Tag: policy

Coal: Dirty Past, Hazy Future (Part 4)

  • Four Corners Power Plant is one of the dirtiest in the country, based on its emissions of nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and mercury. Under a cap-and-trade system, plants like this would have to cut pollution or buy carbon permits. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)

President Obama wants the U.S. to reduce the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports on what that will mean to coal-burning industries and your power bill:

Transcript

President Obama wants the U.S. to reduce the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports on what that will mean to coal-burning industries and your power bill:

For all the talk about carbon cap-and-trade, few people really understand what it is. And no one really knows what it will end up costing you on your electric bill – at least not yet.

The President wants carbon dioxide polluters such as coal-burning power plants to cut how much carbon dioxide they spew from the smokestacks.

So, the government is now designing a plan to cap the total amount of carbon dioxide pollution nation-wide. Once that amount is set, each polluter is allotted a limited amount of allowances to release carbon dioxide. Go over that allowance and the polluter has to pay per ton of CO2 released. Don’t use all of the allowances, and a company is free to trade them -–for a price—to others who need the allowances.

Over time that nation-wide cap will keep get lower, making carbon pollution more and more expensive.

How much of that cost ends up on your electricity bill is the big question.

There are some wildly different predictions. Some lobby groups indicate cap-and-trade could nearly double electric rates. But politics really plays into many of those predictions.

We went to analysts at Point Carbon. It’s a respected world-wide carbon market consultant. Veronique Bugnion says Point Carbon made some estimates based on President Obama’s carbon cap-and-trade plan in his proposed budget.

“Now, in terms of the U.S. average, what we calculated is that it would represent a roughly seven% increase over current electricity rates.”

That’s the average.

But, if your power company uses mostly coal instead of hydro-power or nuclear or wind or solar, Bugnion says it could cost more.

“At the extreme, in the regions that are essentially entirely coal dependent, the impact would be closer to anywhere between ten and 15-percent.”

President Obama says says a carbon cap-and-trade scheme can be designed so that it smooths out the effect on consumers who live in a coal-dependent area.

“The way it’s structured has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So, there are a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through.”

And Congress is just beginning to sort through them. But coal and power companies as well as big oil and industries that use a lot of energy are lobbying hard to kill carbon cap-and-trade or make sure doesn’t cost them, or their shareholders, more than they want.

That leaves most of us wondering what reducing the greenhouse gases will end up costing us after Congress gets finished.

Sandy Kline runs a small house-cleaning business called “More Grime than Time” out of her home in suburban Detroit. Because of the economy she’s lost some business lately. Times are a little tighter.

She says she’s concerned about climate change, but she’s worried what the President’s carbon cap-and-trade plan might do to her power bill and her family budget.

“What he’s proposing sounds like a good idea –big picture– as far as the greenhouse emissions and that, but, you know, on an individual basis it can really hurt people like me.”

She wonders if consumer pressure isn’t enough to get those power companies using coal-burning plants to change. But, that could take decades. Climate scientists say we don’t have that kind of time. We have to do something to reduce greenhouse gases now.

So, experts say you should get ready. Since we don’t know exactly what cap-and-trade will do to electricity rates, it might be a good idea to reduce your power usage. Take advantage of the current tax incentives to get more energy efficient appliances and tighten up your home.

They say, even if rates do go up because of carbon cap-and-trade, if you’re using less power, it could be you won’t see a much of a difference when you get your electric bill.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

GOP Cap & Trade Numbers Wrong

  • Republicans in Congress incorrectly cited an MIT report on cap-and-trade, claiming it would raise consumer energy prices by $3,400. The report actually said $340. (Photo courtesy of GOP.gov)

House Republicans used an M.I.T. report to come up with cost estimates for the carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports the author of that report has informed the Republicans their conclusions are almost ten times higher than the report indicated:

Transcript

House Republicans used an M.I.T. report to come up with cost estimates for the carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports the author of that report has informed the Republicans their conclusions are almost ten times higher than the report indicated:

The House Republicans recently issued a press release that claimed the carbon cap-and-trade program would cost every American houseold more than $3,100 a year. They based it on that report. Problem is, the author of the report –an economist– says that’s just wrong. John Reilly says when a House Republican staffer called Reilly the economist made it clear the Republicans’ number was wrong by a factor of ten.

“To the extent they knowingly took wrong numbers, they’re really kind of just misinforming the debate and trying to scare people with numbers that really aren’t accurate. If they’re just confused, I’ve sent a letter now. In principle they could put out a press release that said that they had made an error and the right number is actually 340 not 3,100 or something.”

The discrepency was first noted by PolitiFact, a truth squad project at the St. Petersburg Times.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Senate Dems Revisit Climate Bill

  • Democrats in the Senate are talking about climate change policy. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Democrats in the US Senate are talking about climate change legislation again. But its fate is uncertain. Tamara Keith reports from Washington:

Transcript

Democrats in the US Senate are talking about climate change legislation again. But it’s fate is uncertain. Tamara Keith reports from Washington:

Barbara Boxer is the senator who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. The committee will be putting together the climate change legislation. A climate bill didn’t get anywhere last year in the senate, but Boxer says things have changed since then.

“A lot of those who voted against us are no longer here.”

But what’s not changed is the argument over how sweeping controls on carbon emissions could affect the economy. Those opposed call climate legislation a job-killer. Steve Cochran with the Environmental Defense Fund argues the opposite.

“If those of us who want to see strong climate policy are effective and articulate and persuasive on the jobs argument then I think we can actually get this done. And if we’re not I don’t think we will.”

Boxer said she didn’t know when the full senate would take up the legislation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

The Candidates on Nuclear Power

  • The two presidential candidates square off on their views about nuclear power (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)

Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:

Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.

Transcript

Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:

John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to take climate change, and our role in creating it,
seriously. When asked during the second presidential debate about their plans to stem climate
change during their first two years in office, McCain offered ‘straight talk’.

“What’s the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power.”

More nuclear power is the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s energy policy. He’s told audiences
about the power of nuclear to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions.”

And he says the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S. make a big difference.

“These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
that would otherwise be released every year. That’s the annual equivalent to nearly all the
emissions of all the cars we drive in America.”

John McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors in the U.S.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, has focused more on renewable energy sources – wind, solar, and
on energy efficiency. But he says he’s not opposed to nuclear power.

“I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.”

Senator Obama doesn’t have any plans to build new nuclear power plants. Obama doesn’t think
nuclear is he best option. It’s expensive. And he insists its operation and waste disposal must be
safe.

Senator McCain sees Obama’s use of ‘safe’ as a code word.

“Senator Obama will tell you, as the extreme environmentalists do, that it has to be safe. Look
we’ve sailed navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We
can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, senator Obama, no problem.”

But safety and radioactive nuclear waste are still unsettled issues for many people.

Andrew Hoffman is professor of sustainable business at the University of Michigan. If the country
is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he says it has to consider nuclear power.
But Hoffman says the issue of radioactive waste has to be resolved.

“And I think this is an area that the government has to step in. We have nuclear waste being
stored at facilities all over the country. That’s just not a smart way to handle this.”

The economics of nuclear are also uncertain. Lots of power companies lost their shirts back in
the 1970s, building nuclear plants.

Travis Miller is a stock analyst with the firm Morningstar.

“The financing costs are extreme. There is quite a bit of risk building new nuclear plants. They
take many years to build, cost billions of dollars to build, and without some kind of backing, I think
there are
Plenty of people in the utility industry who still remember those days when they did get in trouble
with these very expensive, risky project.”

Senator McCain says government subsidies should help build new nuclear power plants. But
Andy Hoffman at the University of Michigan says people and investors will still have concerns.

“The government can just sort of announce, we’re going to support nuclear, but there are other
things that have to come into play to make investments attractive to investors so that they’ll want
to do it.”

Hoffman says the government will have to persuade the American people nuclear power offers
more benefits than problems.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

The Candidates on Renewable Energy

  • Barack Obama and John McCain give their views on renewable energy (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.

Transcript

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

John McCain and Barack Obama both talk a lot about new
sources of energy on the campaign trail. They see
alternative energy as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, to stem climate change, and even to boost the
economy.

McCain: “It’s wind, tide, solar, nuclear, offshore drilling.”

Obama: “That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into
solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal.”

Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to reduce
America’s dependence on foreign oil – but our imports have
only increased since the 1970s.

So what are each of this season’s contenders proposing?

Obama has been talking about huge investments in clean
technologies and energy efficiency.

“My energy plan will invest 150-billion dollars over the next
ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create
up to five million jobs over the next two decades. Five
million jobs.” (applause)

Obama wants to retrain steel and auto industry workers for
jobs building wind turbines and solar panels.

Wind energy is already contributing energy to the nation’s
electricity supply. Solar isn’t quite there yet. It needs more
research.

Edward McBride is energy and environment correspondent
for The Economist magazine. He says Obama plans direct
government investments in wind, solar, hybrid electric cars,
and making homes and businesses more energy efficient.

“He imagines a situation where the government is much
more heavily involved, not just in providing incentives but
actually in spending money. And therefore presumably the
government is in a position to pick and choose more which
technologies move forward.”

Unlike Obama, Senator McCain doesn’t plan direct
government investment in clean technologies. Instead,
McBride says the McCain is proposing tax credits for those
who do invest in them.

“He wants more broad-based incentives. Rather than
different incentives for solar and wind and so on. He wants
one unifying tax incentive.”

But McCain plans some direct government subsidies – for
nuclear and clean coal.

And although McCain talks about building a green economy
on the campaign trail, he doesn’t always seem convinced
that clean energy will provide the power America needs.

Here’s McCain speaking in New Hampshire last December.

“Most every expert that I know says that if you maximize that
in every possible way the contribution that that would make
given the present state of technology, is very small. It’s not
a large contribution. Even if we gave it the absolute
maximum, wind, solar and tide, etc. The truly clean
technologies don’t work.”

McCain is counting on the investment markets to decide
winners and losers in the renewable energy business.

But the markets don’t usually look long term, at things like
climate change. So both presidential candidates are
planning to put a price on burning fossil fuels, such as oil
and coal, that add to the problems of climate change.

That alone could provide another incentive for clean
competitors.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Turning the Rust Belt Green

  • The creation of 'green-collar' jobs may help the Rust Belt's unemployment problems (Photo by Lester Graham)

The nation’s economy is in decline, and
the middle states that make up the Rust Belt have
been hit particularly hard with job losses. Some
Midwest states have turned to a new type of
manufacturing and the so-called green collar jobs
it creates. Marianne Holland reports:

Transcript

The nation’s economy is in decline, and
the middle states that make up the Rust Belt have
been hit particularly hard with job losses. Some
Midwest states have turned to a new type of
manufacturing and the so-called green collar jobs
it creates. Marianne Holland reports:

Nationwide, just over half the states have passed some sort of laws or incentives geared at
getting green manufacturing jobs. In the nation’s rust belt,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Ohio already have green policy in place.

Ron Pernick is a co-founder of CleanEdge. That’s a national green manufacturing research
organization. Pernick says those jobs, are in one of the major growth sectors in American
manufacturing. They’re growing at a rate of about 30% each year. In Iowa, property tax abatements are given to green manufacturing. In Illinois, the state has passed laws requiring utilities to get a portion of their energy from wind or solar power. Pernick says public policy translates to more jobs.

“If you think about creating new industry, you can’t export development. You’ve got to
hire local people to put in the wind turbines, to install the solar farms, to put solar on top
of rooftops. And those jobs can never be exported.”

But other states have been slow to change policy to embrace green manufacturing. In Michigan, green energy legislation has been tied up in
the State Senate. An in states like Indiana, there are no laws or business incentives even on the table to attract the green
manufacturing industry.

Indiana State Representative Ryan Dvorak blames the big power companies for lobbying against incentives to create green jobs.

“I’m not sure why they have so much sway in the state with the different legislators but
they don’t want to give up any ground basically. Obviously they make their money by
generating and selling electricity, so any loss in market share, they’re motivated to
stop that legislation.”

The power companies say they’re just looking out for their customers.
Angeline Protegere is a spokesperson for Duke Energy. Protegere says renewable energy is
moving forward without state regulations. She says Duke understands that some day
regulations will come. But she says that will be at a high risk.

“We constantly have to balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic
responsibilities to our customers because they pay for the cost of pollution control
through their bills.”

And the power companies’ lobbyists persuade legislators it’s in the best interests of the people to block incentives for green jobs. Representative Dvorak thinks his colleagues are being misled.

Jesse Kharbanda is with the Hoosier Environmental Council. He says in his state and others that ignore the green jobs opportunity, workers are being left behind.

“We’re obviously in this situation where Indiana has historically had a formidable
manufacturing base and that base has been continuously eroded because of globalization.
We’re not in any time going to fundamentally change Indiana’s economy and so we have
to deal with the labor force as it is. We have a good, technically minded labor base, but
the question is: what sectors are we creating in the state to employ that technical labor
base. And one of them ought to be the green technology sector.”

Kharbanda says it’s a state’s public policy, tax breaks, and other incentives that will attract the
most green collar jobs. Without those incentives, unemployed factory workers in Rust Belt
states will have to hope for some kind of recovery in manufacturing, or take lower paying, service sector jobs.

For The Environment Report, I’m Marianne Holland.

Related Links

Epa to Survey Health of Us Lakes

The US Environmental Protection Agency will conduct an extensive three-year study on the health of the nation’s lakes. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

The US Environmental Protection Agency will conduct an extensive three-year study on the health of the nation’s lakes. Mark Brush has more:


The EPA says it will survey a total of 909 inland lakes, ponds, and reservoirs across the country. The survey will be done in cooperation with state agencies and some Native American tribes.


They’re hoping to determine how many US lakes are in good, fair, or poor condition. Researchers will test water samples for levels of nutrients, bacteria from human and animal wastes, some pesticides, and they’ll take a look at the conditions of the waterways’ shorelines.


This study is being done after criticisms have been leveled against the EPA. The Government Accountability Office and the National Research Council, among others, have said that the EPA doesn’t know enough about the condition of the nation’s waterways. They say there’s not enough data to make good water management policy at the federal, state and local levels.


The EPA says the nationwide survey will be completed in 2009.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Elections Boost Environmental Agenda

  • The mid-term elections caused a major power shift in Washington. Democrats say they plan to rev up Congress’ power of oversight. (Photo courtesy of Architect of the Capitol)

The political landscape in the U.S. changed overnight last week. The Democratic takeover will mean a big shift in policy-making efforts in Washington. Mark Brush has more on how environmental issues played out in the election, and what this new Congress might do on the environmental front:

Transcript

The political landscape in the U.S. changed overnight last week. The Democratic takeover will mean a big shift in policy-making efforts in Washington. Mark Brush has more on how environmental issues played out in the election, and what this new Congress might do on the environmental front:

Environmentalists say some of their biggest enemies were defeated in the midterm election. And top on their list of the worst environmental offenders was California Congressman Richard Pombo.


(The “Pombo Mambo” plays: a catchy ad jingle whose lyrics expose Richard Pombo’s environmental record, produced and run by the League of Conservation Voters.)


Environmentalists spent millions of dollars on radio and television ads to defeat Pombo, and they say it was money well spent. They came to really despise Pombo because of his work to weaken the Endangered Species Act.


Tiernan Sittenfeld is the legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters. She says many Republican committee chairs, such as Richard Pombo, simply obstructed environmental legislation. She says now that will change.


“It’s not that even that Congress has even voted to pass particular pro-environment legislation; it’s that the house leadership and the committee chairs haven’t even allowed such legislation to come to the floor. They haven’t even wanted a debate on it. So I think having different leadership, having different committee chairs who care about protecting the environment, who care about clean air, clean water, and open space is going to be a whole world of difference.”


So now that the Republican leadership is out who is taking their place? One legislator who is expected to gain a lot of power is Democrat John Dingell of Michigan. He will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee.


Dingell says he, and other Democratic committee chairs will first use their power to make sure that existing environmental laws are being enforced by the Bush Administration.


“This administration has been totally unsupervised by the Congress, and checks and balances which are so important to the Founding Fathers, and legislative oversight, have simply not taken place since the Bush Administration came in.”


Dingell will be joined by many other legislators who are likely to have strong environmental agendas. People like Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and Henry Waxman. They have several issues in mind that they feel have been mishandled by the Bush Administration. Top on their list is energy policy and global warming.


On energy, environmental lobbyists say high gas prices have made the issue one that resonates with voters.


Karen Wayland is the legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says the new Congress will revisit the tax breaks and other financial incentives given to oil companies in the last energy bill.


“I think what something the House will do at least will be to look at the royalty relief that Congress has given to the oil companies and sort of try to roll back some of the royalty relief; make the oil companies pay full price for extracting oil from our public lands and then use that money to invest in clean energy.”


Democrats are also expected to make a push for national renewable energy standards, and higher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.


As for global warming, the Democrats say the Bush White House and the Republicans in Congress have completely ignored the issue. The Democrats are expected to introduce several global warming bills in the next session.


But while the Democrats gained a lot of power, they still will have to work around the threat of a presidential veto. And in the Senate, the republicans still hold more than enough seats to block legislation.


Darren Samuelsohn is a senior reporter with Greenwire, a Washington DC based news service covering energy and environmental policy. Samuelsohn says while the Republicans still hold a lot of power, it’s interesting to see how much of it was eroded overnight.


“As you start to talk about it and think about it, it’s across the board: it’s judges, it’s legislation, it’s oversight. And then the thing that really nobody outside of Washington ever really kind of knows what’s going on about, but the whole huge appropriation – the whole federal budget process. That will now be Democrat controlled and we’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that get spent every year.”


Samuelsohn says the Democrats will now face the challenge of finding more money for their favorite environmental programs, while at the same time making good on campaign promises to cut the huge federal budget deficit.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

The Direction of U.S. Energy Policy

  • Jamie Juenemann invested in equipment to produce energy at his home in northern Minnesota. He says the government should offer more consistent incentives for renewable energy. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

Americans are thinking more about energy. We’re facing higher prices. There’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:

Transcript

Americans are thinking about energy more. We’re facing higher energy prices, there’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:


This winter, a handful of people around the country won’t have to worry about oil or gas prices. Jamie Juenemann is one of them. He lives out in the country in northern Minnesota, and he’s installed his own energy plant.


Behind the house, there’s a pole reaching above the trees. At the top, a modern windmill turns as it catches the wind. There’s also a solar hot water heater, and a geothermal heat pump, that brings underground heat into the house.


“This was the final phase in our goal to become carbon neutral; essentially producing as much energy as we’re consuming.”


Carbon neutral means not using fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, believed to be a greenhouse gas, and warming the planet.


Of course these systems aren’t cheap. Juenemann took out a second mortgage to pay for them. It was a big decision, but he says he’s doing what he can to make sure his young daughters will inherit a livable world.


“It’s all about choices. We have the choice to either purchase a Chevy Suburban, or we can use that same outlay, that same expense and put in some renewable energy systems.”


Eventually these systems will pay for themselves, and the Juenemann family will have free hot water, electricity, and heat.


The government helps pay for some of these systems; as much as three-quarters of the cost can be covered by tax-breaks and rebates. The trouble is one of the major federal subsidies ends next year, and others are limited to the first few buyers in a fiscal year. Businesses that sell renewable energy systems say that on-again, off-again subsidy approach by the government makes it difficult to stay in business to provide the alternative systems.


Politicians have been sending mixed messages about energy. Last year’s energy bill offered subsidies for nearly every energy source, without sending a clear message favoring one over another. Congress even offered subsidies for fossil fuels.


And that makes sense to John Felmy. He’s chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. He says the country depends on traditional sources — including the 40% of our total energy budget that comes from oil. He says the government should subsidize exploration and research on fossil fuels.


“You have to say where can you get the biggest impact from encouraging additional supplies, and those numbers of 40% clearly dwarf what you have from the alternatives.”


He says to keep the economy strong, the government should make it easier to drill for oil and gas, and to bring energy to where it’s needed.


Another government approach to the challenge of energy is to reduce the demand. Some groups predict conservation could cut energy needs as much as thirty percent.


J. Drake Hamilton is a scientist with Fresh Energy, a non-profit organization. She says conservation is cheaper and cleaner than producing more energy.


“Every time you cut energy use, you cut pollution. Every time you increase it, you increase pollution.”


And some people regard pollution as a hidden cost of traditional fuels. They say if consumers directly paid for the environmental and health costs of burning coal and oil and gas, the prices would be a lot higher. Economists call these “external costs,” and they argue over how to set a price on them.


Environmentalists say we should start charging an extra tax on fossil fuels because they contribute to global warming. At the same time, we could reduce the income tax, so the shift would be revenue-neutral, but the idea is still likely to be politically unpopular. A higher tax on fossil fuels would mean higher prices, which would make renewable energy systems more competitive.


There’s nothing new about taxing things that are bad for us, and subsidizing things that are good. But so far, when it comes to energy, Congress hasn’t been able to agree on what to discourage, and what to encourage.


For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

High Mercury Levels Found at Grocery Stores

A new study has found high levels of mercury in fresh swordfish at major grocery chains. Environmentalists say the results should be a wake-up call for the Food and Drug Administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

A new study has found high levels of mercury in fresh swordfish at
major grocery chains. Environmentalists say the results should be a wake-up
call for the Food and Drug Administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:


The Mercury Policy Project tested fresh and frozen swordfish from stores in
twenty-two states. The average amount of mercury in the swordfish was one-point-one parts
per million.


That’s higher than the amount the FDA considers safe for
pregnant and nursing women. Michael Bender is with the Mercury Policy
Project, which organized the study. He says the FDA isn’t doing enough to
protect people.


“Why aren’t they removing the swordfish from the marketplace? Over fifty percent of samples are over one part per million, the FDA’s action level, where they can take action… why doesn’t the FDA take action?”


Bender says the FDA should also require warnings posted where the fish is
sold. An FDA official who asked not to be named says the agency is
educating the public about the risks of eating swordfish. She says states
can take additional action such as posting notices if they wish.


For the GLRC, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links