Conversations With China About Climate Change

  • President Barack Obama addresses the opening session of the first U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Listening at left are Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan, center, and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo, left. (Photo by Chuck Kennedy, courtesy of the White House)

The Chinese are in Washington in high-level talks with the Obama administration about – among other things – energy and the environment. Lester Graham has more on that:

Transcript

The Chinese are in Washington in high-level talks with the Obama administration about – among other things – energy and the environment. Lester Graham has more on that:

Opponents of the climate change bill in the U.S. like to remind us that China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. China likes to point out the U.S. didn’t even sign the Kyoto Protocol.

“We’ve been each other’s biggest excuse for the past five, eight years about not acting on international commitments.”

That’s Jennifer Turner. She’s Director of the China Environment Forum at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Turner says things are changing.

Recently China and the U.S. started talking about how they can help each other. And, she says, while China’s not talking about climate change a lot, it is talking about energy efficiency.

“China has actually been doing a lot over the past eight years on lowering their CO2 emissions, pushing energy efficiency more, for trying to ensure their own energy security and to lessen the health impacts of pollution.”

While the U.S. has been stressing climate change.

The governments have figured out they’re working on the same problem, just looking at it a little differently.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

FDA and Food Safety: Failing Grade

  • Another scare came a few years ago, when spinach was found to be tainted with E. Coli (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

In the wake of this year’s tainted peanut butter scare, Congress is getting ready to approve changes to the Food and Drug Administration. Lawmakers want to give the American public more confidence in the safety of the food supply system. But some people doubt they will be able to
make real change. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

In the wake of this year’s tainted peanut butter scare,
Congress is getting ready to approve changes to the Food
and Drug Administration. Lawmakers want to give the
American public more confidence in the safety of the food
supply system. But some people doubt they will be able to
make real change. Julie Grant reports:

Gwen Rosenberg is a mom. She has four boys to feed. So
she’d like to be able to trust that the food supply is safe.

But when Rosenberg heard that 8 people died after eating
peanut products earlier this year, and hundreds more got
sick, it confirmed her beliefs: that the Food and Drug
Administration isn’t making sure food is safe.

“There shouldn’t be stories that come out that reveal that the
peanut plant hasn’t been inspected for years. Or when it
was inspected, there was rat feces. They’re not doing their
job.”

Rosenberg wants the FDA to crack down on food
manufacturers. She says they need inspect more – and shut
down facilities when they find dangerous conditions. She
was appalled when she realized the FDA has no authority to
recall tainted foods.

“The fact that they don’t have recall authority essentially
neuters the FDA. I mean, how are we supposed to take
anything they say or do seriously if they end result is, ‘well,
we can’t force you to do this?’ Well, thanks for the
community service message not to eat the tainted peanut
butter, but you’re not actually making me any safer.”

In the case of the Peanut Corporation of America, a test
found salmonella in its products. It retested. When the test
came out negative, it went ahead and shipped out the
products.

And the FDA had no recall authority. Congressman Bart
Stupak says that’s just wrong. He’s co-sponsoring a food
safety bill that would give the FDA some authority in cases
like this.

“What the FDA can do, shut ‘er down. Prove to me that you
cleaned it up. Prove to me, where did you destroy this
product. Give me the facts. They can’t give you the facts,
shut ‘er down right now. Let’s not wait ten days.”

But leaders in the FDA don’t think recall authority would
have made much difference in the tainted peanut product
case.

David Acheson is Associate Commissioner for foods at the
FDA. Once people started getting sick, he says most
companies using the Peanut Corporation of America’s
products voluntarily recalled their cookies and crackers.

“There’s no suggestion that having mandatory recall is a
panacea to solving food safety problems. It’s one more tool
that would be used from time to time when the situation
warrants it, but it’s not the answer to modernizing food
safety.”

Acheson says the real problem is that the FDA is so busy
reacting to public health threats – to putting out fires – that it
can’t get ahead of the problems and fix the food safety
system.

He says the food system needs preventive controls.

There are a lot of points in the food supply chain where
hazards can creep in: when the food is being grown,
processed, distributed, or sold in a store. Acheson says the
food industry needs to identify control points for each food –
where they are most at risk at becoming unsafe.

“Is it a wild animal in a field, is it the water supply for the
spinach, is it the temperature in my freezer in a retail store.
And all these things in between where things can go wrong
and food can either become contaminated or if there is a low
level of contamination then bacteria can grow.”

Once those control points are identified, Acheson says the
FDA needs to do more inspections – to make sure food is
being handlled safely from farms fields to grocery stores.

But that’s going to cost money.

So Congress is considering charging companies fees to pay
for those inspections.

Food manufacturers don’t like that idea. We contacted
several companies, but none of them, not even the Grocery
Manufacturers Association, would comment for this story.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Interview: EPA’s Lisa Jackson

  • Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

Some members of Congress feel they’re being coerced into approving a Climate Change bill that would force industry to reduce greenhouse gases. Republicans and some Democrats feel the Obama Administration is telling Congress to either approve legislation or the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority to restrict greenhouse gases. Lester Graham spoke with the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, about that perception:

Transcript

Some members of Congress feel they’re being coerced into approving a Climate Change bill that would force industry to reduce greenhouse gases. Republicans and some Democrats feel the Obama administration is telling Congress to either approve legislation or the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority to restrict greenhouse gases. Lester Graham spoke with the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson about that perception.

Administrator Lisa Jackson: They want to say that it’s EPA’s action that’s compelling them to be forced to address energy and climate change legislation. I certainly hope that’s not the case. We are actually in a race here to move to a greener energy economy. And the rest of the world is certainly doing it. And I always tell people that if you don’t want to do it for the environmental reasons, you need to look at the economics and where the world is going, and realize we need to break our dependence on fossil fuels that come from out of our country. We need to move to clean energy. That should be the imperative. I hope it becomes the imperative.

Lester Graham: There’s a new treaty coming up to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Climate Change Conference will meet in Copenhagen in December for a new climate change agreement – if Congress does not pass climate change legislation by that point, how will it affect the standing of the United States in those talks?

Administrator Jackson: Well, certainly it’s fair to say the eyes of the world are upon us, to some degree. Each country is dealing individually with their own situation on energy and climate, and then obviously those are big multi-lateral talks. But I do think people are watching to see if the United States is in this game of clean energy and addressing carbon.

Graham: If Congress does not pass a measure this year before that conference, but there’s a likelihood of it passing next year, will that change – I’m just trying to figure out how we enter into those negotiations if we don’t have a solid plan for reducing greenhouse gasses.

Administrator Jackson: I know lots of people are trying to figure out whether or not the United States will be at the table and in a big way. It certainly is the most important thing to be able to say to the rest of the world, is that not only President Obama is clearly behind this, but the Congress representing the people of the United States has moved to embrace new energy policy, and clean energy, and low-carbon. We’re not there yet, obviously. I’m still optimistic, despite all the other discussions going on, because I know that there’s been real progress made to date.

Graham: You’re just a few months into the job, and already seeing a little heat from Congress and big, big challenge – how do you feel about the job and what do you hope to accomplish in the first year?

Administrator Jackson: I already know that it’s the best job I’ll ever have. I understand that the push and pull of the system is that we’re going to have some dialogue on issues that are of great concern to members of Congress, to the American people, to various stakeholders, and I’m eager to have those conversations. And I think as long as we keep in mind that we’re going to follow the best science we can, we’re going to follow the law, we’re going to be honest, we’re going to be transparent, we’re not going to hold information back. You know, I think that was the most damning criticism of EPA – that there was information out there that might have protected the environment or the American people that was held back. And that time and trust, we have to now re-earn. So that’s what we’re about.

Graham: Administrator Jackson, thanks for your time.

Administrator Jackson: Thank you so much, Lester. Nice talking to you.

Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. She spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham.

Related Links

Interview: Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar

  • Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (Photo by Andy Pernick, courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation)

The Department of Interior includes
agencies such as the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, the Bureau of Land Management
and many other bureaus, services and
offices. Former Senator Ken Salazar
directs it all. Lester Graham recently
talked with the Secretary of Interior
about the Department and the problems
and challenges he faces:

Transcript

The Department of Interior includes
agencies such as the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, the Bureau of Land Management
and many other bureaus, services and
offices. Former Senator Ken Salazar
directs it all. Lester Graham recently
talked with the Secretary of Interior
about the Department and the problems
and challenges he faces:

Lester Graham: Interior is a huge department, with many services and bureaus. Some of those departments deal with oil and gas exploration on public lands and places such as Alaska, Utah, and offshore. During the Bush Administration, the Department of the Interior was criticized for being too cozy with the oil and gas industry. And it culminated with a scandal involving oil company execs, government workers, and wild parties – complete with cocaine and sex. Secretary Salazar stressed to me, those days of partying and sweetheart deals with oil and gas companies are over.

Ken Salazar: It is unfortunate that the department was blemished in the Bush era because of the transgressions which occurred here and the paradigm which unfolded – which we are seeing the results of today – is that there was a bending of the rules and a flaunting of the law. There is a lot of cleaning up that has to be done.

Graham: Recently you came to a memorandum, I’m understanding, with FERC about offshore wind turbines. How soon might we see wind turbines off the coasts of the US?

Salazar: I expect that it will happen during the first term of the Obama Administration. I think that there is a huge potential for wind energy, especially off the shores of the Atlantic, because of the shallowness of those waters.

Graham: Will we ever see a point where we have windmills near coast, and drilling rigs out farther, along the Atlantic Coast?

Salazar: I do believe that we will see the wind potential develop. I think it will be similar to what we already see in the United Kingdom and Denmark and Norway. In respect to oil and gas off the Atlantic, I think that is still a question that needs to be looked at. And it’s part of what we’re doing in looking at a new 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf. And we are not making a decision at this point, or pre-judging where we will end up after we complete the comment process which ends in September.

Graham: Secretary Salazar says domestic oil and gas will play a role in American energy. He talked about the Department of Interior’s role in the nation’s energy independence, and noted the departments 15,000 scientists will be helping deal with the big issues such as global warming and climate change. Ken Salazar says that since the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and other nature-related agencies make up Interior, one of its top priorities is a program called ‘Treasured Landscapes.’

Salazar: I am hopeful that we will be able to, in this Administration, create the kind of legacy that was created by Teddy Roosevelt. President Obama has a vision for the landscapes of America, which is one that I believe we can deliver on. Restoration of major landscapes, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes and the Everglades and so many others, will be a part of that agenda.

Graham: Secretary Salazar, thank you so much for your time.

Salazar: Thank you very much, Lester.

Graham: Ken Salazar, President Obama’s Secretary of the Interior. For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

White House Chief on New Energy

  • Carol Browner is the President's Assistant on Energy and Climate Change. (Photo courtesy of cdc.gov)

The White House climate change chief is laying the groundwork to get an energy bill through Congress. Lester Graham reports it includes a controversial plan to reduce the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil:

Transcript

The White House climate change chief is laying the groundwork to get an energy bill through Congress. Lester Graham reports it includes a controversial plan to reduce the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil:

Carol Browner is President Obama’s assistant for Energy and Climate Change.

MIT posted video from an energy conference at the college. In it, Browner indicated we’ve got an opportunity to get the nation off its fossil fuel addiction, become more energy independent and create jobs in green energy.

“Let us dare to dream of a nation where the excess solar energy of our deserts, the wind potential of our Great Plains fuel our homes, our cars, and our businesses. Let us commit ourselves to a future where the businesses that sustain our planet are rewarded and those that endanger our Earth are held accountable.”

Next week Congress begins hearings on an energy bill that includes a carbon cap-and-trade plan that makes fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energy a better option all in an effort to lessen reliance on foreign oil and to reduce greenhouse gases causing global warming.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Environment and the Obama White House

  • Those at the inauguration are hopeful for change with the Obama administration (Photo courtesy of the Obama transition team)

People from across the nation and around the world are gathering in the U.S. capital for the inaguration of President Barack Obama. Among them are people who are hopeful an Obama presidency will be better for the environment. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

People from across the nation and around the world are gathering in the U.S. capital for the inaguration of President Barack Obama. Among them are people who are hopeful an Obama presidency will be better for the environment. Lester Graham reports:

The inauguration of Barack Obama finds people who’ve traveled to Washington DC hopeful.

On the mall, between the capitol building and the Lincoln Memorial, people we interviewed mentioned they’re hopeful for the economy, they’re hopeful for peace.

Jeff Dickson of Finland, Minnesota was an environmental scientist for 25 years. He’s hopeful for the environment.

“I finally found a president who I think is capable of taking this country into a period of environmental responsibility instead of degradation.”

And many people are hoping President Obama finds a way to pursue environmentally friendly alternative energy and conservation in a way that will get us out of the recession and into, what many are calling, the green economy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Fda Says “Eat More Fish”

  • A catfish farmer in Mississippi (Photo by Stephen Ausmus, courtesy of the USDA)

The Food and Drug Administration
has once again opened the debate about
how much fish pregnant women can safely
eat. Lester Graham reports the FDA might
abandon guidelines it issued less than
five years ago:

Transcript

The Food and Drug Administration
has once again opened the debate about
how much fish pregnant women can safely
eat. Lester Graham reports the FDA might
abandon guidelines it issued less than
five years ago:

In early 2004 the FDA suggested pregnant women or women planning to become
pregnant should avoid fish with higher levels of mercury such as swordfish or shark.
And limit all other fish to a couple of meals a week.

Now, a proposed FDA recommendation indicates fish is too healthful to worry about
the mercury, and suggests instead of avoiding fish altogether, pregnant women
should eat more.

Sonya Lunder is with the advocacy organization, The Environmental Working Group.
She says the recommendation won’t hold up to scrutiny.

“And all the flaws in it will come to light. My concern is that the headlines that come
out that there’s a debate about the toxicity of fish or what pregnant women should
eat cause a lot of confusion.”

The FDA’s proposal comes after years of lobbying by the seafood industry.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour

  • Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are packing up, there's not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Transcript

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through
rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Critics say President George W. Bush is doing a lot of last minute shopping for his
friends in big industries.

“What’s happening in Washington right now is a really quiet sneak attack on a lot of
fundamental protections that Americans enjoy under the law.”

That’s John Walke. He’s a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He says these last minute Bush rules are not good for the environment – and they’re not
good for people.

“It’s important to realize we’re talking here about midnight de-regulation. These are
actions that are removing safeguards and protections of public health, and public welfare,
and the environment, and giving industry the permission to commit those harmful acts.”

So what kind of harmful acts is he talking about? Here are just some of the more than 60 rules and
regulations the Bush Administration is working on or have finalized.

A rule that makes it easier for coal mining companies to dump their waste into nearby
creeks and streams.

A rule changes that would allow older coal burning power plants to pump out more air
pollution without having to install clean up equipment.

A rule that would allow large dairies or livestock farms to police pollution from their own
operations.

And a rule that would make it more difficult to protect workers from toxic chemicals.

It’s a long list. But the main philosophy of the Bush Administration is that big industries
need a break from government regulations.

The Administration says they’ve been working on these rules for a long time. But
they’ve waited until the last minute to finalize a lot of them.

Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are
packing up, there’s not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. Your party
lost the election. So why not? Jimmy Carter’s administration was famous for it. The
term ‘midnight regulation’ was coined when Carter kicked last-minute rule making into
high gear. And every president since then has had his own last-minute rule changes.

The incoming Obama Administration is promising to go through these rules. Jon Podesta
is with Obama’s transition team. And he talked about that on Fox News Sunday.

“As a candidate, Senator Obama said that he wanted all the Bush executive orders
reviewed, and decide which ones should be kept, which ones should be repealed, and
which ones should be amended.”

Overturning some of these rules won’t be easy. Joaquin Sapien is a reporter for
ProPublica. He’s been following these midnight regulations closely. He says what
makes the end of this administration different is how it planned for the end. Last May,
White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten contacted all the federal agencies.

“What they did was they sent out a memo saying, ‘get your work done on these
regulations by November the first.’ So that would give these agencies plenty of time to
get them in effect before the next administration takes over, thereby limiting what the
next administration could do about some of these rules.”

Once the rules are finalized – they become effective in thirty to sixty days. And once that
happens – Sapien says it’s pretty much a done deal.

“And so, if a rule is in effect by the time the Obama Administration takes over, there’s
really very little he can do.”

For every rule that has gone into effect, it would take a lengthy rule-making process to
overturn it – a process that can take months and more likely years to complete.

There is another option. Congress can review the rules – and stop them before they’re
enforced. But with all the attention on the financial crisis, and with the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, experts think Congress won’t do that. And that these last minute rules will
be government policy for awhile.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Air Pollution Rule Has Some Fuming

Governors in New England are up in arms about some changes the Bush administrations
wants to make that would allow older power plants to add on but avoid buying new
pollution control equipment. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Governors in New England are up in arms about some changes the Bush administrations
wants to make that would allow older power plants to add on but avoid buying new
pollution control equipment. Mark Brush has more:

The proposed rule change would change how air pollution is measured from power plants
that expand their operations.

Right now, the air pollution is capped at a certain amount
per year. The new rule would cap the amount of air pollution allowed by the hour.

That
means a power plant could put out a lot more air pollution over the course of a year.

John Walke is a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He says
this little change in the rule could have a big impact.

“So as soon as these utility companies began to expand their plants and to pump out more
smog and soot pollution. People in surrounding communities would see their air quality
worsen.”

Six northeastern states are urging the EPA not to go forward with the rule change. In a
recent letter sent to the EPA they say the rule change – quote “threatens the quality of our
states’ air and the health of our citizens.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

New Standards for Organic Fish

  • Farmed fish, such as salmon, eat a lot of wild fish that happen to swim into their pens. And that means they could be eating over-fished species. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service)

To be labeled organic, animals
have to be fed all organic food. But
under the new proposal that won’t be
the case for fish. Julie Grant reports
that in the recommendations for organic
fish, the standard is much lower:

Transcript

To be labeled organic, animals
have to be fed all organic food. But
under the new proposal that won’t be
the case for fish. Julie Grant reports
that in the recommendations for organic
fish, the standard is much lower:

Some fish is raised in huge net-pens in the ocean. Farmed
fish, such as salmon, eat a lot of wild fish that happen to
swim into their pens. And that means they could be eating
over-fished species.

New recommendations by the National Organic Standards
Board would go ahead and allow farmed fish to eat up to
25% wild food – as long as it’s not from endangered species.

George Leonard is director of aqua-culture with the Ocean
Conservancy. He says these standards would weaken the
organic label.

“You don’t change the organic standard to be consistent with
current practices, you hold the organic standard steady and
you allow or you incentive the industry to change their
practices to reach that standard.”

The new “organic fish” recommendations still need final
approval from the USDA.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links