Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there's no way to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered wildlife, so don't going looking for one. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:
Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there’s no way
to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered
wildlife, so don’t going looking for one.
In other words, that ice melting in the arctic causing polar bears so much difficulty?
Don’t try to use science to blame coal-burning power plants in the U.S.
Jeff Ruch is with Public Employees for Envrionemental Responsibility. He says this new
rule is the Bush administration’s way of making sure more coal-fired power plants can
be built.
“The Bush administration is doing everything they can to smooth a way to site an
additional 20 plants in the near term from their point of view, before they leave office.
And that’s an awful lot of greenhouse gases and that’s where the fight is.”
This ruling will likely be overturned in the courts, eventually – but probably not before the
coal-burning plants have been approved.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Environmentalists warn the Endangered Species Act is in danger during the last months of the Bush Administration (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The Bush administration is making a proposal that environmentalists
say will weaken the Endangered Species Act. The proposal would eliminate a
requirement for independent review of big federal projects such as highways,
bridges or dams. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Bush administration is making a proposal that environmentalists
say will weaken the Endangered Species Act. The proposal would eliminate a
requirement for independent review of big federal projects such as highways,
bridges or dams. Lester Graham reports:
Right now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service
reviews anything like that that could harm endangered species.
The Secretary of the Interior says the existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts
between agencies and delays on important projects.
The new proposal would let the agency in charge of construction decide for itself if the
project would affect an endangered species.
Bob Irvin is with the environmental group, the Defenders of Wildlife. He says this
proposal eliminates safeguards.
“Previously the Fish and Wildlife Service had a role in reviewing the impacts of those
actions. So, literally, what the administration is proposing is to put the fox in charge of
the chicken coop.”
That’s not the way the Department of Interior sees it.
Kaush Arha is a Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Department of Interior. He took
issue with the fox in charge of the chicken coop metaphor.
“I think that’s an exaggerated statement. And it is unfounded hyperbole. What you are
referring to as “fox” in that particular issue are very, very well qualified, very well
respected and dedicated natural resource management agencies like the U.S. Forest
Service, like Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers and others.”
But, no matter how dedicated those wildlife officials are, the Bush administration has a
reputation of putting political pressure on scientists in several agencies, and science
has been changed or rigged in favor of industry.
But the Interior Department says the agencies operate within a political environment.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Arha says, besides, the agencies already make decisions
about federal projects and the Endangered Species Act this way. The proposed
changes would just make current practices clearer for the agencies without completely
overhauling the procedures.
“This captures the existing practices, clarifies and gives more direction and it is narrowly
tailored to do so.”
Environmentalists such as Bob Irvin see something much more sinister than the
administration making things clearer for the different agencies affected by the
Endangered Species Act.
“With barely five months left in the administration, they’re trying to ram through a
proposal to weaken the Endangered Species Act. This is completely in keeping with the
anti-environmental record of this administration. But it is also completely outrageous.”
Environmental groups likely will end up taking the issue to court. The Bush
Environmental Protection Agency tried a similar attempt to by-pass independent
review. The federal courts struck that effort down.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
(Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
Transcript
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
At an Ohio factory, President Bush talked about wanting to find more oil in the U.S.
“One place where there is, the experts say is, a bountiful supply of oil, perhaps as much
as 10 years’ worth at current consumption rates, is the Outer Continental Shelf. That
would be offshore America.”
But the President’s numbers don’t add up.
The Energy Information Administration estimates off-shore there’s 18-billion barrels of
crude oil that are currently off-limits. The U.S. consumes more than seven-and-a-half
billion barrels a year. That means 18-billion barrels would only last the U.S. less than
two-and-a-half years – not the ten years the President suggests.
Toy makers use phthalates to make hard plastic pliable (Source: Toniht at Wikimedia Commons)
News about dangerous chemicals in toys,
cosmetics and cleaning products has a lot of
Americans spending extra money. People want to
make sure they’re choosing things that are safe
for their families. Julie Grant reports that
other countries are ahead of the US in efforts
to improve the safety of all products:
Transcript
News about dangerous chemicals in toys,
cosmetics and cleaning products has a lot of
Americans spending extra money. People want to
make sure they’re choosing things that are safe
for their families. Julie Grant reports that
other countries are ahead of the US in efforts
to improve the safety of all products:
So you might expect that the government has tested those
chemicals to make sure they’re safe. But you’d be wrong.
Daryl Ditz is senior policy advisor at the Center for
International Environmental Law.
He says the US Environmental Protection Agency has never
assessed the hazards of most chemicals used in every day
products.
“That means the EPA doesn’t know, and you and I don’t know,
which materials on the shelves are more dangerous and
which are less.”
Ditz says only a few hundred chemicals have been
thoroughly tested by the U.S. government, but there are
80,000 chemicals used in products on the market.
In the U.S., the EPA has to prove a chemical is harmful to
keep it off the market.
(sound of toy store)
Dorothy Bryan is shopping at this upscale toy store in Northeast Ohio.
She’s got three grandkids. She’s looking at an
organic cotton bunny, colorful wooden blocks, and of course
Thomas the Tank Engine. She
pays more for toys at this store than she would at the big box
retailer. But Bryan says they’re worth it.
“They’re not toxic. That’s the big part. They’re not the
plastic toxic things.
I purchase usually the wooden toys. The little one puts
everything in his mouth.”
But most kids’ toys are made of plastic. And lots of plastics are made with phthalates. It makes them pliable.
But phthalates are endocrine disruptors. They’re gender-bender chemicals that make girls develop earlier and reduce testosterone levels in boys.
That’s why
California has banned the use some phthalates in toys. So
have Japan and the European Union.
But Daryl Ditz, chemical expert at Center for International
Environmental Law, says regulators in the U.S. don’t have
much power to ban phthalates or other chemicals.
Chemicals here are innocent until proven guilty.
“That is, companies can sell virtually anything in a product or in a barrel unless it’s been proven
to be dangerous.”
But other countries are starting to take the opposite
approach. Ditz says the European Union is rolling out a new
set of laws that make chemicals guilty until proven
innocent.
“They’re putting the responsibility squarely on the shoulders
of the chemical makers. As opposed to having the
environmental authorities look for a needle in the haystack,
they’re saying, ‘this should be the responsibility of the
companies who make these materials.’”
Under the EU law, manufacturers will have to study and
report the risks posed by each chemical: whether they
cause cancer, birth defects, or environmental problems.
The Bush administration and chemical manufacturers tried to
block the European law. But they couldn’t.
Ditz says leaders in the
chemical makers’ trade group are now running around like
their hair is on fire. They’re worried – the costs to comply
could be in the tens of millions of dollars for some
companies that export chemicals to Europe.
But many individual companies have already started to
comply with the law.
Walter van het Hoff is spokesperson for Dow Chemical in
Europe. He says cataloging Dow’s 7000 chemicals is a
huge effort, but they don’t have a choice.
“You need to comply; otherwise you cannot sell them
anymore in the European Union.”
There are a half billion consumers in the EU and Dow wants to keep them. Dow and other
manufacturers might have to reformulate – or even abandon
some chemicals if the EU decides they’re unsafe.
While the U.S. is not considering a comprehensive chemical
review like Europe’s new laws, about 30 states are
considering new regulations on chemicals in toys. The Toy
Industry Association doesn’t want a patchwork of laws, so
it’s called for national toy safety standards.
An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)
The investigative arm of Congress says the
government is taking too long to review safety data
on chemicals. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
The investigative arm of Congress says the
government is taking too long to review safety data
on chemicals. Rebecca Williams reports:
The Government Accountability Office says it’s taking the Environmental
Protection Agency too long to determine the safety of chemicals. The GAO
says reviews of chemicals should only take about 2 years. But some have
taken 10 years or longer.
The GAO also says a recent change could corrupt the system.
That change allows other federal agencies to make comments about chemicals,
but keep those comments hidden from public view.
John Stephenson is with the GAO. He says that threatens the system’s
integrity.
“There are just too many opportunities for non-scientists to intervene in
this scientific process and the result of that is it’s stretched out the
process for a given risk assessment.”
And a recent survey of EPA scientists found that political pressure from the
White House has been more common under the Bush Administration.
The Bush administration’s new fuel economy
standards mean more fuel efficient cars in the
future. But Lester Graham reports some
environmentalists say it would have been better
for the environment and the economy if the standards
would have required more fuel efficiency:
Transcript
The Bush administration’s new fuel economy
standards mean more fuel efficient cars in the
future. But Lester Graham reports some
environmentalists say it would have been better
for the environment and the economy if the standards
would have required more fuel efficiency:
The standards call for a fleet-wide average of close to 32 miles per gallon by the year 2015.
Environmentalists say the first three years of the five year plan calls for an increase of
one and a half miles per gallon each year. But the last two years only require about a
half a mile improvement each year.
Jim Kliesch is with the Union of Concerned Scientists
“The fact that those numbers
trail off very quickly is a canary in the coal mine that something is amiss in their cost-
benefit analysis.”
The government’s cost-benefit analysis weighs whether more expensive technology –
such as a hybrid drive train – is worth the effort: will it save that money in gasoline.
But
the government’s cost benefit analysis predicted gas prices by 2015 would be about
$2.25 – more than a dollar a gallon less than we’re already paying. Using those prices,
the analysis short-changes the advantages of fuel saving technology.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)
Scientists at the Environmental Protection
Agency say government appointees have interfered
in scientific decisions. Rebecca Williams reports
the scientists say political pressure has become
more common during the past five years:
Transcript
Scientists at the Environmental Protection
Agency say government appointees have interfered
in scientific decisions. Rebecca Williams reports
the scientists say political pressure has become
more common during the past five years:
In a survey, more than 800 scientists reported interference in their work by
government officials. They say political appointees have used data
selectively to influence policy decisions, and ordered scientists to alter
information.
One scientist anonymously wrote, quote: “Do not trust the Environmental
Protection Agency to protect your environment.”
Francesca Griffo is with the Union of Concerned Scientists – the group that
conducted the survey. She says political interference with science has
happened before the Bush Administration.
“But I do think and what we have from the scientists themselves is this idea
that it’s gotten much, much worse, much more pervasive, much more common than it’s
ever been before.”
The EPA did not respond to calls for comment. But it’s been reported the
agency has said it carefully weighs the input of staff scientists in policy
decisions.
John McCain is giving Republicans for Environmental Protection a candidate to endorse. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
McCain's example of a green technology is nuclear power. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
The conservation movement started with
Republican president Teddy Roosevelt. But these
days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as
accurate this year. As Vincent Duffy reports,
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:
Transcript
The conservation movement started with Republican president Teddy
Roosevelt. But these days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as accurate this year. As
Vincent Duffy reports, Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:
The last time we had a presidential election, George Bush was the
Republican candidate. That was a problem for Jim DiPeso. He’s the policy
director for a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection. Given
Bush’s track record on the environment, DiPeso and his group could not endorse
him. And with a name like Republicans for Environmental Protection, there was
no way they were going to endorse a Democrat.
This election, DiPeso says his job is easier. His group is endorsing John
McCain:
“He clearly is the one with the best environmental record. He is the one who has done the most serious thinking
about the issue. He has offered serious proposals and we think that with John
McCain as President, our country’s environment would be in very good
hands.”
John McCain: “Now, my dear friends, I believe that climate change is real…”
That’s John McCain on the campaign trail. He was talking to voters in
Michigan where cars are still a big part of the economy. Cars that emit
greenhouse gasses. Cars that are blamed for global warming:
“And I’ll be glad to argue that with you, and discuss it, and debate it more.
But let’s suppose that I am wrong, so we mover forward with these green
technologies and all we’ve done is given our young people a cleaner planet.
But suppose we are right and do nothing, then what kind of a planet are we
going to hand these young people?”
Tailoring his speech a bit for a Michigan audience, McCain said there’s still
a future for the auto industry. But he says that future needs to use the green
technology on display at this year’s auto shows:
“You’ll see that there are hybrid cars. You’ll see that there are battery driven
cars. You’ll see that we can develop ethanol-driven automobiles. It can begin
here in Michigan and it can begin with green technologies.”
And McCain isn’t getting endorsements from environmental groups just
because he mentions global warming and green technologies on the
campaign trail. Allan Lichtman is a history professor at American University
and writes books on American politics. He says McCain’s legislative record
backs up his speeches about the environment:
“John McCain, at least since 2000, has been one of the strongest advocates
of action on global warming and action on the environment. Indeed, a few
years ago he teamed up with Senator Joe Lieberman, then a democrat, for a
bipartisan proposal, a modest proposal, on global warming that didn’t pass,
but certainly put John McCain at the forefront.”
Republicans for Environmental Protection want to point out that while
McCain might share the Democrats’ concern for the environment, his
solutions are Republican solutions. For instance, here’s an example of what
McCain calls green technology:
“And by the way one of them is nuclear power. Uh, I believe we have to go
back to nuclear power and my friends, it’s safe. We’ve sailed navy ships
(interrupted by applause). We have sailed navy ships around the world for
sixty years with nuclear power plants on them and we’ve never had an
accident.”
McCain says nuclear power is better for the environment because it doesn’t
produce the greenhouse gasses believed to cause global warming. Professor
Lichtman says the issue of nuclear power is still a major disagreement
between the parties:
“Uh, Republican environmentalists pretty much strongly come down on the
side of nuclear power which obviously helps cement their alliance with at
least an important industry. While those on the Democratic side and
traditional organizations tend to be much more leery of nuclear power and
favor putting emphasis on things like solar energy, geothermal energy,
biomass energy and wind energy.”
Nuclear power is not the only issue where McCain and many environmental
activists disagree. McCain says he would repeal President Clinton’s ban on
building roads in national forest preserves. He also opposes a carbon tax on
polluters. But for Jim DiPeso and his colleagues at Republicans For
Environmental Protection, McCain does solve a problem. It gives them
someone they can endorse.
Farmer Laura Krouse says the ethanol boom has been great for corn farmers, who she says are finally getting a fair price for their corn. But she says she's worried that there's not enough being done fast enough to reduce the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Laura Krouse's Iowa farm. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Laura Krouse built a prairie wetland to filter water running off her farm and part of her neighbor's farm. Wetlands remove the soluble form of nitrogen - called nitrate - from the water. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Ethanol plants are sprouting up across the Corn Belt. 14 million acres more corn was planted this year to meet demand for corn ethanol. Scientists warn that could mean a lot more nitrogen fertilizer pollution draining into the Gulf. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Gulf of Mexico shrimpers are hurt by the "dead zone." Scientists point to nitrogen fertilizer from the Corn Belt as the main cause of the dead zone. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Management practices by some farmers do little to prevent nitrogen runoff from going into rivers that eventually dump into the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Scientists are predicting the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico will reach its largest size ever this summer. Fish and shrimp can’t survive in the Dead Zone. It’s believed to be mainly caused by fertilizer washed from farm fields across the nation. Rebecca Williams reports some scientists say demand for ethanol made from corn could make the Dead Zone even bigger:
Transcript
Scientists are predicting the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico will reach its largest size ever this summer. Fish and shrimp can’t survive in the dead zone. It’s believed to be mainly caused by fertilizer washed from farm fields across the nation. Rebecca Williams reports some scientists say demand for ethanol made from corn could make the dead zone even bigger:
(Sound of tractor raking hay)
“It’s the perfect Iowa day, you know?”
Laura Krouse is tearing apart a bale of hay to mulch her tomatoes.
She’s a thousand miles from the Gulf of Mexico. But she points out,
what happens on farms here ends up affecting life way down South:
“This watershed I live in drains 25% of Iowa. And we’re one of the
richest farming states in the nation – of course we have something to
do with it.”
By “it,” Krouse means the dead zone. All or parts of 31 farm states
drain into the Mississippi River, which empties into the Gulf.
Scientists point to nitrogen fertilizer used on farm fields as the main
cause of the dead zone. All that nitrogen causes an enormous algae
bloom. When the algae dies it drops to the ocean floor. Bacteria eat
the algae and they rob the water of oxygen.
This summer, the dead zone’s predicted to reach a record size. It could get as big as the state of New Jersey.
Laura Krouse has been trying to cut back her own role in the dead zone.
Five years ago, she added something to her farm that’s rare around here.
Krouse cut some of the tile lines that drain water from her farm, and
replaced part of her farmland with a prairie wetland. She says that
made her neighbors nervous:
“We just don’t see people taking land out of production in Iowa very
frequently.”
Wetlands like this one remove nitrogen from the water that flows from
farm fields.
It’s one of the things a government task force on the dead zone
recommended to cut nitrogen loading into the Gulf.
But instead of a big push to restore wetlands, the economic landscape
is changing in the other direction. Demand for ethanol has led to
historically high corn prices. And that’s encouraging farmers to grow
more corn. A USDA report says farmers have planted 14 million more
acres of corn this year than last year. It’s the most corn planted in
the U.S. in more than 50 years.
Laura Krouse says this is not good for the Gulf of Mexico:
“I’m concerned about all the extra corn because it requires nitrogen to
produce that corn and no matter how careful we are and no matter how
expensive it is which causes us to be more and more careful with
application, nitrogen as a molecule just wants to get away. It is
leaky.”
When it rains, nitrogen runs quickly from farm fields and gets into
creeks and rivers. The federal government’s task force on the dead zone has been trying to
tackle all this.
Don Scavia led a group of scientists advising the task force under the
Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration convened a new science
panel to review the original science panel’s work. Don Scavia says
since then, there’s been very little progress in shrinking the dead
zone, or what scientists call an area of hypoxia:
“In fact what we’ve seen in the last year is just the opposite with
this push towards corn-based ethanol production. Even acres that were
set aside into conservation are coming back out into production, into
corn, and the increased nitrogen load to the Gulf this year and the projected record
hypoxia is probably caused by this increased corn production.”
Scavia says if the dead zone keeps increasing, the Gulf shrimping
industry could collapse.
Ironically, the new science panel appointed by the Bush White House is
calling for even bigger cuts in nitrogen than the first panel appointed
by the Clinton Administration. They want to reduce nitrogen from farm
fields and other sources by 40 to 45 percent.
Don Parrish is with the American Farm Bureau. He says those reductions
are too much:
“Those are going to be really difficult and they could cause
significant economic dislocation at a time when I think we need to be
thinking about the products that agriculture produces, and those are
important.”
There’s no question corn for ethanol is at the top of that list right
now. Ethanol’s popular. It’s making farmers richer. It’s making the
chemical companies that supply nitrogen richer. The government task
force has to figure out how to cut back on all the nitrogen that’s
needed to grow all the corn… that’s needed for billions of gallons of
ethanol.
The head of the Ford Motor Company is petitioning President Bush to convene a summit on U.S. energy policy and the role automakers should play. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Quinn Klinefelter has more:
Transcript
The head of the Ford Motor Company is petitioning President Bush to convene a summit on U.S. energy policy and the role automakers should play. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Quinn Klinefelter has more:
For much of the past decade, the auto industry has successfully lobbied Congress and the Administration against raising fuel economy standards which, automakers say, would force them ro raise prices.
Now, however, Ford Motor Company Chairman Bill Ford Jr. is requesting that the President hold a summit to discuss improving fuel mileage and limiting America’s dependence on oil.
Ford recently announced that roughly half of the models it offers would be available in hybrid form or other more economical versions by 2010. Ford supported the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy Act, but company officials say the country is in the midst of an energy crisis and the President must do more to help consumers.
White House officials say the President is considering the proposal.
Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there's no way to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered wildlife, so don't going looking for one. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
