Pennsylvania has joined a growing number of states that are cutting mercury emissions beyond federal guidelines. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can cause brain damage in fetuses and small children. The GLRC’s Susan Phillips
reports:
Transcript
Pennsylvania has joined a growing number of states that are cutting
mercury emissions beyond the federal guidelines. Mercury is a
neurotoxin that can cause brain damage in fetuses and small children.
The GLRC’s Susan Phillips reports:
Pennsylvania officials say the EPA’s current mercury standards threaten
public health. That’s why they announced a plan this week to reduce
mercury pollution by 90 percent within the next decade.
Michael Fiorentino is an environmental lawyer and a member of a
committee that will review the plan.
“Pennsylvania has some very significant coal fired power plants and the
mercury emissions are also significant so it’s the perfect opportunity for
the state to step in and do more than what the federal government was
willing to do.”
Industry representatives in Pennsylvania say the new standards will put
the state’s power plants at a competitive disadvantage. They support the
less stringent federal guidelines.
With three dozen coal burning plants, Pennsylvania is one of the largest
mercury polluters in the country.
A group of private landowners recently asked for help from the federal government to stop what they say is a threat to a rare fish in the region. The GLRC’s Gretchen Millich reports:
Transcript
A group of private landowners recently asked for help from the federal
government to stop what they say is a threat to a rare fish in the region.
The GLRC’s Gretchen Millich reports:
The Huron Mountain Club, along with the Sierra Club, claims a
proposed mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula would pollute the only
remaining spawning grounds of the Coaster Brook Trout. They’ve asked
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to declare the Coaster Brook Trout
endangered.
Peter Dykema is a spokesperson for the Huron Mountain Club. He says
the fish was once abundant, but now spawns in only one stream.
“150 years ago, it was one of the most celebrated game fish in America.
It is one of the most beautiful animals you’d ever see and we believe it
will be possible to restore that fish, if not to its original abundance to
considerably greater abundance than we now have.”
Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company wants to dig for nickel and copper
underneath the Coaster Brook Trout’s spawning grounds. Dykema says
an endangered listing would require the company to make sure their
mining activities don’t harm the fish.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that will determine how much power the federal government has over isolated wetlands - wetlands that aren't adjacent to lakes or streams. (Photo by Lester Graham)
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could
decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case
before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of
Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
The federal Clean Water Act is supposed to stop people from polluting
streams, wetlands and other waterways that are connected to the
country’s major lakes, rivers and coastal areas, but what if the wetland in
question is located 20-miles from the nearest major waterway? Is it
covered by the Clean Water Act? That’s the question the court will
consider.
In the 1980’s John Rapanos started moving sand from one part of
property he owned in Michigan to another, to fill in some wetlands. He
wanted to sell the land to a shopping mall developer. Trouble is, he
didn’t get permits from the Army Corps of Engineers to fill in the
wetlands. The government says he should have.
“The property has a drainage ditch that runs through it…”
Robin Rivett is a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. It’s a
property-rights group that is representing Rapanos.
“And because of the movement of the sand on the property, which is
characterized as wetlands, the government came in and has prosecuted
him for actually discharging fill material into the navigable waters.”
Rapanos was charged with violating the Clean Water Act. Washington is
demanding 13-million dollars in fines and fees, and wants him to set
aside about 80-acres as wetlands.
In another case, that’s been combined with the Rapanos matter,
developers in Southeast Michigan were denied permits to fill in wetlands
so they could build a condominium complex. That site is about two
miles from Lake St. Clair, which lies between lakes Huron and Erie.
In both cases, the federal government says the sites fall under the Clean
Water Act because they’re located near navigable waters. Actually, that
term – navigable waters – has evolved over the years and come to mean
“interstate or intrastate waters,” along with their wetlands and tributaries.
The plaintiffs, their attorneys and supporters say the land should be
governed by state environmental regulations, rather than the federal
Clean Water Act, but on the side of the government in this case is 35
state governments, along with many environmental and conservation
groups.
Jim Murphy is a lawyer for the National Wildlife Federation. His group
has filed briefs on behalf of more than a dozen organizations that support
the federal position.
“What is at stake here is the ability of the act to protect the vast number
of tributaries that flow into navigable waters and the wetlands that
surround and feed into those tributaries. If those tributaries and wetlands
aren’t protected under the federal Clean Water Act, it becomes difficult if not
impossible under the Clean Water Act to achieve its goal to protect water
quality.”
Murphy says if the Supreme Court rules that Congress did not intend to
protect wetlands like the ones in this case, then about half the wetlands in
the country could lose their federal protection. Murphy and others on his
side worry that wetlands could begin disappearing more quickly than
they already do today.
Scott Yaich directs conservation programs for Ducks Unlimited – a
wetlands protection group.
“The landowners who have those wetlands would no longer be subject to
getting the Corps of Engineers to review, so essentially they could do
anything they wanted.”
The lawyers for the landowners don’t see it that way. The Pacific Legal
Foundation’s Robin Rivett says individual states would have something
to say.
“I believe there are 47 states that have their own clean water programs.
If it is clear that the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over
local waters, the states will step in to protect those waters.”
Maybe they will; maybe they won’t, say environmental groups. They
fear a patchwork of water protection laws. They say it could mean
polluted water from a state with weaker laws could flow into a state with
stronger water protection laws.
Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation.
“The Clean Water Act provides a floor. It provides comprehensive
protection, a floor beyond which states must maintain that level of
protection.”
Those who support the property owners in this case say it’s about more
than clean water – it’s also about land use. They say if the court rules
that waterways and wetlands are interconnected and all deserving of
protection under the Clean Water Act, then what could be left out?
Duane Desiderio is with the National Association of Home Builders,
which has filed briefs supporting the property owners.
“All water flows somewhere. Every drop of water in the United States,
when it goes down the Continental Divide, is going to drain into the
Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico. Pretty much.”
Both sides are hoping the Supreme Court provides a clear definition of
which wetlands and tributaries Congress intended to protect when it
passed the Clean Water Act. A decision is expected this summer.
Organic farms are concerned about nearby farms that produce genetically modified crops. They fear that the genetically modified crops will cross with and alter the genes of their own crops. (Photo by Rene
Cerney)
Proponents of genetically modified crops say the crops can be grown with fewer pesticides. (Photo by Daniel Wildman)
The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal government’s job to regulate food safety. But critics say federal agencies aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety. They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on
their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal
government’s job to regulate food safety, but critics say federal agencies
aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety.
They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically
engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:
Genetically engineered crops are created when genes from other plants,
animals or bacteria are used to alter their DNA.
Critics call them “Franken-foods,” and two years ago, three California
counties banned farmers from growing genetically altered crops. That
alarmed the agribusiness industry, and now it’s fighting to keep that from
happening elsewhere.
So far, the industry successfully lobbied 14 states to pass laws preventing
their local governments from putting restrictions on engineered crops.
Four other states are considering similar measures.
Jim Byrum is with the Michigan Agri-Business Association.
“Frankly, it’s pretty frustrating for us to look at some of the rumors that
are floating around about what happens with new technology. It’s
reduced pesticide use; it’s reduced producer expense in production. It’s
done all sorts of things.”
Genetically engineered seeds are created in the laboratories of big seed
companies like Monsanto and DuPont. The modified plants can produce
higher-yield crops that make their own insecticides, or tolerate crop-
killing problems such as drought or viruses.
Proponents of the technology say genetically altered crops have the
potential to feed the world more efficiently, and they say it’s better for
the environment. That’s because the crops can be grown with fewer
polluting pesticides, but critics say not enough is known yet about
engineered crops’ long-term ecological impact, or on the health of
people who eat them.
(Sound of farm)
Michelle Lutz is among the skeptics. She and her husband run an 80-
acre organic farm north of Detroit. She’s watching about a dozen head of
the beef cattle she’s raising. They’re feeding on cobs of organic corn
grown several yards away.
“I’m surrounded by conventional farmers. The farmers right over here to
my east – they’re good people, and I don’t think they would intentionally
do anything to jeopardize me, but they are growing genetically modified
corn.”
Lutz worries that pollen from genetically modified corn from those
nearby fields could make its way to her corn plants – and contaminate
her crop by cross-breeding with it. Lutz says people buy produce from
her farm because they trust that it’s free from pesticides, because it’s
locally grown, and because it has not been genetically altered. She says
she shares her customers’ concerns about the safety of engineered foods.
Lutz says letting local governments create zones that don’t allow
genetically engineered crops would protect organic crops from
contamination.
But Jim Byrum of the Michigan Agri-Business Association says no
township or county should be allowed to stop farmers from growing
genetically modified crops. He says every engineered seed variety that’s
on the market is extensively tested by federal agencies.
“Frankly, that evaluation system exists at the federal level. There’s
nothing like that at the state level, and there’s certainly nothing like that
at the local level. We want to have decisions on new technology, new
seed, based on science as opposed to emotion.”
Critics say the federal government’s evaluation of genetically modified
crops is not much more than a rubber stamp. The FDA does not approve
the safety of these crops. That’s just wrong.
Doug Gurian-Sherman is a former advisor on food biotechnology for the
Food and Drug Administration.
“It’s a very cursory process. At the end of it, FDA says we recognize that
you, the company, has assured us that this crop is safe, and remind you
that it’s your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, and the data is
massaged – highly massaged – by the company. They decide what tests
to do, they decide how to do the tests. It’s not a rigorous process.”
Gurian-Sherman says local governments obviously don’t have the
resources to do their own safety testing of engineered foods, but he says
state lawmakers should not allow the future of food to be dictated by
powerful seed companies. He says local governments should be able to
protect their growers and food buyers from the inadequacies of federal
oversight.
States that are looking at regional agreements to reduce air pollution could face legal challenges. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
States that are looking at regional agreements to reduce air pollution could face legal challenges.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Some states are upset with the pace of federal efforts to address climate change. So, they’re
considering teaming up on their own. For example, New York and some other eastern states plan
to begin a trading program in 2009, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to
global warming.
Robert Percival is an environmental law professor at the University of Maryland. He says the
regional efforts must proceed carefully.
“If the federal government fails to take action against a major problem there’s no problem letting
the states step in as long as they do so in a non-discriminatory way.”
In other words, the states can’t interfere with interstate commerce, by ruling against utilities or
other firms that produce products outside their regional collaboration. If the states do
discriminate, they’d need to get approval from Congress, and with Capitol Hill and the White
House currently on the same page on many issues, it isn’t clear federal lawmakers would back the
states.
Lawmakers in three states (California, Michigan, North Carolina) are considering measures to block communities from regulating the use of genetically modified seeds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
Lawmakers in three states (California, Michigan, North Carolina) are
considering measures to block communities from regulating the use of
genetically modified seeds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah
Hulett reports:
More than a dozen states have already passed laws to prevent local
governments from banning the use of seeds that have been modified to
produce high-yield crops.
Peter Jenkins is with the Center for Food Safety. He says organic
farmers worry that pollen from genetically altered plants could drift into
their fields, and contaminate their crops.
“So, local control’s important to allow towns and counties to stake out
particular areas that should be set aside for organic or for GMO crops. In
some cases, you know, you could have zoning, or bans altogether.”
Supporters of the legislation say there are other ways to protect organic
crops from gene drift – including buffer zones and timed plantings. They
say it should be up to the federal government to regulate the use of
genetically modified seeds.
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.
Air deposition is when air pollution settles out into lakes and streams and becomes water pollution. (Photo by Lester Graham)
We’re continuing our series, Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. Our guide through the series is Lester Graham. In this report he explains one of the threats that experts identified is air pollution that finds its way into the Great Lakes:
Transcript
We’re continuing our series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes’. Our guide through the
series is Lester Graham. In this report he explains one of the threats is air pollution that
finds its way into the Great Lakes:
It’s called ‘Air Deposition.” Melissa Hulting is a scientist at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. We asked her just what that means:
“Air deposition simply is just when materials, in this case pollutants, are transferred from
the air to the water. So, pollutants in particles can fall into the water. Pollutants in rain
can fall into the water, or pollutants in a gas form can be absorbed into the water.”
So, it’s things like pesticides that evaporate from farm fields and end up in the rain over
the Great Lakes. PCBs in soil do the same. Dioxins from backyard burning end up in the
air, and then are carried to the lakes
One of the pollutants that causes a significant problem in the Great Lakes is mercury. It
gets in the water. Then it contaminates the fish. We eat the fish and mercury gets in us.
It can cause babies to be born with smaller heads. It can cause nervous system damage
and lower IQ in small children if women of childbearing age or children eat too much
fish.
One of the notable sources of mercury is from power plants that burn coal.
(Sound of coal car)
Railroad cars like this one empty their tons of coal at power plants all across the nation.
More than half of the electricity in the nation is produced at coal-burning power plants,
and with a 250-year supply, coal is going to be the primary fuel for a while.
One coal producing state is acknowledging that mercury is a problem. Doug Scott is the
Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. He says coal is important to
the energy mix, but we need to reduce pollutants such as mercury as much as possible.
“The policy of the state has been to try to work with the power plants to try to burn
Illinois coal as cleanly as you can. Now, that means a lot more equipment and a lot more
things that they have to do to be able to make that work, but we’re committed to trying to
do both those things.”
And, Scott says the federal government’s mercury reduction program does not go far
enough soon enough, but the electric utility industry disagrees.
Dan Riedinger is spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a power industry trade
organization. Riedinger says, really reducing mercury emissions at power plants just
won’t make that much difference.
“Power plants contribute relatively little to the deposition of mercury in any one area of
the country, including the Great Lakes, and no matter how much we reduce mercury
emissions from power plants in the Great Lakes Region, it’s really not going to have a
discernable impact in terms of improving the levels of mercury in the fish people want to eat.”
“Relatively little? Now, that flies in the face of everything I’ve read so far. Everything
I’ve read, indicates coal-fired power plants are a significant contributor to the mercury
issue in the Great Lakes and other places.”
“It’s really not quite that simple. Power plants are a significant source of mercury
emissions here in the United States, but most of the mercury that lands in the Great
Lakes, particularly in the western Great Lakes is going to come from sources outside of
the United States.”
Well, it’s not quite that simple either. The U.S. EPA’s Melissa Hulting agrees some of
the mercury in the Great Lakes comes from foreign sources, but recent studies show
some mercury settles out fairly close to the smokestacks. She says you can blame both
for the mercury in your fish.
“You blame the sources that are close by and you blame the sources that are far away.
The bottom line with mercury is that we’re all in this together and it’s going to take
everybody reducing their sources to take care of the problem.”
Taking care of the problem is going to take some money, and that will mean we’ll all pay in
higher utility bills. The Illinois EPA’s Doug Scott says it’ll be worth it if we can reduce
mercury exposure to people.
“We know what the issue is. It’s not a matter of us not understanding the connection
between mercury and what happens in fish, and then what happens in humans as a result
of that. We understand that. We know it, and we also know to a great degree what we
can do to try to correct the problem, and so, it’s a matter of just going out and doing it,
and so I’d like to think it’s something that can be done sooner rather than later.”
And since Great Lakes fish have elevated levels of mercury, sooner would be good.
It’ll take a while for the mercury already there to work its way out of the ecosystem and
return to more normal levels.
A new report by a forest protection group says the increase
in logging in National Forests shows no signs of slowing. The uptick in logging is also happening in the Great Lakes region. The National Forest Protection Alliance says the U.S. Forest Service needs to re-evaluate its mission. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton has this
report:
Transcript
A new report by a forest protection group says the increase in logging
in National Forests shows no signs of slowing. The uptick in logging
is also happening in the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. The
National Forest Protection Alliance says the U.S. Forest Service needs
to re-evaluate its mission. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy
Samilton has this report:
Logging companies are going after more acres in National Forests
because trees have regenerated after the large-scale clear-cutting of a
hundred years ago. But Jake Kreilick of the National Forest Protection
Alliance says the logging is a net loss for taxpayers, because the U.S.
Forest Service is heavily subsidizing it by building roads to get the
trees out. And Kreilick says it’s unnecessary – because lumber
companies have more domestic and global sources for wood than ever
before.
“The federal government does not need to be in the logging business any
more.”
But logging companies say with half the nation’s softwood in National
Forests, they do need the wood. They say the Forest Service is doing a
good job in managing the multiple users who rely on National Forests
for recreation, hunting and logging.
Cars can contribute greenhouse gases in many different ways. However, California's stricter law on cutting these emissions is starting a trend. (Image courtesy of the EPA)
U.S. automakers are under increasing pressure to reduce
harmful emissions. Now, to meet its obligations to the Kyoto Protocol, Canada says it might partner with several U.S. states to demand cleaner cars. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dustin Dwyer has more:
Transcript
U.S. automakers are under increasing pressure to reduce
harmful emissions. Now, to meet its obligations to the Kyoto Protocol,
Canada says it might partner with several U.S. states to demand cleaner
cars. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dustin Dwyer
has more:
Eight states have already signed on to a law that was first passed in
California. That law calls for automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions thirty
percent by 2016.
Now, officials in Canada say they may also adopt a similar law. That would
put almost a third of the North American car market under the California
rules. And analysts say it could force a change in how all cars are made.
Stéphane Dion is Canada’s Environment Minister. He says he’s still
working with automakers to get a voluntary reduction in emissions, but he
says time is running out.
“We’ve are talking with them since years, and now it’s time to conclude. And
we hope the conclusion will be an agreement. If it’s not an agreement,
California has shown that something else is possible.”
Automakers have filed a lawsuit in California to block the law. They say it uses
powers reserved for the federal government.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dustin Dwyer.
