Many environmental advocates say
they’re excited about the upcoming Obama
Administration. But the nation’s economic
woes could stall many federal programs.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Many environmental advocates say
they’re excited about the upcoming Obama
Administration. But the nation’s economic
woes could stall many federal programs.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Environmental groups are touting the campaign promises of President Elect
Barack Obama. They predict he’ll be open to environmental clean-up and clean
energy programs.
Michael Kraft is a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay.
He’s adding a note of financial caution.
”It’s no surprise that the federal government is running a very large deficit this
year and that the national debt is very big and that the country is entering an
economic downturn. So, the challenge will be deciding how much we can afford
to spend and in what years we can afford to spend it. “
Kraft says that could affect funding for programs aimed at cleaning up pollution.
And it could also pinch environmental regulators from the US EPA.
Kraft also says new spending may have a better chance when backers can prove
it will help the environment and not hurt the economy.
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.
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.
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.
The President’s proposed budget calls for big boosts in military and homeland security spending. And deep cuts to many domestic programs. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports, the Great Lakes are getting their share of cuts too:
Transcript
The President’s proposed budget calls for big boosts in military and
homeland security spending. And deep cuts to many domestic programs.
As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports, the
Great Lakes are getting their share of cuts too:
Several groups are calling the President’s budget a net loss for the Great
Lakes.
A fund that helps states update their outdated sewage treatment plants is
slated to get one of the biggest cuts. Programs that protect fisheries from
the destructive sea lamprey would also get cut back.
Andy Buchsbaum directs the Great Lakes office of the National Wildlife
Federation.
“We knew that it was going to be a tight budget year, but it really was pretty
shocking to see the level of cuts in key Great Lakes programs. Now
there were some programs that went up but by and large across the board
the programs were severely cut, in things that are just critical.”
One action Buchsbaum says is critical is stopping the Asian carp from
getting into the Great Lakes. Right now, there’s no federal funding for an
electric barrier designed to keep the invasive carp out.
It’s now up to Congress to decide whether to go through with these
proposed cuts.
The federal government, states, and Indian tribes recently finished a plan to restore the Great Lakes. The plan is expensive, but environmentalists hope federal money is in the works. They’re looking to other restoration projects for inspiration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee
reports:
Transcript
The federal government, states, and Indian tribes recently finished a plan
to restore the Great Lakes. The plan is expensive, but environmentalists
hope federal money is in the works. They’re looking to other restoration
projects for inspiration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn
Allee reports:
Congress already backs cleanup plans, such as the one in Chesapeake
Bay, but will Congress support Great Lakes restoration, too?
One advocacy group says the track record’s unclear. A report by the
Northeast Midwest Institute compared seven eco-restoration efforts. Co-
Author Karen Vigmostad says Congress starts projects, but doesn’t
always stay committed.
She cites the Florida Everglades.
“There’s been some planning money, but in terms of actually
implementing the plan, the money has not been forthcoming. The state
of Florida’s pretty much been footing that bill.”
The Great Lakes restoration plan faces its first major hurdle soon.
President Bush will release his budget by February. Great Lakes
advocates want 300 million dollars to kick-start the project.
The administration staff is divided on whether to spend that much.
Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk, Ohio Governor Bob Taft, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. This was right taken after they signed the agreement. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
In the spring of 2004, President Bush created a task force to develop a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration plan. The group recently released its final recommendations. But members already disagree about the future of their proposal. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:
Transcript
In April 2004, President George Bush created a task force to develop a
comprehensive Great Lakes restoration plan. The group recently
released its recommendations, but members already disagree about the
future of their proposal. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn
Allee reports:
Efforts to improve the Great Lakes face a major hurdle. Local, state and
federal programs overlap and sometimes duplicate one another. That
wastes a lot of time and money. President Bush wanted to change this. So, he
created a task force called the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. For the
first time, cities, states, federal agencies, and Indian tribes would agree to
specific goals and how to reach them. By most accounts they succeeded.
Here’s Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
“I can’t overstate what a major step forward this is for the Great Lakes.
For the first time, we’re all the same page with a common vision.”
The parties agreed to eight major goals. Among other things, they want
to restore wetlands along Great Lakes shorelines, they want to clean up
heavy metals that pollute lakebeds, and they want to keep sewage away
from public beaches. The cost for all this would stand at billions of
dollars, and that price tag caused a major rift.
Bush administration officials agreed to spend 300 million additional
dollars per year. That’s just a fraction of what states and environmental
groups hoped for.
Derek Stack is with Great Lakes United, an advocacy group. He says
states want to participate, but sometimes they can’t.
“I think a lot of the states simply don’t have the dollars necessary to pull
it off.”
Tribes, cities and states are being careful with their criticism. They want
to keep the door open for the administration to change its mind.
“To be fair to the federal administration, the states are saying we don’t
have federal money, and the feds are pointing out that we don’t exactly
have state money either, but the states have committed themselves to the
plan. So, now that they know what they’ve committed themselves to, the
budget building can begin. It’s hard to build a budget if you don’t have a
plan.”
Some critics are more strident, though. Illinois Congressman Rahm
Emmanuel says the administration needs this clear message. Federal
leadership requires federal money.
“There’s either action or inaction. This is the ninth report in five years,
and I hope it’s the last report. Now, there’s nothing that can’t be cured when
it comes to the Great Lakes that resources can’t take care of.”
Great Lakes advocates and state governments will be watching the next
few months closely.
Cameron Davis directs the Alliance for the Great Lakes. He says he’s
reserving judgment until the President releases a budget proposal.
“That budget will be released the first week of February, and if it has 300
million dollars in new funding, then we’ll know that the administration’s
serious. If it doesn’t we need to ask Congress to step in.”
Some legislators say that deadline might be too soon to judge the
ultimate success of the restoration plan.
Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk says other federal cleanup efforts came
after several reports and years of waiting. Congressman Kirk says the
prospects for the restoration plan are good. The Great Lakes region has
the strength of eight states standing behind it.
“When you look at the success of the Chesapeake Bay, and then the success
of protecting the Everglades, you see, once you come together with a
common vision, what a unified part of state delegation or in the case of
Florida, what an entire state delegation can do.”
On the other hand, it might be hard to keep eight state governments
focused on a common purpose.
There’s another wrinkle in the restoration plan as well. Canada lies on the other
side of the Great Lakes, and any comprehensive plan will require its
cooperation as well.
The EPA says tighter controls are coming for hundreds
of companies that burn hazardous waste. But the changes didn’t come without a fight. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The EPA says tighter controls are coming for hundreds of companies that burn hazardous waste, but the changes didn’t come without a fight. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The new regulations apply to large boilers, incinerators, cement kilns, and other devices that burn hazardous waste. The EPA says it’s trying to reduce emissions of several toxic pollutants.
A few years ago, environmentalists won a legal fight to force tougher controls than the Clinton Administration had originally proposed. Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew says the EPA was told to do its job right.
“Now EPA really hasn’t done it right this time, but it’s done it better, and as the result of the work of environmental groups, we’re seeing less toxic pollution going into peoples’ homes and schools and communities.”
A group representing cement kiln owners says it’s generally satisfied with the new EPA rules, but warns that some kilns may have trouble reaching the tougher targets. The case could wind up back in court.
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.
