Many Native American tribes say
they want to be part of the national debate
over climate change legislation. The
tribes at least have the attention of the
US EPA. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Many Native American tribes say
they want to be part of the national debate
over climate change legislation. The
tribes at least have the attention of the
US EPA. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The tribes are worried about climate change. They think it might be affecting natural resources
like wild rice beds, fish habitat and animals they hunt to feed their people.
The tribes got some provisions into a major climate change bill that recently failed in Congress.
They’re now preparing their arguments for the next go-round on Capitol Hill.
Stephen Hartsfield is with the National Tribal Air Association. He says one thing the Native
communities want is more incentives to produce cleaner energy – such as solar power in the
Southwest US.
“ We have 300 days of sunshine a year – so it just makes logical sense for tribes and states and
communities in the Southwest to look at those opportunities.”
At a meeting with Great Lakes area tribes in Milwaukee, an EPA official said it’ll be up to
Congress and the Obama Administration to determine how much clout the tribes will have in the
debate.
Christie Todd Whitman, who was appointed to head the EPA under George W. Bush, says just because you're leading the EPA, that doesn't mean you get to
choose who staffs it. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)
The big environmental agencies of
the government will soon have new leadership.
Rebecca Williams reports those agency leaders
might not have as much control as you’d think:
Transcript
The big environmental agencies of
the government will soon have new leadership.
Rebecca Williams reports those agency leaders
might not have as much control as you’d think:
President-elect Barack Obama is putting together his Cabinet and appointing
agency leaders.
One former Cabinet-level official says it’s great working with the President,
but you don’t always have as much power as you’d like.
Christine Todd Whitman was appointed by George W. Bush to run the
Environmental Protection Agency.
She says just because you’re leading the EPA, that doesn’t mean you get to
choose who staffs it.
“You have recommendation ability. Obviously the Administration always
has those must-hires. People they want to put in, people they feel they owe
positions to, people they think have good backgrounds.”
She says when she was in charge there was tension between the EPA and the
White House.
Critics of the Bush White House say political appointees have interfered
with scientific findings. They’re hoping that changes with the Obama
Administration.
A Government
Accountability Office report finds the EPA doesn't actually collect a lot of their fines (Photo by Lester Graham)
A government report reveals that some
polluters do the crime, but don’t pay the fine.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A government report reveals that some
polluters do the crime, but don’t pay the fine.
Lester Graham reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency issues a lot of press releases that announce
big fines against companies that have been caught polluting. But, a Government
Accountability Office report finds the EPA doesn’t actually collect a lot of those fines.
It still reports them as penalties against polluters.
Matt Madia is with the government watchdog group OMB Watch.
“First of all, EPA is not doing a good job collecting the fines that they do assess. And
across the board under the Bush administration there just simply hasn’t been a big
emphasis on enforcement. The second thing is that the public is really kept in the
dark about what EPA is doing.”
That’s because an EPA official says the public should not be told whether
the agency actually collects the fines, even though the agency is quick to announce
when it levies fines.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Perchlorate is a chemical in rocket fuel that has been found in some drinking water supplies. It’s been linked to thyroid problems in
pregnant women and babies. (Photo courtesy of the CDC)
Critics of the Environmental Protection
Agency say the agency is putting pregnant women
and children at risk. Rebecca Williams reports
the controversy centers on a chemical that’s found
in some drinking water supplies:
Transcript
Critics of the Environmental Protection
Agency say the agency is putting pregnant women
and children at risk. Rebecca Williams reports
the controversy centers on a chemical that’s found
in some drinking water supplies:
Perchlorate is a chemical in rocket fuel. It’s been linked to thyroid problems in
pregnant women and babies. It’s been found in milk, and lettuce and water
supplies from coast to coast.
But the Environmental Protection Agency has not set a safety standard for the
chemical in drinking water. Recently, a draft document obtained by the press
stated that EPA does not intend to set that standard.
The Washington Post reported that White House officials edited the EPA
document. And took out references to some studies that linked perchlorate to
thyroid problems.
Senator Barbara Boxer is a Democrat from California. She says she’s troubled
by this news.
“To me it’s just an immoral decision that EPA has made not to set forth a
standard for perchlorate. Perchlorate interferes with production of hormones
that are needed for development of the brain and the nervous system. This is
really a dangerous, dangerous chemical.”
Boxer endorsed a bill that would force EPA to set a standard.
The EPA says, ‘whoa, hang on a minute, this is just a draft.’
In a statement sent to The Environment Report, EPA assistant administrator
Benjamin Grumbles says quote.
“We know perchlorate in drinking water presents some degree of risk and
we’re committed to working with states and scientists to ensure public health is
protected.”
Grumbles says the agency will release its draft decision soon. That version will
be open to public comment.
But some critics say politics is shaping this entire decision.
Perchlorate has been used for decades by the defense industry. The chemical’s
used for making and firing rockets and missiles.
John Stephenson is with the Government Accountability Office. It’s the federal
agency that acts as a watchdog.
“Setting a standard is important because, in the Department of Defense’s case,
they don’t clean up anything for which there is no standard.”
Stephenson says his watchdog agency is bothered by some recent changes at
the EPA. This spring, the EPA changed its chemical review process. It’s used
to decide how dangerous a given chemical might be.
Stephenson says now, the Department of Defense and the White House can
keep their comments private.
“And EPA can receive comments behind closed doors in what amounts to a
black box. So let’s say the Department of Defense offers up some new
research on perchlorate that they think is compelling reason why the standards
should be set or shouldn’t be set at a certain level but nobody else in the
scientific community can see what this is until the end of the process.”
Stephenson says he’s lost confidence in the EPA to change this.
The GAO is urging Congress to step in and bring more light to the process
that’s supposed to keep the public safe.
Later this year the Environmental Protection Agency is going to set court-ordered
standards for mercury pollution from cement kilns.
(Source: LinguisticDemographer at Wikimedia Commons)
The Environmental Protection
Agency is late in setting standards
for some smokestack emissions. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency is late in setting standards
for some smokestack emissions. Lester
Graham reports:
Maybe you’ve never seen a cement kiln. That’s where limestone and other materials
are baked using coal to make cement, used in concrete.
Later this year the Environmental Protection Agency is going to set court-ordered
standards for mercury pollution from cement kilns.
“It’s about time, isn’t it? I mean, the standards were due more than ten years
ago.”
That’s Eric Scheaffer. He’s with the Environmental Integrity Project.
The EPA had relied on self-reported estimates on mercury pollution from the cement
kilns. Turns out, after the EPA actually checked a few of the kilns, a lot of those
mercury pollution estimates were a little low.
“They’re now saying about 23,000 pounds a year. And that’s double the
previous estimates from EPA. So, the numbers are growing.”
Most states have issued advisories about mercury contamination of fish. Mercury
can cause neurological and developmental problems with fetuses and young
children.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The EPA is looking into storing CO2 emissions underground (Photo by Lester Graham)
The US Environmental Protection
Agency is looking at ways to make sure
carbon dioxide can be stored underground.
The agency is proposing rules that would
keep CO2 from seeping out of the ground or
cause problems for ground water. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The US Environmental Protection
Agency is looking at ways to make sure
carbon dioxide can be stored underground.
The agency is proposing rules that would
keep CO2 from seeping out of the ground or
cause problems for ground water. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Some coal-fired power plants are looking into storing their carbon dioxide emissions
underground.
If the system works, it’d be a way to slow down climate change.
But EPA water administrator Ben Grumbles says injecting large volumes of CO2
to underground storage wells is a concern. So, he says the proposed rule calls for
extensive testing and monitoring.
“So that the CO2 doesn’t migrate. If it did, it could also push other fluids, like
salts, into that underground source of drinking water.”
Grumbles says if there was contamination, companies could be ordered to stop
injecting the gas. He says the rule also aims to make sure the CO2 doesn’t seep
from the ground into the air.
The EPA will take comments on its proposed rule until mid-November.
A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:
Transcript
A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:
Peter Jenkins: They’re charged with protecting native species. They’re charged with enforcing the
Endangered Species Act, which is an important part of this issue because these non-
native species threaten our native species, including threatening endangered species in
many cases.
Lester Graham: In the past, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has been accused of being too
slow to act, even when a problem is pointed out. Would the regulation changes you’re
talking about help speed that process?
PJ: Well, Congress would have to agree to commit more resources to the agency…I mean,
there is only one person, believe it or not, only one person whose job is to assess species
to be listed under that law to keep out of the country. Obviously, we need more than one,
we need some qualified professionals working this area. We don’t need millions and
millions of dollars, but we do need a significant increase, probably five or six or up to ten
professional staff looking closely at these imported animals to assess whether we’re
gonna have problems and which ones need to be restricted.
Now, how’s that gonna be paid for? Well, the industries that are bringing these species in
and that want to benefit from the import trade, whether it be pet or live animals or
biomedical testing or zoos or what have you…Those people bringing these species in
clearly should carry some of the cost of what they’re bringing in and in that way, the
taxpayers don’t get burdened too much.
LG: As you’ve mentioned, this is as much an economic problem as it is an environmental
problem. Why haven’t the dollars and sense of this issue really had an impact on the
politics behind making sure that we can restrict this kind of trade?
PJ: Well, that’s a great question and defenders of wildlife did do a white paper on the
economic impact of animal imports trade. The reason is very simple…the people who
benefit do not suffer the cost when these things go wrong. That is to say, the costs are
suffered by the public in terms of disease or invasive species concern or pests, so these
costs are externalized or passed on to the general public and it’s the taxpayers in the end
who wind up having to pay the costs. On the whole, these species that are brought in,
non-native species, are brought in for the pet trade…That’s by far the biggest reason that
species are brought in. That’s basically a luxury item, that’s not an essential item. Those
that benefit from luxury items should bare the cost.
LG: Now, nature seems to eventually cope with many of these exotic species, even the
invasive species to one degree or another and some people would say that this biological
pollution is nearly impossible to prevent so why fight the inevitable?
PJ: Uh, I don’t buy that argument at all. It’s like saying diseases are natural and people are
going to eventually cope with diseases, so why bother trying to prevent diseases? I mean,
we do it because we want to protect certain values. We want to protect our native species,
we want to protect human health, we want to protect the health of our livestock. Of
course we need to be protective and have adequate standards. I mean, we don’t need to be
operating under a law that was written in 1900 just because some people think it’s futile
to try to deal with this issue…We could cope with it.
HOST TAG: Peter Jenkins was one of the authors of a Defenders of Wildlife report calling on the government to do a better job of screening live animal imports. He spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham. The report is available at www.defenders.org.
Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:
Transcript
Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:
Rob Zimmerman admits there are plenty of jokes about toilets, but the
water engineer for the Kohler Corporation takes the bathroom commode
very seriously.
“I’ve heard people say that the toilet is kind of the foundation of
modern civilization… that modern sanitation allowed for the growth of
cities and allowed for the decline of infectious diseases.”
And now Zimmerman has a handle on a new role for toilets: saving water.
Studies have shown that toilets can account for up to 30% of
a household’s water use. Water prices are going up and in some fast-
growing communities water supplies are growing more scarce.
So, the EPA created a voluntary program it calls Water Sense. It aims
to get toilets to use 20% less water than the newer toilets you’ve
probably seen that were mandated back in the 1990’s. This new
generation of toilets goes from 1.6 gallons per flush to about 1.3
gallons, and still meets performance guidelines for producing a clean
bowl.
(Sound of flushing)
Kohler and other toilet makers are trying various ways to get to 1.3
gallons. After looking at a 1.6 gallon model, Rob Zimmerman lifts the
tank lid on a 1.3:
“What you see that’s different here… is remember the other one had
that red flapper? This canister here, that lifts straight up when you flush
it, so all the water can move from all different directions and go down
down the valve. It’s a bigger rush and so the actual time that this
flushes is a little bit shorter than the other one.”
Zimmerman says other higher efficiency models use what’s called a dual-
flush system that sends away one amount of water for liquid waste and
another for solids, with an average of 1.3 gallons.
Another type is the so-called pressure assist, a louder system that
compresses air to force the smaller volume of water out quickly.
Under its new Water Sense Certification program, the EPA has put out
final specifications for the 1.3 models.
Kohler is getting ready to submit six toilet models for certification,
which the EPA compares to its Energy Star program for things like
computers. EPA Water Administrator Benjamin Grumbles says the public
can be confident about a third party certification system the EPA has
created:
“The agency working with the scientific community and with independent
testing organizations want to make sure that consumers, when they see that
Water Sense label, they will be able to have confidence that the
product will perform well, and it will lead to increased savings. Not
just in terms of water, but also reduce the water bill and reduce the
energy bill as well.”
But it may take a while to build that confidence. At a home remodeling
show, bathroom fixtures store owner Rich Libbey said he’s seen low-flow
toilets elsewhere that have not worked properly.
“Some of the Carribean Islands that are desert islands flush on a
European quart of water, but they don’t clean the bowl. So, later on in
the evenings, for example at a bar or resort, the toilet gets kind of
gamey.”
But Libbey says he’s willing to give companies like Kohler the benefit
of the doubt of reliably getting to 1.3 gallons per flush. Like most
high-efficiency energy-saving systems, the up-front costs are a little
higher.
The Kohler Corporation says its new high-efficiency toilets might cost
an extra fifty dollars to buy, but estimates the financial payback of
using less water could come in just a couple years.
A government watchdog agency is adding to
its list of high-risk problems that the federal
government is failing to fix. Lester Graham reports
that keeping up with transportation demands and keeping
food safe are issues being added to the high-risk list:
Transcript
A government watchdog agency is adding to
its list of high-risk problems that the federal
government is failing to fix. Lester Graham reports
that keeping up with transportation demands and keeping
food safe are issues being added to the high-risk list:
Every two years the Government Accountability Office
identifies areas where the government is putting people or
tax money at risk.
This time the GAO identified three new high-risk areas.
First is financing transportation needs. Government
funding is eroding as traffic congestion is growing. The
second is protecting defense technologies from espionage.
The report says outmoded methods don’t work in a high-tech
world. The third high-risk area is food safety. The
report says the current fragmented federal system causes
inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination and
inefficient use of resources.
The GAO says the government needs a better system to detect
and respond to food problems, such as the recent E. coli
bacteria contamination of spinach. Congress and the White
House pay attention to the GAO’s high-risk report, although
solutions to the problems often take years to develop.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The watchdog agency for Congress says the President’s greenhouse gas reduction programs don’t hold companies accountable.
Four years ago, the Bush Administration unveiled its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the time critics said the voluntary programs simply wouldn’t work. The GLRC’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
The watchdog agency for Congress says the president’s greenhouse gas reduction
programs don’t hold companies accountable. Four years ago, the Bush Administration
unveiled its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the time critics said the voluntary
programs simply wouldn’t work. The GLRC’s Mark Brush has more:
In 2002 president Bush announced a plan to cut the nation’s output of heat trapping
gases:
“My administration is committed to cutting our nation’s greenhouse gas intensity, how
much we emit per unit of economic activity, by 18% over the next ten years.”
What followed were two government programs that called on businesses to voluntarily
reduce their greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office recently put out a
report on those two programs run by the Department of Energy and the EPA. It found the
businesses that volunteered make up only half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
It also found there’s no system in place to verify whether companies are meeting the
goals of the programs. The GAO recommends the agencies make policies that will track
a company’s progress, and hold companies accountable if they don’t meet their goals.
