I would make the determination as to what kind of power generation that we would authorize our utilities to do and what was in the public interest.”
Bode says it is in the public interest to get more power from cleaner, renewable sources.
Some big utilities oppose having one federal standard – and there are a lot reasons why they oppose it – but one of them is that states are already handling it. There are 30 states that have some kind of renewable targets in place.
Opponents say the law should not be implemented until California’s unemployment rate is much lower.
(Photo courtesy of NASA)
There’s a new ballot initiative
underway that is trying to repeal
the nation’s leading global warming
law. The law seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by
close to a third by 2020. Mark
Brush reports the opponents of
the law say it will cost jobs:
Transcript
There’s a new ballot initiative
underway that is trying to repeal
the nation’s leading global warming
law. The law seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by
close to a third by 2020. Mark
Brush reports the opponents of
the law say it will cost jobs:
Conservatives and some Republican lawmakers are behind the petition effort in California. If they’re successful, they’ll suspend the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act. They say the law should not be implemented until California’s unemployment rate is much lower.
Supporters of the law say it’s the one thing that’s actually driving innovation and creating jobs in the state. Tom Soto is with Craton Equity Partners which invests in clean tech businesses. He says the backers of this ballot initiative are hanging onto the past.
“I think it is a shameless last ditch effort of the oil companies and industry who are clinging by their bloodied fingernails onto something that simply is no longer sustainable.”
Opponents of California’s global warming law are hoping to capitalize on growing skepticism about climate change science.
The White House is pushing
a new clean energy plan as
a way to deal with reducing
greenhouse gases. Mark Brush
reports this new plan might
help future climate legislation:
Transcript
The White House is pushing
a new clean energy plan as
a way to deal with reducing
greenhouse gases. Mark Brush
reports this new plan might
help future climate legislation:
The White House says this new energy plan is all about green jobs. There’s more money for so-called clean coal, and for biofuels, like ethanol.
The government had limited using corn for ethanol. The thinking was using food to make fuel was probably not such a great idea.
But the industry has not been able to move away from corn ethanol as quickly as hoped. So now the Administration is saying, corn ethanol can be okay – if the refineries are more efficient.
Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
“So this really unlocks the door for advanced biofuel producers, including advanced corn ethanol producers, to make investments and create jobs.”
Allowing more corn to be used for ethanol and investing in new technologies to clean up coal could win the White House some support if and when a climate change bill comes up for a vote.
The Asian Citrus Psyllid is the insect that spreads the disease hurting Florida's citrus crops. (Photo courtesy of USDA-ARS)
