Tag: politics

Interview: ‘Sound Science’

  • Oliver Houck is a Professor of Law at Tulane University in New Orleans. (Photo by Paula Birch, Courtesy of Tulane University)

Every once in a while, we
hear politicians using a
term that everybody thinks
they understand, but people
define differently. Lester
Graham talked with an expert
about one such term heard
a lot these days:

Transcript

Every once in a while, we
hear politicians using a
term that everybody thinks
they understand, but people
define differently. Lester
Graham talked with an expert
about one such term heard
a lot these days:

Lester Graham: I got to thinking about that when I heard Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma call for “sound science” at a recent subcommittee hearing, and then moments later senator David Vitter repeated that call for “sound Science.”

Vitter: “I think the answer is exactly what senator Inhofe and others have been saying—“sound science” complete focus on, complete reliance, on sound science above all else.”

Graham: So sound science, I think most of us think that means well researched, unbiased, verifiable, science. Joining us now, is Oliver Houck, he is a professor of law at Tulane University. So professor, what’s that term—sound science—mean to members of congress?

Oliver Houck: It means whatever they want it to mean. The first thing you have to understand is sound science is not a scientific term at all. It has no scientific definition. It’s like saying sound congressman or sound senator. It’s in the eye of the beholder. In the legal world, everyone knows what sound science is—it’s the science that supports your client’s position, and bad science is the science that’s on the other side. So, in the real world, it’s a very cynical term, and it’s very cynically used. That isn’t to say there isn’t junk science, but in the political world, this is a political term. Frank Lutz, the republican strategist in the early 2000’s sent a very well-known memorandum out to all republican congressman and senators saying that the coming issue was climate change, and the world consensus that this was urgent and something had to be done was overwhelming and irresistible. The only loophole—the only point of attack would be to attack the science. And so they did, with great success.

Graham: Has this term ‘Sound Science’ always been attached to this political baggage?

Houck: Yes it has, but it’s come in different forms, and it’s not always been purely environmental. The term was actually invented by Phillip Morris, and the tobacco institute back in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s when the tobacco wars were going on and the industry was denying any addictive effects and any carcinogenic effects. And so Phillip Morris had the audacity in 1992 to set up something called the “advancement of sound science committee” and that was, of course, its lobby to pick apart scientists whose findings were otherwise. While of course Phillip Morris buried all findings of the same effects, and burying that ultimately lead to civil suits and brought it down—but only a peg. This has always been the blast back—if you can stop this thing at the beach by discrediting the science, you don’t have to deal with any regulatory or any other requirements. So-

Graham: So calling for sound science is a delay tactic.

Houck: oh, clearly so, clearly so. And they know it, and they know it.

Graham: Oliver Houck is a professor of environmental law at Tulane University in New Orleans, and author of the book Taking Back Eden: Eight Environmental Cases that Changed the World. Thanks very much.

Houck: My pleasure, thank you.

Related Links

Ad Campaign Targets Senators

  • The advertisements are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:

Transcript

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:

The ads call Murkowski’s resolution the “Dirty Air Act”. They’re sponsored by a coalition of environmental and faith-based advocacy groups.

Eric Sapp is with the American Values Network, which co-sponsored the ads. He says the spots are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution.

“They’re moderate Democrats and Republicans who have been getting a lot of pressure to vote the wrong way on this bill. And our goal in these is to make sure the people know what’s going on, and then to let the Senators know that we will be able to stand behind them if they vote the right way.”

It’s not clear exactly when Murkowski’s resolution will move forward – especially now that a major snow storm is blanketing Washington and disrupting the Senate calendar.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Global Warming Law Under Attack

  • 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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Congress Considering Chemical Law

  • There are 80,000 chemicals on the market. But the Environmental Protection Agency has only tested 200 of them for safety to humans - and banned only 5. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Congress might make our federal
chemical laws tougher. Rebecca
Williams has more:

Transcript

Congress might make our federal
chemical laws tougher. Rebecca
Williams has more:

There are 80,000 chemicals on the market. But the Environmental Protection Agency has only tested 200 of them for safety to humans – and banned only 5 of the toxic chemicals.

Senator Frank Lautenberg is a Democrat from New Jersey. During a recent hearing, he said the EPA is doing what it can. But its power is limited by the nation’s outdated chemical laws.

“They cannot protect our children with one hand tied behind their back. That’s why I’ll soon introduce a bill that will overhaul our nation’s chemical laws.”

The bill will likely require companies to prove a chemical is safe before manufacturing it or using it. Right now, it’s up to the government to prove a chemical is harming people or the environment before it’s banned.

Some Conservatives in Congress are opposed to this idea. They say this kind of bill would kill industry innovation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

New White House Energy Plan

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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Massachusetts Election and Climate Bill

  • The Massachusetts election puts the passage of a climate change bill in doubt. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:

For one, forget a climate change bill.

“Things are not looking good for this bill.”

Darren Samuelson is a reporter with GreenWire. He spent the day yesterday talking with Senators of every stripe.

A vote this year on a climate bill that included a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gases was already in doubt. Now Senators say Massachusetts taught them it’s all about jobs and the economy.

So the climate change bill will become an energy bill – more drilling, offshore, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more natural gas leases.

Samuelson says, judging on what he’s hearing in the Senate, any chance for a climate change bill comes down to just a couple of things.

“It depends on how much of an emphasis President Obama puts on it in his State of the Union address and just how much the Democrats are willing to give the Republicans.”

But since the Republicans had already decided the climate bill was a jobs killer, the win in Massachusetts makes it unlikely the Democrats can give enough to the Republicans to get it passed.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Who Should Regulate What?

  • In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. (Data courtesy of the US EPA. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

The EPA recently announced that
it’s moving forward with regulations
to limit global warming pollutants
like carbon dioxide. Now, some
Senate Republicans want to stop
the EPA. Samara Freemark has that story:

Transcript

The EPA recently announced that
it’s moving forward with regulations
to limit global warming pollutants
like carbon dioxide. Now, some
Senate Republicans want to stop
the EPA. Samara Freemark has that story:

Senate Republicans say, if the country wants to regulate greenhouse gases, Congress should do it – not the EPA.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska. She’s drafted an amendment to put a hold on EPA greenhouse gas regulations for one year.

Critics say the amendment would strip the EPA of an important regulatory tool.

Anne Johnson is a spokesperson for Senator Murkowski. She says regulatory action from the EPA would be too broad and could hurt American businesses.

“Senator Murkowski represents Alaska. It’s ground zero for climate change. There’s no denying that. She knows that we need to do something, and she’s committed to that. At the same time, she’s committed to not harming the economy.”

Murkowski could introduce the amendment as early as this week.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

EPA Weighs in on Mountaintop Permits

  • In mountaintop removal mining, explosives are used to get at coal that's close to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:

The Environmental Protection Agency says it supports permits for one mine in West Virginia because operators agreed to some environmental protections.

But the EPA is asking a federal court to delay a decision on another mine. The Spruce Number One mine – owned by a subsidiary of Arch Coal – is one of the largest mountainop removal mines ever proposed in the area.The EPA says it’s concerned the mine would bury streams and contaminate water.

Bill Raney is the President of the West Virginia Coal Association. In a recent interview he said regulators are changing the rules.

“And it’s punishing the people here with uncertainty, not knowing what the future holds as to whether you’re going to get the next permit and are you going to be able to mine the coal, are you going to be able to use it in the power plant.”

The EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement, the EPA is actually bringing clarity to the process.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Cleaning Up Dioxin

  • West Michigan Park lies along the Tittabawassee River. Large swaths of its soil was removed and re-sodded due to dioxin contamination. The removal was part of a US EPA effort to have Dow clean up several hot spots in the rivershed. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:

Transcript

One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:

President George W. Bush took it on the chin when it came to the environment. One accusation is that he ignored science that suggested we should get tougher on green house gas emissions.

President Obama’s Administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency is Lisa Jackson. She said things would be different.

“On my first day, I sent a memo to every EPA employee stating that our path would be guided by the best science and by the rule of law, and that every action we took would be subject to unparalleled transparency.”

It hasn’t taken long for the chemical industry to say Obama’s Administration is back-tracking.

“There’s been this notion to get things done, and it get it done fast.”

That’s David Fischer, an attorney for the American Chemistry Council. Fischer’s concerned about new standards on dioxins.

Dioxins are by-products from producing chemicals. They also get into the environment from burning trash and wood.

The government says dioxin causes cancer and reproductive and developmental diseases.

It’s known this for decades, but it’s been finishing a report to show exactly how toxic dioxins are. It’s been writing this dioxin reassessment for 18 years, and it was supposed to put out a draft last week.

But it didn’t do that, and it hasn’t said when it will.

That didn’t stop the EPA from proposing a new rule about how much dioxin should be allowed in the soil in peoples’ yards.

Fischer says that rule should wait.

“If they’re going to base goals based on the best available science, and they have, in fact, stated they plan to, it’s hard to imagine how you can do that before the reassessment’s finished because that does after all represent or should represent the best available science.”

The chemical industry’s concerned because dozens of sites across the country are contaminated with dioxins. And the rule would lower the amount of dioxin allowed in residential soil. It would go from 1000 parts per trillion to 72 parts per trillion – that’s a drop of more than 90%.

Fischer says that could cost companies millions of dollars in extra clean-up costs.

“Again, that begs the question, Why?”

One accusation is that the Obama administration wanted to finalize dioxin soil regulations in time to coincide with controversial, on-going dioxin clean-ups, such as one in central Michigan.

The EPA didn’t answer this question directly and wouldn’t provide an interview in time for this report. But it did say it’s got sound science to justify the proposed dioxin soil rule.

You might ask why this matters. Well, just look at central Michigan, where there’s a large, on-going dioxin cleanup.

Linda Dykema works with Michigan’s Department of Community Health. She creates state standards on how much dioxin should be allowed in water, fish, and soil. To protect people in Michigan, she needs help from the EPA.

“We rely a great deal on federal agencies to provide us with some hazard assessment for chemicals. The ability of the state to public health staff to do those kinds of assessments is pretty limited. They can do what needs to be done and what we can’t do here at the state.”

And a ruling on dioxin levels in soil should help Dykema. But this move by the EPA might cause more problems than it solves. For years, the chemical industry’s argued that the science behind dioxin isn’t complete.

This proposed soil rule gives the chemical industry another chance to say, ‘here we go again.’ And the justification it needs to keep fighting a rule the EPA insists protects people’s health.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

A Tough New Chemical Law

  • Lena Perenius and Franco Bisegna are with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council in Brussels, Belgium. (Photo by Liam Moriarty)

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

Transcript

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

(sounds of a street)

Brussels, Belgium is sort of like the Washington, DC of Europe. It’s here – in the seat of the European Union – that the 27 nations that make up the EU hash out their common policies.

I’m sitting in the office of Bjorn Hansen. He keeps an eye on chemicals for the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment. To give me an idea of how ubiquitous chemicals are in our everyday lives, Hansen points around his office.

“Just us sitting here, you are probably exposed to chemicals, which come from the office furniture, which have been used to color the textile, which has been used to create the foam, the glue under the carpet that we’re sitting – you name it, you’re exposed.”

The big question is whether all this exposure is harming our health or the environment. The answer?

“We, by far, do not know what chemicals are out there, what the effects of those chemicals are, and what the risks associated with those chemicals.”

In the European Union, that uncertainty led to a new law known by its acronym, REACH. That’s R-E-A-C-H. REACH requires that tens of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products in the EU be studied and registered. If a substance cannot be safely used, manufacturers will have to find a substitute, or stop using it. REACH has, at its core, a radical shift: it’s no longer up to the government to prove a chemical is unsafe.

“The burden of proof is on industry to demonstrate safety. And by demonstrating the safety that they think, they also take liability and responsibility for that safety.”

Even for industries accustomed to tougher European regulations, REACH was alarming.

“There were very, quite violent opposition in the beginning.”

Lena Perenius is with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council.

“In the EU, we already had a very comprehensive set of regulations for ensuring safe use of chemicals. And the industry saw that this was putting an unreasonable burden on the companies.”

Corporations may not have liked it, but the measure had strong public support. After several contentious rounds of negotiations, Perenius says the industry feels it got key concessions that’ll make the far-reaching law workable. Now, she says, the industry has come to see the up-side of REACH.

“Now, when we have the responsibility, that gives us a little bit of freedom to demonstrate, in the way we believe is appropriate, how a substance can be used safely.”

Here in the US, there are signs of political momentum building around taking a more REACH-like approach to regulating the chemicals in everyday products. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg recently said he’d introduce a bill that would shift the burden of proof for safety onto chemical manufacturers.

“Instead of waiting for a chemical to hurt somebody, it will require companies to prove their products are safe before they end up in the store, in our homes, and in our being.”

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson recently told a Senate committee that – out of an estimated 80,000 chemicals in use – existing law has allowed the EPA to ban only 5, and to study just 200.

“Though many of these chemicals likely pose little or no risk, the story is clear – we’ve only been able to effectively regulate a handful of chemicals, and we know very little about the rest.”

More than a dozen states from Maine to California have already moved to toughen safety standards for chemicals. Even the American Chemistry Council has agreed to support more vigorous regulations to assure consumers that the chemicals in the products they use are safe.

As always, the devil is in the details. But the coming reform is shaping up to look a lot like what Europe is already putting in place.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links