Tag: bush administration

Higher Speed Train Gains Momentum

Another link in higher-speed rail in the Great Lakes region is in place. Railroad officials have begun testing passenger trains at speeds never before attempted. It’s part of an effort to establish Chicago as a hub for cities from Cleveland to Minneapolis. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Willis Kern reports:

Transcript

Another link in higher-speed rail in the Great Lakes region is in place. Railroad officials
have begun testing passenger trains at speeds never before attempted. It’s part of an effort
to establish Chicago as a hub for cities from Cleveland to Minneapolis. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Willis Kern reports:


(nat sound train going through station)


A four-car Amtrak passenger train is rolling through the depot in downtown Normal,
Illinois.


(sound of train continues)


Usually, passenger trains stop to pick up passengers. But this one is chugging through,
picking up nothing but speed as it heads north toward Chicago, and eventually, a new land
speed record for passenger trains in Illinois. Never before has a train eclipsed the 110-
mile per hour mark, but that’s what this one is about to do during a five-mile stretch, as
another step toward implementing high speed rail in the Midwest.


(fade sound)


Before the train backs up from the Amtrak station in Normal and races forward, it sits
idling while engineers from the state bureau of railroads, Amtrak and Lockheed Martin test
new technology the train will use called Positive Train Control, which is a key component
of making the trains go faster. As it sits at the train station, Steve Gossard, the station’s
lead ticket agent, notes that the twin engines on this train look different than the ones
Amtrak usually push up and down the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.


“Well I guess its a little more streamlined, a more angular kind of thing, and its really
very plain. I guess the aerodynamics has something to do with the style.”


The ‘Bureau of Railroads’ is using two Amtrak engines that have been configured to
operate on what’s known as Class 6 tracks, or those that have been upgraded to support
speeds of 110 miles an hour.


“It’s a very sophisticated piece of equipment.”


Bureau chief John Schwalbach says the testing helps determine the difference between
traditional Class 4 tracks that have been upgraded and the new rails to be used for higher
speeds.


“Particularly the track guage. That is to say the distance between each of the rails.
That’s a key component and at Class 6, there are certain standards that are tighter
than a class four track. And you’re talking about measuring in the millimeter range
here, or even smaller than that.”


Which makes for a smooth ride for the faster trains. Schwalbach says the engines being
tested today are quite different than the one the state has been testing at the more
conventional speed of 79 miles per hour over the past few months, but it will be a couple
of years, at least, before new high speed diesel train sets are ordered. They will efficiently
get passengers up to speeds of 110 miles an hour. A year ago, state rail officials were
pointing to a December ’02 launch of high speed passenger service. Now, Schwalbach
says that’s not likely to happen until sometime in 2004, mainly because of federal red tape.


“From a regulatory perspective, after Lockheed Martin delivers their finished
product, it of course has to meet or exceed regulatory requirements put upon them by
the Federal Railroad Administration. We expect that process will take us through the
year 2003.”


“That may be accurate but it sounds like an awfully slow pace. I guess it assumes
little or no federal support.”


Ross Capon is the Executive Director of the National Association of Rail Passengers. He
talked to us on a cell phone as he rode an Amtrak passenger train from California to
Maryland. Capon says he’s disappointed in the Bush Administration’s attitude toward high-
speed rail. But, he’s confident things on the federal level will improve and states starving
for funding not only for high speed rail, but basic Amtrak service, will get much needed
help.


“The general public is way ahead of the politicians on this issue. That 9-11 has only
reinforced that, and that sooner or later, the administration is going to figure that out
and respond to it.”


(sound of trains)


Meanwhile, the Great Lakes states wait for the federal government to sort out Amtrak and
high speed rail service and it’s commitment to each. Michigan has been testing a stretch of
track between Detroit and Chicago for sometime. Now it’s Illinois’ turn to showcase the
baby steps they’re making in an attempt to get some kind of service up and running as soon
as possible.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Willis Kern.

BUSH’S CLEAN WATER ACT CHANGES QUESTIONED

An environmental group is taking issue with a Bush Administration proposal to change the Clean Water Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

An environmental group is taking issue with a Bush Administration proposal to change
the Clean Water Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


The Bush Administration is considering removing non-navigable rivers,
adjacent wetlands, and headwaters from the protections of the Clean Water Act. Ed
Hopkins is a senior lobbyist for the Sierra Club. He says that change would create major
problems for the waters still covered by the act:


“If you allow the headwaters rivers to be polluted or to be filled in for development of
one kind or another it is certainly going to have an effect on the downstream areas.
Those downstream rivers are going
to get dirtier.”


Hopkins says the Clean Water Act will become nearly useless if this change goes though.
The Bush Administration has announced its intent to seek the change, but has not
formalized the proposal or started the process to change the Clean Water Act.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Canadians Urge Kyoto Signing

A new poll finds most Canadians surveyed believe Canada should ratify the Kyoto agreement in order to slow the effects of global warming. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

A new poll finds most Canadians surveyed believe Canada should ratify the Kyoto agreement in order to slow the effects of global warming. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

While the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto Accord, Canadian leaders are still deciding whether to ratify it. The survey of 2,000 people, conducted by a research firm on behalf of Greenpeace Canada, suggests 78 percent of Canadians would support ratification. The findings come after an intense lobbying campaign against ratification by high oil producing and energy consuming provinces. They argue the accord will devastate Canada’s economy as it competes with countries that aren’t part of the agreement. The plan calls for nations to reduce their output of greenhouse gases to three and a half percent below 1990 levels. The 15 members of the European Union have announced they will ratify the agreement this year.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Bush Appoints Controversial Ijc Chairman

President George Bush avoided a Senate fight by making an appointment on a key Great Lakes group while Congress was in recess. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

President George Bush avoided a Senate fight by making an appointment on a key Great Lakes group while the Congress was in recess. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

A White House press release indicates the President appointed Dennis Schornack to be the Commissioner and U.S. Chairman of the International Joint Commission. The IJC monitors whether the U.S. and Canada are meeting their commitments in treaties regarding water quality in the Great Lakes and other boundary waters. Schornack was an aide to Michigan Governor John Engler where he backed the governor’s plans to allow more directional drilling for oil and gas under the Great Lakes. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan worked to pass a ban on such drilling and was expected to work against Schornack’s confirmation in the Senate. By making the appointment during the Congressional recess, the President avoided that fight and Schornack will be installed at least until the end of next year.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

New Navy Officer Stirs Controversy

A controversial former Ohio EPA official has become the top navy official in charge of environmental clean up. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston has details:

Enviros Dissatisfied With New Budget

Some of the nation’s leading environmental organizations say President Bush has drafted a ‘slash and burn’ budget when it comes to the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

FORGING ALLIANCES IN ‘STEEL DUMPING’ DEBATE

Steel has once again become a big issue in U.S. trade policy. Many steel companies around the Midwest are worried about ‘steel dumping’ and are urging President Bush to support new tariffs and quotas on imported steel. But some steel users say the Bush Administration should back off. How the President handles the issue could affect both jobs and the environment in the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Steel has once again become a big issue in United States trade policy. Many steel companies around the Midwest are worried about steel dumping and are urging President Bush to support new tariffs and quotas on imported steel. But some steel users say the Bush administration should back off. How the president handles the issue could affect both jobs and the environment in the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports.


The amount of commonly used types of foreign steel coming into the United States has risen about a third over the last five years, and a federal trade panel ruled recently that much of that imported steel is being sold here at a price lower than what it cost to make it and ship it here. That’s a practice called dumping. The trade panel found that such dumping poses a serious threat to domestic steel makers. So the panel says President Bush should slap tariffs on many product lines of foreign-made steel to raise the prices of the imports. But that’s not such a hot idea to some other industries, which use plenty of foreign steel.


(furnace/factory ambient sound)


Here at the Engel Tool and Forge Company in Milwaukee…this second-generation family business now uses about 600 tons a year of steel imported from countries like Brazil and Sweden. In the warm and grimy forging area, workers use a robot to move five foot long steel bars that have been heated to 2100 degrees Fahrenheit. Owner chuck Engel watches the orange and white-hot bars enter a machine


“That’s a preforming press …a hydraulic press that preforms the metal. It’s removed from there and moved into a finished form that we gain our finished desired shape.” (WHAM noise)


The bars are scrunched into wheel axles that’ll be shipped to heavy equipment makers in the mining or construction industries. Engel says his company is doing all right during the recession. So he’s says he strongly opposed to the president possibly tinkering with that success by slapping higher tariffs on imported steel.


“I am sure there is a certain amount of unfairness on both sides of the fence but I believe that competition should be what sorts this problem out rather than the government.”


Engel contends domestic steel makers got quote- fat and sassy — over the last twenty years…and he says mergers, downsizing and other changes now taking place among domestic manufacturers will help them compete in the world steel market. Engel says if steel tariffs do go up…he’d have to pass along the price hikes. But other players are urging President Bush to approve higher steel tariffs. The United Steelworkers of America hopes the president even goes beyond what the trade panel recommends. Some environmentalists are also quietly supporting the domestic steel industry. That’s even though green groups have a track record of battling steel manufacturers. Cameron Davis of the Chicago-based lake Michigan federation acknowledges big steel has a dirty history in the area.


“Well traditionally, the steel industry especially in northwest Indiana has been responsible for a fair amount of pollution in the Great Lakes…and that’s air-based pollution, water based pollution, land based pollution across the board.”


But lately environmentalists have been trying to forge alliances with unions like the steelworkers. And Davis notes that environmental lawsuits and other changes have gotten domestic steel makers to start cleaning up their act in recent years. He says if nothing is done to slow the rise in steel imports that could make the United States environment worse. Davis cites the aquatic nuisance species that tag along in the ballast water of foreign ships…including presumably, the ships that bring in foreign steel.


“Without some help in protecting the GL steel industry, we’ll see more and more foreign steel coming into the country. And with that foreign steel probably more aquatic nuisance species that will do more damage not only to the Great Lakes but to rest of country.”


United States flagged Great Lakes shipping companies that haul iron ore from Minnesota and northern Michigan are also siding with the domestic steel makers. George Ryan is president of the Lake Carriers Association. He says if the domestic steel industry keeps getting hurt by foreign imports…there might be some local improvements like less air pollution emitted over Gary or Cleveland, but Ryan says, what about the rest of the globe.


“For anyone who has seen photographs from outer space, we have one world that moves the air around to all parts of the world we can’t really say we condone dirty air in Brazil and in China and okay to do it there cause we’re protecting our air in the United States.”


Ryan is a member of the Great Lakes Commission…which is urging the president and congress to boost steel exports and reduce unfair competition from abroad. Commissioners do the bidding of eight Great Lakes governors…most of whom are republicans like George W. Bush. If the president does not do more to protect United States steel makers and jobs that could be an issue in the gubernatorial and congressional elections next November. Mr. Bush has to announce his plans on steel tariffs and quotas by mid-February. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium this is Chuck Quirmbach in Milwaukee.

New Wetland Policy Under Fire

Some environmental groups are calling the Army Corps of Engineers “arrogant” for a policy change that the environmentalists say will make it easier for developers to destroy wetland habitat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the details:

Transcript

Some environmental groups are calling the Army Corps of Engineers “arrogant” for a policy change that the environmentalists say will make it easier for developers to destroy wetland habitat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Since the first Bush administration, federal agencies have tried to make sure that if a development destroyed wetlands, the developer had to create an equal amount of wetlands somewhere else. The goal was ‘no net loss of wetlands.’ Now, the Army Corps of Engineers has changed its policy through a newly issued guidance letter. Developers will only have to preserve existing wetlands somewhere else. or establish buffer strips along a waterway instead of creating replacement wetlands. Robin Mann is with the Sierra Club.


“Despite the fact that the Corps is denying it, we see this guidance letter as really, basically abandoning that national goal, that policy of ‘no net loss.’


Even with the ‘no net loss’ policy in place, an average of 58-thousand acres of wetland was lost each year. The environmental groups say a lot more wetlands will disappear because of the Army Corps of Engineers new policy. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

Attacks Change Nature of Enviro Debate

Before the terrorist attacks on the U.S., environmental groups were often critical of the Bush Administration’s policies. But since September 11th, most of the environmental organizations have erased all traces of criticism of the White House. Some politicians, though, see opportunities to push through energy policies in the name of national security – policies that could damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Before the terrorist attacks on the U.S., environmental groups were often critical of the Bush Administration’s policies. But, since September 11th, most of the environmental organizations have erased all traces of criticism of the White House. Some politicians, though, see opportunities to push through energy policies in the name of national security, policies that could damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


If you’d visited the Sierra Club Internet web site before September eleventh, or that of the Natural Resources Defense Council, or any of a dozen or more major environmental groups’ sites, you likely would have seen sometimes harsh criticism of the Bush Administration’s energy policies, environmental policies, and a host of other complaints the groups had against the White House. Some environmental groups were also running TV ads attacking the Bush Administration’s policies. But, after the terrorist attacks, the ads were pulled and many of the environmental groups removed those criticisms from their web sites in the name of national unity.


Joe Davis is editor of a tip sheet compiled for environmental journalists. He’s watched as most environmental groups have stifled their criticism since the attacks.


“I think everybody’s waiting just to see, you know, what’s going to happen in the next few days and weeks. And, of course, environmental groups are, for the most part, as patriotic as everybody else and people do understand that national unity is important.”


Some journalists have questioned whether the environmental groups are backing down from their positions or merely lying low for a little while. The environmental groups aren’t saying much. But behind the scenes, there’s concern that environmental protection will get trampled in the name of national security.


Meanwhile, some politicians have seen opportunities in the wake of the tragedy. Immediately after the attacks, the Alaska congressional delegation began pushing harder for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The members said such drilling would reduce America’s dependence on oil from the Middle East. They were admonished, though, for being opportunists in the wake of tragedy. The Alaska politicians quickly backed off and took the fight for drilling behind the scenes.


Outside of Washington, it’s a different story. Some state politicians have become even more vocal in their support of oil and gas exploration. Just before the terrorist attacks, Michigan’s Natural Resources Commission lifted a moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas under the Great Lakes. The Michigan Legislature could still step in to block any such drilling. But some of the lawmakers say because of the terrorist attacks, Michigan should drill. Dale Shugars is a Republican State Senator who supports drilling under the lakes.

_____________
“With the sustained war that we’re going to be going into, I think it’s very important from a national security point of view that the country be more independent for oil and gas.”


Environmentalists in Michigan are appalled that Senator Shugars and some of their colleagues are taking that tact. James Clift is the policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council. He says the reserves under the lakes are so miniscule they’ll have next to no effect on the nation’s energy security and using the terrorist attacks to justify drilling under the Great Lakes is wrong.


“We do not believe that the unfortunate incident of the terrorist attack has changed anything as far as energy policy in the United States. The same conditions that applied before apply afterwards. And, even more so, I believe, is the importance for energy conservation. The United States only has four percent of the world’s reserves of oil and gas. Using those reserves up faster isn’t going to make the United States any more secure.”


But Senator Shugars thinks it is naïve to believe using less fuel will be enough. He says now that we’re at war with terrorists, it’s important to drill for fuel for the military and needs at home.


“It’s a fact that we’re going to be having a war against terrorism for a long time and I think that if one is going to look at a national energy policy, it has to include increasing supply and definitely – definitely has to be environmentally sensitive.”


Senator Shugars and others using the terrorist attacks to justify the energy and environmental policies that they want might be walking a tight rope. History shows Americans tend to frown on opportunism during times of national crisis. Environmental journalist Joe Davis says if politicians and energy industry leaders do use that approach, it could backfire. Especially since environmental groups are being quiet for the sake of a united patriotic front.


“Any party who tries to make short-term advantage out of a national crisis like this, I think, is very quickly going to be perceived as being exactly what it is: opportunistic. I don’t think the environmentalists will lay low forever and I don’t think they’re alone in questioning these things.”


But for now, most of the environmentalists are not saying much – at least publicly – about their opposition to the government’s energy and environmental policies. At least not until the nation begins to get past the shock of the terrorist attacks on the U.S.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

States to Have Bigger Enforcement Role?

The Bush Administration wants to shift more of the job of enforcing environmental laws to the states. The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to give states twenty-five million dollars to do the job. However, environmentalists, the General Accounting Office and even the EPA’s own Office of Inspector General find problems with the plan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

The Bush administration wants to shift more of the job of enforcing environmental laws to the states. The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to give states 25-million dollars to do the job. However, Environmentalists, the General Accounting Office and EVEN the EPA’s own Office of Inspector General find problems with the plan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Although the EPA is responsible for enforcement of national environmental laws, in most cases it assigns much of that authority to the states. Already 44 state environmental agencies act as the enforcement agency for the EPA. Now in its fiscal year 2002 budget, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, proposes cutting the agency’s staff and giving more money to the states to enforce environmental laws. This move would only shift a little more of that burden to the states.


Some members of Congress have been pushing for shifting many of the federal government’s enforcement duties to the state level, arguing that the people at the state level are more attuned to the effects that strictly enforcing regulatory laws can have on the local economy.


The EPA has found that’s sometimes true. But in considering the economic impact, the state regulators don’t always enforce the law the way the EPA wants it to be done and that can be bad for the environment. Eileen McMahon is with the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General.


“We have –going back to 1996– been doing reviews and evaluations of different areas of enforcement, air enforcement, water enforcement, other enforcement and have found, certainly, cases where the states could be doing a better job.”


In a report released just last month the EPA’s Inspector General found that while some states have great records at enforcing environmental laws. But in many other cases some states have simply looked the other way.


“We found that states’ concerns with regulating small and economically vital businesses and industries had an impact on whether or not they were effectively deterring non-compliance.”


Some environmental groups are not surprised by those findings. Elliot Negin is with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He says he wouldn’t expect much good to come from letting states take more responsibility for enforcing environmental laws.


“Well, it’s gonna open a whole can of worms. The states, many states have pretty bad track records when it comes to upholding environmental laws. And, the state politicians are, unfortunately, sometimes too close to the polluters through campaign contributions and what not.”


Despite those concerns, some members of Congress feel the US EPA has been too aggressive in its application of environmental laws, and that shifting more of the enforcement authority to the states would bring a certain measure of common sense to the process.


As, the two sides argue about the merits of enforcing environmental laws at the federal level or the state level. One government office says no decision should be made at all just yet. The General Accounting office says the states and the EPA should take stock of how things are working now.


The GAO just released a report that finds cutting staff at the federal level and shifting resources to the state level — in other words, just what EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whittman is proposing— is premature. John Stephenson is the Director of Natural Resources and Environment for the GAO. He says the EPA has no idea how many people it takes to properly enforce the law because its workforce plan is more than a decade old.


“And, so, that’s basic information you would need to determine, number one, how many enforcement personnel that the states might need and number two how many personnel EPA headquarters might need to oversee the states.”


The GAO’s Stephenson says until some kind of workforce assessment is done. There’s little point in debating whether the EPA or the states are better suited to enforce environmental laws.


“This shift in authority, as you know, is an ongoing debate in the Congress and we feel like that there needs to be this basic workforce analysis done before either side is in a position to support their relative positions.”


The EPA agreed with the General Accounting Office’s findings. But it’s unclear whether there’s enough time to assess the agencies and states’ workforce needs before Congress approves the budget that could shift some of the enforcement authority to the states.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.